The Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark:

A Theological Interpretation

Jonathan Hietbrink

Central College
Senior Honors Project 2002

Advisor: Dr. Thomas A. Kopecek, Religion

Second Reader: Dr. Terence Kleven, Religion
Preface
Bibliography

I. Introduction
A. Methodology
B. Author
C. Place
D. Date
E. Synoptic Problem
F. Final Introductory Thoughts
II. What is the Kingdom of God?
III. Abstract
IV. A Survey of the History of the Interpretation of the Kingdom of God
A. Introduction
B. Scholars Who Focused on the Eschatological Aspect of the Kingdom of God
1. H. S. Reimarus
2. David Friederich Strauss
3. Johannes Weiss
4. Albert Schweitzer
C. Scholars who Argued that the Kingdom of God was a Primarily This-Worldly Reality
1. Immanuel Kant
2. Ferdinand Christian Baur
3. Friederich Schleiermacher
4. Albrect Ritschl
5. Adolf Harnack
6. Gustaf Dalman
D. The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Scholarship
1. The Oxford Congress of the History of Religions
2. The Symposium on Eschatology
3. The Canterbury Conference
4. C. H. Dodd
5. Reginald H. Fuller
6. Rudolf Bultmann
7. Norman Perrin
V. A Survey of the History of Scholarship on the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark
A. Introduction
B. Historical-Critical Approaches
1. Introduction
2. Aloysius Ambrozic
3. Werner Kelber
4. Burton Mack
5. A Summary of the Historical-Critical Scholarship
C. A Literary-Critical Approach
1. Mary Ann Tolbert
D. Scholars Who Argue that the Kingdom of God vs. The Kingdom of Satan is the
Primary Theme of the Gospel
1. Elaine Pagels
2. D. E. Nineham
E. Evangelical Commentators
1. Introduction
2. Robert Gundry
3. Robert Guelich and Craig Evans
4. Morna Hooker
5. William Lane
6. Summary of Evangelical Commentators
VI. Evaluation of Representative Scholarship

2
 A. Introduction
B. Robert Gundry-Is the Kingdom of God the Central Theme of the Gospel?
C. Werner Kelber- Historical Criticism
D. Mary Ann Tolbert-Literary Criticism
E. Summary of Evaluation
VII. An Explication of My Thesis in the Light of the Passages Relevant to the Kingdom of
God in the Gospel of Mark
A. Introduction
B. A Restatement of My Thesis
C. An Initial Summary of Jesus’ Ministry-1:14-15
D. Passages which Demonstate Jesus’ Authoritative Advance of the Kingdom Against
Satan’s Demonic Forces Absent of the Requests of Others
1. Introduction
2. 3:22-30
3. 1:21-27
4. Conclusion
E. Passages which Demonstrate Jesus’ Authoritative Advance of the Kingdom in
Response to the Request of Others
1. Introduction
2. 1:40-45
3. 2:1-12
4. 5:25-34
5. A Summary of This Kind of Kingdom Expansion
F. Jesus: Preacher or Exorcist/Miracle Worker?
G. Jesus’ Advance of the Kingdom of God by means of His Preaching
1. Introduction
2. 1:14-15
3. Chapter Four
H. A Summary of the First Three Kinds of Kingdom Expansion
I. The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark
1. Introduction
2. The Characteristics of a Kingdom-Centered Heart
a. Faith
b. Obedience
i. The Disciples
ii. The Good Soil
iii. The Cost of Discipleship
iv. Obedience as the Defining Factor in the Family of God
v. Summary
c. A Willingness to be in Need and Dependent
i. 2:17
ii. 9:28-29
iii. 12:41-44
d. Insignificance
i. 9:33-42
e. Summary
3. Examples of the Attitude of the Kingdom in the Gospel
a. Introduction
b. 2:1-12
c. 5:25-34
d. 12:28-34
e. 7:24-30
4. The Attitude Opposed to the Kingdom: Hardness of Heart
a. Introduction
b. The Jewish Authority
c. The Rich and the Politically Powerful

3
 d. The Disciples
5. The Attitude of the Kingdom Classified
6. Jesus’ Relation to Childlikeness
a. Introduction
b. The Titles of Jesus
c. Jesus’ Words and Deeds
d. Jesus’ Death as a Service to Many
e. Summary
7. The Secret of the Kingdom of God Revisited
a. The Centrality of 10:14-15; 24-25
b. The Centrality of the Kingdom of God and the Attitude of
Childlikeness in Jesus’ Teaching and Ministry
c. The Parables of Chapter Four and the Secret of the Kingdom of God
8. A Summary of Childlikeness
J. The Future Element of the Kingdom of God
1. Introduction
2. The Kingdom as Unfinished Business
3. The Kingdom Linked to the Return of Jesus as the Son of Man on the Clouds
of Heaven
4. The Kingdom of God as a Mustard Seed and a Seed Growing Secretly
VIII. Conclusion

4
Preface
This project began fifteen months ago with a meeting in Dr. Kopecek’s office. At that point I
knew that I wanted to do a Senior Honors Project and that I wanted to do it on the Gospel of Mark; I knew
nothing beyond that. Slowly the project began to take shape early in the fall of 2001 through Dr. Kopecek’s
guidance and eventually the Kingdom of God emerged as the final topic. The following paper is an
amalgamation of months of work: research, writing, re-writing, and formulation. I hope that this “final
edition” is but one more step along the road of investigation begun by my work on this paper. As I imagine
is the case with all substantial projects, the work is never truly done, and such is the case with this paper as
well. The responsibility is my own from this point forward.
Of course, many thanks are due to others who have counseled and helped along the way. First of
all, I would like to thank the Honors’ Committee for the time and effort they exerted to make the Honors’
program possible. I appreciate your energy and willingness to serve. Secondly, I would like to thank Dr.
Terence Kleven for agreeing to be my second reader. Your influence on my life goes far beyond the
reaches of this paper. Thank you for choosing to invest in a sleepy-eyed freshman and for not letting him
get by with being ordinary. Your counsel and instruction have been invaluable to my education. Certainly
much thanks is due to Dr. Thomas Kopecek my advisor for this project. Thank you for your willingness to
take on this project, your time in teaching me how to write, and your time spent reading, sharpening, and
redirecting my study. I hope that the end of this project will not be the end of our relationship.
Much thanks to my family and fiancée who have sacrificed must time with their son, brother, and
future husband. Specifically to my bride-to-be, thank you for allowing me to use your legs as a desktop and
for keeping me company all those nights. I could not have completed this project without your selfless
sacrifice and endless encouragement. Your companionship and friendship have been more than I could
have asked for. Forever and always.
Finally, may I say thank you to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. May the
meditations of my heart be pleasing to yours.

Jonathan Hietbrink 7/18/2002

5
Bibliography

Ambrozic, Aloysius. Hidden Kingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of
God in the Mark’s Gospel, vol. 2 of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series.
Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1972.
Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. New York: Paulist Press, 1994.
Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel. New York: Charles
Scribners’s Sons, 1951.
Danker, Frederick William. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Dewick, E. C. Primitive Christian Eschatology. Cambridge: University Press, 1912.
Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nibset, 1965.
Duling, Dennis. Jesus Christ Through History. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979.
Evans, Craig. Mark 8:27-16:20, vol. 34b of The Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 2001.
Fuller, R. H. The Mission and Achievement of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1960.
Guelich, Robert. Mark 1:1-8:26, vol. 34a of The Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.
Gundry, Robert. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1993.
Harnack, Adolf. What is Christianity? trans. T. B. Saunders. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906.
Hengel, Martin. Studies in the Gospel of Mark trans. John Bowden. Philedelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Prayers of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1967.
Juel, Donald. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
Kant, Immanuel. Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.
Kee, Howard Clark. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia, Westminster,
1977.
Kelber, Werner. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.
Lane, William. The Gospel According to Mark, vol. 2 of The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Livingston, James. Modern Christian Thought Volume 1: The Enlightenment and the Nineteenth Century.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997.
Mack, Burton. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philedelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
______. Who Wrote the New Testament?. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995.
MacQuarrie, John. An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann. New York:
Harper Touchbooks, 1955.
Nineham, D. E. The Gospel of St. Mark, The Pelican Gospel Commentaries. New York: Seabury Press,
1963.
Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Random House, 1995.
______.“The Social History of Satan, The ‘Intimate Enemy’: A Preliminary Sketch.” Harvard Theological
Review 84:2 (1991): 105-128.
Perrin, Norman. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Philadelphia:The Westminster Press, 1963.
Reimarus, H.S. “The Messiah and the Kingdom of God,” in Reimarus: Fragments, ed. Charles H. Talbert.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.
Ritschl, Albrecht. Instruction in the Christian Religion, trans. A. M. Swing, as quoted in The Theology of
Albrecht Ritschl. New York: Longman’s, 1901.
Schleiermacher, Friederich. The Christian Faith ed. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart. Edinburgh:T&T
Clark, 1928.
Schweitzer, Albert. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, trans. Walter Lowrie. New York: Macmillan,
1950.
Schweizer, Edward. The Good News According to Mark. Atlanta: John Knox, 1971.
Telford, W. R. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. Cambridge: University Press, 1999.

6
Tolbert, Mary Ann. Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996.
Weiss, Johannes. Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, trans. R. H. Hiers and D. L. Holland.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Wilson, M. R. “The Shema,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2001.

7
I. Introduction

A. Methodology

The Bible is consistently the best-selling book in the world and has been influential in literally
billions of peoples’ lives. Endless volumes of scholarship have been dedicated to ascertaining its meaning
and explicating its teachings. This project is intended to be a contribution to this larger on-going discussion.
Specifically, this project is aimed at better understanding the Gospel of Mark, which was written
over 1900 years ago about a man named Jesus. No such investigation can avoid the quests for the Historical
Jesus. Following in the footsteps of H. S. Reimarus1, scholar after scholar has attempted to piece together
who Jesus actually was and what he actually said and did. However, the quests for the historical Jesus are
not the topic of this paper, for to undertake a quest for the historical Jesus would necessitate an examination
of massive amounts of scholarship on various documents, including extracanonical sources like the
proposed document “Q”2 and the Gospel of Thomas. While I believe the question of the historical Jesus to
be of utmost importance to the scholarly discussion of Christianity, this paper is not an examination of the
historical Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom of God. The only records we have of Jesus’ life and teachings
were written between thirty and seventy years after his death, Mark being on the early end of that
spectrum.3 Consequently, this paper will seek to ascertain what the author of the Gospel of Mark
understood the Kingdom of God to be.
Scholars vary greatly in their interpretations of the role the Gospels’ authors played in the
productions of their works. Some believe that the authors were redactors, i.e., editors, of source material
that was already in existence. Others believe that the writers were responsible for generating almost all of
the text of their individual books. Yet others believe that they were faithful reporters of the events that had
been handed down to them and that they did very little to modify that message. Regardless of their
positions, the vast majority of scholars attribute at least some of the Gospels’ content to the authors
themselves.4 It is this influence that this paper is seeking to examine, specifically concerning the theme of
the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark. Though it is not the focus of this paper, I do in fact believe that
the stories recorded by the author of the Gospel of Mark have their bases in actual historical events. Such
an assumption is certainly a large one given much of the contemporary scholarship regarding the historicity
of the Gospels. However, as was stated above, I have chosen to disregard the question of historicity, not
because it is unimportant, but rather because in order to examine it fairly, one would have to engage in an
extensive analysis and reconstruction of the different potential sources of the Gospel, an activity which is

1
See p. 15 below.
2
See my discussion of the “synoptic problem” below.
3
A fuller discussion of the specific date of Mark is included below on p. 10.
4
In very broad terms, it is this spectrum concerning the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’
ministry that I will refer to as “liberal” and “conservative.” By liberal scholars I mean those scholars who
place very little value on the Gospels’ historicity, and by conservative scholars I mean those who assign the
Gospels more historical credibility.

8
outside the boundaries of this paper.5 This project is an attempt to understand the theology of the Kingdom
of God in the Gospel of Mark in the form we currently have it.
While the focus of this paper is on theology instead of history, it is necessary to pay at least some
attention to the historical issues surrounding the Gospel of Mark. This is the case because many
contemporary scholars believe that the historical situation in which a New Testament document was written
is the single most important factor for correctly understanding its theology. As a result, much of the
historical-critical work done on the Gospel of Mark has sought to pinpoint the location, date, and
community within which the Gospel was written.6 I disagree that the assessment of the historical situation
of the author and his community is of primary importance for a proper understanding of the text. On the
other hand, I do believe that the historical situation must be understood as clearly as possible.
Consequently, I have included a very brief survey of the basic components of the historical situation of the
Gospel in order to sketch a fuller background onto which the text of the Gospel can be set.
B. Author
Concerning the author of the Gospel of Mark, scholarship possesses little evidence external to the
Gospel itself. Early Patristic tradition held that the Gospel was written by an acquaintance of the Apostle
Peter by the name of Mark.7 While this tradition was in place in the early 2nd century A.D., its accuracy
has been consistently questioned by modern scholarship for several reasons. First, “Marcus” was one of the
most common names in the Roman Empire. In addition, the early church fathers had theological reasons to
seek to attribute their foundational texts to the apostles or close relations of the apostles. Whether a
document could be attributed to an apostle became a major measure of its authority in the early church. On
the other hand, there is also evidence to support the traditional authorial attribution of the Gospel. In several
different passages throughout the New Testament, characters appear who bear the name Mark or John
Mark.8 However, the names of these characters may be merely coincidental, and it is a large assumption to
contend that all of these references even refer to the same person. Another argument in favor of the
tradition is that if the early church was going to generate a link to apostolic authority, one could assume
they would attribute this link to a somewhat more prominent person. Though the tradition certainly has
been challenged, it is not at all unreasonable. As is typical of scholarship concerning the Gospel of Mark,
arguments are made for many different theories regarding the author, though rarely is any one argument
absolutely convincing.9

5
It seems reasonable to hold that a discussion of the content of a document informs the argument
concerning its historicity. The goal of this paper is to assess the content of the Gospel of Mark, thereby
better clarifying the discussion concerning its historical validity.
6
Werner Kelber, whose work we will examine in detail below, is a representative example of this kind of
scholarship. See page 29 ff.
7
Eusebius quotes a now-lost work of Papias from approximately A.D. 120-130 which speaks of this
tradition.
8
References to these characters are found in I Pet. 5:13; Acts 12:12,25; 13:13; 15:37-39; Philem. 24; Col.
4:10; II Tim. 4:11.
9
For an extensive discussion of the authorship of Mark see Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His
Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993) pp. 1026-1043.

9
 C. Location
Dealing with the provenance of Mark with somewhat more clarity is possible. Scholars have tended
to link the Gospel to one of three places. Early church tradition uniformly and massively held that the
Gospel was written in Rome.10 Recently, scholars have asserted that the proper placement of the Gospel
should be in either Southern Syria or Galilee. Here again, all three positions are able to claim reasonable
arguments for their validity. In support of the Galilean locale is the attention which the Gospel pays to
Galilee; indeed, almost all of Jesus’ ministry is portrayed as occurring in Galilee.11 On the other hand,
scholars are in general consensus that the geographical references in the Gospel itself seem to point to an
author who was rather unfamiliar with the territory of Galilee. Throughout the Gospel references to places
and routes of travel are somewhat vague and at times even unintelligible, especially if the author was native
to Galilee. This reality seems to point to a provenance of the Gospel outside of Galilee, i.e., either Rome or
Southern Syria. Those who advocate a Syrian location note that there are passages in the Gospel which
seem to describe a Syrian way of life.12 In favor of Roman provenance is the existence of “Latinisms” in
the Gospel text itself.13 In several verses Mark explains Greek terms through Latin transliterations. Those
who believe the Gospel was written in Rome point to these references as further evidence that the Gospel
was written to an audience which would need Latin explanations. My own position is that the Gospel was
indeed written in Rome.
D. Date
The date of the Gospel’s composition has also been a source of debate in scholarship. In broad
terms, scholars date the Gospel somewhere between A.D. 65 and A.D. 75, with the key date being A.D. 70,
the year that Jerusalem fell to Roman armies. Central to the debate surrounding the proper date of the
Gospel is the portrayal of Jesus’ speech recorded in chapter 13. In this speech, which is often referred to as
the ‘Little Apocalypse,’ Jesus is portrayed as predicting many of the events that will befall the disciples in
the days and years following his death. One of the events predicted in chapter 13 is the destruction of the
temple. Because of the Gospel’s inclusion of this prophecy, many scholars believe that Mark was written in
the aftermath of the fall of the temple. These scholars believe that Mark placed the prediction on Jesus’ lips
in order to encourage his own community in the aftermath of the fall of the temple. In opposition, other
scholars note that the details of Mark’s record of Jesus’ speech do not match all that closely the actual
details of the conflict leading up to the destruction of the temple. These scholars argue that the Gospel
should be dated pre-A.D. 70.14 My own position in this debate is that the Gospel was written in

10
This tradition also originates in Eusebius’ writings, this time in Eusebius’ discussion of a 2nd and 3rd
century Alexandrian Christian teacher, i.e., Clement of Alexandria.
11
Again, Kelber is an example of this scholarly position.
12
Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia, Westminster,
1977), pp. 77-105.
13
Two examples of such Latinisms occur in 12:42 in reference to the offering of the widow and in 15:16 in
reference to Pilate’s palace. See Gundry 1044 for other possible Latinisms.
14
For further explication of one such position, see Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, trans.
John Bowden (Philedelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) 2-28.

10
approximately A.D. 67-69.15 However, for the purposes of this paper, it is enough to note the general
scholarly consensus that the Gospel was written in the years surrounding A.D. 70.
E. The Synoptic Problem
Another issue concerning the historical situation of Mark is what is commonly called the “synoptic
problem.” This term refers to the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke record much of the same material and
in reasonably the same order. While their content is largely the same, it is possible to notice discrepancies
in the texts, implying that some kind of authorial intention and source redaction did indeed happen.
Concerning the order of the Synoptic Gospels, the vast majority of scholars have agreed on the position
known as the priority of Mark. This theory holds that Mark was the first Gospel to be written and that
Matthew and Luke had copies of Mark at their disposal as they wrote their own gospels. This theory
accounts for the large amount of Markan material contained in both Matthew and Luke. Some scholars go
farther and assert that there was in fact another source used by Matthew and Luke, which they have termed
Quelle (German for “source”). Scholars who believe “Q” was indeed a source assert that the material which
Matthew and Luke share but which is not found in Mark to Q. Again, the intricacies of this debate are
beyond the scope of our debate. However, it is relevant to note the broad scholarly consensus that Mark
was the first gospel written.
F. Final Introductory Thoughts
Now that we have at least a broad sense of the historical background of the Gospel of Mark in place
we are able to move ahead to the Gospel itself. The format of this paper will be as follows. First, I will
survey two different spectrums of scholarship. The first focusing on the differing interpretations of the
Kingdom of God in general and the second focusing on scholarship’s assessment of the Kingdom of God in
the Gospel of Mark specifically. After this brief survey I will offer an overview of my own position
concerning the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark. Following this, I will proceed to offer an extended
exegesis of the relevant texts while at the same time seeking to compare and contrast the relevant scholarly
positions concerning the specific verses. Finally, I will seek to draw together my findings in my conclusion.
Before I move on to the main body of my paper, I would like to address one more introductory issue
concerning my topic and Biblical studies in general. I believe that as we examine the texts of the Bible we
must be mindful that these texts have been highly influential for vast numbers of people for nearly two
millennia. It is also important for you the reader to know that I believe this text to be revealed from God.
Therefore, it is my judgment that the text of the Bible as a whole, and the Gospel of Mark specifically, must
be approached with humility and faith. I do not believe that our intellects are the ultimate source of truth
and therefore we must acknowledge our own limited understanding. I have sought to approach the text with
a humble and faithful heart, while at the same time attempting to utilize what I believe to be God’s gift of
intellect to better understand the Gospel and the teachings it contains. In addition, I have sought to evaluate
the relevant scholarship on the basis of its logical coherence and its consistency with the text itself. With

15
William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, vol. 2 of The New International Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 466-469.

11
this introduction in place let us venture into our examination of the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of
Mark.16
II. What is the Kingdom of God?
Before we turn to scholarship’s opinions regarding the meaning of the Kingdom of God it is
important first to note some basic tenets which will prove useful as we proceed in our examination of the
topic.
The phrase “Kingdom of God” comes from the Greek expression τα βασιλεια του θεου, but the
roots of its meaning in the New Testament in fact go back to the Hebraic Old Testament. While there is no
instance in the whole of the Old Testament which uses the phrase “the Kingdom of God”, the notion of
YHWH, “the LORD”, as King is prevalent throughout the body of the Old Testament. Norman Perrin
writes:
While the expression ‘Kingdom of God’ itself hardly appears in the Old Testament, the notion of
God’s ‘kingship’, ‘kingly rule’ or ‘sovereignty’ over the nation of Israel and subsequently over the
nations of the world is a dominant emphasis.17

It seems to be this notion of God as King which led to its emphasis in Jewish Apocalyptic writings and was
also the genesis of the New Testament emphasis on the Kingdom of God.
What exactly should be understood by the phrase the “Kingdom of God”? Certainly God as he is
portrayed in the Old Testament is a sort of King who has dominion over all. Though this is the case,
certainly the writers of the Old and New Testaments did not believe the whole of creation to be the
Kingdom of God. On the other hand, it is not likely that the writers of the Christian Bible understood the
Kingdom as something that was entered or created entirely devoid of God’s action. It seems that we can say
confidently that the authors of the Old and New Testaments understood God to have some sort of role in
the establishment of his Kingdom, whatever that Kingdom may be.
It also seems clear that the Kingdom of God is intimately related to the authority and rule of God.
Before we proceed an important distinction must be made. When speaking of authority two kinds of action
present themselves: the act of exercising an authority and the act of subjecting oneself to an authority. I
believe a proper conception of the Kingdom of God must include both of these actions. In addition, when
we speak of the Kingdom of God, we are not speaking only of the physical realm over which God rules, for
the Christian viewpoint affirms God’s rule, however veiled, over all of creation all the time. If God’s
Kingdom were synonymous with the realm over which he is Lord, God’s Kingdom would never expand for
he is Lord over all of creation all the time. Instead, when we refer to the Kingdom of God we are referring
to the exercising or subjecting of one’s self to God’s authority.
One additional concept is helpful at this juncture. Corresponding to the above actions of exercising
and self-subjection are two distinct persons: the king and the subject. The king is the one who exercises
rule; he is the one who has authority and who can choose to exercise it whenever he so desires. On the

16
It should be noted that all scriptural quotations come from the New American Standard Version of the
Bible unless otherwise noted.
17
W. R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1999), 69-70.

12
other hand, the subject can either subject himself or herself to the king’s rule or not. The king does not have
the power to make his servants conform themselves to his authority, he may only seek to gain their
subjection willfully. However, the king does have the power to exercise his will and force his subjects to
submit unwillingly; in undertaking an action like this he is exercising his right to rule. This distinction
between the king and the subject also corresponds to our conception of the Kingdom. Obviously, God is the
King of his Kingdom and can forcefully exercise his will upon his subjects. In the same way, God’s
subjects can choose to acknowledge and conform themselves to his will.
Some examples will illustrate these concepts. In the Gospel of Mark there are times when Jesus
acts in the power of God the King and brings creation under his proposed will. I understand this
classification to include the miraculous elements of Mark’s Gospel. When Jesus exorcises a demon, stills
the sea, or heals a leper, he is choosing to exercise God’s will and the Kingdom of God, God’s exercised
rule, expands.
There are other times in the Gospel when people choose to submit to the rule of God and allow it
to be exercised over them. It is these events which I believe represent the “acknowledgement and
consenting” element of God’s Kingdom. When characters in the story demonstrate faith in Jesus’ word or
choose to leave behind their lives for his sake, they are conforming themselves to the rule of God, and the
Kingdom of God expands.
A proper conception of the Kingdom of God must include all of these elements. Certainly, there
must be an element of the Kingdom which accounts for God’s actions in history to bring about his
purposes. On the other hand, there must also be room to account for creation’s choice to submit to the
authority of God.
Ultimately, I believe this dualism of action will be removed, for God will exercise his authority
over all of creation at some point in the future. At that time there will be no more time for willfully
consenting to the authority of God; creation will submit to God’s rule simply because of his authority. At
this point, God’s omnipotent, ever-present rule will be manifested in history and the Kingdom of God will
be consummated. The king will exercise his rule ultimately, but for now he has chosen to seek the willful
obedience of his subjects.
Thus, when we speak of the Kingdom of God we are speaking primarily of the authority of God.
At times God exercises his authority and expands his Kingdom. At other times God’s creation subjects
itself to him willfully and here too the Kingdom of God expands.
It is also important to note that I do not believe God’s Kingdom to be a geographical Kingdom,
though I do believe geographical or physical language such as “realm” or “boundaries” are helpful for a
proper understanding of the Kingdom. God’s Kingdom incorporates all of creation: physical, emotional,
and spiritual. The Kingdom of God is a transcendent reality which also influences the physical world. Thus,
God’s Kingdom can be expanded through the physical healing of a leper and the aligning of one’s will to
God’s commandments. God’s Kingdom expands when God acts upon creation and when creation chooses
to submit itself to God.

13
 A word is also in order on what it means to “enter” the Kingdom. I have defined the Kingdom as
intimately related to the idea of God’s authority, whether it be exercised or acknowledged and consented to.
When I speak of a person “entering God’s Kingdom” I am speaking of these actions. A person enters the
Kingdom when God chooses to exercise his rule over his or her life. Additionally, a person enters the
Kingdom when he or she chooses to subject himself or herself to the rule of God. God exercising his
authority to bring healing to a bleeding woman brings her into his Kingdom. A person forsaking his own
desires for the call of Christ and submitting himself to the commands of God brings him into the Kingdom.
It is this process of Kingdom expansion which I believe is fundamental to the ministry of Jesus.
Jesus is presented as the beloved son who has been sent to proclaim and advance the Kingdom; his role is
one that is absolutely unique in the plan of God. Thus when we speak of entering the Kingdom, we are
speaking of receiving healing, coming to understanding, or being freed from demonic torment, whether it
be due to the miraculous power of Jesus’ person or a willful choice to submit to God’s commands.
In summary then, my definition of the Kingdom of God relates primarily to the issue of God’s rule and
dominion. It is advanced through God’s choice to bring his authority to bear on situations and through the
choices of individuals to submit to God’s rule. Of course, this definition will be clarified through the rest of
our study of the Gospel of Mark, but this basic definition is the foundation upon which we build.
III. An Abstract of My Position
I intend here to summarize my own position concerning the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of
Mark before I move on to a survey of the relevant scholarship.
My position resembles rather closely the general consensus of the authors I will survey below,
though I believe it also adds some new interpretations to the discussion. In brief, my position consists of
four major points. Before I address these points it is pertinent to note in response to Gundry’s contention,
examined below on page 35 ff., that the Kingdom of God is not the major theme of the Gospel of Mark, I
side with the vast majority of scholarship in concluding that the Kingdom of God is the central theme of the
life of Jesus as it is portrayed in the Gospel of Mark.
Given that it is the central theme of the Gospel, my thesis contends that Mark understood the
Kingdom’s expansion to occur through four distinct means. The first of these centers on Jesus’
authoritative exorcisms of evil spirits. Though Mark never presents Jesus as seeking out a demon to
exorcise, when they confront Jesus he is portrayed as authoritatively casting them out. I believe that Mark
understood this kind of action to result in the first kind of Kingdom expansion. When demons are cast out
the boundaries of the Kingdom of God expand.
The second means through which Mark portrayed the Kingdom as expanding centers on Jesus’
healing ministry. Time and again throughout the Gospel Mark records Jesus’ powerful responses to
requests for healing. Although, like above, Jesus is never presented as initiating a healing exchange, he is
also never recorded as denying a request for healing. Thus, I argue that Mark understood Jesus’ healings to
constitute the second means of Kingdom expansion.

14
 The third, and by my contention most important, means of Kingdom expansion portrayed by Mark
concerns Jesus’ teaching ministry. I will argue that Mark presented Jesus’ teaching as aimed at eliciting a
humble response from his audience, in reaction to which he gives explanation and understanding. It is my
contention that when those about Jesus are presented as understanding his teaching concerning the
Kingdom of God, its boundaries expand.
In conjunction with my second and third points, my thesis holds that Mark portrayed a particular
attitude of the heart as being integral to the success of both Jesus’ healing and teaching ministries. When
those about Jesus are presented as coming before him with attitudes demonstrating faith, obedience,
dependence, and insignificance, they receive what it is they desire, whether it be healing or understanding.
When healing or understanding goes forth, the boundaries of the Kingdom expand. Therefore, it is my
contention that the secret of the Kingdom of God is in fact equitable with an attitude of the heart, which I
believe Mark understood to be synonymous with an attitude of childlikeness.
The fourth means through which the Kingdom of God in Mark is expanded is through Jesus’
ultimate return on the clouds of heaven. I believe that Mark’s Gospel closes without having experienced the
full revelation of the Kingdom and thus the process of Kingdom expansion is incomplete. I believe that
Mark understood this ultimate consummation as coming at the time of Jesus’ return on the clouds of
heaven. At this time, the boundaries of God’s Kingdom will encompass all of creation, bringing the whole
of the cosmos under his direct rule.
Before I turn to the intricacies of my thesis, it is important to build the proper context of
scholarship so as to understand my contribution. It is to the scholars who have preceded me that we now
turn.

15
IV. A Survey of the History of the Interpretation of the Kingdom of God
A. Introduction
It has been agreed throughout most of Christian history that the Kingdom of God was at the very
center of Jesus’ ministry and message. Yet 1970 years after his ministry scholars and churchgoers are still
unclear as to what exactly the phrase means. Indeed, only in the last century or so has the meaning of
Kingdom of God even been debated in a major way by Christians. For many years, from the church fathers
down through the Middle Ages, the Kingdom of God was simply not a widespread topic of discussion. It
was referred to most often in exegetical work, but rarely in theological thought or dialogue. Patristic
opinions about the meaning of the expression were quite varied, but never was the topic brought into the
focused light of scholarly discussion until H. S. Reimarus in the 18th century.
B. Scholars Who Focused on the Eschatological Aspect of the Kingdom of God
1. H. S. Reimarus
Our survey of past scholars who argued that the Kingdom of God was a understood as a mainly
eschatological reality by the writers of the New Testament begins with H. S. Reimarus. Reimarus began his
study of the Kingdom of God as a personal undertaking, but he soon began to realize that his ideas were
quite different from the traditional thought of the time. In fact, Reimarus’ fear of pioneering thought
contrary to the conventions of his day kept him from publishing any of his work during his lifetime. His
work was finally published by G. E. Lessing in the mid-18th century.
Reimarus’ conception of the Kingdom of God was one that did not have much effect in the 18th
and 19th centuries, but it did indeed foreshadow the thoughts of some of the giants of the discussion to
follow. At the heart of Reimarus’ ideas about the Kingdom was eschatology.18 In Reimarus’ eyes Jesus fit
squarely into the mold of his historical setting, i.e., Jewish eschatological expectation. His people were
under the control of the Roman government, and Jesus saw himself, according to Reimarus, as the one to
lead the way to the establishment of God’s final political Kingdom in the country of Palestine. Reimarus
states:
Thus when Jesus everywhere preached that the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven had
drawn near and had others preach the same thing, the Jews were well aware of what he meant, that
the Messiah19 would soon appear and that his kingdom would commence. For it was Israel’s hope,
waiting in longing since the days of oppression and captivity and according to the words of their
prophets, that an anointed one or Messiah would come who would free them from all afflictions
and establish a glorious kingdom among them.20

Given this conception of the Kingdom, Reimarus clearly saw Jesus’ mission as a failure. Jesus did not lead
a political revolt and according to Reimarus died alone and in disappointment. Because of the number of

18
Eschatology is a word that refers to events surrounding the consummation of time.
19
Prophets, priests, and kings were all anointed at different points in the Old Testament. “Messiah” and
“Christ” both make reference to the event of anointing, carrying the meaning of “anointed one.”
20
H. S. Reimarus, “The Messiah and the Kingdom of God,” in Reimarus: Fragments, ed. Charles H.
Talbert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), 125.

16
unmet expectations which Jesus’ death left for his disciples, Reimarus also argued that all advanced
theological conceptions about the meaning of Jesus’ ministry, conceptions such as conceiving of Jesus as
“a spiritual suffering savior of mankind”21 were generated by Jesus’ disillusioned disciples following his
death. While Reimarus was indeed the first to bring the Kingdom into the limelight, his ideas had little
effect on the theological world around him, due in no small part to the fact that his works were not
published until years after his own death.
2. David Friedrich Strauss
The opinions of David Friedrich Strauss were similar to those of Reimarus concerning the
Kingdom of God. Much of Strauss’ contribution to the larger discussion of scholarship was his analysis of
the texts of the Gospels in light of what he believed to be mythical elements contained in them. Strauss
sought to show how the accounts of the life of Jesus contained in the Gospels really had very little
historical basis but were rather based much more heavily on myth and the evolution of religious thought.
Though Strauss regarded almost all of the text of the Gospels to be unhistorical, he did believe that the
historical Jesus did conceive of himself as the Messiah of Israel. In his book surveying the history of
Christian thought, James Livingston states:
“Jesus held and expressed the conviction that he was the Messiah; this is an indisputable fact.” [=
a quotation from Strauss] Furthermore, Strauss saw Jesus’ Messianic vocation as being a temporal
and national hope that would be brought about by supernatural, miraculous intervention and
Jesus’ second advent on the clouds of heaven…. One notes how similar Strauss’s depiction of
Jesus’ eschatological vocation is to that of Reimarus, although Strauss rejects the latter’s
conception of Jesus’ Messiahship as that of a political revolutionary.22 (Italics mine)

To summarize this quotation, we note that like Reimarus, Strauss believed that Jesus saw himself as
the Messiah who would bring about the national revolution which would reestablish the nation of Israel.
However, Strauss did not think that Jesus was a political revolutionary but rather that he expected the direct
intervention of God following his own actions in Jerusalem. Strauss argued that Jesus was expecting the
intervention of God to be the engine behind the political revolution, not his own efforts. Strauss’ position is
that Jesus saw himself as the catalyst which would incite God’s action.
3. Johannes Weiss
In 1894, Johannes Weiss, Albrecht Ritschl’s23 son-in-law, entered into the discussion of the
Kingdom of God. Like his predecessor Reimarus, Weiss believed that the main focus of Jesus’ ministry
was almost entirely on apocalyptic eschatological preparation and expectation. Weiss saw Jesus as having a
similar role as that of John the Baptist; i.e., he was a herald of an immediately ensuing Kingdom. Inherent
in this notion were Weiss’ observations on Jesus’ fight against the kingdom of Satan as critical to his
eschatological expectation. Weiss says:
Jesus’ activity is governed by the strong and unwavering feeling that the messianic time is
imminent. Indeed, he even had moments of prophetic vision when he perceived the opposing

21
Ibid., 129.
22
James D. Livingston, Modern Christian Thought Volume 1: The Enlightenment and the Nineteenth
Century, (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997), 219-220.
23
See section on Ritschl below. P. 12 ff.

17
 kingdom of Satan as already overcome and broken. At such moments as these he declared with
daring faith that the Kingdom of God had actually already dawned. In general, however, the
actualization of the Kingdom of God has yet to take place. In particular, Jesus recognized no
preliminary actualization of the rule of God in the form of the new piety of his circle of disciples,
as if there were somehow two stages, a preliminary one, and the Kingdom of Completion. In fact,
Jesus made no such distinction. The disciples were to pray for the coming of the Kingdom, but
men could do nothing to establish it. Not even Jesus can bring, establish, or found the Kingdom of
God; only God can do so. God himself must take control. In the meantime, Jesus can only battle
against the devil with the power imparted to him by the divine Spirit, and gather a band of
followers who, with a new righteousness, with repentance, humility and renunciation await the
Kingdom of God.24

Strauss began an ideological trend back to the ideas of Strauss and eschatology, themes which were soon
picked up by his contemporary, Albert Schweitzer.
4. Albert Schweitzer
In the same vein as Weiss, Schweitzer, writing in 1901, also saw Jesus’ main focus as being the
Kingdom of God conceived in an eschatological manner. Like Weiss, Schweitzer thought that Jesus
expected an immediate arrival of the Kingdom, not a distant realization of it. In fact, Schweitzer even
postulated that Jesus’ purpose in the sending out of the twelve was to initiate the beginning of the
Kingdom:
The idea of [Jesus’] passion is dominated only by the eschatological conception of the Kingdom.
In the charge to the Twelve the question is only about the eschatological—not about the ethical--
nearness of the Kingdom. From this it follows, for one thing, that Jesus’ ministry counted only
upon the eschatological realisation of the Kingdom. Then, however, it is evident that the relation
of his ethical thoughts to the eschatological view can have suffered no alteration by reason of
outward events but must have been the same from beginning to end.25

In the final part of this quotation we see Schweitzer’s response to the ethical perfection expressed by the
thinkers who will be discussed in part C. below. Schweitzer saw Jesus’ teaching about ethics as merely
preparation for the coming eschatological event, not as the center of his ministry or as his command for
establishing the perfect body of followers here on earth. Schweitzer concludes:
If the thought of the eschatological realisation of the Kingdom is the fundamental factor in Jesus’
preaching, his whole theory of ethics must come under the conception of repentance as a
preparation for the coming of the Kingdom.26

According to Schweitzer, Jesus’ teaching about ethics served only the purpose of preparing people for the
coming Kingdom. Jesus’ ethics were only what Schweitzer called an “interim ethics.” For Schweitzer there
was no Kingdom or ministry for Jesus and his followers that was not eschatological.
While all four of these scholars agreed that Jesus expected an eschatological Kingdom, the final
three differed from Reimarus in a distinct way regarding how they interpreted Jesus’ expectation. Whereas
Reimarus thought that Jesus was anticipating a political and social revolution of his own making, Strauss,

24
Johannes Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, trans. R. H. Hiers and D. L. Holland
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 129-130.
25
Albert Schweitzer, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, trans. Walter Lowrie (New York: Macmillan,
1950), 51.
26
Ibid., 53.

18
Weiss, and Schweitzer all thought that Jesus expected the intervention of God to establish the
eschatological Kingdom. To rephrase, all of these scholars interpreted Jesus’ expectation as apocalyptic,
i.e., an expectation that God would act from outside the world.
C. Scholars who Argued that the Kingdom of God was a Primarily This-Worldly Reality
1. Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant took up the discussion of the Kingdom of God from a quite different perspective.
Whereas Reimarus and the scholars who followed after him understood Jesus and his disciples as teaching
that the Kingdom would begin in the future, Kant believed the Kingdom to be a present, growing reality.
Kant saw Jesus’ role not as the herald of the coming apocalypse but as a teacher of an ethical ideal. Kant
conceived of this idea as follows:
We have good reason to say, however, that “the kingdom of God is come unto us” [= an allusion
to Mark 1:14-15: “… Jesus came … preaching the gospel of God and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled
and the Kingdom of God has arrived’…”] once the principle of the gradual transition of
ecclesiastical faith to the universal religion of reason, and so to a (divine) ethical state on earth,
has become general and has also gained somewhere a public foothold, even though the actual
establishment of this state is still infinitely removed from us. For since this principle [=what Kant
calls “the good principle”] contains the basis for a continual approach towards such a
consummation, there lies in it (invisibly), as in a seed which is self-deploying and in due time self-
fertilizing, the whole which one day is to illumine and to rule the world.27

For Kant the Kingdom of God was the actualization of the ideal of God in this world. Kant thought that by
obeying the ‘good principle’ found in each of our hearts, human beings could fully establish the Kingdom.
Obviously, these ideas deviate sharply from those of the scholars surveyed in section B. above. Kant’s
ideas had a far-reaching impact. Both the famous historian Ferdinand Christian Baur and the famous
theologian Friederich Schleiermacher, who is commonly regarded as the father of modern theology, based
their conceptions of the Kingdom on Kant’s understanding, though both sought to refine it.
2. Ferdinand Christian Baur
Whereas Kant relied most heavily upon philosophy for his formulations concerning the Kingdom
of God, F.C. Baur relied primarily on historical examination. As a result Baur held the historical Jesus in
very high regard and claimed that “Jesus’ teaching was behind every subsequent formulation of Christian
consciousness.”28 In his examination of Jesus’ life, Baur conceived, in a similar way to Kant, that the
Kingdom which Jesus preached had to do primarily with an inner transformation of lives and not some sort
of apocalyptic event. The historian Dennis Duling says of Baur:
Jesus’ teaching, said Baur, was somewhat like that of his Jewish background, but he went beyond
that background in an original and radical way. Whereas the Kingdom of God for Jews stressed
God’s rule breaking in from without to reestablish the nation of Israel, Jesus’ radical
transformation led to a spiritual and inward kingdom for all people. The heart of Jesus’ teaching
about the kingdom of God was found in the Sermon on the Mount, and within that the
Beatitudes.29

27
Immanuel Kant, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960),
113.
28
Dennis Duling, Jesus Christ Through History, (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979), 187.
29
Ibid., 187.

19
 F. C. Baur agreed with Kant that the Kingdom of God was a primarily this-worldly entity. In
addition, Baur understood the Kingdom to be advanced and entered through obedience to a moral law.
However, as the quotation above makes clear, Baur disagreed with Kant’s understanding of what exactly
this ethic was. Whereas Kant thought this ethical standard was found in each one of us, i.e., the ‘good
principle’ noted above, Baur believed that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount was in fact the standard of moral
obedience necessary for entrance into the Kingdom of God. However, Baur did not believe that simply
external obedience was what was ultimately needed for the establishment of the Kingdom. On the contrary,
he emphasized the need for the internalization of the commands. Again Duling writes:
In the Sermon on the Mount, the stress is on purity and sincerity of intentions. There is a moral
“ought” (as in Kant), but it is not to be obeyed simply by external acts, but by the conforming of
one’s will to it.30

In this quotation we have perhaps the key point for understanding Baur’s conception of the Kingdom. Baur
considered the Kingdom of God to be a transformation of individual lives. Baur also understood the
Kingdom as having a social element which was dependent upon this kind of individual transformation. As
each individual was more transformed, the community of which they were a part was also transformed into
a more perfect realization of the Kingdom.
3. Friederich Schleiermacher
Schleiermacher affirmed each individual persons’ experience as a key factor in the growing
Kingdom of God. His ideas built upon those of Kant but are often difficult to understand. Whereas Kant
spoke about the ‘good principle’ in every human being, Schleiermacher coined the phrase “God-
consciousness” as the key ingredient of the Kingdom. Here again what is truly important is human beings’
inward experience. Schleiermacher writes:
To feel oneself absolutely dependent and to be conscious of being in relation with God are one and
the same thing; and the reason is that absolute dependence is the fundamental relation which must
include all others in itself. This last expression includes … God-consciousness in … self-
consciousness in such a way that, quite in accordance with the above analysis, the two cannot be
separated from each other. The feeling of absolute dependence becomes a clear self-consciousness
only as this idea comes simultaneously into being. In this sense, it can indeed be said that God is
given to us in feeling in an original way; and if we speak of an original revelation of God to man
or in man, the meaning will always be just this, that along with the absolute dependence which
characterizes not only man but all temporal existence, there is given to man also the immediate
self-consciousness of it, which becomes a consciousness of God.31

For Schleiermacher, Jesus represented the perfect actualization of this God-consciousness, and salvation
came about by the experiential transmission of such a reality from him to each generation of his followers
in turn. Schleiermacher’s view of the Kingdom of God was a corporate realization of such a consciousness.
Schleiermacher saw the movement of salvation as one of “catching” Jesus’ experience. His disciples
reached a higher realization of the Kingdom as they more fully entered Jesus’ personal experience. Here

30
Ibid., 188.
31
Friederich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith ed. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart (Edinburgh:T&T
Clark, 1928), 17-18.

20
again it is important to note the “this-worldliness” of Schleiermacher’s conception of the Kingdom as
opposed to the scholars of section B.’s eschatological view.
4. Albrecht Ritschl
The next step in the debate regarding the Kingdom of God was made by Albrecht Ritschl in the
th
late 19 century. Similar to both Kant and Schleiermacher, Ritschl believed the Kingdom could be fully
present in this world through the actions of those obedient to the will of God. It is important to emphasize
that Ritschl did not say that the church itself was the Kingdom in full, but rather that the church, as it acted
in accordance with perfect morality, could become a fuller and fuller realization of God’s Kingdom. For
Ritschl, Christ’s work and his Kingdom are summed up once again by human beings coming to a fuller
personal experience of God in human history. As Ritschl puts it:
[Christ], being the first to realize in His own personal life the final purpose of the kingdom of
God, is therefore alone of His kind, for should any other fulfil the same task as perfectly as He, yet
he would be unlike Him because dependent on Him. Therefore, as the original type of the
humanity to be united into the kingdom of God, He is the original object of the love of God, so
that the love of God for the members of His kingdom also is only mediated through Him.32

Ritschl’s thoughts had a wide influence throughout the world, especially in America, Germany, and Britain,
most notably influencing Walter Rauschenbusch and his American “Social Gospel.”
5. Adolf Harnack
Another major theologian to discuss Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom of God was Adolf
Harnack, a contemporary of Schweitzer. Like Ritschl and Kant, Harnack saw the Kingdom of God as
existing in this present world and having no focus on eschatological realization. However, Harnack did not
think Jesus was interested in a perfect social order as Ritschl, Kant, and Rauschenbusch thought he was.
Harnack believed Jesus was interested in the individual and God’s relationship to individuals. In his famous
lectures, delivered at the University of Berlin to all faculties and students in 1900 and translated as What is
Christianity?, Harnack said:
If anyone wants to know what the kingdom of God and the coming of it meant in Jesus’ message,
he must read and study the parables. He will then see what it is that is meant. The kingdom of God
comes by coming to the individual, by entering into his soul and laying hold of it. True, the
kingdom of God is the rule of God; but it is the rule of the holy God in the hearts of individuals; it
is God himself in His power. From this point of view everything that is dramatic in the external
and historical sense has vanished; and gone, too, are all the external hopes for the future. Take
whatever parable you will, the parable of the sower, of the pearl of great price, of the treasure
buried in the field—the word of God, God Himself, is the kingdom. It is not a question of angels
and devils, thrones and principalities, but of God and the soul, the soul and its God.33

For Harnack, it was the personal, experiential relationship a human being had with God that served as the
locus of the Kingdom. Following in F. C. Baur’s footsteps, Harnack argued that Jesus was concerned
primarily with a “higher righteousness,” a righteousness that comes from the heart and not merely an

32
Albrecht Ritschl, Instruction in the Christian Religion, trans. A. M. Swing, as quoted in The Theology of
Albrecht Ritschl, (New York 1901), 200.
33
Adolf Harnack, What is Christianity?, trans. T. B. Saunders (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), 60-
61.

21
external righteousness consisting of outward actions. According to Harnack, when a person’s heart was
truly aligned with the rule of God, God’s kingdom existed in its fullest sense. Harnack did not ignore the
existence of eschatological statements in the gospels identified by Weiss. However, instead of viewing
them as the central theme of Jesus’ teaching, as Weiss and Schweitzer did, Harnack instead viewed Jesus’
use of eschatological terms as first century Jewish poetic language. He used the comparison of husk to
kernel to compare eschatology and ethical righteousness. Though Jesus spoke in the ‘husk’ of
eschatological poetic language, the true ‘kernel’ of his message was ethical teaching. Harnack believed that
Jesus’ teaching about eschatology was certainly present, but definitely not central to his overall message.
The true ‘kernel’ of importance, in Harnack’s view, was Jesus’ teaching about ethical obedience.
6. Gustaf Dalman
The next scholar we will examine is Gustaf Dalman. Some of Dalman’s most important
contributions to the debate concerning the true meaning of the Kingdom of God came as a result of his
mastery of Aramaic. Dalman argued that in ancient Jewish literature “Kingdom” always means “kingly
rule.” Norman Perrin summarizes Dalman’s position as follows:
So in the teaching of Jesus the synonyms Kingdom of God/ Kingdom of Heaven must always be
understood in the sense of the kingly rule of God; they refer to the sovereignty of God, to his
activity in ruling.34

Dalman saw the hearts of individual persons as the locus of this sovereignty of God and therefore the
center of the Kingdom of God. When looking back on writings contemporary with Jesus and earlier Jewish
writing, Dalman noted passages which show that reciting the Shema35 was bearing “the yoke of the
sovereignty of God.”36 So, in the same way as Harnack, as against Schweitzer and Weiss, Dalman placed
the heart of the Kingdom squarely in the present rule of God over the hearts of individuals.
C. The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Scholarship
1. The Oxford Congress of the History of Religions
The next major development in the discussion of the Kingdom of God came out of the Oxford
Congress of the History of Religions in 1908. German, British, and American scholars met for the purpose
of discussing the issues surrounding the ideas raised by Schweitzer and Weiss. The group as a whole chose
to reject the ideas proposed because they felt that focusing strictly upon the eschatological view of Jesus’
teaching excluded any notion of ethical instruction. The Congress reached a consensus that “there were

34
Perrin, 24.
35
M. R. Wilson, “The Shema,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 469-470. : “The ‘watchword of Israel’s faith,’ a declaration of the
oneness and uniqueness of god as found in the opening words of Dt. 6:4: ‘Hear O Israel: The Lord our
God, the Lord is one.’…. The Shema is not a prayer (rabbinic literature never refers to ‘praying’ the
Shema) but a confession of faith or creed.…As the Shema developed it came to include three passages
from the law of Moses. The first (Dt. 6:4-9) proclaims God’s oneness (v. 4) and calls Israel to love Him and
obey His commandments (vv. 5-9) The second (11:13-21) details the rewards for obeying these
commandments and the punishments for disobeying them. The third (Nu. 15:37-41) sets forth the law
concerning tassels on garments as a reminder to keep ‘all the commandments of the Lord.’ (v. 39).”
36
e.g.j.Ber. 4a; 7b.

22
higher spiritual truths lying behind our Lord’s eschatological language—above all, the call to a holy life,
and to spiritual fellowship with a Heavenly Father.”37 These ideas pointed back to Harnackian and
Ritschlian thought, as opposed to the thought of Weiss and Schweitzer.
2. The ‘Symposium on Eschatology’
A different group of solely American scholars also desired to respond to the views put forth by
Schweitzer and Weiss. In 1922 a collection of papers entitled a ‘Symposium on Eschatology’38 sought to
discredit the eschatological arguments that Weiss and Schweitzer had put in circulation. The Symposium
endeavored to explain the eschatological language of Jesus in terms of non-eschatological meaning and to
deny an apocalyptic expectation in Judaism all together.
3. The Canterbury Conference
In 1927 another group, the so-called “Canterbury Conference,” met in England but this time with
the result not of discrediting the arguments of Schweitzer and Weiss but of affirming the validity of their
points. This conference included twelve scholars from Germany and England, all of whom upheld the
apocalyptic expectation of Jesus in the gospels. Though not every scholar removed the notion of the present
reality of the kingdom from Jesus’ teaching, each scholar who was present affirmed that at least part of
Jesus’ message had apocalyptic overtones. The key distinction was drawn between the notion of God
working within the world to redeem it versus God imposing His Kingdom upon this realm from outside.
The conference decided that the Kingdom did indeed represent God’s imposition on our world, thereby
signifying the success of the scholarship of Weiss and Schweitzer.
4. C. H. Dodd
One of the key scholars at this conference in Canterbury was C. H. Dodd, who is famous for his
notion of “realized eschatology.” While Dodd stood with the rest of his colleagues in affirming that Jesus
indeed included a notion of future eschatology in his preaching, he also argued that Jesus preached a
Kingdom realized in the present. Dodd states:
Whatever we may make of them, the sayings which declare the Kingdom of God to have come are
explicit and unequivocal. They are moreover the most characteristic and distinctive of the Gospel
sayings on the subject. [ex. Mark 1:14-15, Luke 11:20, and Matt. 12:28] They have no parallel in
Jewish teaching or the prayers of the period. If therefore we are seeking the differentia of the
teaching of Jesus upon the Kingdom of God, it is here that it must be found.39

In this way, Dodd was able to incorporate what he believed to be both emphases of Jesus’
teaching: his ethical and his eschatological emphases. Dodd maintained that Jesus’ teachings regarding
ethics pointed the way towards a Kingdom actualized in individual lives through obedience to the divine
will. He also admitted that, for Jesus, the Kingdom was yet to come in some sort of future event. But while
the Kingdom was expected in the future, it would not be in a temporal future. Dodd believed that the
eschatological coming of the Kingdom would put an end to all meanings surrounding time and place in the

37
E. C. Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology (Cambridge: University Press, 1912), 202.
38
The set of papers was published in 1922 in the Journal of Biblical Literature, an organ of the Society of
Biblical Literature.
39
C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nibset, 1965), 49.

23
reality we experience. In other words, the coming Kingdom would be introduced to our present realm ‘from
beyond.’ Thus, Dodd saw Jesus’ teaching as having a double focus:
Hence there is a place for ethical teaching, not as ‘interim ethics’ [= the position of Weiss and
Schweitzer], but as a moral ideal for men who have accepted the Kingdom of God, and live their
lives in the presence of his judgment and grace, now decisively revealed.40

5. Reginald H. Fuller
One of the next major contributors to the debate was Reginald H. Fuller. Unlike Dodd, Fuller did
not think that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was actually present in His ministry but, rather, that the
Kingdom was so near that its harbingers could be observed and experienced. Fuller saw the Kingdom of
God as close enough that Jesus’ world could be influenced by its shadow, even before its actual arrival.
Fuller states:
The Reign of God is already breaking in proleptically in the proclamation and signs of Jesus (that
is the difference between the time of Jesus’ ministry and the time of John the Baptist), but it would
be to overstate the case to say that with Jesus the Kingdom of God had already come.41

6. Rudolf Bultmann

In continuing our survey we turn to the most important and influential New Testament scholar of
the twentieth century, Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann was an existentialist theologian who held the following
position:
In the approach to the problem of being in general, precedence belongs to the problem of the being
of man, because man’s being is such that with it there is given some understanding of his being.
As existing, man is disclosed to himself. Thus existentialism claims that it is not a speculative
philosophy, but an analysis of that understanding of existence which is given with existence.42

Existentialists hold that their view of existence is in fact that of the writers of the New Testament,
thereby lending authority to their positions. In a book about both Bultmann and Martin Heidegger endorsed
by Bultmann himself, John MacQuarrie states that Jesus’ preaching against both blind tradition and the
forsaking of the soul for the sake of the world are expressed in modern form by the beliefs of
existentialism, which contrasts the “inauthentic existence” of life controlled by possessions, societal
expectations, and tradition with the “authentic existence” of true human freedom and decision.43
Bultmann agreed fully with Weiss and Harnack’s eschatological understanding of Jesus’
preaching of the Kingdom or Reign of God, as the following quotation conveys:
The dominant concept of Jesus’ message is the Reign of God. Jesus proclaims its immediately
impending irruption, now already making itself felt. Reign of God is an eschatological concept. It
means the regime of God which will destroy the present course of the world, wipe out all the
contra-divine, Satanic power under which the present world groans—and thereby, terminating all
pain and sorrow, bring in salvation for the People of God which awaits the fulfillment of the

40
Ibid., 109.
41
R. H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1960), 26.
42
John MacQuarrie, An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann (New York:
Harper Touchbooks, 1955), 8.
43
Ibid., 21-22.

24
 prophets’ promises. The coming of God’s reign is a miraculous event, which will be brought about
by God alone without the help of men.44

The second sentence in our quotation from Bultmann makes it clear that he held a similar
conception of the Kingdom to R. H. Fuller’s. Like Fuller, Bultmann did not believe that the Kingdom had
arrived during Jesus’ ministry, but he did think that the effects of such a coming could be experienced in
the present. Bultmann held that the Kingdom was like a train pulling into the station but not yet at the
platform.45
If we return now to the existentialism of Bultmann, we note that the theologian was profoundly
influenced by the famous German existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger. Arguing from this view of
reality Bultmann saw Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom as related to the immediate choice of the
individual, thereby placing the reality of the Kingdom in the experience of each person.
The fulfillment of God’s will is the condition for participation in the salvation of God’s Reign [=
the Kingdom of God] in this sense, that it means nothing else but true readiness for it, genuine and
earnest desire for it. The Reign of God, demanding of man decision for God against every earthly
tie, is the salvation to come.46

At the end of this quotation, we see the key point made by Bultmann which conveys his
definitions of “authentic” and “inauthentic” existence. “Authentic existence” is life lived for spiritual
things, not merely for earthly pleasures and experiences. “Inauthentic existence” is life lived for worldly
desires and relationships. For Bultmann, only those willing to choose “authentic existence” will truly “enter
the Kingdom,” to employ Jesus’ terminology. Another way Bultmann phrased the same point was to
distinguish between “formal obedience” and “radical obedience.” For Bultmann, “formal obedience” was
the obedience of the scribes and Pharisees, an obedience that obeyed only in action and not in heart and that
was in reality self-centered. Contrasted with this is the notion of “radical obedience,” i.e., obedience
flowing from the heart that is centered on the love of God and neighbor.47 Here again we can see the
influence of Baur and his inner transformation. For many of the scholars who conceived of the Kingdom as
a present reality, the contrast between merely external obedience and true inner transformation is an
important one. The Kingdom of God, as these scholars understand it, is intimately related to this kind of
inner transformation.
It is in these notions of the decisions of human beings renouncing “formal obedience” and
“inauthentic existence” that Bultmann saw Jesus’ ethical and eschatological message uniting. The Kingdom
of God as Bultmann viewed it is most directly related to the choice of the individual in each moment. By
choosing to be obedient to the will of God, we can enter the present eschatological reality of the Kingdom
of God.

44
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Charles
Scribners’s Sons, 1951), 4.
45
Rudolf Bultmann, Theologische Literaturzeitung 72, 1947, cols. 272 f., as noted by Perrin, 114, footnote
5.
46
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 20-21.
47
Ibid., 8-9, 15, 21-22.

25
 7. Norman Perrin
Following in Bultmann’s footsteps, Norman Perrin also examined the meaning of the Kingdom of
God with an existentialist mindset. I have devoted more explanation to Perrin’s points because of his
considerable influence on many of the scholars whose opinions have been foundational in the debate
concerning the Kingdom of God in Mark, some of whom were his students, Werner Kelber and Morna
Hooker, who will be surveyed below.48 Perrin’s thought, contained in his book The Kingdom of God in the
Teaching of Jesus, can be summarized in three different categories:
The meaning and usage of ‘Kingdom of God’ in Jewish apocalyptic writing and the teaching of
Jesus; the tension between present and future in the eschatology of Jesus and its interpretation; and
the relationship between eschatology and ethics in the teaching of Jesus.49

In his book Perrin first examines the writings that affected those contemporary with Jesus, i.e., the
Old Testament and Jewish apocalyptic writings. With regard to the Old Testament, Perrin notes that the
term “Kingdom of God” itself does not appear anywhere in the text. However, the notion of God as king
over Israel is quite prevalent and common throughout. W. R. Telford agrees when he states:
While the expression ‘Kingdom of God’ itself hardly appears in the Old Testament, the notion of
God’s ‘kingship’, ‘kingly rule’ or ‘sovereignty’ over the nation of Israel and subsequently over the nations
of the world is a dominant emphasis.50

In comparison with the Old Testament, Perrin reports that the term “Kingdom of God” is present in several,
though certainly not all, Jewish apocalyptic writings. Perrin states:
We believe that we have shown that the term [Kingdom of God] is rare in [Jewish] apocalyptic,
but that it does occur there in reference (a) to God’s decisive intervention in history and human
experience, and (b) to the final state of the redeemed to which this intervention is designed to lead.
In precisely these same ways it is used in the teaching of Jesus, with the significant difference that
what is rare in apocalyptic is normative in the teaching of Jesus. The difference indicates a
difference in emphasis and a difference in the understanding of history. By his use of the term
Jesus puts all emphasis upon the activity of God, and he implies that history is the sphere in which
the activity is manifest, rather than a process working towards an inevitable conclusion.51

First, In this quotation Perrin begins to draw a distinction between prophetic eschatology and apocalyptic
eschatology. Both conceptions are alike in that they point towards an end of the current state of reality as
first century Jews were experiencing it and in that both rely on some sort of intervention of God as the
catalyst. However, the point of difference between the two lies in the distinction between God’s working in
history and his action outside of history which breaks into the cosmos and human history both to bring
them to an end and to create a new reality. In the apocalyptic conception the world is affected directly by
the events in the supernatural realm, by means of which God is active in bringing about an eschatological
conclusion. This differs from the prophetic conception in that the prophetic conception places God’s action

48
p. 29 ff. And p. 49 ff.
49
Perrin, 160.
50
Telford, 69-70.
51
Perrin, 185.

26
in history, not breaking into it from the outside. In the prophetic conception, God works directly in this
realm of existence, and his actions are not merely the effects of his work in the supernatural realm.
The next issue that Perrin tackles deals with the duality between the future and the present found
in the teaching of Jesus. As Perrin puts it:
The tension between present and future is a tension, above all, within human experience, and this
is most evident in the Lord’s Prayer.52 This prayer begins by celebrating the new relationship with
God now enjoyed by the disciple as a result of God’s kingly activity in his history and his
experience, and then goes on to concern itself with the key elements making up the totality of a
believing existence within this eschatological and experiential tension between present and future:
the kingly activity of God which will continue until it reaches its climax in the consummation; the
eschatological blessings of God known and to be known; the forgiveness of sins which is supreme
among these blessings and which is continually to be experienced ever more deeply as the disciple
responds in terms of readiness to forgive; and the eschatological conflict into which the disciple is
now caught up and in which he must now play a part.53

Some discussion of this analysis of the Lord’s prayer may be helpful to explicate what is obviously a
somewhat confusing written passage. In its address, the Lord’s prayer uses the term abba, an Aramaic term
meaning “father” employed by sons within the familiarity of the family to address their fathers. Perrin
argues that it is this title of address that signifies a new relationship between Jesus’ disciples and God.
Whereas the old relationship was characterized through a reverent sacrifice and obedience, the new
relationship is one of loving father to beloved child. The second element of the prayer is the petition for the
coming Kingdom. In Perrin’s interpretation of Jesus’ teaching, all of life must be lived in preparation for
this coming Kingdom, and the request for its consummation is to be every believers’ desire. Perrin believes
the rest of the prayer, i.e., the sections on daily bread, forgiveness of sin, and the ongoing struggle against
the evil one, all serve as requests for the present life lived in eschatological expectation. Perrin sees the
final elements of the Lord’s prayer as summarizing what disciples of Christ awaiting the fulfillment of his
Kingdom need. To be given provision for the day, to be forgiven, and to be kept safe from the battle against
the opposition form the background of the believer’s life before the consummation of the Kingdom.
The final issue which Perrin addresses is the relationship between the elements of eschatology and
ethics in the teachings of Jesus. Perrin again turns to the Lord’s prayer to help sort out this issue, in addition
to consulting both the Sermon on the Mount and the concept of law in Biblical texts. At the heart of
Perrin’s notion of the Kingdom is the human experience of relationship with God. The eschatological and
ethical elements of Jesus’ ministry are intended to enhance this experience. Perrin believes that all of Jesus’
teachings about ethical obedience stand in the context of his proclamation about the coming of the
Kingdom and must be interpreted as such. Perrin states:
We may argue then that the ethical teaching of Jesus presupposes the proclamation of the
Kingdom as present in his ministry and is designed to guide men in their response to this; it is
designed to guide them to that response by means of which they appropriate to themselves that
which is offered to them in this proclamation. Since the Kingdom is ultimately to be related to

52
Our Father in heaven, hallowed by your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in
heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead
us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. (Matt. 6: 9-13, NIV)
53
Ibid., 199.

27
 human experience, then the ethical teaching illustrates the response by means of which men enter
ever more fully into this experience… Eschatology stands both at the beginning and the end, as the
determining dimension of men’s existence as believers, as men who respond to the challenge of
the message of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God; and the ethical teaching indicates the nature
of that dynamic response by means of which men move from the beginning towards the end54

In a footnote to this passage, Perrin is quick to point out that the Kingdom of God is based totally upon the
activity of God alone and that man himself cannot bring about or consummate the coming of the Kingdom.
In summary of Perrin, each human being’s experience is the goal and realization of the Kingdom.
Jesus’ eschatological message becomes the impetus that drives men toward the choice to follow and obey
the dictates of the Kingdom of God, and Jesus’ ethical message becomes the path by which the experience
of salvation grows.

V. A Survey of the History of Scholarship on the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark
A. Introduction
Before I turn to my own interpretation of the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark, it is
important to survey some of the modern scholarship devoted to ascertaining its meaning. To do so I will
survey the works of eleven different scholars who are representative of wider streams of scholarship. For
the most part I have divided the scholars on the basis of their methodologies and theological assumptions.
My survey will examine (1) three historical-critical scholars, all of which seek to trace the origins of the
Gospel itself and its themes to the historical situations surrounding its composition, (2) a literary-critical
approach which examines the Gospel as a literary work of the 1st century A.D., (3) two scholars who argue
that the primary theme in the Gospel is the conflict between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of
Satan, and (4) six different commentaries. The commentaries agree that the Kingdom of God is the major
theme of the Gospel, with one notable exception. After I have outlined these interpretations of the Kingdom
I will briefly sketch my own conception of the Kingdom of God in Mark in relation to this scholarship.
B. Historical-Critical Approaches
1. Introduction
Before we turn to the historical-critical scholars in our survey it is worthwhile to note the order in
which they wrote. The first historical-critical scholar to publish concerning the Kingdom of God was
Aloysius Ambrozic the first scholarly opinion noted in our survey. After Ambrozic, Werner Kelber too
published his work on the Kingdom; the last to publish was Burton Mack. Given this reality, it should be
noted that Kelber had certainly read Ambrozic at the time of his publication and Mack had surely read both
Ambrozic and Kelber before he published his own volume.
It is possible to see the evolution of historical-critical thought in these authors’ theses as well.
Whereas Ambrozic does not offer much argumentation concerning the community in which Mark wrote,
both Kelber and Mack postulate that the community was based in Galilee (Kelber) or southern Syria
(Mack). Not only do Kelber and Mack argue for a specific location of Mark’s community; they are also
able to posit a fuller understanding of the Markan community’s social and religious situation.

54
Ibid., 203.

28
 In order to understand better the works below we must be mindful of the chronology surrounding
the composition of the works we are examining.
2.Aloysius Ambrozic
The first author of our historical-critical trio is Aloysius Ambrozic, author of The Hidden
Kingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark’s Gospel. While
Ambrozic’s methodology is very similar to that of Mack and Kelber, his own theory concerning the
community which gave birth to the Gospel is far more general. Ambrozic focuses the majority of his
discussion of the Kingdom on what he believes to be Mark’s notion of hiddenness.
Ambrozic also posits that Mark was writing to a community in distress. This contention became
fundamental for both Mack and Kelber. However, one of the fundamental differences between Ambrozic
and Kelber has to do with their understanding of Mark’s portrayal of the disciples. As we shall see, Kelber
believed the whole of Mark’s gospel was a kind of propaganda against the disciples. In contrast, Ambrozic
believes that the disciples are meant to represent Mark’s own community. Ambrozic states:
They [the disciples] are representatives of Mark’s community. They confess Jesus to be the
Messiah, they have heard of his death and resurrection, his divine sonship has been revealed to
them, they know what following in his footsteps entails, but they are afraid and fail to
understand—in all of this they mirror the community which Mark is addressing.55

Ambrozic argues that through the characters of the disciples, Mark’s community is able to picture
themselves as in communion with Jesus himself. Ambrozic’s theory hangs on the notion that the
community to which he was writing was rather insignificant and confused as to its role in the world.
Through his explication of the parables of chapter 4, Ambrozic is able to argue that Mark wrote his Gospel
in such a way as to demonstrate that the Kingdom of God, which is embodied in his own community, is
intended to be a hidden and somewhat undisclosed reality. Therefore, Mark’s community is able to be
encouraged by their seemingly unimportant status. In fact, Ambrozic argues that according to Mark’s
understanding of the Kingdom, Mark’s community should in fact rejoice in the Kingdom’s present
hiddenness, for such hiddenness implies the ensuing revelation. Ambrozic states:
The very fact that men must be exhorted to believe in the good news and overcome their fears in
the face of sobering realities which seem to belie its happy message shows that the kingdom is not
yet present in all its overwhelming glory…. The present kingdom is thus a hidden kingdom, a
reality which is already with us and yet is still coming, a fulfillment straining for its completion, a
glory visible only to those to whom its mystery has been entrusted.56

Ambrozic, in a similar manner to most all scholars, argues that the chief characteristic of those
who are ready to enter the Kingdom is humility.57 He states:
The child was, to the Jews of Jesus’ time, a prototype of insignificance, dependence,
unimportance, helplessness, and immaturity, the child was looked upon as one who deserved no

55
Aloysius M. Ambrozic, Hidden Kingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom
of God in the Mark’s Gospel, vol. 2 of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series (Washington,
D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1972), 30.
56
Ibid., 45.
57
This conception, both in Ambrozic’s thought and that of other scholars, is based primarily on chapters 9
and 10 of Mark.

29
 attention, who had nothing to offer, and therefore could make no claims. The child had to receive
whatever it received as a pure gift.58

Ambrozic believes that this kind of dependence and insignificance eventually led Jesus to the
cross as the ultimate servant. Ambrozic notes that Jesus’ seeming insignificance and his apparent rejection
on the cross also play into the hiddenness of the Kingdom. Because Jesus’ power is not immediately
visible, it remains hidden until Jesus’ return. This too feeds into what Ambrozic postulates is Mark’s
purpose in writing. If the fundamental characteristic of the community is humility, perhaps even resulting
in death, then in effect, Mark’s community is functioning exactly as it should, i.e., as a humble, unrevealed,
and persecuted mystery.
In summary of his points, Ambrozic states:
The present kingdom is a hidden one. The community is still waiting for its coming with power.
Its members are still in danger of being untrue to the word which they have accepted. Their need
of consolation and exhortation has not ceased. The demand for repentance and faith, and the
warning that they heed what they hear have lost none of their validity and urgency. The
community knows that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God in whom the kingdom is already
exercising its power, and it proclaims these truths. But it does not know as it should know; defects
of necessity disfigure its life, and it is subject to doubts and discouragement. The teaching of Jesus
has not yet produced its definitive result.59

In Ambrozic’s interpretation, the community which stands behind Mark’s Gospel is one that is dealing with
serious doubt and trial. However, through Mark’s exhortation to take hold of the potential revelation of the
Kingdom which is present only because of its inherent hiddenness, Mark’s community is encouraged.
3. Werner Kelber
A second historical-critical scholar we must discuss is Werner Kelber, whose work is contained in
two different monographs: The Kingdom in Mark and Mark’s Story of Jesus. Kelber is one of only two
scholars who have devoted an entire monologue the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark. Like
Ambrozic, Kelber also believes that Mark’s Gospel was conceived in a specific historical situation.
In agreement with most scholars, most notably Ambrozic, whose footsteps he was following in,
Kelber argues that the Kingdom was in fact the central theme of Jesus’ message. In short Kelber believes
that Mark understood and argued for a “kingdom” of people located in Galilee composed of various
different peoples and cultures. Kelber dates the gospel sometime after 70 A.D.60, and he believes Mark was
written from Galilee. In fact, Kelber’s major contribution to the debate focuses on his recreation of the
historical setting of the gospel of Mark from the inherent evidence in the text of the document. Kelber’s
thesis is that in Mark the past, present, and future of the Kingdom of God are located in Galilee and are no
longer composed of strictly Jewish participants: Jesus’ original followers who comprised the “mother
church” of Jerusalem who, according to Kelber, thought the Kingdom was and would be limited to Jews.
According to Mark, Gentiles were welcome in the Kingdom as well as Jews. Kelber believes Mark was

58
Ibid., 148.
59
Ibid., 135.
60
70 AD was the year the final year of the Roman-Jewish wars which reached fulfillment in the destruction
of Jerusalem and the temple. The importance of both of these events to Kelber’s thought is paramount.

30
writing with the intent of teaching an audience composed of Galilean Christians thoroughly shaken by the
destruction of Jerusalem, its temple, and the mother church of Jerusalem by Roman armies in A.D. 70.
Mark’s audience was profoundly threatened because the church had assumed prior to the writing of Mark
that the true nature of the Kingdom would have its locus both spatially and temporally in Jerusalem. Hence,
Kelber believes Mark’s Gospel was teaching hope and expectation in a time of great despair and confusion.
Whereas Ambrozic asserted no more than regarding the reason behind Mark’s composition than
that Mark’s community was one in the midst of persecution, Kelber goes farther and argues that it was in
fact the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 which led to the Gospel’s composition. Arguing this case Kelber
hypothesizes that Mark’s Gospel was written to its community to attempt to assuage what Kelber contends
was fear and uncertainty in the wake of the fall of the temple. Fundamental to Kelber’s position is his
notion of the Kingdom as in Galilee and not in Jerusalem. Kelber notes correctly that the text of the Gospel
of Mark refers often to Galilee and in fact portrays Jesus’ ministry as starting there, in addition to
portraying Jesus as predicting an appearance following his resurrection in Galilee. Kelber asserts that this
Galilean focus is a direct result of Mark’s purpose in writing, i.e., to encourage his own Galilean
community in the aftermath of the temple’s destruction. Through his intimate relation of the Kingdom of
God and Galilee, Kelber argues that the author of the Gospel of Mark was able effectively to remove the
focus of eschatological expectation from Jerusalem and fix it squarely on Galilee, where his own
community was located.
Kelber also argues that it is this kind of polemic against Jerusalem that explains Mark’s portrayal
of the disciples. Because the disciples had been the heads of the Jerusalem church and because that church
had been shaken by the destruction of the city, Kelber holds that Mark portrayed the disciples in a negative
light in his Gospel so as to encourage his own community that the disciples had never been the intended
recipients of the Gospels. Instead, it was Kelber’s community which was the intended and predicted
Kingdom of God. Kelber makes much out of Jesus’ predictions of his post-resurrection appearances in
Galilee and the disciples failure to experience Jesus’ resurrection because of their fear. Kelber argues that
Mark wrote his gospel in such as way as to convince his own community that they were the intended
Kingdom of God.
In a similar manner to Mack, whom we will examine next, Kelber also notes the notion of
supernatural conflict in the Gospel. Kelber writes:
Exorcisms and healings are the two principle approaches used to translate the Kingdom program
into action. In both cases, Jesus intrudes upon enemy territory, challenges and subdues the forces
of evil which are in the way of the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God…. To the Christians who
suffered a crucial defeat [= the destruction of Jerusalem and the mother church there] this sounds a
promising note. The disaster they experienced carries no ultimate significance, for the real battle is
still in progress.61

Here again we are able to see how Kelber’s thesis regarding the Kingdom of God as present in Galilee
dominates his interpretation of the text. Because he believes Mark’s followers were in need of hope, Kelber

31
argues that Mark portrayed the fundamental battle of Jesus as against the spiritual forces of evil so as to
encourage his community that all was not lost.
In summary of his views on the Kingdom and the time of Mark’s writing, Kelber writes:
The Kingdom of God which had made its appearance in Jesus’ first public utterance in Galilee, is
concealed at the present time, only to be made manifest at some future point. In effect, we see
Mark writing a history of the Kingdom, and he does so in order to assign to his own people a place
of hope in the midst of it.62

Like Burton Mack below, Kelber contends that Mark understood the Kingdom as standing in direct
opposition to the traditional Jerusalem church, which is characterized by the disciples in Mark’s narrative.
Those who wanted to join the Kingdom must follow Jesus and not the Jerusalem authority of their time. In
both authors’ interpretations of Mark’s ethics, they note that such radical discipleship could certainly result
in death.
In summary, we quote Kelber at length:
The evangelist designs a movement from the old place to the new place, but the new place is not
merely a replica of the old place. Galilee is not bound to city and temple, but essentially is open
space. Its boundaries are flexible, and it makes a place for Jews and Gentiles Galilee thus reveals a
broader consciousness of man that Jerusalem. The walled city and its locative, compact standpoint
is replaced by a more dynamic, differentiated experience of the world. Jesus himself is not fully
grasped as the apocalyptic Son of Man who had exousia [= authority] in the past, was subjected to
suffering, and rose on the third day. Only the Son of Man who had a history of power and passion
is to have a future in glory. His own future is grounded in his past. In sum, Jerusalem
immortalized the present and in consequence immobilized its future. Mark overcomes its restricted
perception of reality, and can thus speak for man in a more total sense. His gospel furnishes the
new spatiotemporal universe in which one can breathe again, relate and orient oneself, find
identity, and undertake new action.63

Kelber signified a new advance in the area of Markan scholarship by further specifying what he
believed to be the conditions which gave rise to the Gospel. Much of Kelber’s work echoes through into the
scholarship of Burton Mack, to whom we now turn.
4. Burton Mack
The final historical-critical scholar I will examine is that of Burton Mack in his works A Myth of
Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins and Who Wrote the New Testament?. As I stated above Mack bases
most of his analysis of the Gospel of Mark and its message concerning the Kingdom of God on the
historical situation of 1st century Palestine.
Mack notes that the world in which the Gospel of Mark was composed was one of extreme
cultural diversity and change. The Roman empire had conquered the Greek world, but the Greek language
remained the dominant form of communication throughout the eastern empire. In Israel these influences
were also mixed together with Near-Eastern influences to create an even more diverse cultural setting. In
addition to this, the Jewish people remained under the control of the Roman government. Mack argues that

61
Werner Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1974), 17-18.
62
Ibid,. 42.
63
Ibid., 144.

32
three ideas became the foundation for what he terms “Jesus movements.” By his use of the term “Jesus
movements” Mack means what more conservative scholars would call the early church. Mack chooses this
term because he believes that there were in fact many different and diverse movements which all traced
their origins back to the historical Jesus. While their doctrines and beliefs were quite different, Mack argues
that all of the “Jesus movements” were loosely affiliated by three notions: the idea of a perfect society
embodied in a kingdom, the notion that any and all people were fit for entrance into this kingdom, and the
concept that the diversity of people within the kingdom was of definitive importance.64 Mack believes that
these unifying beliefs are discernable as a result of source criticism65 of the text of the New Testament. In
his theory Mack claims that there are seven different discernable groups which all affiliated themselves
with Jesus: the “Q people,” the “Jesus school,” the “True Disciples,” the “Congregation of Israel,” the
“Jerusalem Pillars,” the family of Jesus, and the “Christ cult.”66 Obviously, such terminology demands
explanation and clarification. However, before such explanation is possible we must first better understand
Mack’s method of source-criticism. In order to do this let us now examine the sources which Mack believes
point back to the communities listed above.
As was stated above in our discussion of the priority of the Gospel of Mark among the synoptic
gospels, many scholars have hypothesized the existence of a source document referred to as “Q.”67 It
should be noted at this point that Mack is somewhat unusual in arguing that the writer of the Gospel of
Mark used Q. Q by its very definition has been traditionally understood as material absent from Mark.
Mack’s reasons for his position are not relevant to us; however, it is relevant to note that Mack believes the
“Q community” noted above was the community which gave rise to the Q document. Mack describes Q as
a “sayings source,” which means that it included sayings of Jesus but in no particular context or order.
Mack believes that this is the oldest source of Christian thought and therefore gives us the most reliable
picture of the historical Jesus.
The second group mentioned above is termed the “Jesus school” by Mack. Mack believes this
source was a source that included what he calls “pronouncement stories.” Mack classifies “pronouncement
stories” as stories which end with Jesus offering an authoritative proclamation, what we might today call a
“one-liner.” According to Mack many of these stories presently found in the Gospels were at one time part
of a single source.
Mack terms the third Jesus movement the “True Disciples.” He finds evidence for this group in a
document discovered in the middle of the 20th century which is now known as the Gospel of Thomas. In
this gospel the writer refers to himself and those around him as the “True Disciples,” hence Mack’s name.
Mack argues that this source is very similar to Q, in that it contains mainly sayings of Jesus in somewhat
random order.

64
Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995), 43.
65
Source criticism seeks to examine the text of the Gospel itself to identify the potential sources that were
used by the Gospel writer.
66
Ibid., 44-45.

33
 The fourth Jesus movement named by Mack is the “Congregation of Israel.” Mack believes that
this group created a document which included many of the miracles of Jesus. He terms the group the
“Congregation of Israel” because he believes that the group found precedent for its miracle stories in the
Old Testament tradition. Mack ascertains the existence of the “Jerusalem Pillars” not from their own
original source, but rather from their being mentioned in other sources. In Galatians Paul refers to a group
based in Jerusalem and headed by Peter. It is this group to which Mack is referring.
Perhaps the most influential group for the writings of the New Testament, according to Mack, was
what he terms the “Christ cult.” Mack posits that the writings of Paul are representative of this group; they
held to a rather mythical belief in Jesus, asserting that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God who died for
the forgiveness of sins.
The final group which Mack believes existed prior to the composition of the New Testament is
that of the “family of Jesus.” While Mack believes that such a group existed, he also notes that the evidence
for it is notably limited.
In his comments about the groups detailed above, Mack writes:
Each of these groups differs from the others in important ways, but they do share some
characteristics. One common feature has already been noted, namely that their investment in the
idea of the kingdom of God and the fact that they were all engaged in some kind of group
formation. Another feature that may have been shared, thought it is more difficult to document in
every group, is the practice of meeting together for meals. And, of course, all of them considered
Jesus the founder of their movement.68

Mack believes that the diversity and the discrepancies among the groups point quite clearly to the
conclusion that Jesus himself did not prescribe a pattern for the formulation of the church. As a result Mack
believes that each of the groups formulated origin myths for their particular movements. It is these origin
myths which he believes serve as the source material for the writers of the New Testament, including Mark.
Mack holds the Gospel of Mark in very high esteem for what he believes to be its unique historical
accomplishment. In fact, Mack believes that the Gospel of Mark is perhaps the most important document in
the history of Christianity because its author chose to assimilate multiple traditions into one such “origin
myth” for his own community.69
As with the other historical-critical scholars in our survey, Mack seeks to pinpoint what he
believes to be the historical situation in which the Gospel was written. Mack believes that the Gospel of
Mark was written in Southern Syria70 by a member of what he calls the “Synagogue Reform” movement.
Mack postulates that Mark’s community had been kicked out of the synagogue because of their failure to
obey Pharisaic regulations. As a result of his own interpretations of the text Mack states the following
positions concerning Mark’s community:

67
Again, Q is from the German Quelle, or “source.” Scholars believe that the material which Matthew and
Luke share but which Mark omits makes up the document Q.
68
Ibid, 45.
69
Ibid., 152.
70
See discussion of the place of Mark’s writing above, p. 9.

34
 [They] thought of themselves as a Jewish reform movement of some kind with something to say to
Jewish communities in those cities where the synagogue was the institutional form of Jewish
identity and activity…. In Southern Syria and beyond, both positions [= that of the Jesus people,
i.e., synagogue reform, and that of the Pharisees] may well have been viewed as export ideologies
from Palestine, the Pharisees sounding a conservative position, the Jesus people taking the
opposite tack…. Pharisees had arguments, institutional precedents, and practical considerations
that made sense, should it come down to the question of Jewish identity. They also had texts, and a
bit of practice in how to read them. Jesus people had only their unconventional table fellowship to
share, plus the liberal kingdom talk that went along with it, and appeals to a recent sage who had
excited the imagination.71

Mack argues that it is this historical situation which serves as the Gospel of Mark’s origin and chief
interpretive key. The Gospel was written in order to combat the community’s expulsion from the
synagogue, and its content was aimed at propagating their own fellowship.
In addition to being a myth of origins, Mack also argues that Mark wished to convey an
apocalyptic message through his gospel. Not only did Jesus represent an authority greater than that of the
Pharisees in Mark’s myth, but in addition, he also was, as Mack states:
The king of the kingdom destined to be established in place of the evil kingdoms of the world.
This role was necessary in view of the claims of the synagogue reform movement to be the people
of the kingdom of God. Jesus had inaugurated the time of the new kingdom destined to substitute
for the old demonic order.72

In this way Mack argues in a quite similar fashion to Pagels whom we will examine below. Like we will
see in Pagels, Mack believes that Mark intended to portray a struggle that transcended the present realities
of this world in order to win the ultimate battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.
However, Mack does not believe that Mark had totally abandoned the ideal of the kingdom as an earthly
reality. Mack affirms that he thinks Mark did not relinquish his desire for such a kingdom but rather saw its
actualization as impossible given the current evil rule present in the world. Again we quote Mack:
Mark did not give up the desire for a manifestation of the kingdom of God in the social orders of
human history, but his gospel left no room to be hopeful about its achievement except by means of
a yet more fantastic intervention of divine power and sovereignty.73

According to Mack, Mark still desired the kingdom of God on earth but recognized it as impossible until
the final apocalyptic victory of the returning Son of Man.74
Mack also argues that Mark’s Gospel taught its community how it should act in the interim time
before the Son of Man’s return. Mack argues that Mark understood the primary paradigm of discipleship to
be martyrdom. In reference to Jesus’ own crucifixion and reported resurrection Mack states:
Mark did not dare an elaboration of Jesus’ resurrection or transformed status, because he wanted
to emphasize Jesus’ absence from the world during the period of woes and his brilliant
reappearance at the eschaton as the Son of Man… The cause [of Jesus] was the kingdom of God

71
Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philedelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 95.
72
Ibid., 327.
73
Ibid., 330,331.
74
With regard to this point concerning the conflict between Jesus and the evil forces of the world, Mack
relates quite closely with two other scholars who we will survey later: Elaine Pagels and D. H. Nineham.
We shall note the similarities in our discussion of their own position.

35
 imagined as a collection of those who accepted God’s rule as Jesus had represented it. As in the
case of Jesus as the Son of Man, Mark chose to reserve the full manifestation of the kingdom of
God for the future hour of power and glory.75

In the time preceding the Son of Man’s return, Jesus’ followers were to embody his teachings, even to the
point of death. For Mack, such is Mark’s ethical requirement of the Kingdom.
In summary, Mack clearly believes that the Gospel was written for a specific community dealing
with a specific historical situation. Mack argues that in Mark’s understanding the Kingdom was intended to
be some sort of social order in which his community was to lead the way, valuing not greatness but rather
humility. In addition, this community was to cross cultural boundaries and be inclusive of many different
classes of life. However, in Mack’s argument Mark clearly saw that such a reality was unfeasible until such
time that Jesus would return as the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven, symbolizing his absolute victory
over the powers of evil present in the world contemporary with Mark.
We are also able to see the evolution of historical-critical thought present in these three scholars.
Whereas Ambrozic’s theory is filled with generalities, the theories of Kelber and Mack get quite specific
concerning their descriptions of the historical situation which gave rise to the Gospel of Mark.
5. A Summary of the Historical-Critical Scholarship
To conclude our survey of the historical-critical scholars included in our study we restate some
unifying themes. In all three authors’ interpretations, Mark is writing to a community because of a distinct
historical stimulus and for a distinct historical purpose. We are able to see how Ambrozic’s rather vague
characterization of the Markan community evolved into the rather detailed historical situations postulated
by Kelber and Mack. All three writers conceive of Mark’s understanding of the Kingdom as fundamentally
shaped by his own community. They believe that Mark fashioned the words and deeds of Jesus so as to
encourage his own community directly. All three authors believe that Mark’s community was one that felt
rejected and unimportant. As a result, all three authors argue that Mark portrayed Jesus in a way that would
assign a special piety to this kind of situation, proclaiming the true nature of the Kingdom as hidden and the
true attribute of the Kingdom to be humility. All three authors believe that Mark’s conception of the
Kingdom was one that was directly tied to the person of Jesus and his teaching. These communities were
meant to include various kinds of people, bridging cultural and social boundaries. Ultimately, in all three of
our authors’ opinions, the Markan Kingdom was one that would be consummated by the return of the Son
of Man. All our authors judge that Mark expected this return shortly, especially given the situation of his
community. Again we are able to see that while what they believe to be the motivations are different, the
methodologies and fundamental findings of these historical-critical scholars are reasonably similar.
C. A Literary-Critical Approach
1. Mary Ann Tolbert
The next scholar we will examine is Mary Ann Tolbert. As opposed to the three authors above,
Tolbert is a literary-critical scholar. By emphasizing this methodology Tolbert discounts questions of Jesus’

75
Ibid., 344.

36
historicity. Though certainly the events portrayed in Mark either happened or did not, for Tolbert’s
purposes the question of history is irrelevant. Literary-criticism examines the Gospel as if it were a written
play of sorts: literary-critics examine the characters of the story, the story’s repeated themes and ideas, its
intended audience response, and its inherent teaching. Of course this discipline of scholarship is noticeably
different from the historical-critical method above, but Tolbert’s findings in her book, Sowing the Gospel:
Mark’s World in a Literary Historical Perspective, provide a serious alternative to the historical-critical
theories sketched in III. B.
Tolbert’s analysis of the Gospel of Mark focuses on what she believes to be the two major
parables of the storyline: the parable of the Sower in chapter 4 and the parable of the tenants in chapter 12.
Tolbert argues that the parable of the Sower, or as she terms it, the parable of the Four Soils, is meant to be
understood as an overview of Jesus’ ministry. In her interpretation Tolbert argues that the four kinds of soil
portrayed in the parable are representative of four groups of people throughout Mark’s narrative. The hard
soil along the path is symbolic of the Pharisees and those who openly oppose Jesus.76 Tolbert argues that
the “rocky soil” of the parable is meant to symbolize the disciples. We quote Tolbert on this group:
The call of the four disciples in Mark 1:16-20, liberally sprinkled with ευθυσ [immediately],
emphasizes the sudden and complete response of Simon [=Peter], Andrew, James, and John. The
first two “immediately” follow Jesus, and the latter two are in such a hurry that they desert their
father in the boat (1:20). They “immediately” respond. On the other hand, the wordplay on Peter’s
name,77 the indication of Judas’s coming betrayal [3:19], and the ominous—to the audience—
discussion by Jesus of the ultimate failure of divided houses (3:16-26), all strongly nominate the
disciples as the group representing “these” sown in rocky ground.78

It should be noted that Tolbert’s interpretation is based on the words common to the disciples’ calling and
experience, and the parable’s description of the rocky soil. ευθυσ, ”immediately”; πετροσ, ”rocky”; and
σκανδαλιζω “fall away” are all used in reference to the disciples and the rocky soil. As a result, Tolbert
draws the conclusion that Mark is seeking to portray the disciples as the rocky soil. Tolbert contends that
the group symbolized by the weedy soil should be understood as Herod (6:14-29) and the rich man (10:17-
22).79
It is in relation to the fourth soil that Tolbert’s conception of the Kingdom of God begins to
become clear. Tolbert contends that the good soil is represented throughout the gospel by those who
respond to Jesus with faith. Tolbert argues that the two parables following that of the sower, i.e., the
parable that compares the Kingdom to a secretly growing seed (4:26-29) and the parable that compares the
Kingdom to a grain of mustard seed (4:30-32), both comment on the good soil which Tolbert believes to be
the Kingdom of God. Tolbert holds that the important truth of these parables centers on the productive

76
Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996), 154.
77
Both Peter’s name, and the term “rocky” come from the same root word, πετροσ, which means “rock.”
78
Ibid., 154.
79
Ibid., 157. It should be noted that Tolbert believes this distinction to be the most vague of the four in the
Gospel.

37
power of the soil. In the first parable the soil is able to produce a harvest of the seed with no extra effort by
the sower, and in the second it is able to make a great shrub out of a very small seed. Tolbert states:
Such powerful earth is the kingdom of God, and those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit
are its human manifestations. They are the ground of God. Jesus, in preaching the word, does not
create them or convert them; he reveals them.80

Examples of this good earth are scattered throughout the first half of the gospel according to Tolbert.81 An
example is in Mark 2, where a story is told about a Jewish paralytic being lowered by four of his friends
through the roof of the house in which Jesus is teaching. In response to this action on the part of four men
and the paralytic, Mark writes “And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are
forgiven.’” (2:5) In this passage we see clearly that it is the faith of the men lowering the paralytic, perhaps
coupled with the faith of the paralytic himself, that stimulates Jesus’ response to forgive and heal the man.
In Tolbert’s view, anyone who responds to Jesus’ words and deeds in faith reveals himself to be the good
soil of the Kingdom. We quote Tolbert on this point:
The response of faith breaks across all the traditional social, cultural, and religious boundaries:
Jews, Greeks, males, females, powerful, and powerless by their faith join together to form a new
family, Jesus’ true family, composed of those who do the will of God…. This new family is God’s
domain, God’s Kingdom come in power at the instigation of Jesus. Consequently, the kingdom of
God, God’s metaphorical good earth, are those whose response to the word is characterized by
faith and manifested in mighty works, resulting in a new universal family now and eternal life in
the age to come.82

Here again we see that Tolbert’s conception of what the Kingdom is in historical actuality is very close to
that of our three historical-critical scholars. All four the scholars surveyed so far contend that Mark
understood the Kingdom to be a community of people inclusive of many different cultures and social
backgrounds.
To comment further on Tolbert’s notion of the Kingdom, it is pertinent to emphasize that in her
understanding Jesus does not actually bring anything new through his ministry, i.e., he does not bring the
Kingdom. Rather, Tolbert interprets Mark’s understanding of Jesus’ ministry as revealing who is good soil
and who is not. Those who respond with faith in the story prove themselves to be the good soil and the
Kingdom of God. Those who fail to respond to Jesus because of fear reveal their hardened hearts.
The second parable on which Tolbert bases her interpretation is the parable of the Tenants in
chapter 12, which she renames the parable of the Vineyard. The context of this parable is that Jesus’
authority is being questioned by Jerusalem authorities, i.e., the chief priests, scribes, Sadducees, and
Pharisees. In the parable Jesus tells of a vineyard that is created and owned by an absent master who has
entrusted its care and fruit to tenants. Throughout the parable the master sends servants to receive the fruit
of the vineyard from the tenants, only to have his servants be violently rejected. In a final attempt the
master sends his only son, who he thinks may possess authority in the minds of the tenants. However, this
is not the case. The tenants kill the son in an attempt to gain his inheritance. Jesus is portrayed by the

80
Ibid., 162.
81
A few other examples include: 1:40-45, 5:25-34, 7:24-30.

38
Gospel of Mark as closing the parable with a discussion about the question of just what the owner of the
vineyard will do. Jesus’ answer to the question is that the owner will come and destroy the tenants and give
his vineyard to others.
Tolbert sees this parable as relating closely to her conception of the Kingdom of God as the good
soil revealed by Jesus’ teaching, and, in fact, she emphasizes this second parable to help clarify the future
element of the Kingdom. She states:
Jesus’ message reveals not only God’s good earth but the bad earth now usurped by Satan, and
unfortunately, as the parable of the Vineyard and the Tenants indicates, those who presently
control the vineyard are evil and destructive. As long as that control continues, as long as this
present age lasts, God’s powerful domain will be harassed and plundered.83

Tolbert argues that it is the destruction of this crippling rule of the tenants which will mark the full
realization of the Kingdom.
Mark notes after the telling of the parable that the Jerusalem authorities perceived that Jesus told
the parable against them (12:12). Tolbert believes that it is this description of the Jerusalem authorities’
perception which also allows the audience of the Gospel to understand that the people in charge of the
vineyard at present are also the ones whose hearts are most hard and unreceptive to Jesus’ message. The
parable is most important because of its implications for the future. Because of two previous references to
Jesus as God’s beloved son (1:11, 9:7) Tolbert believes that Mark’s audience would clearly recognize the
master as God and Jesus as the son who is sent. In addition, they would in turn recognize that the killing of
the son by the tenants is the final act which prompts the master to react cataclysmically against the tenants.
In Tolbert’s eyes it is the crucifixion of Jesus that will be the final catalyst to cause God the master to take
action. As a result Tolbert believes that Mark was encouraging his audience to believe that the owner of the
vineyard was indeed coming soon. It is this future element that allows for a complete view of Tolbert’s
picture of the Kingdom of God in the Gospel. She writes:
When God comes in glory with the Son and holy angels to remove this world order and establish a
new one, eternal life will be granted to those faithful ones who endured. Hence the Gospel of
Mark suggests three periods in the development of the kingdom of God: it existed in potential
before the coming of Jesus; with Jesus’ message, it is revealed and empowered to produce
abundant fruit, but it is still opposed by the evil authorities of this age; and soon—though we
know not the day or the hour—the kingdom of God will arrive in all its glory as the present age is
wiped away by the apocalypse and eternal life for God’s elect begins. 84

Yet another implication of Tolbert’s classification of Jesus as the Heir of the Kingdom is that he
will indeed be receiving the inheritance of the vineyard. He will be the one who rules God’s coming
Kingdom in full at his return following his victory over the powers of evil.
The final point worth noting concerning Tolbert’s interpretation is what she believed to be Mark’s
purpose for writing, i.e., to create “the perfect disciple” out of his audience. She argues that Mark wrote his

82
Ibid., 174.
83
Ibid., 174.
84
Ibid., 174-175.

39
Gospel so as to allow his audience the fullest level of insight into the person of Jesus, allowing them to be
the perfect disciple where the disciples in the storyline failed. She writes:
Each individual who hears the word sown by the Gospel of Mark, the word that human corruption
and suffering will finally be abolished by the glory of God’s kingdom, is given the opportunity—
as have all the characters of the story—to respond in faith or in fear. The problem posed by the
epilogue in strong rhetorical terms through the unfulfilled expectations raised by the named
women is, if these followers will not go and tell, who will? In the end, Mark’s Gospel purposely
leaves each reader or hearer with the urgent and disturbing question: What type of earth am I?
Will I go and tell? Indeed, one’s response to the seed sown by the Gospel of Mark reveals in each
listener’s heart, as did Jesus’ earlier preaching, the presence of God’s ground or Satan’s.85

In this interpretation we are again able to discern several of the points of agreement among the
scholars we have surveyed. Like Mack especially, Tolbert believes the Jerusalem authorities are
characterized by Mark as acting in league with Satan. As a result, one of the ultimate conflicts in the
Gospel is again understood to be between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan. However,
Tolbert’s interpretation of the Kingdom as represented by the “good soil” of Jesus’ parables is quite unique
and worthy of consideration.
The next step in our survey is to examine the works of two different authors who employ two very
different methodological procedures and who examine the Kingdom of God in Mark through different
genres of writing. However, despite these differences, both of our authors hold approximately the same
theory about the Kingdom. Again, it is pertinent to note the order in which the writers put forth their own
arguments. In this case, D. H. Nineham, as well as Ambrozic and Kelber preceded the thought of Pagels.
However, because Pagels’ central focus is on the theme of the presence of the Kingdom of Satan, as against
Nineham’s commentary-style format, I have chosen to examine her work before that of Nineham.
C. Scholars Who Argue that the Kingdom of God vs. the Kingdom of Satan is the Primary
Theme of the Gospel

1. Elaine Pagels
The first author is Elaine Pagels, author of The Origin of Satan. Pagels’ theory focuses on the
interplay between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan, which she believes to be the
fundamental conflict throughout not only the Gospel of Mark but much of the New Testament as a whole.
Pagels bases her argumentation on the intertestamental literature86 of Judaism. It is in this literature, which
for the most part was largely apocalyptic, that Pagels believes that we see the New Testament character of
Satan originate. Pagels argues that Satan is noticeably absent from both contemporary Judaism and the
Judaism as represented in the Old Testament. She writes:
Satan is scarcely present in traditional Judaism to this day and is not present at all in classical
Jewish sources—at least not in the form that later Western Christendom knew him, as the leader of
an “evil empire,” of an army of hostile spirits who take pleasure in destroying human beings.87

85
Ibid., 298-299.
86
The intertestamental literature is understood to have been written between 400 B.C. and the time
contemporary with Jesus’ life.
87
Elaine Pagels, “The Social History of Satan, The ‘Intimate Enemy’: A preliminary Sketch.” Harvard
Theological Review 84:2 (1991): 105-128.

40
Pagels makes much out the emergence of the depiction of Satan in the intertestamental period as a
commander of some sort of evil army. She believes that such a conception of Satan is distinctly different
from the picture of Satan in the Old Testament. Pagels argues that in the Old Testament Satan is conceived
of as a subordinate of God who often stirs up trouble; however, she notes that nowhere in the Old
Testament is Satan portrayed as the antithetical enemy of God himself. In her theory, this kind of thought
originates only in the centuries preceding the birth of Christ and then only in what was deemed apocalyptic
literature. It is important to note at this point that much of the apocalyptic literature of this time was
generated by dissident Jewish groups. The importance of this point for Pagels’ argument will be examined
in more detail below.
Before we get to Pagels’ thesis, we must note one more important shift that she believes is
observable in the evolution of the thought of Judaism. It is generally noted that in the Old Testament the
Jews are instructed by God to be an exclusive nation. God’s commands, as portrayed in the Old Testament,
forbade the Jews from intermarrying with peoples of other cultures and warned the people of Israel against
treaties and associations with foreign nations. Pagels also notes that at certain points in the Old Testament
text Israel’s enemies are represented by the use of mythical characters such as Leviathan and Rahab.88
Pagels argues that the practice of aligning its enemies with mythological monsters soon took a new form in
Judaism. She states:
Familiar with this tradition of identifying their foreign enemies in mythological terms, certain
writers of the sixth century BCE took a bold step: they began to adopt mythological imagery to
characterize their struggle against certain intimate enemies, that is, against certain of their fellow
Israelites. Consider, for example, the accounts told in I Chr. 21:1-7 and Zech. 3:1-9. Each
articulates a specific situation of intra-Jewish conflict, and each—virtually for the first time,
among extant sources—depicts Satan, as it were, on the verge of deviating from his role as God’s
agent to become God’s enemy.89 (Italics mine)

Pagels argues that it is this practice of attributing the action of Satan to differing opinions within the
Israelite community itself which is picked up by the writers of the intertestamental period and the authors
of the New Testament. Following the Jews’ return from exile in Babylon, more and more dissident groups
began to branch off from the mainline stream of Judaism, thereby creating more and more division within
the Jewish community. Pagels contends that this rise in dissident groups and the rise in the depiction of
Satan as an intimate opponent of God are directly proportional. Because there were more and more groups
who felt excluded from the more mainline forms of Judaism, they included in their own literature stories
about the character of Satan. They then came to understand the actions of the groups which opposed their
own as embodiments of Satan’s action in opposition to God. Pagels also posits that Christians who broke
away from the mainstream Jewish religiosity followed a similar pattern of thought. In summary of her
initial arguments, Pagels writes:
Certain followers of Jesus of Nazareth, including the authors of the Gospels of the New
Testament, adapted and elaborated similar themes [as the one just explicated above]…. Yet while

88
Ibid., 111.
89
Ibid., 113.

41
 the majority of Jews, from ancient times to the present, have largely left characterizations of Satan
to marginal and sectarian groups, Christians placed this cosmic battle, and their own campaigns
against those they have regarded as intimate enemies, at the center of their cosmologies.90

It is to Pagels’ argument regarding the portrayal of Satan in the Gospel of Mark that we now turn. Indeed,
as she states in the final sentence above, she believes this theme to be at the absolute center of the Gospel’s
understanding of the ministry of Jesus.
Pagels argues that this theme is developed throughout the Gospel of Mark, beginning in the first
chapter. Pagels notes that directly following his baptism Jesus is portrayed as being tempted in the
wilderness for 40 days by Satan (1:12-13). After he has returned to Galilee the Markan Jesus’ first sermon
is interrupted by an unclean spirit in the synagogue in which he is teaching (1:21-28). After Mark portrays
the demon’s exorcisms he quotes the crowds as comparing the authority of Jesus to that of the scribes
(1:27). Pagels believes that it is this first comparison between Jesus and the scribes following an exorcism
which allows for the rest of the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities to be interpreted as the
larger conflict between Jesus and Satan himself. To argue in behalf of this idea, Pagels notes that
throughout chapters two and three of the Gospel, Jesus is depicted as being challenged over and over again
by the scribes and the Pharisees. The ministry of Jesus is in direct conflict with the Jewish authority of the
time. Pagels writes:
For Mark the secret meaning of such conflict is clear. Those who are offended and outraged by
Jesus’ actions do not know that Jesus is impelled by God’s spirit to contend against the forces of
evil, whether those forces manifest themselves in the invisible demonic presences who infect and
possess people, or in his actual human opponents. When the Pharisees and Herodians conspire to
kill Jesus, they themselves, Mark suggests, are acting as agents of evil.91

Pagels asserts that this supernatural conflict played out in the natural realm comes to a climax of sorts at the
end of chapter three. Here, Mark depicts the scribes from Jerusalem pronouncing that Jesus is able to cast
out demons because he is indeed possessed by Satan. In response, Mark portrays Jesus as turning the
scribes’ accusation around by saying that they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Pagels argues that Jesus’
rebuttal is in fact a proclamation that the Jerusalem authorities are the ones possessed by Satan. She states:
As for the scribes’ accusation that Jesus is possessed by the “prince of demons,” he throws back
upon them the same accusation of demon possession and warns that in saying this they are sinning
so deeply as to seal their own damnation. For, he says, whoever attributes the work of God’s spirit
to Satan commits the one unforgivable sin.92

Pagels argues that Mark understands this conflict to result ultimately in Jesus’ death. Through the
workings of the Jewish authorities, whom Pagels argues that Mark portrays as controlled by Satan himself,
Jesus is sentenced to death. Pagels makes much out of Mark’s portrayal of the Jewish authorities as
responsible for Jesus’ death. She argues that this kind of account is coherent with the developing Jewish
consciousness regarding the person and work of Satan. As we noted above, Pagels argues that it is the
intimate enemies of the Jewish people who began to be viewed as being controlled by Satan. In Pagels'

90
Ibid., 128.
91
Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Random House, 1995), 19.

42
estimation, Mark’s story of Jesus’ death is no different. It was the Jewish authorities and not the Romans
who were ultimately responsible for Jesus death.
To summarize, Pagels believes that the central theme in the entire Gospel of Mark is the conflict
between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan. While Jesus repeatedly faces conflicts from the
natural world around him, Pagels holds that Mark intended the true meaning of the text to be the
supernatural battle between the forces of evil and the forces of good. This larger struggle is manifested
throughout Mark’s story as the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, which ultimately results
in the Jewish incitement of Jesus’ crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. Pagels believes that all of the
Gospel must be interpreted through this theological lens.
2. D. E. Nineham
The rather conservative commentator, D.E. Nineham agrees with many of the conclusions reached
thus far by some of our scholars. But in anticipation of our historical-critical scholars surveyed above,
Nineham argued in the 1960s that the Gospel of Mark itself was written to a community in the midst of
suffering and persecution on the basis of the seemingly overarching focus on the suffering of Jesus and his
followers. However, more important to our survey is Nineham’s conception of the Kingdom of God. Here
again, as we have seen in our authors above, Nineham assigns crucial importance to the interplay between
the Kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God. Nineham states:
It was largely in terms of this expectation [= that God would one day end the struggle between
himself and Satan with a decisive victory] that St. Mark understood our Lord’s life and work,
regarding him as God’s agent sent to begin the great final battle against the powers of evil and
endowed with power to carry through the first states of it to a victorious conclusion… it [= this
belief] has shaped St Mark’s account not only of Our Lord’s exorcisms and acts of power over
‘nature’, but of his successful disputes with his human opponents , who are themselves regarded by
the Evangelists as agents of the evil powers.93

It is easy to discern at this point that Nineham’s thought anticipates that of both Pagels and Mack
very closely. All three believe Mark himself regarded the ministry of Jesus to be primarily a battle against
the evil forces controlled by Satan. This understanding of Jesus’ ministry is absolutely a cornerstone to
Nineham’s conception of the Kingdom of God. He states:
Among the Christians at least, God’s decisive act, and the state of affairs it would bring about,
were referred to as the kingdom of God—or, to translate the original Aramaic more exactly, the
kingship, or sovran rule, of God. The phrase connoted not primarily a place—a ‘realm’ as we
might say—nor even a group of people, or ‘subjects’; the emphasis was on the autonomous sovran
action by which God would asset his authority and bring everything into conformity with his will
for ever.94

Nineham believes that Mark wrote his Gospel in order better to explicate this apocalyptic battle.
Indeed, Nineham even argues that the secret of the Kingdom of God (4:10-11) is in fact making reference
to the battle which Jesus himself is undertaking against the powers of Satan. Ultimately, this battle will be

92
Ibid., 20.
93
D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark, The Pelican Gospel Commentaries (New York: Seabury Press,
1963), 34.
94
Ibid., 44.

43
won at the Paraousia, but it was started in a fundamental way through the ministry of Jesus. Nineham
interprets the somewhat enigmatic 9:1 in a similar way. By the “Kingdom of God having come in power”
Nineham believes Mark was intending to represent Jesus as predicting his return on the clouds of heaven
very soon, indeed before the death of some of his disciples. Of course, if this was the case then Jesus was
wrong. However, Nineham is able to explain this error in emphasizing the human, and therefore imperfect,
knowledge Jesus possessed as a result of the incarnation. That Jesus expected his return soon does not
diminish his authority; instead, it emphasizes his humanity.
Through this summary we are able to see quite clearly how Nineham’s view compares with the
more methodologically liberal scholars surveyed above. To this point in our survey, the Kingdom of God
has been understood as in primary opposition to the Kingdom of Satan in the Gospel of Mark. Our scholars
have all made mention of this dynamic within the Gospel, though some have assigned it more importance
than others. In addition, all of our scholars have noted that the Kingdom, as Mark understood it, should be
understood as both a present and future reality from the 1st century perspective. The Kingdom was certainly
portrayed as present in the ministry of Jesus, but its consummation was eagerly anticipated sometime in the
near future. Let us now continue our survey by moving through some additional conservative scholarship
concerning the Kingdom.
E. Evangelical Commentators
1. Introduction
Before we move on to discuss the further evangelical positions, a note about traditional evangelical
scholarship in comparison with more methodologically liberal scholarship is appropriate. Most of the
scholars in our survey, with the notable exception of Nineham do not grant much historical credibility to
the Gospel texts. For the most part, the scholars we have surveyed contend that the Gospel of Mark was
written as the result of a specific historical situation and that it was written for a specific community. These
scholars believe that Mark likely took great liberty with the events he recorded or that he was even
responsible for their generation. As a result, most of the more liberal scholarship tends to focus almost
entirely on the author and his purposes in writing the Gospel. Evangelical scholars examine the Gospel
under a somewhat different set of historical beliefs. While very few evangelical scholars would hold that
the Gospels are simple records of history95 many do believe that most of the Gospel texts should be
understood as records of actual historical events. As a result of this belief, their language concerning the
Gospel can sometimes be subtly different than that of more liberal scholars. Where liberal scholars need not
worry about the motivations and intentions of the Historical Jesus, evangelical scholars often intermingle
Jesus’ intentions with Mark’s. This can sometimes lead to a somewhat more intricate position. As we
proceed through these upcoming scholars, we must remain mindful of this kind of methodological
discrepancy in order to properly understand the evangelical arguments.

95
In fact, even the earliest tradition which mentions Mark, that of Papias, which we examined above,
allows that Mark did not write the events in order, but rather rearranged them according to his purposes.

44
 Here again it is relevant to note the order in which the commentators below penned their texts. The
first commentator in our survey to write was William Lane, who was followed by Robert Guelich and then
Robert Gundry and Morna Hooker. The last work in our survey to be published was that of Craig Evans in
2001. As we move through these scholars’ positions it remains important that we are mindful of the
progression of thought that existed among these evangelical commentators.
2. Robert Gundry
The work we will examine in this section is Robert Gundry’s massive Mark: A Commentary on
his Apology for the Cross. Like the scholars above, Gundry too believes that Mark wrote his Gospel for a
specific purpose. However, unlike all of the scholars we have surveyed, Gundry does not believe the
Kingdom of God to be the primary theme of the Gospel. Rather, he believes that Mark composed his
Gospel to magnify and report Jesus’ power to a community struggling with the reality of Jesus’ death in
seeming powerlessness on the cross. Gundry does not totally disregard the Kingdom of God, but it is
certainly secondary to the theme of Jesus’ power. The ways in which Gundry outlines what he believes to
be Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ power are not important for us to understand here. However, it is relevant to
see how Gundry expresses the interplay between Jesus’ power and the Kingdom of God.
Almost all scholars hold that 1:14-15 is Mark’s intended summary of Jesus’ ministry, thereby
placing the Kingdom of God at the very heart of what Jesus preaches and does. In opposition to this,
Gundry believes that 1:14-15 serves not as a summary of Jesus’ ministry but rather as a bridge between two
sections dealing with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He states, “Thus vv. 14-15 form a hinge, not a generalizing
summary of the following pericopes or a structural peg on which to hang a whole section of Mark’s
book.”96 As a result of this interpretation Gundry is able to argue that the power of Jesus as mediated
through the Holy Spirit is the major focus of the Gospel, as opposed to the Kingdom of God. However,
Gundry does believe that the Kingdom has some importance in the Gospel of Mark. With regard to what
the Kingdom of God means in chapter one and for the Gospel as a whole, Gundry argues that the Kingdom
of God should be understood as a “realized eschatology,” a contention is similar to that of C.H. Dodd
surveyed above. Gundry offers eight detailed reasons why the Kingdom should be understood to have
already come.97 In Gundry’s understanding the Kingdom of God was a past action of God that Jesus was
announcing; it was not something that he is predicting or preceding.
Gundry’s comments on Mark 4 paint a more complete picture of what he believes the Kingdom of
God to be and what he argues its role is in the Gospel. After chapters one and three, the Kingdom is first
mentioned in chapter four in reference to the “secret of the Kingdom” which Jesus speaks about after his
disciples ask him concerning the Parable of the Sower. Following this initial reference, “kingdom” is used
twice more in chapter four in two additional parables. Gundry believes that these latter two parables shed
light on what the Kingdom of God truly is for the writer of the Gospel of Mark. In his comments about
Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the Sower, Gundry writes:

96
Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 64.
97
Ibid., 65.

45
 The good hearers welcome the word immediately, so that Satan cannot snatch it away. They
welcome it deeply, so that persecution because of it cannot induce them to apostatize. They
welcome it exclusively, so that other concerns do not stifle it. The understanding that results from
this kind of reception goes beyond the intellectual to touch conduct, commitment, and devotion. In
this light, through the abundant fruit-bearing of the good soil is commonly interpreted as a
reference to the eschatological harvest when God fully imposes his rule of earth, the vocabulary of
harvesting is completely missing and the vocabulary of fruit-bearing seems rather to represent the
life of discipleship. The fruit consists in obedience to the word of the kingdom. Thus the mystery
turns out to be that God’s rule is established, not by conquest, but by speaking; and that a person
participates in God’s rule, not by joining an army, but by hearing the message in right ways.98

While Gundry certainly believes the Kingdom as described above is important, he sees the real significance
of this parable collection on parables again to relate to Jesus’ death on the cross. Following his statement to
his disciples that they have been given the secret, or mystery, of the Kingdom of God, Mark portrays Jesus
as stating that the reason he teaches in parables is so that those on the outside will not understand. Gundry
believes that this is a key point for Mark and his gospel. He believes that Mark includes these words of
Jesus to help explain his crucifixion as part of his plan. Gundry states in italics:
In part, then, his crucifixion will stem not from failure to achieve a goal of universal discipleship
but from the successful achievement of a goal to keep outsiders from conversion and
forgiveness.99

Gundry argues that as a result Mark is able to help explain the causes behind Jesus’ crucifixion as having
their origin not outside his person and beyond his control but rather as a direct result of his style of
teaching. In fact, Gundry believes that Mark portrays Jesus in such a way that he seems to teach in order
one day to be crucified. So, here again, we see Gundry relating the text of the gospel primarily to the death
of Jesus on the cross. All other themes, even the vastly predominant theme of the Kingdom of God in
chapter four, are relatively unimportant.
Gundry also offers a fairly unique interpretation of the end of Mark 3, a passage which most of the
rest of our scholars would regard as extremely important for the theme of the Kingdom of God as pitted
against the Kingdom of Satan. Gundry agrees with all of the previous scholars that part of Jesus’ ministry,
as portrayed by Mark, has to do with the exorcism of demons and that this passage emphasizes that fact.
However, whereas Mack and Pagels believe the conflict between Satan and Jesus is the primary theme of
the entire Gospel, Gundry again views it as subservient to the theme of Jesus’ power. Gundry argues that it
is clear that if Jesus is able to bind the strong man, his own strength is emphasized and magnified.
Gundry’s comments on chapter 9:1 are also helpful. Whereas Nineham argued that Jesus equated
the Kingdom’s “coming in power” with Jesus’ own return to earth at his second coming, Gundry offers a
different interpretation. He writes:
Since glory connotes power, the divine glory seen in the transfigured Jesus shows that on this
occasion some of those who heard the prediction in 9:1 now see God’s rule as having come in
power even before the Son of man’s coming in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (8:38).

98
Ibid., 206,207.
99
Ibid., 196.

46
 God’s rule has become visible in the transfigured Jesus, the glory of whose glistening garments
represents the power of that rule.100

Several points are worth noting from the above quotation. The first is how this interpretation of Jesus’
prediction and the transfiguration contribute to Gundry’s position of “realized eschatology,” i.e., that the
Kingdom is already present. Through the disciples’ experience of Jesus’ transfiguration, they are allowed to
see the present reality of the Kingdom. The second point is that here again we see Gundry relating the
theme of the Kingdom of God to Jesus’ power, once more in a subservient way. According to Gundry, the
glorious revelation of the Kingdom of God by means of Jesus’ transfiguration points primarily to Jesus’
power.
To conclude our comments on Gundry it is important to note what is most important for my own
position of the Kingdom of God in Mark. Somewhat surprisingly, Gundry’s significance for my own study
is that he does not believe the Kingdom to be the primary theme. Though my own position opposes this
view, Gundry’s work retains relevance to our study because of the unique interpretation he gives to the
Gospel. This overarching interpretation will be considered in our explication of the individual verses
below.
3. Robert Guelich and Craig Evans
The next authors we will examine are Robert Guelich and Craig Evans, co-authors of the Word
Biblical Commentary on Mark. Guelich writes on the first half of the Gospel and Evans the second. This
division will pose some obvious difficulties for our examination of their positions because neither author
was able to write on all of the relevant texts. However, we are still able to gain some insight into their
interpretations regarding the Kingdom of God.
Guelich’s discussion of the Kingdom of God focuses primarily on 1:14-15 and 4:1-34. In his
comments on 1:14-15, Guelich argues that neither a specifically present nor specifically future Kingdom is
implied. He states:
Rather than referring exclusively to the present aspect of the Kingdom or the future, the ηγγικεν
[“draw near”] of 1:15 maintains both the present but “hidden” fulfillment of the Kingdom in
Jesus’ ministry and the future consummation of the Kingdom in power. Thus the Kingdom of God
has “come into history,” the appointed time “has been fulfilled,” even though the full appearance
is yet to come.101

Guelich’s position is similar to that of Ambrozic which we examined above. Guelich argues that the
Kingdom is present in Jesus’ ministry but that it is present in a somewhat veiled form. Guelich relates much
of Jesus’ preaching, teaching, healing, and exorcising of demons in the first three chapters to the coming of
the Kingdom.
In his examination of the parables of chapter 4, Guelich argues that in them too the Kingdom is
portrayed by Mark not as a cataclysmic event but rather as a kind of growing, maturing entity. Guelich
argues that the Kingdom portrayed by Mark is a hidden Kingdom that has not yet been fully realized. It is

100
Ibid., 459.

47
present only in the ministry of Jesus and not in its full glory. However, as the parables indicate, such a full
revelation is coming. With regard to the parable of the sower Guelich states:
God’s eschatological activity, be it the more specifically defined “Kingdom of God” of Jesus’
preaching/teaching or the more general “ministry of Jesus,” like scattered seed, encounters
opposition and failure but also produces an abundant harvest…. This break with the common
Jewish expectation of God’s ultimate radical, irresistible and overpowering act of deliverance
and/or judgment coheres with Jesus’ parabolic claim elsewhere about the vulnerable nature of
God’s eschatological activity (see 4:26-29; 30-32).102

Guelich continues to see evidence for the hidden nature of the Kingdom in the final two parables
of chapter four. In the parable of the seed growing secretly Guelich argues for what he sees as a description
of the certainty of the Kingdom’s consummation though it is at present somewhat disguised. He believes
that this parable is intended to assure Mark’s readers of the inevitability of both growth and eschatological
harvest even if the signs of the Kingdom are not easily distinguishable at present.103
In similar fashion Guelich argues that the parable of the mustard seed is meant to bring
encouragement to Mark’s readers who were discouraged as a result of their seeming insignificance in the
world. Guelich believes that Jesus’ ministry was far more humble and unassuming than many had expected
and so an explanation was needed to decipher why Jesus’ ministry had veered so far from its intended path.
Guelich argues that this parable is meant to show that the end will be achieved though it is hard to discern
at present.
Guelich summarizes his thoughts on chapter four in the following quotation:
This is the message of the parables in Mark 4, namely, that the Kingdom is above all present. But
it is present in an unexpected manner and form. The Parable of the Seeds [=the Parable of the
Sower] depicts the Kingdom as present though unexpectedly vulnerable and resistible. The
parables of the Seed Growing Secretly and the Mustard Seed underscore the enigma of the
Kingdom’s unexpected presence in seed rather than mature form. Consequently, the Kingdom’s
presence can be overlooked. It appears as though it has come “under a bushel” or “hidden” from
public view. At the same time, the parables of 4:26-29 and 30-32 also indicate a future dimension
of the Kingdom much more in keeping with the expectation that God’s rule will be completely
revealed and supreme, a time when the “lamp” will be placed on a stand and what is now “hidden”
will be made public for all to see.104

Through these quotations we are able to see that though his methodology is somewhat different from that of
Ambrozic, Guelich’s interpretations of the Kingdom are very similar. Both believe Mark to be emphasizing
the veiled nature of the Kingdom for now, though both certainly construe Mark as eagerly anticipating the
final realization of the Kingdom of God at Jesus’ coming.
Guelich’s co-commentator for the Word Biblical Commentary is Craig Evans. Evans picks up his
examination of the Kingdom of God by commenting on Mark 9:1. With regard to this verse Evans notes

101
Robert Guelich, Mark 1:1-8:26, vol. 34a of The Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books,
1989), 44.
102
Ibid., 197.
103
Craig Evans Mark 8:27-16:20, vol. 34b of The Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 2001),
240ff.
104
Ibid., 232.

48
what he sees to be two possible interpretations. The first has to do with Jesus’ previous ministry as
demonstrated through his exorcisms. Evans states:
Jesus is thus strongly asserting that some of his followers will witness the power of God’s
kingdom. Jesus’ words may very well have been in reference to his exorcisms, as seen in their
close association with the kingdom in another saying “If it is by the finger of God that I cast out
demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20)105…. The powerful deeds of
his ministry provide the evidence of the reality of the Kingdom.106

The second possibility that Evans notes is that Mark understands Jesus’ prediction to be fulfilled in his
transfiguration, an event which Evans believes provides a window into the true power and presence of the
Kingdom in and through Jesus. Evans says:
For the evangelist, this event [=the Transfiguration] offers the most dramatic proof that the
kingdom had indeed come in the preaching and ministry of Jesus…. Did Jesus think the kingdom
of God would come in its fullness soon? This is indeed probable, as parts of the Mark 13 discourse
seem to indicate and, more to the point, as the reference to the coming of the “son of man” in his
glory in 8:38 seems to indicate. Elsewhere Jesus admits that he does not know the day or the hour.
(13:32). Probably he assumed that the day and hour were relatively near. Of course, when Mark
writes, that generation is nearing its end. Placing the prediction of 9:1 immediately before the
transfiguration narrative allows the latter to become, as Gundry (469) has described it, “a stopgap-
fulfillment to support Jesus’ prowess at prediction.”107

In addition to Evans’ understanding of the Transfiguration as the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction, it is

relevant to comment on Evans’ statement that Jesus likely did not know exactly when the Kingdom would
arrive or what its nature would be. This assumption becomes somewhat fundamental to his thought as we
proceed through. The exact implications of such a view are not immediately clear, though it is important to
note that Evans believes that Jesus certainly could have been wrong in his predictions concerning the
coming Kingdom.108
Clearly, Evans’ first option for the interpretation of this verse lends itself well to congruence with
the authors already listed above. Though few of them hold this position about this verse, Evans’ potential
interpretation could indeed strengthen the case to be made for the importance of the Kingdom of Satan for a
true understanding of the Kingdom of God.
In summary, Evans believes that the Transfiguration serves as a kind of assurance to the disciples
following Jesus’ passion prediction. That Jesus allows Peter, James, and John to behold the full extent of
his glory assure them that he will indeed be the agent whom God uses to bring his Kingdom to fruition.109

105
It is worthwhile to note at this point that Evans differs notably from some of our other authors in that he
consistently references other Biblical books as authoritative for interpretation of Mark. This is a technique
common to many evangelical scholars who allow scripture to be its own interpreter, i.e., where confusion
exists other scriptural documents written at a different time and place are able to offer a grid in which ideas
can be better grasped.
106
Ibid., 28,29.
107
Ibid., 29. See also p. 295 last paragraph.
108
For additional discussion of this idea, see Raymond Brown, An Introduction to New Testament
Christology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994) 44-59 and my discussion of D. H. Nineham above on p. 33 ff.
109
Ibid., 45.

49
 In a similar manner to many other commentators Evans believes that the chapters between the
Transfiguration and Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem in chapter eleven paint a picture of the requirements of life
in the Kingdom. In his comments on these sections, Evans notes that the requirements and characteristics of
the Kingdom are often in direct opposition to the secular world. In summary of his points Evans writes:
Paradoxically, the least powerful, least wealthy, least influential have a greater prospect of
entering the kingdom than do those who are most powerful, wealthy, and influential. The children
who approach Jesus exemplify the former. They not only exemplify who readily enter; they are
identified by Jesus as role models for others to follow. Whoever is to enter the kingdom must
receive as a child would—without calculation and without hedging.110

In a similar manner Evans posits that Mark portrays Jesus himself as the ultimate example of the “Kingdom
life.” He is the lowliest of servants, driven by obedience to his death on the cross. Again we quote Evans:
To be great in the kingdom of God will require a willingness to suffer and a willingness to serve,
and the prime example of one who is willing to serve and to suffer is the “son of man,” who “came
not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”111

In this way Evans indirectly relates all of Jesus’ passion to the Kingdom of God, thereby unifying the entire
book under one common theme.
In summary of Evans’ positions we note that Evans does not limit the Kingdom of God to either
the future or the present. However, it is safe to say that Evans believes the second half of the Gospel to be
focused on the future element of the Kingdom. Certainly Jesus’ ministry and preaching have demonstrated
the presence of the Kingdom but it is also certainly awaiting its ultimate fulfillment. Evans believes that the
key for understanding this future fulfillment comes from Daniel 7 where the son of man is given power,
authority, and a kingdom from God himself. Evans argues that Jesus’ Paraousia would be a fulfillment of
this prophecy and at the same time the consummation of the Kingdom. Though Jesus may not know the
exact details of this coming fulfillment, that the fulfillment will occur is guaranteed because of Jesus’ deeds
of power and his transfiguration.
4. Morna Hooker
The next work we will examine is Morna Hooker’s commentary, The Gospel According to Saint
Mark. While Hooker’s work is not a monograph on the subject of the Kingdom of God, she does believe
that the Kingdom is one of the central themes in Mark, and she is therefore worth examining. Like many of
the scholars we have examined Hooker believes that the Kingdom of God is intimately related to the
authority or rule of God. It is imperative to understand that Hooker understands the Kingdom of God not as
a community of obedience, an idea akin to that of Ritschl, or a spiritual realm where God himself rules,
similar to the ideas of Schweitzer, but as an authority under which people fall, either by choice or by force.
As we have seen above the debate surrounding the temporal placement of the Kingdom has been
extensive. Similar too much of recent scholarship, Hooker too judges that the Kingdom in Mark is a
Kingdom both present in part now and to be fulfilled in the future. She writes:

110
Ibid., 103.
111
Ibid., 121.

50
 As for Mark, it seems that he, too, believes that, though the final coming of the Kingdom lies in
the future (9.1), it has nevertheless drawn near in the person of Jesus himself. (1.15).112

Hooker believes that there are elements of the Kingdom directly present in the ministry of Jesus, both
through his teaching and his miraculous healings, which she believes to be intimately related. As Jesus
traveled around teaching and healing, Hooker deems that he was slowly expanding the rule of God. Again
we quote her words:
Significant, too, is the link between Jesus’ authoritative teaching and his power to heal, seen in the
way these two themes are woven together in 1.21-8. Mark has already told us in 1.14f. the theme
of Jesus’ teaching—it is the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Now we know that this
proclamation involves healing: in Jesus the power of God’s Kingdom is at work, destroying the
unclean spirits. Elsewhere, we discover that the inbreaking of the Kingdom in Jesus’ healing
miracles means more than mere physical healing: those who were excluded from the community
because of their infirmity are restored to membership of God’s people (1.44; 5.15, 34).113

Because Jesus’ words and deeds are slowly realigning the world under the rule of God, the Kingdom of
God is certainly present in at least a seminal form in his ministry and people are being confronted with the
choice to submit or reject the Kingdom Jesus is bringing. However, that Kingdom will not be ultimately
fulfilled until the Parousia when all people will be forced to submit to God’s judgment. At this point their
chance to repent and enter the Kingdom of God willingly is past. In fact, in her examination of the ever-
important parables of chapter 4, Hooker argues that Mark is communicating that the acceptance of Jesus’
teaching is the essential element for admittance into the Kingdom of God. She states:
For those who refuse to accept the challenge of the teaching of Jesus, his parables inevitably
remain nothing more than parables, and those who see and hear him are totally without
comprehension—and without the salvation he brings. But to those who respond, the meaning of
the parables is explained; to them, the secret of God’s Kingdom is given.114

Hooker believes that this challenge is found in Jesus’ method of teaching, i.e., parables. She believes that
Jesus’ parables confront their hearers with the choice to seek understanding or to forsake it and remain in
ignorance. In her comparison of those who are about Jesus and those who remain on the outside, Hooker
believes that Mark is in fact addressing his community of believers. She writes:
Mark is certainly right in picturing the disciples as representing those for whom—through their
response to Jesus—the parables had become meaningful, while for those outside the Christian
community, their significance was lost because their challenge was rejected.115

In summarizing her thoughts on Jesus’ teaching, as exemplified by the parables recorded in chapter 4 of
Mark, Hooker states:
In his teaching Jesus confronts men with an all-important decision which is a matter of life and
death.… Jesus confronts the reader as the one who brings salvation: to accept or reject his teaching
about the Kingdom is to accept or reject both the Kingdom itself and the one who brings it.116

112
Ibid., 57.
113
Ibid., 72.
114
Ibid., 126.
115
Ibid., 127.
116
Ibid., 120.

51
Clearly, Hooker believes that Jesus’ words and deeds expand God’s Kingdom bit by bit. Those who are
healed are brought back inside the fold of God’s reign where health and not sickness is the rule. Those who
hear Jesus’ words are given the choice to be a part of the ever-expanding Kingdom by accepting his
teaching and living their lives in obedience to it.
It is to this notion of choice that we now return. Hooker’s explanation of the Kingdom as
something acclaimed or imposed is an interesting formulation which deserves examination. As was stated
above, at the heart of such a conception is Hooker’s notion of the Kingdom as the rule, dominion, or
authority of God. It then follows that such a rule can be submitted to voluntarily, or if need be, can be
imposed upon even those who may oppose it. Hooker offers this paradigm in part to replace what has
tended to be the fundamental debate regarding the Kingdom of God in Mark, i.e., the temporal position of
the Kingdom. Hooker writes:
Perhaps a more important question than the one concerning present/future which so concerns
scholars is whether Jesus (and the evangelists [= authors of the Gospels]) were thinking primarily
of a rule which is accepted or of a rule which is imposed. Perhaps the answer—for both Jesus and
the evangelists—is ‘both’. But, in so far as there is a growing emphasis in the tradition [= of the
early church] on the judgement which will befall those who are excluded from the Kingdom, we
suggest that Jesus will have been closer to the ‘rule acclaimed’ end of the spectrum, and Matthew
to the ‘rule imposed’ end, with Mark somewhere in between.117

Here again, let us summarize Hooker’s position and how it is that she believes that the Kingdom of God
can be both acclaimed and imposed, and in turn, how it can be both present and yet to be fulfilled. Hooker
believes that the Kingdom may be accepted in the present by choosing to align one’s life on the basis of the
teachings of Jesus or perhaps by responding to him in faith. Indeed, Hooker believes that a large part of
Jesus’ ministry is an attempt to get people to accept the Kingdom which he is proclaiming as having drawn
near. However, this is not the only means by which the Kingdom is realized. While Jesus’ ministry of
offering entry lasted for a while, ultimately the Kingdom of God will be imposed upon all people at the
second coming of Jesus. The Kingdom can be entered right now through the choice to submit to the
teachings and deeds of Jesus, but at the time of Jesus’ return God will impose his rule on the inhabitants of
the earth, thereby exercising judgment. Those who accept God’s rule before his return will enter fully into
it, and those who reject his rule will face condemnation.
The final idea which is of significance to Hooker’s conception of the Kingdom of God is that of
Jesus’ role. Of course, she believes Jesus serves as the harbinger and bearer of the Kingdom, but in
addition, she adds an element of modeling present in Jesus’ life. She argues that Jesus lives his life in
perfect obedience to God’s will and thereby serves as an archetype for his followers. Hooker says:
According to the prologue [1:1-15], Jesus is the one with whom God is well pleased, the Son who
is obedient to God’s will, who has been given the Spirit of God and who has done battle with
Satan: in a sense, then, Jesus is the very embodiment of the Kingdom. Thus, although Jesus speaks
of the Kingdom, and not of himself, his words are nevertheless an indirect testimony to himself; it
is because he himself lives in obedience to God’s rule that he can announce the dawning of God’s
Kingdom and demonstrate its power in miracles.118

117
Ibid., 58.
118
Ibid., 57.

52
This conception of Jesus’ role fits quite well with Hooker’s beliefs about the reality of the Kingdom. If
Jesus is indeed one who is living in perfect obedience to the divine will, then the Kingdom of God is fully
present in his life, and his very person becomes a model of the existence of God’s perfected rule over the
individual.
To summarize Hooker’s theory of the Kingdom of God in Mark, we quote her at length one final
time:
If God’s rule involves obedience to his will, as it surely does, is there not a sense in which one can
enter it here and now, even though it will not be established universally until some future date?
And since Jesus’ challenge to Israel demands that individuals repent and believe, does this not
necessarily involve opting to obey the will of God here and now—i.e., accepting his rule over
one’s life? Perhaps we can learn from the Old Testament’s juxtaposition of the assertion that God
already rules with the conviction that he will rule. How that rule will finally be established we do
not know; but the evangelists are confident that we see something of it embodied already in the
person of Jesus, who is obedient to God and who confronts men and women with the challenge to
share his obedience.119

5. William Lane
The final work we will survey is that of William Lane in his volume on the Gospel of Mark for
The New International Commentaries on the New Testament. Lane understands the Kingdom in a way that
is noticeably similar to Guelich and Evans. In short, Lane believes that the Kingdom is understood in the
present (of Mark’s Gospel) through Jesus’ person and ministry. According to Lane’s argumentation the
Kingdom of God is not a temporal realm or a strictly eschatological reality; rather, he believes it is best
characterized by Jesus himself as the inbreaking activity of God. He states:
Jesus then proclaims that the kingdom has drawn near, and while his proclamation is veiled, Mark
clearly understands that it is Jesus’ own appearance which is the decisive event in the redemptive
plan of God. The coming of the kingdom remains future, but it is certain precisely because God
has begun to bring it to pass in the coming of his Son. The announcement that the consummation
is at hand affirms that the decisive events in its approach are under way…. The kingdom has
drawn near, spatially in the person of Jesus who embodied the kingdom in a veiled way, and
temporally because it is the only event which takes place prior to the end.120

Lane is arguing above that the Kingdom is brought near through the person of Jesus and that his actions are
in fact the inbreaking events of God’s full redemptive plan. It is because of this view of the Kingdom of
God that Lane is able to argue that it is the unifying theme of the Gospel. Because Lane’s opinion of the
Kingdom of God encompasses Jesus’ person and his ministry, it is in fact present in everything that Jesus
says and does.
Lane’s next major discussion of the Kingdom of God takes place in his comments on the parables
of chapter four. Lane argues that the parable of the sower is representative of the Kingdom of God in that
both the seeds of the parable and the Kingdom of God in Jesus’ ministry are “breaking in.” Lane also notes
the action of the sower as compared to the action of God. Fundamental to Lane’s understanding of the
Kingdom of God is the notion that it is God’s definitive action. Lane believes that the parable of the sower

119
Ibid., 58.

53
also highlights God’s action as he is represented through the sowing and harvesting of the character of the
sower. Because the sower acts both in the sowing of the seed and at the harvesting121 of its fruits, Lane
concludes that the proper understanding of the Kingdom of God must be both present and future.122
In relation to the enigmatic statement of 4:10-11, Lane argues that the secret of the Kingdom of
God which has been given to the disciples is Jesus himself and, as he contended before, Jesus’ presence
brings both grace to those who accept his message and judgment to those who do not. Those who hear and
receive Jesus’ message are given grace and those who respond with hard hearts are confronted with
judgment. In summary of his thoughts on the parable of the sower Lane states:
The eschatological coming of God into the world goes the way of seed which is sown. In the
appropriate time there will come the harvest, the consummation. Whoever knows this understands
that salvation has come with Jesus; he also knows that, in spite of his veiledness and the
opposition encountered, the harvest is prepared by the sovereign word and act of God in Jesus the
Christ. The interpretation, like the parable, thus stresses the comprehensive character of the
Kingdom as both present in an incipient way in the person and mission of Jesus and future with a
glory yet undisclosed.123

Lane interprets the other parables of chapter 4 in a similar manner, i.e., as pointing towards the
current hiddenness and future consummation of the Kingdom. Lane argues that the proper understanding of
the Kingdom of God is as a both/and reality.
Lane’s interpretation of Mark 9:1 is almost exactly the same as Gundry’s minus Gundry’s focus
on the power of Jesus. Lane too believes that Jesus’ prediction is fulfilled almost directly by Jesus’
transfiguration.
Lane contends that the references to the Kingdom in Jesus’ passion focus almost entirely on its
future element. He argues in relation to Jesus’ final meal with his disciples that when Jesus proclaims that
he will not drink of the fruit of the vine until he drinks it anew in the Kingdom of God he is saying:
The cup of redemption, strengthened by the vow of abstinence, constitutes the solemn pledge that
the fourth cup will be extended and the unfinished meal completed in the consummation, when
Messiah eats with redeemed sinners in the Kingdom of God.124

Lane argues that this reference, in addition to the several predictions of the Son of Man’s return on
the clouds of heaven, paint a fuller picture of the future eschatological fulfillment of the Kingdom that is
present in Jesus’ person.
With regard to the timing of these events Lane also makes an important case. In the Olivet
discourse recorded in chapter 13 Jesus is portrayed as saying in verse 30 that the present generation would
not pass away until “all these things” had happened. In 13:32 Jesus says that not even he knows the time of

120
Lane, 65.
121
It should be noted that “the harvest” is understood to be an eschatological form of speech. Often, God’s
final action in history is compared to the harvesting of a field.
122
Ibid., 154.
123
Ibid., 163.
124
Ibid., 509.

54
his second coming but only the Father in heaven. Lane believes that it is important to draw a distinction
between the events described in these two verses. He states:
In order to understand the relationship of this affirmation to the assurance given in verse 30 that
the events preliminary to the destruction of the Temple will occur within the experience of that
generation, it is necessary to give full force to the adversative particle in verse 32: “I say to you
solemnly, this generation shall not pass away… As for that day and that hour, on the contrary, no
one knows…” While the parable of the fig tree illustrates the possibility of observing the first
event, another comparison is developed in connection with verse 32 which underscores the
impossibility of knowing the moment of the Lord’s return. Verses 30 and 32 concern two distinct
events (the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the Day of the Lord, respectively).125

As a result of this line of argument Lane does not argue that the Jesus portrayed in Mark expected
his own immediate return. Rather, Lane believes that Jesus was assured that he was returning but did not
profess to know when. It is worth noting that by taking this position, Lane is disagreeing with many of the
scholars we have already surveyed.
In summary of Lane’s position we note that he believes that the Kingdom has both a present and a
future dimension. In the present the Kingdom is represented by Jesus’ ministry and his person; the
Kingdom of God advances as Jesus teaches, heals, and exorcises demons. The Kingdom will be present in
full in the coming return of the Son of Man, though not even Jesus himself knew the specific time of his
return. Lane believes that the Kingdom, as present in Jesus’ life and ministry, was a new inbreaking of the
redemptive work of God, in fact the final action remaining to precede his final act of redemption. The
Kingdom drew near in the person of Jesus in veiled form and is awaiting its unveiled revelation at Jesus’
second coming.
6. Summary of Evangelical Commentators
In conclusion to our survey of modern scholarship several points emerge as virtually unanimous
among all the scholars we have surveyed, regardless of their methodological differences. First, all the
scholars note that Mark conceived of the Kingdom as both a present and future reality. In addition, all
scholars assign at least some importance for the Kingdom to Jesus’ ministry, whether that be his preaching,
healings, or especially his exorcisms. Almost all of our scholars also note that Mark portrayed the Kingdom
as somewhat veiled in its present existence in comparison to its coming glory. It is my hope that my thesis
is in agreement with these overarching positions, in addition to serving as an extension and clarification of
the previous scholars’ points. However, before I turn to my thesis specifically, it is first important to offer
what I believe to be fundamental criticisms of the scholarly positions I have explicated above. It is to this
evaluation that we now turn.

VI. Evaluation of Representative Scholarship

A. Introduction
Let us now turn to the task of evaluating the Markan-specific scholarship we have just finished
surveying. For the purposes of this section I will address the authors in a somewhat different order than in

125
Ibid., 482.

55
my previous survey. Because the position put forth by Gundry that the Kingdom of God is in fact not the
central theme of the Gospel is the most potentially damaging to my case, I will address his contentions first.
Following my initial evaluation of Gundry I will turn to those scholars that do agree with my general
position, i.e., that the Kingdom of God is the central theme of the Gospel.
B. Robert Gundry- Is the Kingdom of God the Central Theme of the Gospel?
In order to refresh, the position of Gundry is as follows: the Gospel of Mark was a document of
apology written in order to serve as an explanation in the wake of the shame of the cross. Christianity’s
founder had been crucified, and the Gospel of Mark was an attempt to explain away the apparent scandal of
such a death. Gundry believes the Gospel did this by means of its emphasis on Jesus’ power. Using
different portions of the Gospel text, Gundry repeatedly highlights what he believes to be Mark’s
persuasion to emphasize Jesus’ divine power in order to overcome the powerlessness of the cross. Gundry
argues that the Kingdom of God and all other themes in the Gospel are substantially less significant when
compared to this primary interpretive lens.
My first reply to this position is to cite the vast majority of scholarship that agrees that the
Kingdom is the central theme of the Gospel. Of the representative writers we have surveyed, no other
scholar attempts to make as much out of Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ power and authority as does Gundry.
While it is certainly true that other scholars have argued for different unifying themes than the Kingdom of
God in the Gospel of Mark, it is also safe to say that no one has allowed the Kingdom to be as dramatically
overshadowed as has Gundry. Of course, this could mean nothing but that the majority of scholarship has
been wrong; nevertheless, Gundry’s position is certainly in distinct contrast to the themes present in both
traditional and more modern scholarship.
My second argument against the thesis of Gundry is that it seems to necessitate rather atypical
interpretations of specific passages. A specific example will help. The text of Mark 8:13-21 reads as
follows:
Leaving them [=the Pharisees], [Jesus] again embarked and went away to the other side.
And they [=the disciples] had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one loaf in the
boat with them. And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the leaven of
the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
They began to discuss with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware
of this, said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or
understand? Do you have a hardened heart? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you
not hear? And do you not remember, when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how
many baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?”
They said to Him, “Twelve.”
When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken
pieces did you pick up?”
And they said to Him, “Seven.”
And He was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

In his interpretation of these verses, Gundry follows an idiosyncratic pattern and argues that the main point
of the section is Jesus’ power and not the misunderstanding of the disciples. He states:
What stands out is Mark’s leaving these [=different potential interpretations for the “leaven of the
Pharisees and Herod] possibilities unclear and omitting an interpretation of the two kinds of

56
 leaven that Jesus warns against. The unclarity and omission show what little concern Mark has for
the derivation and character of the disciples’ dullness and for the meaning of Jesus’ warning.
Mark’s emphasis falls instead on Jesus’ miraculous power. This third reference to the lack of
bread the first two references occurred in the editorial introduction of v 14) again highlights the
need which provides a foil for Jesus’ coming reminders of his twice-proved power to supply more
than enough bread. [Gundry is here making reference to the feedings of the 5,000 and 4,000.]126
(Italics mine.)

While Gundry’s reading is possible it seems to be at best somewhat of a reach. The major thrust of the
passage is one of accusation by Jesus against the disciples. The passage begins with a stern warning to the
disciples of the danger lurking for them if they continue their present way of being, climaxes as Jesus
accuses them of having hard hearts, and is riddled throughout by question upon question concerning the
disciples’ misunderstanding. To say that this passage was not intended by the author to focus on the
misunderstanding of the disciples seems to me to be a far-fetched contention. Another example of an
unusual interpretation is seen in Gundry’s interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed (4:30-32). He
writes:
The large size of the grown mustard seed and its branches corresponds to and expands on the large
yields of the good soil in the parable of the seeds [=the parable of the sower]…. The large size [of
the mustard plant], like the large yields [of the good soil in the parable of the sower], does not
stand in Mark’s text for the future magnitude of God’s rule; nor does it stand for the magnitude of
the mixed church as the present locale of God’s rule. Rather, it stands for the magnitude of God’s
rule in the disciples during the time of Jesus, a magnitude that derives from Jesus’ powerful
teaching and counteracts the scandal of his coming crucifixion.127

Clearly, Gundry’s interpretation concerning the disciples goes dramatically against the current of the
majority of scholarship, for most all scholars have noted the absolute failure of the disciples in the Gospel
of Mark. It seems that Gundry’s interpretations of some passages seem to stem from a need to read his
thesis into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.
With regard to the ever-important chapter four, Gundry again believes that Mark is emphasizing
Jesus’ power above all else. In Mark 4:10-12 Jesus is presented as saying that he teaches in parables so that
people will be confused. Gundry believes that Mark includes this so as to explain Jesus’ crucifixion as a
result of his own prerogative. That is, Jesus’ crucifixion occurs as a result of the misunderstanding of Jesus’
audience. However, as Gundry argues, this is not a result of Jesus’ failure but rather his intended purpose.
Gundry argues that Mark was advocating a position that Jesus taught in such a way as to get himself
crucified.
In response to this argument I would point to only a few verses later in the chapter (4:21-22)
which state:
And he was saying to them, “A lamp is not brought to be put under a basket, is it, or under a bed?
Is it not brought to be put on the lampstand? For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has
anything been secret, but that it would come to light.

126
Gundry, 408.
127
Gundry, 230.

57
It would certainly seem that these verses are in opposition to Jesus’ words recorded in vv. 10-12. However,
if we were to interpret the two passages in light of each other it would seem possible to argue that Jesus’
parables were intended to confuse so that he may reveal them to those who desired to know, then there
would be no need to concoct a theory concerning Jesus’ death starting from his method of teaching.128
Perhaps my two biggest problems with Gundry’s argumentation focus on two elements of Mark’s
Gospel, namely, the disciples, and Jesus’ teachings on service. With regard to the disciples, Gundry must
be very careful to describe them in such a way as to allow for Jesus’ success. If the Gospel of Mark is in
fact an apology for the cross and its shame, it would seem logical that its author would include only
testimonies which enhanced Jesus’ power and ability (a version of Gundry’s point). However, all of Jesus’
disciples are presented as failing rather dramatically at one time or another in the Markan text. Gundry
counters this point in two major ways. First, he believes that Mark includes the disciples’ failure so as to
demonstrate, yet again, Jesus’ predictive power. Because Jesus is able to predict the disciples’ fall at the
Last Supper, he is to be seen as having been crucified not in shame but in glory. In a similar way to the
passage concerning the disciples above, this explanation seems to be strained at best. Why would Mark
need more examples of Jesus’ predictive power when at multiple points throughout the second half of the
Gospel, Jesus’ predictions are presented as being fulfilled.129 The second way in which Gundry is able to
argue his case is by postulating that the ending of the Gospel which we possess today was not the intended
ending, and that the final page of the ancient manuscript was somehow lost. While this theory cannot be
rejected, it seems to be yet another example which demonstrates how Gundry’s thesis necessitates a
number of strained judgments to demonstrate its validity.
My final point of disagreement with Gundry concerns one of his final statements. He states in
conclusion:
An apologetic purpose with regard to the Cross provides a comprehensive explanation of all
elements [of the Gospel] and, more especially, of the ways in which those elements are presented.
Fitting together to form an apology for the Cross are not only the authority and radicalism of
Jesus’ teaching but also the fulfillment of his predictions, not only his power-packed miracles and
exorcisms but also the supernatural manner and accompaniments of his death, not only his
attraction of crowds but also his burial by a pious and brave member of the Sanhedrin, not only his
baptismal approval by the Father and enduement with the Spirit but also his resurrection. Mark’s
taking for granted little if any knowledge of Jesus favors that Mark writes apologetically not to
keep Christians from apostatizing out of shame for the Cross but to convert non-Christians despite
the shame of the Cross. So this gospel is for people who are afraid to believe in a world that
despises weakness and esteems power. The Jesus of Mark is overpowering. Let the weak find in
him their champion, the strong their conqueror.130 (Italics mine.)

To say that the Markan Jesus is overpowering may be true to a certain extent, but it also seems necessary
that we bear in mind proclamations of Jesus which seem to refer to his primary goal as service and his
primary attitude as humility. Over and over again, especially in the second half of the Gospel, the Markan

128
This contention will be laid out in much more detail below in the section in which I explicate my thesis.
129
Jesus’ three death predictions and his predictions prior to his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the last
supper are exceptionally detailed.
130
Ibid., 1026.

58
Jesus attempts to teach those around him that true greatness is not found in power but in service, a point
which Gundry notes. When his disciples are interested in power and prestige at the end of chapter 9, Jesus
takes the opportunity to teach them on what it really means to be first and promptly pays honor to a child in
his midst. Yes, indeed, Jesus is presented as powerful in the Gospel; no one would argue a case contrary to
that. However, I believe that it is not accurate to argue that the Markan Jesus’ power is the true emphasis of
the Gospel. Rather, it seems more appropriate to interpret Mark’s extensive references to Jesus’ power as
foils against which his humility and service stand out. Because Jesus is the anointed one of God, his service
to the downtrodden is even more extraordinary. Jesus’ power is not the sole end of the Gospel; it is his
service in the light of his power that Mark emphasizes.
While I disagree with his primary assertion, I do think the majority of Gundry’s case is helpful.
Certainly a focus of the Gospel is on Jesus’ power. Repeatedly Jesus’ authority to teach, heal, and exorcise
demons amazes the crowd around him. However, I believe that an interpretation like Gundry’s is simply
not broad enough for it does not include the Kingdom of God as the central theme and thus necessitates
somewhat obscure interpretations. As other scholars before me have argued, and as I hope to show below, I
believe that only the theme of the Kingdom of God in its multi-faceted importance can be understood as
truly central to all of the ministry of Jesus as it is recorded in the Gospel of Mark.
C. Werner Kelber- Historical Criticism
The next position which I will evaluate is that of Werner Kelber, who argues from a historical-
critical perspective that the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark is inextricably linked to the region of
Galilee. Kelber argues that the whole of Mark’s Gospel is a document aimed at propagating the community
of believers of which Mark was a part, i.e., the Christian community of Galilee following the destruction of
the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70. Because the Temple had just been destroyed the Christian community of the
time was in need of a theological interpretation to make sense of their historical context. What they had
believed was the center of their religion, i.e., Jerusalem, had fallen to the Roman government, and they
were reeling. According to Kelber, the Gospel of Mark was the answer put forth by a Galilean Christian
which emphasized Jesus’ promises to establish his Kingdom in Galilee and not in Jerusalem. This Kingdom
would be made up of many different kinds of people: both Jew and Gentile, slave and free. Kelber argues
that Mark expected Jesus’ immanent return, at which he would ultimately establish the Kingdom in Galilee.
In response to Kelber’s argumentation, I have several points which I would like to offer. The first
has to do with the potential location in which the Gospel was written. While it is true that Galilee is the
center of the action in the first half of the document, it is also certainly true that there are times in the
Gospel when the author appears to have but a vague notion of the Galilean geography. One such example is
found in chapter 7:31 where the text states “again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through
Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of the Decapolis.” Such a description seems to make little
sense if the author was from the very region he or she was describing. The geography of Galilee is such that
Tyre and Sidon sit on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, with Sidon being some 20 miles north of its sister
city. The Sea of Galilee is approximately 40 miles southeast of Tyre, and the Decapolis is generally used to

59
refer to the Gentile region southeast of the Lake. If Mark’s directions are correct, this then means that Jesus
started about 50-60 miles from his destination, but chose to move first 25 miles in the wrong direction
before turning to make his way southeast, thereby increasing the total length of his journey from 60 miles
to over 100! This reality seems to clash quite distinctly with the notion of Galilean authorship.131 In fact, as
we mentioned above, most all scholars note the relative unfamiliarity of the author of Mark with the
specific geography of the area of Galilee.132
The second point which can be raised against Kelber’s case is that it is far from a foregone
conclusion that the gospel was written after A.D. 70. In fact, as I mentioned above, numerous scholars
actually date the writing of the Gospel before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, some as early as
A.D. 64.133 Because Kelber’s argumentation is so closely aligned with the specific location of Galilee and
the semi-exclusive date of post A.D. 70, an argument which casts doubt on either of those two positions
rocks Kelber’s thesis to the very core. I believe that it is not far-fetched to say that the fundamental
assertions of Kelber’s work are far from cut-and-dry and with regard to the location of the authorship, it
even seems that Kelber’s thesis is based on potentially circumstantial evidence, i.e., that the majority of the
storyline takes place in the Galilean region.
Several other contentions may be offered against Kelber’s thesis based on the thirteen passages in
the Gospel text which specifically mention the Kingdom of God. Of those thirteen, one passage explicitly
links the Kingdom of God to Galilee, and that is 1:14-15, where it says that Jesus “came into Galilee
preaching” about the Kingdom of God. Nowhere else in the whole of the Gospel is Galilee used in the same
area as is the Kingdom of God. In fact, the final three references to the Kingdom all take place in Jerusalem
and could be used to argue the opposite case that Kelber is making. In addition, of the fourteen passages
which mention the Kingdom, nine are located in chapters 4, 9, and 10, and five are located in the span of 30
verses at the end of chapter 9 through the beginning of chapter 10. Unlike my thesis which will be
explained below, Kelber mentions the references to the Kingdom found in these verses for little more than
a paragraph134 and does not relate them in any significant way to his thesis concerning Galilee. Kelber’s
failure to address at length the major section of Kingdom material seems to pose a serious threat to the
validity of his thesis. It is certainly true that a good theory of the Kingdom should incorporate as many of
the references to the Kingdom as possible.
Yet another critique of Kelber’s thesis has to do with his treatment of the disciples. As a result of
his thesis, Kelber wishes to show that the disciples, whom he sees as representatives of the Jerusalem
church, exit the scene as utter failures having exemplified how not to follow Jesus. I do not believe that this
proposed polemic against the disciples is as strong as it might first appear. It is certainly true that after their

131
Kelber does address this passage on p. 60 of his Kingdom. However, Kelber seems to dodge the issue b
y de-emphasizing Mark’s sequential account of the journey in favor of a broader interpretation, i.e., that
Mark was defining the boundaries of the “new Galilee” which includes both Jewish and Gentile land.
132
For further discussion of the issues surrounding where the Gospel was written, see my discussion in my
Introduction above. p. 9 ff.
133
Again, see my introduction above p. 10 ff.
134
Kelber comments on the verses at the bottom of page 88 and for one sentence on page 91.

60
initial interactions with Jesus the disciples are rather dense and uncomprehending and that in the text all of
them end in failure. However, I would point out that of the thirteen uses in the Gospel, five are received by
an audience made of virtually the disciples alone. They are the ones who receive the “mystery of the
Kingdom” (along with “those about Him”) in 4:11, and time and again they are those who seem to be the
intended audience of Jesus’ Kingdom statements.
My final point of disagreement with Kelber concerns his lack of treatment of Jesus’ death. As the
thesis of Gundry emphasizes, Mark’s Gospel is one in which the amount of material devoted to the death of
Jesus is significant. As early as chapter three Jesus’ death is foreshadowed, and it seems clear that it is a
major focus of the Gospel from chapter 8 forward. Would not then a theory which is intended to
incorporate the whole of the Gospel make some sense of Jesus’ death? Yet Kelber fails to explain the
significance of Jesus’ death, instead emphasizing only that Jesus’ messiahship was one of suffering. This is
but a statement of the obvious from the Gospel, not a true explanation as to the importance of the death for
Mark’s theology.
In sum, though Kelber’s thesis does have some evidence on its side, I believe it yet again to fail to
explain ultimately the relevance of the Kingdom of God in Mark because of its overly narrow
interpretation.
D. Mary Ann Tolbert- Literary Criticism
The next position which I will evaluate is that of Mary Ann Tolbert, who writes from a literary-
critical perspective. Tolbert argues that two parables, the parable of the sower in chapter four and the
parable of the vineyard in chapter twelve, serve as the interpretive keys for the Gospel’s meaning and its
relevance to the Kingdom of God. Tolbert argues that the Kingdom of God is basically the “good earth” of
the parable of the soils. Jesus’ word does not create or cause the Kingdom to grow, but rather reveals it in
the hearts of those individuals who respond to Jesus with faith. While I must admit that Tolbert’s literary
analysis is compelling at points, I do not believe that her conception of what the Kingdom of God is in the
Gospel of Mark follows from an accurate reading of the text.
As has been noted by Donald Juel, Tolbert’s interpretation would seem to be rather fatalistic in
nature. He writes:
One might well ask how Tolbert can assert that Jesus’ parables “do not force people outside or
pull people inside,” when his words suggest that is precisely their function. She legitimately turns
to the rest of the Gospel for a deeper understanding of the harsh words, but it is unclear what she
finds. On the one hand, her interpretation seems far more fatalistic than Jesus’: One is simply one
kind of soil or another, and Jesus only reveals what one is…. This fatalism makes it a bit difficult
… to understand her repeated use of imperatives later in the book. She suggests that the rhetorical
effect of the Gospel is to create a perfect disciple.135

The importance of Juel’s contention can be seen in several ways. First, if Tolbert is right, and Jesus does
nothing more than reveal that which was already present, it would seem that the importance of Jesus’ life in
the Gospel of Mark is seriously diminished. In addition, because of her genre of criticism, Tolbert argues
that Mark wrote for a specific purpose with his audience. Tolbert argues that this purpose is in fact to create

61
the perfect disciple, i.e., one who will respond to Jesus’ words with faith. However, as Juel later points out,
if the picture of the Kingdom is a fatalistic one, which it certainly appears to be under Tolbert’s theory, it
seems that the audience would be moved away from action. If personal choices do not matter action is
superfluous, both for Mark and his audience.
Tolbert’s theory also encounters problems before it is taken to its fatalistic end. In the parable of
the sower, which she renames the parable of the “four soils” because of her emphasis on the receptivity of
the soil, only one soil is deemed successful. The only characteristic which differentiates it from the others is
its fruit bearing. The first of the three “bad soils” is too hard to accept the seed and as a result nothing
grows. Tolbert argues that Mark understood this soil to be representative of the Pharisees. The second
classification, which Tolbert argues is meant to represent the disciples, grows quickly but is prevented from
bearing fruit because of its lack of root. The third and final faulty soil is apparently similar to the good soil,
except for the weeds which prevent not its growth but its fruit bearing; Tolbert likens this group to the rich
and powerful of the Gospel. Only the ability to bear fruit differentiates the good soil from the bad. If we
then carry these categories of characters over into the story we begin to see problems with Tolbert’s
stringent classifications. Of the two major characters who she believes represent the weedy soil, namely,
Herod and the rich ruler, neither is depicted in such a way as to demonstrate growth, which the weedy soil
does produce. The character of the rich man is present for only one pericope, a description which would
seem to match more closely the “rocky soil” which Tolbert assigns only to the disciples. Likewise, this
assignment also has major problems. In the parable the rocky soil produces no fruit and is depicted as
falling away immediately when the sun (persecution) arises. Yet the disciples’ presence spans the longest
time of any characters’ in the Gospel, from the first chapter until the end of chapter fourteen, hardly a quick
exit. This span of the Gospel is also certainly not without persecution, for time and again the Jewish
authorities are presented as arguing against Jesus. Mark’s story is one that shows the disciples’ break with
the traditional molds of Judaism in favor of following Jesus and the subsequent conflict which arises as a
result. In addition, one would be hard pressed to argue that the disciple’s lives produce no fruit when
Peter’s request leads to the healing of his mother-in-law in chapter one and they are sent on an extensive
preaching mission during which they cast out multiple demons, heal many people, and preach the word of
the Kingdom, which one will note is rather similar to the course of action Jesus himself undertakes. While
it is certainly true that the disciples do not end their stint in the Gospel as the heroes of the story, as I
explained above in my evaluation of Kelber, it is not altogether unreasonable to argue that Mark was
knowledgeable that his audience would know the ultimate outcome of the disciples as the founders of the
early church.
Other passages also present major problems to Tolbert’s thesis. If indeed the Kingdom of God is
“good earth” as she has presented, how are we to understand Jesus’ recorded proclamation in 1:14, 15
where he says the Kingdom has drawn near? Over and over again Tolbert emphasizes that the Kingdom is
something that is revealed as already existing and yet multiple references to the Kingdom in the Gospel

135
Donald Juel, A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 53.

62
speak of it as something to be “entered”; these instances among others seem to testify strongly against
Tolbert’s interpretation.
Like Kelber before her, Tolbert also fails to assign any serious significance to Jesus’ embracing of
the cross. She notes that Jesus’ death is the final action which will move the owner of the vineyard, i.e.,
God to action, but fails to make much out of Jesus’ willingness and desire to go to the cross. Again, given
the Markan emphasis on this, it seems that Tolbert’s theory does not account for the whole of the text.
The final contention I will mention has to do with the other parables of chapter four, which by the
way, are explicitly about the Kingdom, a feature that the parable of the sower cannot boast. In these
parables, Tolbert seeks to argue that the emphasis is not on the plant or the growth present in the parable
but rather on the soil which produced the growth. Such an interpretation seems rather far-fetched given the
emphasis the passage places on not on the ground but on the process of growth and the results that growth
produces. The ground appears to be only in the background, certainly not the main focus.
E. Summary of Evaluation136
Now that we have finished our second look at many of scholarship’s theses concerning the
Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark some summarizing remarks are in order. My fundamental criticism
of the representative positions surveyed is that they do not incorporate the whole of the Gospel text as
centrally as it needs to be. It has seemed from my evaluation that often rather obscure references or perhaps
minor repetitions are readily used to formulate major interpretive lenses. In my opinion this has led to
findings and theses that are far too narrow to incorporate properly all of the relevant material. Many of the
theses I have presented in this section do not make sense of all of the references of the Kingdom in a
reasonable way, or do not really comment on key references’ importance for the understanding of the
Kingdom. Scholarship’s failure to deal with these verses thoroughly has led to what I believe to be
misguided interpretations of the Kingdom of God.
In addition, the authors which hold that the Kingdom is the most important theme of the Gospel
generally do not link the Kingdom in any significant way to the death of Jesus. The scholars we have
surveyed seem to shy away from the importance of Jesus’ death, assigning it only secondary importance, or
treating it as just another event of the Markan story. However, this is not consistent with the text of Mark
which again and again highlights Jesus’ active role in pursuing the fate that awaited him in Jerusalem. In
order for a theory of the Kingdom to incorporate truly the whole of the Gospel, it must involve Jesus’ death
in a meaningful way.
It is into this melting pot of ideas and theses which I present my own theological interpretation. As
has already been noted, my methodology is somewhat different from many of the authors we have
surveyed, but I believe that my thesis offers a better and more complete interpretation of the Kingdom in
Mark as a whole than the positions we have examined up to this point.

136
The reader will note that I have excluded an evaluation of the thesis offered by Pagels, Mack, and
Nineham. I address their thesis below in my excursus entitled “Jesus: Preacher or Exorcist/Miracle
Worker?” under part VII. p. 74.

63
VII. An Explication of My Thesis in the Light of the Passages Relevant to the Kingdom of God in
Mark

A. Introduction

With this scholarly spectrum now firmly in place I am able to offer my position in the light of
those scholars who have preceded me. It is my hope that this thesis is a new synthesis, pulling together
what I believe to be the proper interpretations of the text from a variety of scholarly sources, but forming
them into a fresh cohesive thesis. As I have noted before the phrase βασιλεια του θεου appears thirteen
times in the Gospel texts appearing for the first time in the fourteenth verse of the first chapter and for the
final time just twelve verses before the Gospel as we have it today ends. This thesis is an attempt to
incorporate these verses, in addition to other verses scattered throughout the Gospel which I believe shed
light on what the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark is. My format will follow closely the points of my
thesis, outlined as follows.
B. A Restatement of My Thesis
Before I turn to my thesis it is proper to restate some of my fundamental assertions concerning the
Kingdom of God. As I have said before I believe the Kingdom to be intimately related to the authority and
will of God as it is exercised in the lives of people. I do not believe Mark understood the Kingdom to be a
physical realm but rather a kind of spiritual realm over which God exercises his rule. Thus when I speak of
the boundaries of the Kingdom expanding or someone “entering” the Kingdom, I am by no means
intending to assert that the Kingdom is geographical in nature. Rather, I am implying the growth of God’s
Kingdom through the lives of individuals. When a paralytic is healed, the realm over which God exercises
his rule, i.e., his Kingdom, expands. When a demon is exorcised, God brings his will to bear on one’s life,
expanding the boundaries of the Kingdom.
My thesis details what I believe to be the four categories of Kingdom expansion which Mark
portrayed in his Gospel. The first of these categories concerns Jesus’ interactions with the supernatural
powers of evil in the Gospel. Though he is never presented as initiating an exchange with either Satan or
one of his demons in the Gospel text, Mark does present Jesus as acting authoritatively against these
powers. It my contention that Mark understood the Kingdom to have been advanced through these
interactions.
The second category of Kingdom expansion concerns Jesus’ healing ministry. Like above,
nowhere is Jesus presented as seeking out people to heal; however, he is portrayed as responding to
numerous requests for healing. It is my position that Mark also understood the Kingdom to be advanced
through these exchanges.
The third classification of Kingdom development in the Gospel of Mark is in relation to Jesus’
teaching. It is my belief that the Markan Jesus is one whose emphasis lies squarely on his teaching
ministry. When Jesus’ hearers respond to his word with obedience and faith, the Kingdom is presented as
expanding.

64
 Concerning elements two and three above, it is my belief that Mark understood the Kingdom as
inextricably linked to an attitude of the heart. As I have said above it is only when other characters
approach Jesus with requests for healing and when they respond to his word properly that the Kingdom
advances. I believe that Mark understood this attitude to be one which was symbolically represented by the
attitude of a child. I will also argue that Mark included example upon example of this kind of attitude in his
Gospel.
The fourth and final means through which Mark presented the Kingdom as expanding is related to
Jesus’ second coming on the clouds of heaven. It is my position that Mark understood there to be a future
element of the Kingdom; part of the Kingdom would not be consummated until Jesus’ return on the clouds
of heaven.
My explication below will follow these four points closely as I seek to lay out the evidence from
the text of the Gospel for this understanding of the Kingdom. However, before I turn to these four points it
is necessary first to explicate the first occurrence of the “Kingdom of God” in the text of the Gospel in
1:14-15, a passage which I believe serves as a summary statement for the whole of Jesus ministry.
C. An Initial Summary of Jesus’ Ministry- 1:14-15
Scholarship has reached a broad consensus that Mark 1:14-15 was understood by Mark to be a
summary of Jesus’ ministry as a whole.137 Regardless of their methodologies scholar after scholar has
asserted the importance of 1:14-15 for a proper understanding of Mark’s Gospel and the Kingdom of God
in it. Hooker writes:
The story [= of Mark’s Gospel] begins with a summary of Jesus’ preaching. Jesus himself must
have spelt out his message at much greater length than this, which means that this succinct account
may be either Mark’s own summary of what Jesus had taught, or one that had been handed down
to him. The good news proclaimed by Jesus centered on the Kingdom of God, and this theme
reappears in his teaching later in the Gospel.138

Nineham’s thoughts are similar:

These verses are extremely important because they seem to be intended by St. Mark as a sort of
manifesto which sums up the substance and essential meaning of the whole public ministry…. The
public ministry of Jesus was quite unmistakably the inbreaking of the kingdom of God.139

It is upon this verse that most scholars base their belief that the Kingdom of God is the most important
theme in the Gospel of Mark; my own opinion is no different. I believe that we have here what was
intended by Mark to be a summary of Jesus’ ministry, for the verses are Jesus’ first recorded words. In
addition the verses contain references to the Kingdom of God, belief, and repentance, the first two of which
we will see repeated explicitly many times in the Gospel text.

137
The one notable exception in our survey is Robert Gundry, whose argumentation was examined above p.
43.
138
Hooker, 53.
139
Nineham, 67-68.

65
 If this is indeed a summary of Jesus’ ministry, as I believe it is, it then becomes reasonable to
assert that Mark understood all of Jesus’ ministry to fall under the notion of the Kingdom of God whether
the link is mentioned explicitly or not. This position agrees with the position put forth by Witherington:
We have here a summary statement by Mark meant to suggest what characterized the early
preaching of Jesus, and his continuity with the Baptists’ ministry and message. As such it seems to
be a summary in advance for the entire unit 1:1-3:6.140

Tolbert’s interpretation of the importance of these verses is also similar. She writes:

The predominant kind of activity that characterizes each of the two major divisions of the story is
announced clearly in the individual introductions, Mark 1:14-15 and 11:1-11, and thus the
audience, in good epic or ancient novelistic style, is informed beforehand “what the work is
about.” [=a quotation from Aristotle] In Mark 1:14-15, the narrator declares the location and role
of Jesus and then allows Jesus, speaking for the first time in his own voice, to give a programmatic
summary of his message.141

Thus my opinion agrees with the majority of scholarship that Mark 1:14-15 should serve as the interpretive
lens for at least the first chapters of the Gospel, if not the Gospel as a whole. Therefore, it is legitimate to
postulate the interrelatedness of the Kingdom of God in Mark to Jesus’ exorcisms, healings, and teachings,
for Mark himself summarized them under this notion by his inclusion of this summary.
D. Passages which Demonstrate Jesus’ Authoritative Advance of the Kingdom
Against Satan’s Demonic Forces Absent of the Requests of Others

1. Introduction
Before we turn to the text I wish to clarify and sharpen the point which I believe these texts make.
There are points in the Gospel when Jesus is confronted with the demonic realm: before he begins his
ministry he is tempted by Satan in the desert; upon his first recorded entry into the Capernaum synagogue
he is interrupted by a demon; he is reported multiple times as casting demons out of many people and is
eventually even accused of demon possession by the scribes from Jerusalem. Though no mention of the
Kingdom of God directly coincides with any of these passages, it is clear to the vast majority of scholars
that at least some element of Jesus’ Kingdom is dependent upon the destruction of the Kingdom which
opposes his own, i.e., the kingdom of Satan.
However, as we have also seen, there has been a wide variety of opinions regarding the centrality
of this interplay between the spiritual forces of good and evil. Some, like Pagels, Mack, and Nineham, have
argued that major importance of the Kingdom of God in Mark is related intimately to Jesus’ combat against
the kingdom of Satan. This is not my position. Rather, I view the interplay in the Gospel record as just one
thread of the garment that is the Kingdom in Mark.
This section will proceed as follows. I will examine two passages which I believe speak clearly on
the importance of the spiritual conflict recorded in the Gospel. The first is a passage which speaks clearly to
Jesus’ actions against Satan and his legions. The second is a specific record of an exorcism which Mark

140
Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2001), 77.
141
Tolbert, 114-115.

66
reports Jesus as having undertaken during his first entry into Capernaum in chapter one. After I have
explicated these two texts I will attempt to summarize what I believe to be the proper interpretation of the
interplay between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.
2. 3:22-30
The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and
“He casts out demons by the rule of the demons.” And He called them to himself and began
speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against
itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to
stand. If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! But
no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong
man, and then he will plunder his house.

While I do believe that this passage is a very important one for a proper understanding of the
Kingdom of God, by no means do I assign it the level of importance that Nineham, Pagels, and Mack do. In
fact, whereas these authors argue that the Markan Jesus’ “plundering” of Satan’s house is the one primary
way in which Jesus advances the Kingdom, I will argue that Mark portrays Jesus as advancing the
Kingdom through four different means, only one of which focuses on exorcisms and the fight against Satan
specifically.
Though I do not believe Jesus’ exorcisms to be the primary way in which Markan Jesus serves to
advance the Kingdom, I certainly think that they play some role in the expansion of the Kingdom. In the
Markan depiction of this passage we see Jesus speaking in somewhat allegorical terms, though virtually all
scholars agree as to the meaning behind Jesus’ symbolism. The strong man is considered to be Satan, and
his house is taken to represent the Kingdom over which he rules; the strong man’s goods are the things
which he owns, i.e., people who are possessed by unclean spirits. This interpretation makes sense given the
context of the verse: an accusation concerning Jesus’ authority to drive out unclean spirits. In addition, it
should be noted that “kingdom” and “house” are set in parallelism directly before Jesus’ comments on the
strong man, so it seems right to compare the strong man’s house to the kingdom over which he rules. If we
were to rewrite the final portion of this passage removing the allegorical language, it would likely read like
something like this: “I could not enter Satan’s kingdom and plunder those whom he has possessed unless I
have first bound Satan himself. Only after I have done this can I take back those he has possessed.” So, it
seems clear that in this passage Mark presents Jesus as affirming that he has already bound Satan and that
at least part of his ministry is the plundering of Satan’s property, which we have already equated with those
people who are possessed by demons. Through this process of plundering Jesus appears to be presented as
abolishing the kingdom of Satan and replacing it with the Kingdom of God.
With regard to how Jesus has bound Satan there appears to be only one instance in the Gospel that
is relevant, though it is less than clear. Prior to chapter three Satan has been mentioned only once, at Jesus’
temptation (1:12-13). Though Mark does not record the outcome of this struggle, we would almost have to
assert that Mark considered Jesus’ binding of Satan to occur sometime during his temptation based on
Jesus’ actions of exorcism previously in the Gospel and his words in chapter 3. Nineham writes that this is
where we should understand the “binding” to have taken place:

67
 The initial binding is no doubt to be found in the ‘Temptation’ when Jesus fought with the devil
and decisively defeated him in the power of the Spirit given him in his baptism. That … was a
presupposition rather than strictly a part of the Gospel. So St. Mark’s view would then have been
that the exorcisms and other activities of Jesus, which form the central part of the Gospel, were a
second stage in the Messiah’s great battle against the powers of evil—the following up, as it were,
and exploiting of the initial victory won before the opening of the Gospel proper.142

Again, it is important to note that Nineham, Pagels, and Mack all contend that Mark saw this conflict
between Jesus and Satan as foundational to the whole of the Gospel. Yet it was not merely Jesus’ exorcisms
which were combating the kingdom of Satan but in addition, his healings, teaching, and eventually even his
death. These scholars believe that this kind of supernatural conflict underwrites every element of the
Gospel.
With regard to my own interpretation, I view this verse as a summary of the first way in which the
Kingdom is advanced through Jesus’ ministry. In the parable of the strong man Jesus is portrayed as taking
an active and authoritative role in the plundering of Satan’s house. Throughout primarily the first half of
the Gospel Jesus is confronted repeatedly by evil spirits. They do not request to be exorcised but Jesus
initiates the action and in fact exorcises the demons against their will.143 When Jesus exorcises a demonic
presence, he is advancing the Kingdom of God while defeating the Kingdom of Satan. With regard to this
point specifically my position is not noticeably different from those of the above scholars. However,
whereas these scholars assign primary importance to this passage for the interpretation of the Gospel as a
whole, my own interpretation is that this is but one element of Jesus’ ministry. Yes, the Kingdom is
advanced through his exorcisms, but it is also advanced through his teaching and his healings. Let us now
turn to a passage which explicitly incorporates multiple elements of Jesus’ ministry for further clarification
and explanation concerning this point.
3. 1:21-27
They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue
and began to teach. They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having
authority, and not as the scribes. Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean
spirit; and he cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other Jesus of Nazareth?
Have you come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” Throwing him into
convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him.
They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves saying, “What is this? A
new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.”

Before we examine the scholarly interpretations of this pericope it is important to place it in the
context of the Gospel as a whole and to make a few observations regarding its content. This passage is set
at the very beginning of Mark’s record of Jesus’ action. Previous to this passage in 1:14-15, Mark mentions
that Jesus came into Galilee, and here we have Mark reporting Jesus’ entrance specifically into Capernaum,
a city in the Galilean region. Upon his entry, it seems that Jesus heads directly to the synagogue where he

142
Nineham, 121.

68
begins to teach. Several points are worth noting here. The first is that the crowd is portrayed as being
amazed by Jesus’ teaching before he does anything miraculous. Then following the miracle they are
described as being amazed again, though this time Mark mentions the object as both Jesus’ teaching and his
exorcistic authority. In addition, Mark does not record Jesus entering into the synagogue and merely
waiting to be confronted by the demon; rather, he is presented as teaching first and responding to the
demon’s challenge second.
Mack believes that this emphasis on teaching is far more about Jesus’ acts of power than it is
about the actual content of Jesus’ teaching. He states:
As with the parables, so with all of the “teachings” of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Nowhere are
the first listeners instructed. Nowhere are they depicted as learning correctly what was told to
them. They react, but in ways that contribute to the rejection of Jesus and to his violent end. They
“new teaching” in the synagogue in Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28) is not instructive, but a display of
power and a claim to authority.144

In reading the passage this way, Mack emphasizes Jesus’ work of power and the people’s amazement with
it over and above the content of Jesus’ teaching.
Other scholars read the passage in a somewhat different way. The modern evangelical Ben
Witherington III writes about these verses:
Notice that Jesus’ focus is on teaching and his teaching is interrupted, and only then does he
respond by healing the possessed man. This is a regular pattern in Mark’s Gospel. Healings seem
mostly to happen in response to a pressing need, not as part of a program Jesus set out to follow.
Notice that it is the spirit in the man that initiates the conversation.145

Witherington also goes on to comment about the significance Mark places on the exorcism as the first
recorded miracle of Jesus, thereby appointing to this interaction a kind of dual importance: first and most
importantly to emphasize Jesus’ teaching and secondly to emphasize Jesus’ efforts against Satan’s demons.
Robert Guelich also takes a somewhat dualistic approach to the importance of this passage. He
writes:
Mark sets Jesus off at the outset of his Gospel not only as a teacher but as one different from the
usual rabbi or scribe (1:22) by virtue of his “new teaching” (1:22, 27), the eschatological claim
inherent in his words and works in 1:21-28. This pericope, therefore, serves, above all, a
Christological purpose to highlight Jesus as “teacher” and his relationship with his “disciples.” At
the same time, it serves a programmatic function of introducing Jesus’ authoritative ministry of
healing and exorcisms of 1:29-34.146

My position is similar to those of Witherington and Guelich. It is certainly true that Mark allots a degree of
importance to Jesus’ action of exorcism in this section, whether it be to emphasize the spiritual resistance
against his ministry or to emphasize his own proactivity on behalf of his ministry is uncertain. However, it
seems clear from the text that Mark is emphasizing Jesus’ intent to teach more directly than he emphasizes

143
It should be noted that at other points Jesus responds to requests for exorcism, though these requests
always come from a third party. These particular exorcisms are included in my second category of the
Kingdom’s advance, i.e., through Jesus’ authoritative response to pleas for help.
144
Mack, Myth, 169.
145
Witherington III, 90.

69
Jesus’ intent to exorcise. To return to Witherington’s comments above, it is the demon and not Jesus who
initiates the exchange. Twice Mark records the crowds’ amazed reaction to Jesus’ teaching, only once in
coordination with his act of power. Indeed, it seems that Mark has made clear that the Jesus of his Gospel is
a teacher first and an exorcist second. Granted, this is only one instance in the Gospel, but also in
conjunction with Witherington above, I believe this to be a rather noticeable theme throughout the Gospel
text. We shall revisit this issue again below.
4. Conclusion
It is Jesus’ exorcistic activity against the legions of Satan which I believe makes up the first of
four Markan classifications of Jesus’ action as advancing the Kingdom of God. We have examined both
what appears to be a summary of Jesus’ demonic battle and one example of a specific instance of demonic
conflict. My conclusion is this: Mark understood at least part of Jesus’ ministry to be centered on the
expulsion of demonic presence. Mark portrayed Jesus as entering a world which was somewhat overrun by
unclean spirits. Before his public ministry begins he apparently battles with Satan in the desert for forty
days, emerging only after having “bound the strong man.” During his first sermon in Galilee Jesus is
interrupted by a member of the opposing faction demanding an explanation for his presence, and Jesus is
subsequently presented as imposing his will upon the unclean spirit. I believe that Mark understood each of
these individual exorcisms, some of which are recorded specifically and others of which are only reported
generally, as the “plundering of Satan’s kingdom.” This plundering is an activity which advances the
Kingdom of God. When a child of God is set free from the grip of an oppressing spirit, the will of God for
that person is realized. When Jesus overcomes Satan in the desert, God’s power and sovereign rule is
manifested, however unwilling the opposition may be; as God’s rule is manifested, the Kingdom if
advanced. However, this activity of spiritual battle is only a component of Jesus’ larger advance of the
Kingdom incorporating both his healing and teaching ministry. Ultimately, the battle will be concluded at
his second coming, but at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel we see Jesus beginning to exercise God’s
intended rule upon the world, initially, in part, through exorcisms of demons.
E. Passages which Demonstrate Jesus’ Authoritative Advance of the Kingdom in Response
to the Request of Others

1. Introduction

The second category of Kingdom-expansion which I believe is present in the Gospel of Mark
relates to the instances in the Gospel where Jesus is presented as authoritatively granting the requests for
either healing or, at times, exorcism by those around him. Throughout the first eleven chapters of the
Gospel Jesus is presented over and over again as healing individuals by either the touch of his hand or the
word of his mouth. In a similar manner to Mark’s method of reporting exorcisms, he notes some specific
instances of healing and at times merely includes Jesus’ healing ministry in broad summary statements
which he often uses to transition between sections of his Gospel. Our examination of this category of

146
Guelich, 60.

70
Kingdom expansion will examine three of these specific instances which I believe are representative of the
common themes Mark includes in his references to Jesus’ healings.
2. 1:40-45
Our first example and the first extended report in the Gospel of one of Jesus’ healings comes from
the end of Mark’s first chapter where he records Jesus’ interactions with a paralytic. The passage reads:
And a leper came to Jesus, beseeching Him and falling on his knees before Him and
saying, “If you are willing, You can make me clean.”
Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him,
“I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.
And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, and He said to him, “See
that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing
what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” But he went out and began to proclaim it freely
and to spread the news around, to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city,
but stayed out in unpopulated areas; and they were coming to Him from everywhere.

Again, before we move to a discussion of the proper interpretation of the passage, it is important to observe
just what Mark is saying in the text. The context of the passages comes after Jesus has risen early in the
morning to pray after having spent the previous night healing dozens of people (one of Mark’s summary
accounts). The encounter with the leper is set as Jesus is making his way to the next towns.
Several points are noteworthy here. The first is that Jesus is not portrayed as somehow seeking this
man out to heal him. Rather, the leper is depicted in such a way as to warrant the assumption that he has
sought Jesus out in order to request his healing. The posture with which the man confronts Jesus in the
narrative is significant. In a clear sign of submission and humility, the man is portrayed as making his
request from his knees. Thirdly, we notice Mark’s depiction of the man’s faith. Not only was this man
requesting healing, he was requesting cleanliness, a quite different and rather secondary matter to the actual
healing. In fact, Levitical practice allowed for the initiation of the process of ritual cleansing only after the
physical ailment had already been taken care of. By Mark’s depiction of the man’s appeal we see the
seeming absurdity of the request and the corresponding faith which such a request would flow from.
Fourthly, we notice that Jesus grants the leper’s wish; he heals him in response to his request.
Scholarly opinion on this passage is not widely varied, given the somewhat straightforward nature
of the pericope regarding the actual healing. William Lane’s comments are representative:
The pericope establishes the surpassing nature of the salvation which Jesus brings, for while the
Law of Moses provided for the ritual purification of a leper it was powerless actually to purge a
man of the disease. In all of the OT only twice is it recorded that God had healed a leper (Num.
12:10ff.; II Kings 5:1ff.), and the rabbis affirmed that it was as difficult to heal the leper as to raise
the dead. The cleansing of the leper indicates the new character of God’s action in bringing Jesus
among men. Salvation transcends cultic and ritual regulations, which were powerless to arrest the
hold that death had upon the living, and issues in radical healing.147

Though he does not use “the Kingdom of God” specifically, Lane hints at what I believe Mark’s conception
of the Kingdom of God to be, namely, the restoration of God’s intended purpose. When Mark records the
leper’s cleansing God’s intended rule for that man is advanced in the Gospel. Additionally, we see here for

147
Lane, 89.

71
the first time what we will see again: the attitude of the one interacting with Jesus is of utmost importance
for the growth of the Kingdom. We shall see below how time and again Mark’s emphasis is on the faith of
the individual making requests on Jesus’ person as the deciding factor in the ultimate outcome of the
request. Jesus is portrayed in this section as feeling deeply compassionate for the man’s condition and
cleansing his physical body at the drop of a word. Such is the good news of the Kingdom of God that the
Markan Jesus announced as he came into Galilee in 1:14-15: the time of the Kingdom of God is fulfilled
and it has drawn near.
3. 2:1-12

When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was
at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the
door; and He was speaking the word to them. And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried
by four men. Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him;
and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.
And Jesus, seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” But some
of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way?
He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within
themselves, said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is
easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up and pick up your pallet
and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive
sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”
And he got up immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, sot
that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like
this.”

Before we move to the proper interpretation of this passage it is of primary importance that we
first note the obvious features of this story. Yet again we see Mark’s emphasis on the importance of faith
for healing. Jesus is portrayed as healing in response to “their” (the four men’s?) faith. In addition, we see
that Mark portrayed Jesus as interested primarily in the spiritual healing of the paralytic and only
secondarily interested in his physical healing. Indeed, it seems that Jesus’ healing of the paralytic’s physical
ailment seems to be only to validate his claim that his sins have been forgiven.
The scholarly interpretations of this passage are again fairly congruent across the board. Robert
Guelich states concerning the passage:
The declaration [= of Jesus] makes clear Jesus’ concern to bring wholeness to the person, not just
a healing of a physical infirmity. Thus, his healing of the sick corresponds to his fellowship with
sinners, and the expression of God’s forgiveness is congruent with the healing of the body. Both
elements were integral to Jesus’ ministry and gave evidence that God’s moment of salvation or
wholeness had come.148

My position is similar with that of Guelich. When Jesus forgives the paralytic the rule of God is expanded.
When he restores the health of the paralytic the Kingdom of God advances, for God’s intended will is for
healing and forgiveness. Jesus’ ministry brought both, thereby pushing forth the boundaries of the
Kingdom.

148
Guelich, 95.

72
 4. 5:25-34
A woman who had had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and had endured much at the
hands of many physicians, and had spent all that she had and was not helped at all, but rather had
grown worse—after hearing about Jesus, she came up in the crowd behind Him and touched His
cloak. For she thought, “If I just touch His garments, I will get well.”
Immediately the flow of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was
healed of her affliction. Immediately Jesus, perceiving in Himself that the power proceeding from
Him had gone forth, turned around in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?”
And His disciples said to Him, “You see the crowd pressing in on You, and You say,
‘Who touched me?’” And He looked around to see the woman who had done this. But the woman
fearing and trembling, aware of what had happened to her, came and fell down before Him and
told Him the whole truth.
And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed
of your affliction.”

In a similar way to our examination of passages above, it is important that we first make some
basic observations about the content of the passage. We are able to observe themes present in this passage
which we have already seen exhibited in our previous examinations. Like the leper of chapter one the
woman is presented as coming before Jesus with a combination of faith and meekness. As before, Mark
does not explicitly mention the woman’s meekness; however, it is clearly foundational to Mark’s
presentation of her character. The woman is depicted as approaching Jesus from behind and desiring only
to touch his cloak. Clearly she is fearful of Jesus’ question and falls before him trembling. All this leads the
reader to understand the woman’s attitude as one permeated with humility and meekness. The woman’s
faith is both insinuated by her actions and then made explicit by means of Jesus’ proclamation. Whereas the
leper desired Jesus to will his healing, the woman is presented as putting faith in the mere chance to touch
Jesus’ garments. Also like the story of the leper, Jesus is presented as making explicit comment upon the
woman’s faith. In addition to these Markan characteristics, we again see that it is the woman and not Jesus
who instigates the first exchange. Though Jesus initiated the second encounter, the woman’s desire to get
well was the engine behind the whole of the story.
With regard to the interpretation of this passage scholars are again fairly unanimous as to the
meaning Mark intended. Mary Ann Tolbert sees this story as of utmost importance for the Gospel as a
whole. She writes:
The woman touched him with the absolute faith that she would be saved; that faith was the crucial
factor. Faith, then, is the prerequisite of healing for the Gospel of Mark, not its result. One does
not have faith because one was healed; one has faith so that one can be healed…. Jesus is the
catalyst of the healing process, but the woman’s faith is the essential prerequisite…. Only in the
presence of such faith can Jesus’ power be released. Faith, then, is the human manifestation of the
good earth, the kingdom of God.149

Though it is written in the language of her specific thesis classifying the kingdom of God as the “good
earth” of the parable of the sower, Tolbert is quite clear that faith is integrally linked to the healing ministry
of Jesus and that that ministry is itself linked to the Kingdom of God.
D. E. Nineham also comments on this passage:

149
Tolbert, 169-170.

73
 Her action gains the approval of Jesus because what she had in fact relied on for release from her
plague was the one thing that men are meant to rely on for release from all their ‘plagues’, namely
‘the things concerning Jesus’, that is, the life and work of Jesus recognized as the saving power of
God active in the world. To rely on it in that way is ‘faith’, and through ‘faith’ men can have
‘salvation’ or ‘wholeness’ from all their sins, and the evils which result from them, known to Jews
as ‘plagues’…. What happened to the woman is thus an example of ‘salvation by faith’, and helps
to explain what that [=salvation by faith] phrase means.150

Clearly, Nineham argues that this story is intended to show the importance of faith for the sort of healing
Jesus offers, though he is also quick to note that this healing is not limited to physical calamities. He argues
that this woman’s faith allowed her to receive a kind of holistic salvation. Though he is not specific
concerning the details of this salvation, I believe it to be consistent with my conception of the Kingdom of
God in the Gospel of Mark. William Lane’s comments on this verse carry a similar tone. He states:
The final words spoken to the woman, “Go in peace,” are a traditional valediction, 151 but here are
informed by her entire experience. The peace with which she departed signified more than release
from agitation over a wretched existence or from fear of recrimination for having touched Jesus. It
was the profound experience of well being which is related to salvation from God. When Jesus
declares, “Be whole from your affliction,” he confirms that her healing was permanent and affirms
his active participation with the Father’s will to honor the woman’s faith.152

Like Nineham, Lane uses the term “salvation” to describe the woman’s renewed situation. While the
specific nature of this salvation is less than clear, we can legitimately agree with these authors that Mark
understood the woman in the story to have received more than merely physical healing; indeed, it seems
that both Nineham and Lane interpret Mark to have intended some sort of spiritual or social sense to the
healing Jesus gave to the woman. Regardless, this story’s correlation to my theory of the Kingdom of God
is apparent. If we understand God’s Kingdom to be the realm over which his rule is exercised, then clearly
Jesus is expanding that domain through his healing of the woman. God’s intended will is for both physical
and spiritual health and it is my contention that Mark understood this woman’s healing to be correlative
with the advance of God’s Kingdom by Jesus’ healing authority.
5. A Summary of this Kind of Kingdom Expansion
Though these are but three examples of Jesus’ healing ministry, they are certainly indicative of
that ministry as a whole. Several themes which we see present in each of these stories seem to have
underwritten much of Mark’s intention in various other healing accounts. Almost without exception, Mark
insinuates a link between the healing ministry of Jesus and the faith of those being healed. At only one
place in the Gospel is Jesus presented as being unable to heal (6:1-16) and then only because those whom
he might have healed did not have the faith necessary. Faith is presented as being inextricably linked to the
healing ministry of Jesus and therefore to the Kingdom of God. In addition, the attitude of those
approaching Jesus is repeatedly shown to be one of humility and meekness. Over and over again Mark
presents those desiring healing as in dire need and relating to Jesus with an attitude of humility. Also

150
Nineham, 158-159.
151
Judg. 18:6; I Sam. 1:17; II Sam. 15:9; I Kings 22:17; Luke 7:50; Acts 16:36; James 2:16. (As noted in
Lane, 194).
152
Lane, 194.

74
without exception is Mark’s depiction of the characters’ initiative in seeking out Jesus. At no time in the
Gospel is Jesus presented as initiating a healing experience, but neither is he presented as ever denying a
request for healing. In a similar manner to Jesus’ presented attitude toward exorcism above, I believe that
the Markan Jesus is one who does not seek out chances to heal and exorcise but also one who does not run
away from opportunities when they present themselves.
In summary, I believe that Mark understood Jesus’ healings, in addition to the exorcisms already
discussed, to be parts of Jesus’ program of Kingdom expansion. As Jesus restored people’s physical, and at
times spiritual, health he was advancing the intended rule of God, i.e., the Kingdom of God.
F. Jesus: Preacher or Exorcist/Miracle Worker?
Let us now address the ongoing debate concerning Mark’s presentation of Jesus and its relation to
both the miraculous and the pedagogical activity of Jesus. As has been noted, scholars like Pagels, Mack,
and Nineham have argued that the primary task of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is the destruction of Satan’s
kingdom through the exorcism of evil spirits. They argue that the spiritual battle between Satan and God
underlies the whole of the Gospel text and that Mark wrote his Gospel to demonstrate the apocalyptic
nature of this struggle. My position is somewhat different in that I do not assign primary importance to
Jesus’ exorcisms. In my opinion Jesus’ activity against Satan’s demons is but one facet of his ministry and
is in fact overshadowed by his teaching ministry in the Gospel of Mark. With the sides now clearly defined,
let us turn to the text of the Gospel to examine the validity of the two positions.
Demonic activity or presence is noted in several different ways throughout the first half of the
Gospel, though the character of Satan himself is present only at the temptation (1:12, 13). However, Satan
is talked about in third person in several other places: the discussion about the strong man in chapter three,
in Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the sower in chapter four, and in Jesus’ rebuke of Peter in chapter
eight, though a case could be made that Mark understood the character of Satan to be truly present in this
exchange. Mark makes three different generalizations about the activity of Jesus in which he mentions that
Jesus exorcised evil spirits (1:34, 39; 3:11) and notes the disciples’ exorcistic ability three additional times
(3:15; 6:7, 13). In addition to these references, Mark records four distinct and specific exorcisms of Jesus
(1:21-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-26).
Beyond these references, Satan and his legion of cohorts are not explicitly mentioned. However, it
is important to remember that scholars who hold this theory often argue that Mark understood the
opponents of Jesus, i.e., the Jewish authority, to be controlled by Satan. Pagels argues for the connection
between the Jewish authorities and Satan by examining the escalating conflict of Mark 2 and 3 and
concluding that Jesus’ actions combined with the actions of the authorities prove that Mark saw them as
players in an apocalyptic conflict.
In order to build some context for this debate it is relevant to make note of two passages in two of
the other Gospels which seem to advocate the kind of link Pagels and others are propagating. In Luke 22:3
the Gospel writer reports that “Then Satan entered into Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. And Judas
went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray

75
Jesus” (New International Version). The Gospel of John states that “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan
entered into him” (John 13:27, NIV). Though the relevance of these passages is somewhat limited, they do
help paint a clearer picture of the dynamic which Pagels et al., are suggesting exists in the Gospel of Mark.
In contrast, it is pertinent to note that this kind of textual formulation does not appear in the text of the
Gospel of Mark. The absence of this kind of formulation in Mark with regard to either Judas or the Jewish
authorities speaks to a distinct possibility that Mark understood the relationship between Satan and the
opposition to Jesus in a somewhat different way than some of his relative contemporaries.
The text of Mark’s Gospel may also hint to this kind of discrepancy. As I stated above, Jesus’ first
recorded exorcism is found in 1:21-28. The text of which states:
They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began
to teach. They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority,
and not as the scribes. Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he
cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come
to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be
quiet, and come out of him!” Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a
loud voice and came out of him. They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves,
saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and
they obey Him.” Immediately the news about Him, spread everywhere into all the surrounding
district of Galilee. (Italics mine)

Upon examination several points from this passage stand out. First of all, Jesus is clearly reported as
entering the synagogue in order to teach and not to cast out a demon. It is in the middle of his teaching that
he is apparently interrupted by the demon at the demon’s instigation. It is only in response to this challenge
that Jesus rebukes the spirit. Mark records two different accounts of the crowd’s reaction, one before and
one after the exorcism. Both accounts record the crowds reaction as amazement, though different words are
used, εκπλησσω and θαµβεω, respectively. Mark’s second account of the crowd’s reaction focuses first
on Jesus’ teaching and the second on his exorcism. In the second account of their amazement the crowds
exclaim first “A new teaching with authority!”, and Mark qualifies their amazement by describing them as
pointing to a further demonstration of that authority exemplified in Jesus’ reported exorcism.
This passage raises another issue of interpretation concerning the relation between Jesus’ teaching
and his exorcistic activity. The position is basically this: Jesus’ teaching and miracle working are intimately
related, even to the point of seeming to be the same thing. Jesus’ message is his miracles; his proclamations
concerning the Kingdom of God are his exorcisms against the kingdom of Satan. Mary Ann Tolbert
summarizes this position as follows:
In both cases [the stories of 1:21-28 and 2:1-12, both examined above], Jesus’ εξουσια
[=authority] is demonstrated in the power of his words to effect healing. In the parlance of
contemporary speech-act theory, Jesus’ teaching with authority constitutes performative utterance:
what he says, happens; his word performs an act. For the Gospel of Mark, as these two stories
indicate, Jesus’ teaching is identified with his actions; his words and deeds are one. Thus the new
teaching of Jesus with authority that exorcises demons and heals the sick is his message.153

Burton Mack argues a similar case when he writes concerning Mark 1:21-28:

153
Tolbert, 136.

76
 The term authority is used twice, once for Jesus’ teaching, once for his power over the unclean
spirit. Both forms of authority are combined in the phrase “a new teaching.” The new teaching is
not a matter of instruction (for the content of Jesus’ teaching is not given). It is a matter of power.
The term used is exousia, the kind of authority magistrates have to decide and execute matters.
Mark used an exorcism to introduce the man of authority and power…. Mark’s summary
statement at this point [= 1:39] must be taken very seriously: “And he went throughout all Galilee,
preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons”…. Jesus’ “teachings” were not teaching.
They were authoritative pronouncements. The authority of pronouncement was no different from
the authority to command. Mark put the two authorities together at the level of absolute
determination. What Jesus says will be. What Jesus commands will be obeyed.154

In the writings of both Mack and Tolbert the argument that is offered directly links Jesus’ teaching to his
miracle working. Both authors note that there is no real content given in the opening chapters and that the
Markan emphasis is on preaching and casting out demons.
To summarize the debate, the central conflict concerning Jesus’ preaching and his miracles is not
between scholars who disregard Jesus’ teaching and those who emphasize it. Rather, the disagreement’s
heart is in the conflicting ideas concerning the content of Jesus’ teaching. For scholars like Mack, et al., the
content of this teaching is Jesus’ works of power. These scholars believe that when Mark speaks of Jesus’
teaching, he is merely referring to his authoritative proclamations against sickness, disease, and demons.
Other scholars believe that Mark distinguishes between Jesus’ teaching and his miraculous works. In order
better to discern the proper interpretation, let us turn to the text of the Gospel itself.
We begin our examination of the text by making mention of all of the references to Jesus’ teaching
and miraculous activity found in the Gospel. of the Kingdom. The following chart may be helpful.

Pericopes which record Jesus’ teaching (absent of any miraculous work): 1:14-15; 2:15-17; 2:28-22; 2:23-28; -
3:19-30; 3:31-35; 4:1-34; 6:1-6a; 6:6b; 7:1-23; 8:14-21; 8:31-9:1; 9:9-13; 9:30-32; 9:32-37; 9:38-50; 10:1-12;
10:13-16; 10:17-31; 10:32-34; 10:35-45; 11:15-19; 11:20-25; 11:27-33; 12:1-12; 12:13-17; 12:28-34; 12:35-37;
12:38-40; 12:41-44; 13:1-37; 14:3-9 (Bold indicates an exchange with the Pharisees).

Pericopes which record Jesus’ miraculous works (absent of any teaching): 1:29-34; 1:40-45; 3:7-12; 5:1-20;
5:21-43; 6:30-44; 6:45-52; 6:53-56; 7:24-30; 7:31-37; 8:1-10; 8:22-26; 9:2-8; 9:14-29; 10:46-52; 11:12-14.

Pericopes which mention both Jesus’ teaching and his miraculous activity: 1:21-28; 1:38-39; 2:1-12; 3:1-6; 3:14-
15; 6:12-13 (Bold indicates activity relating primarily to the disciples).

Note: “Teaching” is defined strictly as anytime when Jesus is reported as speaking concerning a specific topic
apparently to instruct or enlighten his listeners. I have not included in this list what may have been understood as
“object lessons” by Mark’s readers. An example: it certainly seems that Mark presents the calming of the storms
as a learning experience for the disciples, but Jesus is not recorded as saying anything of major substance; hence,
that exchange is not listed above.

Several observations become immediately clear when the relevant texts are examined in list form. First of
all, the sheer number of times in the Gospel when Jesus is presented as teaching, 32 passages, far exceeds
the number of times when he is simply reported as performing a miracle, 16 passages, and dwarfs the
number of times where the power to perform miracles is mentioned at the same time as his preaching and

154
Mack, Myth, 234-236.

77
teaching, 6 passages. Second, the reader will notice that the first two categories cover far more of the
Markan text than do the instances which relate Jesus’ teaching to his miracles. Because neither 3:14-15 or
6:12-13 are describing the actual miracle-working or teaching of Jesus and because it seems quite generous
to designate 3:1-6 as an example of Jesus’ teaching, one could make the case that there are in effect only
three sections in the entire Gospel which relate the two elements of Jesus’ work and that all three of these
occur in the first 47 verses of the book.
It is pertinent to examine those passages (1:21-28; 1:38-39; and 2:1-12) which could be seen as
offering the strongest evidence for the linkage proposed by Mack and others. I have already expounded on
two of the three passages above so it is necessary only to repeat briefly my conclusions. In both passages,
Jesus is presented as teaching first and performing the miracle second; there are clear references to each
activity distinct from each other in both of these passages. In neither case is the miraculous exchange
instigated by his initiative. In both cases, it seems safe to say that the miraculous work serves as a kind of
proof of Jesus’ authority either to preach or to forgive sins. Whereas in the first passage the crowds are
reported as being amazed twice (once specifically at Jesus’ teaching and once seemingly at the combination
of Jesus’ exorcism and his teaching), in the second they are reported as being amazed only once, and then
only at Jesus’ miraculous work.
Mark 1:38-39 is another important passage for this debate. The text reads:
He [Jesus] answered, “Let us [Jesus and his disciples] go on to the neighboring towns, so that I
may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.” And he went throughout
Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons (New Revised
Standard Version).

This verse, which Mack uses to support his case, is certainly key to the subject at hand. However, I believe
a different interpretation than the one offered by Mack is quite plausible. Jesus says in verse 38 that his
purpose for “coming out” is to “proclaim the message,” a translation of κηρυσσο which can also be
translated as “to preach.” It is certainly clear here that Jesus places the utmost level of importance on his
preaching and not on his ministry of miracles. Only if the two are linked can the importance of Jesus’
miracles be saved. Of course, this is the case which Mack and others have argued by pointing to verse 39
which records Jesus as undertaking both ministries. However, is it feasible to assert that the responses Jesus
received throughout Galilee were noticeably different than his reception in Capernaum, where he began to
teach and then was interrupted by a demon? To insinuate that Jesus was initiating exorcistic activity in the
other synagogues of Galilee when no where else in the Gospel is he presented as doing so seems to be a bit
of a stretch. It is certainly true that in these two passages in chapter one a link may be drawn between
Jesus’ miracles and his teaching. However, is it not also possible that no such link exists and that the two
facets of Jesus’ ministry really were two distinct parts? It seems that neither may be conclusively argued for
over the other based on these initial passages. As a result, it is only proper to continue on in our
examination of the text to see if later passages may clue us in to this earlier reference, a process I will
undertake below.

78
 However, before we examine the whole of the Gospel text, it is important to try to answer some of
the specific contentions offered in defense of the link between Jesus’ miracles and his preaching. One of
the primary points which Mack cites for his case is that the content of Jesus’ teaching is not recorded in the
first few chapters. However, I would offer that 1:14-15 could, and indeed should, be seen as a kind of
summary statement regarding Jesus’ preaching ministry. Is it unreasonable to assume that Mark included
this summary as a sort of blanket statement for all of Jesus’ teaching, including the early chapters where no
additional content is recorded? It certainly seems true that much of what Jesus is presented as speaking
about later has to do with either the Kingdom of God or the need for repentance to enter it, two of the
primary themes of 1:14-15.
In addition, it does not seem at all necessary to conclude that Jesus’ teaching and his miraculous
works are the same thing from the text. Mark certainly does not make such a correlation explicit, and the
passages could even be interpreted to mean that Jesus’ miracles served as a kind of proof for his teaching,
while maintaining a degree of autonomy between the two.
The final argument I would offer against the interpretation of Tolbert, Mack, and others is the
sheer number of verses in the Gospel which picture Jesus as a teacher and not as an miracle worker. Again,
I will note that nowhere in the Gospel is Jesus presented as seeking out an opportunity to heal or to exorcise
a demon; the only activity which Jesus consistently undertakes of his own initiative is teaching. If it were
the case that Jesus’ teaching ministry should be understood as synonymous with his miraculous works,
would not Mark have included far more references throughout the Gospel which testify to this fact?
Conversely, what we find are numerous references to Jesus’ teaching and the content of it, completely
devoid of any mention of miraculous activity.
My position agrees with that of William Lane. He states:
Jesus’ answer [to Simon Peter in 1:38] indicates their [= Simon and those with him] failure to
understand him [=Jesus] or his mission. Acts of healing and expulsion of demons, as much as
proclamation, entailed a disclosure of the nature of the Kingdom of God and constituted a demand
for decision…. The crowds that gathered in Capernaum had made their decision, but it could not
be the appropriate one because it involved not repentance but attraction to Jesus as a performer of
miracles. That is why Jesus interrupts the miracles to go elsewhere to proclaim “the gospel of
God.” His purpose is not to heal as many people as possible as a manifestation of the kingdom of
God drawn near in his person, but to confront men with the demand for decision in the perspective
of God’s absolute claim upon their person.155

In summary, my position is as follows. I believe that the Markan Jesus’ ministry had four distinct
yet interrelated parts. The first two of these concern Jesus’ miraculous ministry where he is presented as
both responding to the requests of those around him for help and responding to the challenges initiated by
demonic activity around him, i.e., plundering the house of the strong man. I believe that through Jesus’
work in both of these areas, Mark understood him to have advanced the boundaries of the Kingdom of God.
However, it is my contention that the primary way in which Jesus sought to advance the Kingdom of God
in the Gospel is through his teaching and not through his miraculous activity. Though both Jesus’ healings

155
Lane, 82.

79
and his exorcisms were regarded as important to Mark, I believe he saw Jesus as primarily interested in
extending the borders of the Kingdom of God through his spoken and instructive word. It is this third
category of Kingdom expansion toward which we now turn.
G. Jesus’ Advance of the Kingdom of God by means of His Preaching and Teaching
1. Introduction
I have just attempted to argue that the Markan portrayal of Jesus is one that places the highest
degree of emphasis on Jesus’ teaching; a teaching which I believe both speaks about and expands the
Kingdom of God. Let us therefore turn to Jesus’ words which are recorded in the Gospel to understand
better the relation between Jesus’ teaching and the expansion of the Kingdom.
2. 1:14-15
Jesus’ first recorded words in the Gospel are found in 1:14-15. The passage reads:
Now after John had been put taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of
God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in
the gospel.”

Because we have already examined the importance of this passage for the Gospel, my secondary comments
are brief. The Markan emphasis on Jesus’ teaching begins in the first chapter of his Gospel with the above
proclamation; it is no accident that the content of the proclamation seems to revolve around the Kingdom of
God. As almost all scholars have noted, it seems as if Mark is offering a sort of summary statement
concerning not only just Jesus’ ministry but also his teaching in the Gospel. Witherington notes:
We have here a summary statement by Mark meant to suggest what characterized the early
preaching of Jesus, and his continuity with the Baptist’s ministry and message. As such it seems to
be a summary in advance for the entire unit of 1:1-3:6.156

In light of this interpretation, which I believe to be correct, it is then feasible to assert that Mark understood
this proclamation to be a sort of blanket summary of much, if not all, of Jesus’ teaching ministry. This
would explain why little content is actually given in the first three chapters; Jesus is preaching the good
news of the Kingdom as he travels about: his content and message do not change. In addition to giving
insight about the Kingdom, Ambrozic also notes how Jesus’ proclamation of these words actually serves to
advance the Kingdom. He writes that “He [= Jesus] proclaims its coming and, by this very proclamation,
brings it.”157 My position is quite similar. We have seen the Markan emphasis on Jesus’ teaching in a
general sense: both teaching about the Kingdom and, as I will argue, teaching to expand the Kingdom. This
is the general tenor of Jesus’ teaching ministry.
By holding that this is in fact a summary statement of the evangelist, it then becomes quite
reasonable to assert that Mark understood Jesus’ program of preaching, exorcism, and healing in the first
three chapters to all be related to the expansion of the Kingdom.
3. Chapter Four

156
Witherington III, 77.
157
Ambrozic, 45.

80
 Mark allows us a glimpse at a specific representative sample of Jesus’ teaching in chapter four. As
I said above, Mark’s first recorded proclamation of Jesus concerns the Kingdom of God and in chapter
four, which is the first extended block of teaching content in the Gospel, “Kingdom of God” is used three
times. Though the phrase is not specifically used in the parable of the sower, Lane believes this too is a
parable of the Kingdom and demonstrates the link between Jesus’ proclamation in 1:14-15 and his parables
in chapter four. He writes:
Each of the three [parables] reflects upon sowing, growth and harvest elements which illumine the
character of the Kingdom of God. Mark appears to have selected these parables and placed them at
this point in his presentation to illustrate the character of the coming of the Kingdom of God
proclaimed by Jesus…. [They] reflect significantly on the contemporary situation and look beyond
it to the ultimate triumph of the Kingdom of God.158

It thus makes proper sense for us now to examine Mark’s first specific extended example of Jesus teaching
for further insight into how Jesus’ teaching as it is portrayed by Mark related to the Kingdom of God.
Chapter four contains three different major parables and two blocks of intermediate material
which seem to address why Jesus teaches in parables. We will examine these two intermediary texts below,
but for now let us address the content of the three major parables of chapter four. While Lane makes the
case that all three of the parables are in fact Kingdom parables, such a conclusion is not explicit in the text.
In addition, there seems to be a distinction between the final two parables which are directly linked by the
Markan Jesus to the Kingdom and the parable of the sower which seems to be more explicitly about Jesus’
preaching ministry. While Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God is certainly important for our study,
for this specific part of our study we will examine only the parable of the sower.159 Mark records the
parable of the sower and its interpretation as follows (double space indicates omitted material to be
discussed later):
He began to teach again by the sea. And such a very large crowd gathered to Him that He
got into a boat in the sea and sat down; and the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. And He
was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, "Listen to
this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the
birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and
immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. And after the sun had risen, it was
scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among the thorns, and the
thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as
they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold."
And He was saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

And He said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all
the parables? The sower sows the word. These are the ones who are beside the road where the
word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has
been sown in them. In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky
places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no firm root

158
Lane, 149.
159
All three parables may have something to do with the Kingdom of God, but only the parable of the
sower seems to be explicitly representative of Jesus’ teaching ministry in a detailed way. Thus, for this
section concerning the expansion of the Kingdom through the teaching of Jesus, we shall examine only the
parable of the sower and not the final two parables. I am interested here in the effect of Jesus’ teaching
ministry, not the content of that teaching specifically.

81
 in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the
word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the
thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, but the worries of the world, and the
deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it
becomes unfruitful. And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they
hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold."

The first parable of chapter four has commonly been referred to as the parable of the sower,
though this title has come under attack by many scholars, including Guelich and Tolbert. However, before
we turn to the text itself, it is important to build a case for the centrality of this passage, a stance that many
scholars hold. In fact as we have already noted, Mary Ann Tolbert argues that this passage is intended to be
the single most important passage in the entire Gospel because of her belief that it is meant to symbolize
the ministry of Jesus. Other scholars also agree with this view.160 Ben Witherington III summarizes the
scholarly opinion nicely when he states:
We have already noted that Mark stresses that Jesus is a teacher, yet up to this point in our
narrative there has not been a significant block of teaching material. The importance of Mark 4 for
the Evangelist can hardly be overestimated, for here Mark’s apocalyptic rhetoric about mysteries
and secrets, his christological focus, and his views on disciples and opponents all converge in one
place. Speaking about the parable of the sower and the parable in Mark 12, M. A. Tolbert stresses
that “The two parables in Mark present in concise summary form the Gospel’s view of Jesus: he is
the Sower of the Word and the Heir of the Vineyard. The first emphasizes his task and the second
his identity; together they make up the Gospel’s basic narrative Christology.”161 [Morna]Hooker,
in fact, suggests that these two parables taken together “encapsulate the whole story of the
ministry.”162 Thus, here we see explicated Jesus’ role as the teacher… This parable then provides a
comprehensive overview of the ministry of Jesus and the roles played by Jesus, disciples, crowds,
and opponents, the major characters in Mark’s narrative.163

Given that this parable is understood to be so central to the Gospel of Mark and its theology by so many
scholars, including myself, it is to the text of chapter four that we now turn.
The chapter begins with Jesus teaching the crowd by the sea using a parable which tells the story
of a sower, his seed, and four different kinds of soil. For each of the different kinds of soil the sown seed
encounters a corresponding result ensues. The seed along the hard path is eaten immediately and is unable
to grow. The seed sown onto the rocky ground is unable to survive because its roots are too shallow. The
seed sown among the thorns grows but is prevented from bearing fruit by the weeds which choke it out.
Finally, the seed sown in the good soil does produce fruit: thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold. In the
interpretation included by Mark just a few verses later Jesus is presented as explaining the parable. He
likens the seed to his word and the differing soils to the distinct kinds of people which make up his
audience. Those along the path are those who are too hard for the word to enter; it is immediately stolen
away. Those who are like the rocky ground have no endurance because of their lack of deep root and fall
away when persecution arises. Those represented by the thorny ground are those whose desire for worldly

160
Guelich, 197. Nineham, 132-133.
161
Tolbert, 122.
162
Hooker, 122.
163
Witherington III, 160-161.

82
things prevents the word from bearing fruit. Finally, those who do bear fruit are those who hear Jesus’ word
and accept it.
Of course, multiple different interpretations have been offered concerning the parable. Lane argues
that the emphasis is not on the type of soil, but on the act of sowing.164 Tolbert disagrees and argues that the
point of emphasis is in fact on the different kinds of soil; indeed, her entire thesis is founded upon this
point. Witherington advocates a kind of compromise when he writes:
We must keep steadily in view that Jesus’ parables are indeed about the dominion of God
[=Witherington’s term for the Kingdom of God], and his own role in bringing it in…. In this
particular case the debate between whether the focus is on the seeds or on the soils misses the
point that the parable is about the seed merging with the soil to produce a crop. The focus is not
just on one or the other.165

This case is supported by the grammar of the Greek text. In the interpretation section of chapter four many
personal pronouns and participles are used with varying antecedents, thereby making interpretation
difficult. In response, Tolbert offers this solution:
The slight grammatical problem in Mark 4:16, 18, 20 posed by the use of σπειροµενοι (vv. 16,
18) and σπαρεντεσ (v. 20) [=both participles from the root meaning “to sow”], which technically
speaking, identifies the groups with the seed sown rather than with the earth into which they are
sown, has no chance of confusing the audience because of the clarity of the context. The seed is
the word; the types of ground are groups of people, but what the author is trying to communicate
is the merging of the seed and ground or sown seed.166

Another possible solution which is similar to that of Tolbert is to interpret the four “groupings” to be
representative of different groups of people. That is, to compare the broad situation of seed sown upon hard
ground to a specific kind of people, rather than comparing the hard ground to a group of people. This
interpretation maintains the four distinctions by comparing the four differing situations as a whole rather
than only allowing the people to be represented by the soil. Regardless of the grammar, the scholarly
interpretation has been largely similar: the four distinctions in the parable are meant to represent four
different reactions to Jesus’ teaching ministry.
By observing the parable and its interpretation we can begin to understand several important
issues regarding Jesus’ teaching. First of all, we see that different groups of people are presented as
responding quite differently to his words; in addition, their responses have a fundamental impact on their
ability to produce fruit. It is this fruit-bearing which is the second focus. Indeed, in the parable the only
thing that differentiates the final kind of soil from the other three is that it alone bears fruit. Three of the
four soils produce growth, but only one actually bears fruit. Therefore it is not the growth of the seed which
signifies good soil; instead, it is the ability to produce fruit which is truly distinctive of the final “good”
soil. Gundry comments on this fruit:
Though the abundant fruit-bearing of the good soil is commonly interpreted as a reference to the
eschatological harvest of God fully imposes his rule on earth, the vocabulary of harvesting is

164
Lane, 154.
165
Witherington III, 163.
166
Tolbert, 153, note 42

83
 completely missing and the vocabulary of fruit-bearing seems rather to represent the life of
discipleship. The fruit consists in obedience to the word of the kingdom.167

As Gundry states, there is no mention of a harvest in either the parable or its interpretation, though certainly
a “crop” would infer such a harvest. This omission is somewhat dramatic, especially given the focus on the
harvest which the parable of the seed growing secretly (v. 26-29) includes in verse 29. For this reason I side
with the interpretation offered by Gundry that indeed the fruit of the good soil is not eschatological in
nature but is understood as a present reality in the ministry of Jesus. It seems quite clear in the parable that
this fruit is produced in the lives of individuals as they hear and accept the word. It is my contention that
this fruit is intimately related to the present Kingdom of God. In the same way as the Kingdom is advanced
through the fruit of exorcism or healing, the Kingdom of God is advanced through the fruit of
understanding and obedience.168
Another argument against the eschatological nature of this passage originates in the text of Mark
10:28-31 where Jesus is promising a one-hundredfold return on obedience in this age. The passage reads:
Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother
or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a
hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and
children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.

Here, in correlation to my case concerning the non-eschatological emphasis of fruit bearing in chapter four,
we see an emphasis on the hundredfold crop in this present age. The repeated “one hundred times” as much
certainly points back to the parable of the sower, perhaps justifying a non-eschatological interpretation of
the fruit of Jesus’ word.
Therefore, it is my position that Mark understood the teaching of Jesus as having fruit-bearing
potential primarily in the present age and not strictly in the eschatological sense. As people come to
understand and act upon the words that Jesus speaks, i.e., bear fruit, the boundaries of the Kingdom of God
advance, sometimes in truly magnificent ways.
As we have seen above in our discussions of Jesus’ healing ministry, it is the attitude of the
individual which seems to be truly central to the expansion of the Kingdom. I believe Mark understood
Jesus’ teaching in the same manner. Only when Jesus’ teaching encounters good soil, namely, those with
faithful, humble, and obedient hearts, does it bear fruit. However, when it does encounter this good soil, the
results it produces are truly extraordinary.
H. A Summary of the First Three Kinds of Kingdom Expansion
Up to this point in our examination of the Gospel text we have seen very few instances where
Jesus chose to act in an unsolicited and unresponsive way. Time and again Mark portrays him as

167
Gundry, 206.
168
This fruit may be seen to be demonstrated in the disciples’ lives when they are sent out to preach and
cast out demons by Jesus. Though Mark does not directly link their understanding of the parables of
chapter four to their ability to undertake the ministry of Jesus, such a link would not be unfathomable for
Mark’s audience to pick up on. For just as Jesus’ ministry bears fruit of healing and exorcism, so do the
ministries of the disciples in chapter six.

84
responding to the requests of individuals for healing or exorcism, replying authoritatively to the challenge
of demons, or in chapter four responding to the desire for understanding with additional explanation of the
parable of the sower. Why does Mark portray Jesus in this way? In reality, the only actions we have seen
Jesus undertake of his own instigation thus far have been related to his teaching.169 Not once has he healed
without having been asked and not once has he exorcised without being first challenged. In addition, Mark
four portrays Jesus as explaining the meaning of his teaching only after a request is made for
understanding. The question that must be answered is then: What is the thing that causes Jesus to act? My
answer to this question has to do quite simply with an attitude of the heart which I believe Mark portrays
over and over in the Gospel. I have argued that Jesus expands the Kingdom in three ways during his earthly
ministry: his authoritative exorcisms, his responsive healings, and his initiated teaching. However, in
categories two and three we have seen that Mark portrays Jesus as acting in response to something to
advance the Kingdom. My contention is that this something is an attitude of the heart characterized by
faith, dependence, obedience, and insignificance. Repeatedly throughout the Gospel text, Jesus is presented
as responding to and honoring those who exhibit these qualities. How then does Mark group these
characteristics together? Is there a unifying theme among them all? What term does he use to describe the
attitude that fosters the growth of the Kingdom. In simple terms, I believe that Mark understood all of these
attributes to be representative of the attitude of a child.
I. The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark
1. Introduction
Before we examine what I believe to be the secret of the Kingdom of God in Mark it is worthwhile
first to restate my thesis concerning that which I have already argued. My contention is that Mark
understood four primary ways in which the Kingdom of God was advanced. The first way was through
Jesus’ authoritative exorcisms in response to the challenge of demons. The second way was Jesus’ healings
and exorcisms in response to the request of faith-filled individuals. The third way was through the means of
Jesus’ teaching and fourth was by means of Jesus’ authoritative second coming, an element which will be
presented below. I have argued that Mark presented Jesus’ primary interest as teaching, although the
Markan Jesus is also never presented as denying a request for healing. When Jesus is presented as casting
out demons or healing the sick the boundaries of God’s intended rule advance. When Jesus’ audience
receives, understands, and obeys his authoritative preaching the Kingdom of God grows. According to
Mark, Jesus’ coming return on the clouds of heaven will forcefully establish God’s Kingdom once and for
all.
Two of these four categories of Kingdom expansion seem to have little to do with the people with
whom Jesus interacted; neither Jesus’ exorcistic activity nor his return on the clouds of heaven seem to be
related to the attitudes of other characters in the narrative. However, the middle two categories, i.e., Jesus’
responsive healings and his teaching, have everything to do with the nature of Jesus’ audience. Over and

169
Jesus is also presented as initiating the two miraculous feedings of chapters six and seven. My thesis
does not address these instances, though they could be seen as falling in the first category of Kingdom

85
over again Mark emphasizes the faith and the humility of those who come seeking and receiving healing,
and it is my contention that Mark presented Jesus’ teaching in such a way that such qualities were also
necessary to gain true understanding. It is this common bond of attitude which this section is meant to
address.
The format will be as follows. First, I will examine each of these characteristics for their
importance in the Gospel. Then, I will examine specific interactions in the Gospel text which demonstrate
each of the attitude characteristics. Following this, I will also show the Markan emphasis on the wrong kind
of attitude and again show how Mark used specific characters to demonstrate this posture of the heart.
Following this, I will examine how Mark presented Jesus’ own life and attitude as aligning with the
qualities of faith, obedience, dependence, and insignificance. Finally, I will seek to show how Mark
illustratively summed up all of these qualities as falling under one title: childlikeness. I will attempt to
make the case for the interrelatedness of the Kingdom and the attitude of childlikeness, suggesting that it is
indeed the secret of the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark.
2. The Characteristics of a Kingdom-Centered Heart
a. Faith
This category needs no more explication. Over and over again, Mark emphasizes the faith of those
who receive healing from Jesus. Whether it be the faith of the four men pictured as lowering their paralytic
friend through the roof (2:1-12), the faith of a mother willing to search out Jesus for the exorcism and
freedom of her daughter (7:24-30), or the faith of a bleeding woman whose only remaining chance at
wholeness lies squarely in the person of Jesus (5:25-34), faith is at the center of what it means to interact
properly with the person of Jesus and the Kingdom he brings. Though my position regarding what the
Kingdom of God is in the Gospel of Mark differs somewhat from her own, Mary Ann Tolbert’s comments
on the importance of faith in Mark are helpful at this point:
Those who believe what he [=Jesus] says reveal God’s rule in their own hearts; that is, for those
who have faith that the kingdom has come, it has come in them. And such faith transforms their
lives, an event that the Gospel often graphically represents as miraculous healings. Faith that they
will be healed heals them. Hearing Jesus’ good news and responding in faith converts potential
into power. The fearless, trusting confidence of children supplies an analogy for this faith…. This
new family [=those who do the will of God (3:34-35)] is God’s domain, God’s kingdom come in
power at the instigation of Jesus. Consequently, the kingdom of God…are those whose response
to the word is characterized by faith.170

Only truly exceptional faith leads to the kind of radical obedience required to be a true follower of Jesus. It
is to this kind of obedience that we now turn.
b. Obedience
i. The Disciples
From the very first chapter of the Gospel a premium is placed on the importance of absolute
obedience to the word of Jesus. The text of 1:16-20 reads as follows:

expansion.
170
Tolbert, 173-174.

86
 As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon,
casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will
make you become fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed him. Going on a
little farther, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who were also in the boat
mending their nets. Immediately He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat
with the hired servants, and went away to follow Him.

Here we see the first specific recorded interactions between Jesus and those around him in the Gospel text.
The radical obedience of the disciples jumps off the page as truly extraordinary. Nineham writes:
From St. Mark’s point of view, the absence of these details [=biographical details on the disciples
and Jesus’ interactions with them] only serves to bring out more clearly the moral of the story. The
call of God in Christ comes with a divine power which does not need to wait upon accidental
human circumstances; it can create the response it demands. And that response must be one of
unconditional obedience, even to the point of sacrificing the means of livelihood and the closest of
natural ties.171

The call of Jesus presented by Mark in the first chapter of the Gospel is indeed one that requires radical
obedience and the forsaking of material security and familial relations. Jesus’ invitation to the soon-to-be
disciples brings out this kind of obedience ευθυσ, “immediately.” Whether it is the disciples’ radical
obedience or Jesus’ extreme authority which brings out this response is not explicitly stated in the text. The
surrounding passages seem to center of Jesus’ authority, thereby lending precedence to it as the cause of the
disciples’ action. However, it is interesting to note that Mark records quite distinctly the manner in which
the disciples follow: immediately, leaving their boats, nets, and even their father standing in the boat. It is
my position that this passage must be seen as emphasizing both Jesus’ overwhelming authority and the
disciples’ willingness to obey, a finding which agrees with both Nineham above and Guelich below.
A similar call upon the character of Levi occurs in 2:14 with the same result. Mark writes, “As he
[= Jesus] passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow
Me!” And he got up and followed Him.” Beginning with the characters of the disciples Mark presents
Jesus’ word as demanding a dramatic kind of obedience that places all else second.
Mark harkens back to the disciples’ initial obedience again later in chapter ten where the following
exchange occurs between Peter and Jesus.
Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.”
Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or
mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will
receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and
mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.
(10:28-30)

This passage points back to the disciples’ initial call and response and emphasizes again the value placed
on obedience and the willingness to follow Jesus. Guelich comments on the disciples’ initial willingness to
follow:
Jesus emerges as the central figure who dominates the scene and calls his own disciples by means
of an authoritative summons. The absence in Mark’s narrative of any previous context that might
make such an event intelligible, such as a previous awareness of or contact with the persons

171
Nineham, 71.

87
 involved, serves only to heighten the centrality of Jesus’ call and the disciples’ obedient response.
Second, the disciples respond negatively and positively. Negatively, they leave their occupations,
and James and John also leave their father. Discipleship means leaving behind their way of life
and former ties. This motif of the cost of discipleship will intensify throughout the Gospel.
Positively, they “followed him.” The disciples join themselves to Jesus, to accompany him and to
participate in his life.172

The willingness to obey the call of Jesus and follow him at the expense of possessions and family members
is presented as the thing which will provide a payback of one-hundred times as much in this age. Surely the
Markan emphasis on obedience to the word of Jesus comes through loud and clear in these references to the
disciples.
ii. The Good Soil
The theme of obedience is also carried into Jesus’ first major recorded sermon which we examined
above. In the content of his sermon Mark records that Jesus speaks of the good soil as those who “hear the
word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.” Here Mark uses the word
παραδεχοµαι which is defined by Danker as “to acknowledge something to be correct, accept.”173 Robert
Gundry notes the concept of obedience clearly underlying Mark’s word choice:
The good hearers welcome the word immediately… They welcome it deeply… They welcome it
exclusively… The understanding that results from this kind of reception goes beyond the
intellectual to touch conduct, commitment, and devotion. In this light… [the] fruit-bearing
seems… to represent the life of discipleship. The fruit consists in obedience to the word of the
kingdom.174

Here again we see the Markan emphasis upon the obedience to the word of the Kingdom proclaimed by
Jesus. It is only through obedience that fruit is born.
iii. The Cost of Discipleship
Mark incorporates obedience manifested in action in yet another crucial section of his Gospel. In
8:34, 35 Jesus is reported as saying:
If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the
gospel’s will save it.

Here again we see Jesus depicted as emphasizing the need for radical obedience in order truly to be his
disciple. Nothing short of self-sacrificing obedience will do. To obey and follow means to forsake one’s
very life. Craig Evans states concerning this passage:
Jesus’ contrasting image of saving or losing one’s life underscores the point that humanity’s
salvation is bound up with the good news. There is no salvation apart from it, and one’s response
to it cannot consist of half measures. One either embraces the gospel and lives according to its
demands, or one avoids its apparent dangers and perishes.175

172
Guelich, 52.
173
Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 761.
174
Gundry, 206-207.
175
Evans, 26.

88
Here again we see the Markan emphasis on obedience to the call of Christ, even at the expense of one’s
life.
iv. Obedience as the Defining Factor in the Family of God
Jesus is also presented as redefining the traditional concept of family around the notion of
obedience. We have already noted that Mark demonstrates that true obedience may entail the leaving
behind of family members; such is the case for the four disciples in chapter one, and it is emphasized again
in chapter ten. However, the Markan Jesus does not only offer proclamations against traditional families;
rather, he redefines true familial ties along non-genetic lines. In 3:31-35 Jesus is depicted as saying:
Then His [=Jesus] mother and His brothers arrived and standing outside they sent word to
Him and called Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your
mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.”
Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Looking about at
those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever
does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus not only rejects traditional familial bonds but reestablishes them around the concept of obedience to
the will of God. Those who are truly part of God’s “house”, which is set in direct parallelism to “kingdom”
in 3:24, 25, are those who choose to obey God’s will without reservation.
Jesus is presented as having yet another interaction with his traditional family in 6:1-6 where the
major point of emphasis is not obedience but faith, the importance of which as it is related to the Kingdom
of God has already been discussed.
v. Summary
Time and again, obedience is placed at the heart of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus and to
live a Kingdom-centered life. Anything short of absolute and unconditional obedience is simply
unacceptable; only those that follow without reservation will become true disciples.
c. A Willingness to be in Need and Dependent
In addition to the traits of obedience and faith, dependence is also emphasized as of utmost
importance in the Gospel of Mark. Several different passages demonstrate this value of dependence most
explicitly.
i. 2:17
Following the call of Levi which we examined earlier, Jesus is presented as dining with tax
collectors and sinners. During the meal the Jewish authorities are presented as questioning Jesus’ disciples
as to why he conducts himself this way. Mark writes, “After hearing this, Jesus said to them, ‘It is not those
who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but
sinners.’ ” As in 1:38, which we also have already examined, Jesus seems to make a sort of blanket
statement of purpose, i.e., to call sinners and to heal those who are sick. In contrast to these two groups are
placed those who are well and the righteous. Again the most important thing to understand is what the
deciding difference between the two groups is. I believe that this fundamental difference is found in the
need expressed by each group. Just as Jesus is reported as saying: those who are well have no need of a
doctor, and in the same way that those who are righteous have no need of a savior. On the other hand, those

89
who are sick or who are sinners are clearly in need. It is these people which Jesus bestows favor upon and
pronounces his intentions towards, i.e., those who are in need. William Lane writes:
The pericope demands the identification of “the righteous” with the Pharisees, and the tax
collectors and outcasts with “the sinners.” If Jesus at times spoke generously about the Pharisees,
he was untiring in condemning their interpretation of the Law which had blurred God’s intention.
This point is clear when the pericope is seen in the context of the hostility of the scribes of the
Pharisees. It is accordingly better to see in the use of “righteous” in Ch. 2:17 a point of irony
against those who believe themselves to be righteous. Jesus had not come to call for the Kingdom
of God men like the scribes who considered themselves to be righteous, but outcasts who knew
they needed to be made whole.176 (Italics mine)

In this passage it is clearly those who are in need which are pronounced as the objects of Jesus’ ministry,
and in turn those who were in need but who would not admit it, i.e., the Jewish authority, who were most
on the outside and farthest from Jesus’ intended purpose. The ability to admit need and dependence is
presented as a prerequisite for attention from Jesus.
ii. 9:28-29
This passage comes at the end of the exorcistic account which directly follows the transfiguration.
The account is of a man who had brought his son to Jesus in order to have him healed. Because of Jesus’
absence (he was being transfigured) eight of his disciples attempt to fill in for him and exorcise the demon.
However, they are unable successfully to cast the demon out. The following is the exchange recorded by
Mark after Jesus successfully completed what his disciples had failed to do.
When He [=Jesus] came into the house, His disciples began questioning Him privately,
“Why could we not drive it out?”
And He said to them, “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.”

This passage appears to be straightforward until we see that in the course of Jesus’ exorcism of demon
nowhere is he presented as praying. I believe the Markan Jesus’ emphasis on dependence may provide the
answer for this apparent discrepancy. However, before we can examine this passage in full, we must first
go back to 6:7-13 which says:
And He [=Jesus] summoned the twelve and began to send them out in pairs, and gave
them authority over the unclean spirits; and He instructed them that they should take nothing for
their journey, except a mere staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belt—but to wear sandals;
and He added, “Do not put on two tunics.” And He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house,
stay there until you leave town. Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out
from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet as a testimony against them.”
They went out and preached that men should repent. And they were casting out many
demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them.

Mark records the result of this initial phase of ministry directly following these verses by stating that word
traveled as far as the court of Herod. Thus, in chapter six Mark depicts the disciples as having a large
degree of success concerning exorcism in pairs, and then in chapter nine presents eight of them as unable to
exorcise even one demon. I believe the key to this incongruity is found in the disciples’ attitudes in the two

176
Lane, 105.

90
instances: in one instance they were clearly dependent upon God for their provision and in the other they
are presented as perhaps relying on some other means of exorcising the demon.
Lane notes the extremity of Jesus’ allowances for the disciples’ initial mission:
The specific terms of the commission demanded of the disciples a rigorous commitment to total
dependence upon God for food and shelter. While the minimum requirements for the journey—
staff and sandals—were permitted, they were to take nothing else. Bread, the beggar’s bag, the
smallest coin in the belt, or a second tunic to keep out the night chill were all excluded.177

To restate, this appears to be the progression: Jesus sends out the disciples to preach and cast out demons in
an incredibly dependent posture: they were unable to provide anything for themselves and must rely on the
provision of God through other people for everything; their mission experienced so much success that news
of it reached the court of Herod (6:14); later on, the disciples are unable to cast out a single demon and
Jesus tells them that it was because they did not pray. What is the connecting link between the prior ability
of the disciples and the subsequent failure? Notice what it is that Mark presents Jesus as telling them is the
problem: the problem is that they did not pray. It follows that one would pray only when one was in need of
something. If the disciples did not pray it then seems that they thought they were not in need of assistance
to cast out the demon. When their confidence proves false, they are directed by the Markan Jesus to rely
upon prayer, i.e., be dependent upon God, in order to cast out the demons: the condition they were first sent
out in! Edward Schweizer agrees:
They [=the disciples] were not able to perceive that what is simplest and most taken for granted is
really most important, since it causes one to cease looking at himself, and look to God…. Mark
wants to proclaim that this kind of discipleship does not result from the effectiveness of one’s own
piety but only from the action of God.178

So, here again we have the dependence of the individual upon God placed at a level of high
importance by the evangelist. Let us carry on to examine yet another instance which depicts Jesus as
ascribing honor to those who embrace dependence.
iii. 12:41-44
And He [=Jesus] sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting
money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. A poor widow came
and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. Calling His disciples to Him, He said
to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury;
for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had
to live on.

The above passage is placed during Jesus’ final days in Jerusalem during the Passover celebration.
Even here at the end of his story Mark portrays Jesus in a way that values the embracing of dependence.
The passage portrays a woman giving out of her need, indeed giving all she had to live on and embracing
greater need and dependence. In response to this act Jesus is portrayed as proclaiming the superiority of her
gift above all others because of the attitude which led to her gift, an attitude directly relating to dependence,
need, and faith. Lane writes:

177
Ibid., 207-208.
178
Edward Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (Atlanta: John Knox, 1971), 189-190.

91
 Prefacing his statement with his solemn Amen, Jesus overturned this facile assumption of
conventional piety [= that a larger gift was more pleasing to God]. What the Twelve had failed to
appreciate was the total commitment to God that the widow’s gift represented. In contrast with
those who brought a gift from their abundance, she gave all that she had, even her whole living….
The woman sacrifices what is necessary, all she had. It was this that the disciples needed to
understand, for the call to the gospel is a call for absolute surrender to God and total trust in
him.179

Here again we see the value which is placed on dependence and need. The widow was not only already in
this state of being but gave in spite of them in faith that God would provide.
d. Insignificance180
i. 9:33-42
They came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them,
“What were you discussing on the way?”
But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them
was the greatest. Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first,
he shall be last of all and servant of all.” Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in
His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and
whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”
John said to him, “Teacher we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we
tried to prevent him because he was not following us.
But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My
name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For
whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say
to you, he will not lose his reward. Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to
stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been
cast into the sea.

At issue in this passage is the great dichotomy between what Jesus is presented as saying is great
and what the world understands to be meant by “greatness.” At the beginning of the passage the disciples
are clearly discussing greatness in the world’s terms and the Markan Jesus is quick to point out their error.
Mark portrays Jesus as ascribing true greatness to those who are insignificant and then goes so far as to
make the reference explicit by depicting Jesus as taking a child up in arms and using him as an example of
insignificance. The Markan Jesus seems to be saying that the one who is willing to serve even the least
significant member of society, i.e., a child, is truly great when it comes to the Kingdom of God. We notice
now and will comment on again later that Jesus is portrayed as doing that which he said was the real sign of
greatness, namely, serving the child before him by receiving him into his arms. Ambrozic writes
concerning the social standing of children:
The child was, to the Jews of Jesus’ time, a prototype of insignificance, dependence,
unimportance, helplessness, and immaturity; the child was looked upon as one who deserved no

179
Lane, 443.
180
It should be noted that by my use of “insignificance” I am not meaning to imply a lack of value or
worth. Rather, I am meaning to imply a lack of “worldly significance” relating to wealth and power. I do
not believe Mark’s Gospel advocates the decreased value of individuals but rather a way of life based on a
concept of humility which embraces worldly insignificance.

92
 attention, who had nothing to offer, and therefore could make no claims. The child had to receive
whatever it received as a pure gift.181

It seems fitting that when Jesus tells his disciples that they must be “last of all” he is in effect saying,
“become like children,” a command he makes even more explicit less than a chapter later. The disciples are
admonished to serve all, a sign of utter insignificance.
Concerning the second portion of the above text, Mark chooses an interesting Greek word. In his
words to the disciples Jesus is presented as saying “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to
stumble” is worthy of an extreme measure of punishment. The Greek word σκανδαλιζω, translated here as
“to stumble” can also carry a connotation of sin, i.e., causing someone to sin is synonymous with causing
them to stumble. In addition to this, Mark uses the phrase των µικρων τουτων των πιστευοντων, or
“these little ones who are believing.” Danker defines των µικρων, from which we get our prefix “micro”,
like this: “pertaining to being of little import, unimportant, insignificant; of person lacking in important
influence, power, etc…. one of these humble folk.”182 Given this more extended definition, it then seems
that Mark portrays Jesus as once again paying honor to the position of insignificance and warning his
disciples against ever causing one of the little, meek ones to sin. It is worth noting the additional phase used
to describe the little ones, namely, those “who believe.” Thus, it is those who are insignificant in the
world’s eyes who demonstrate faith, which we have already seen is of utmost importance for the Kingdom
of God in Mark. Once again, it is the insignificant and seemingly powerless ones that the Markan Jesus
applauds and recognizes as truly great.
e. Summary
What then are the attitudes of the heart that the Markan Jesus honors? This survey has outlined
four: faith, obedience, dependence, and insignificance. Over and over again in the text of the Gospel, Jesus
is presented as paying special attention to those who exhibit faith in his person, who obey his word no
matter the cost, who are willing to embrace need and dependence, and who are willing to become like the
least of society and become insignificant in the world’s eyes. Let us now turn to examples both the attitude
of the Kingdom and the attitude which opposes the Kingdom as found in different (and sometimes the
same!) characters throughout the Gospel for a better understanding of Mark’s emphasis before we turn to
see how it is that Jesus himself takes on the attitude he asks his followers to adopt.
3. Examples of the Attitude of the Kingdom in the Gospel
a. Introduction
We have already examined several characters which Mark depicts as acting with the proper kind
of attitude. Certainly the disciples at their initial call and at the beginning of their itinerant ministry
demonstrate a willingness to be obedient and dependent. The widow demonstrated her willingness to take
on the yoke of dependence and insignificance by giving everything she had to the treasury of God. Let us

181
Ambrozic, 148.
182
Danker, 651.

93
now turn to more examples of this kind of attitude which I believe to be of utterly central importance to the
theme of the Kingdom of God in the Gospel of Mark.
b. 2:1-12
There is no need here to reproduce the text of this section because of our previous examination of
it. However, let us turn again to the text so as to examine it for signs of the attitude of the Kingdom. Again,
the passage consists of the account of four men bringing their paralytic friend to Jesus, presumably to have
him healed. However, when they arrive the crowd is too great, and they dig a hole in the roof above Jesus
and lower their paralytic friend on a mat before Jesus. When this happens, Jesus is recorded as saying “Son,
your sins are forgiven.”
Although Mark is not specific concerning the specific identity of αυτων, or “their,” it does not
seem unreasonable to assume that the paralytic may also have demonstrated faith by allowing himself to be
lowered through the roof in front of a crowd of people. Certainly, the paralytic is also portrayed in such a
way that his infirmity, and therefore his need, is made blatantly public before a crowd of his peers, even the
religious authorities of his day. In addition, the paralytic is certainly pictured as demonstrating dependence
upon both his friends and Jesus for healing. It appears that many of the characteristics of attitude I have
argued for are present in this story, and Jesus rewards the men’s efforts by both forgiving his sins and
healing his body. The man demonstrates the attitude of the Kingdom, Jesus heals his spiritual and physical
needs, and the Kingdom of God grows.
c. 5:25-34
As before, we have already examined this passage, but let us again turn to the text so as to observe
potentially the attitude of the Kingdom at work. The passage begins by reporting the condition of the
woman: utterly desperate and without hope. After hearing of Jesus she devises a plan to get near enough to
him to touch his garments in the hope that this action would somehow magically grant her healing. She
proceeds with her plan sneaking up behind Jesus in the crowd and grazing his clothing. Mark reports that
power is discharged from Jesus and heals the woman’s physical ailment. However, the story is not
complete; Jesus demands to know who it is that touched him, and the woman meets her healer face to face.
She is presented as falling on her knees and trembling before him when he says, “Daughter, your faith has
made you well; go in peace and be healed from your affliction.”
Do we see evidences of the attitude of the Kingdom in this portion of scripture? I believe we do.
First of all the woman’s faith is again noted as the source of her healing. Mark presents Jesus as making
special mention of her faith played out in her actions to accomplish her healing. Certainly the woman is
also presented as obedient, however reluctantly, to the word of Christ. When he calls her she comes
forward and presents herself. Certainly the woman’s dependence and her lowliness in the societal structure
need not be highlighted explicitly by Mark, for her condition would have left her in a state of permanent
uncleanness and therefore on the outside of Jewish religious activity. How does Jesus respond to these
conditions? He calls her “Daughter”, and he provides her with wellness.
d. 12:28-34

94
 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered
them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”
Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is our Lord; and
you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
There is no other commandment greater than these.”
The scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is one, and there is
no one else besides Him, and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and
with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings
and sacrifices.”
When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from
the Kingdom of God.” After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.

Here we have a unique interaction between Jesus and one of the members of the Jewish authority,
for this exchange shows the agreement between Jesus and the scribe. The scribe is presented as questioning
Jesus because he saw that Jesus had answered wisely before and also admits Jesus’ wisdom according to
his answer. The same is true of Jesus following the scribe’s answer, and then Mark records Jesus’
proclamation concerning the scribe’s nearness to the Kingdom of God. The important question to ask is:
What has brought this man close to the Kingdom? Why is he close now? Does his attitude reflect the proper
posture to advance the Kingdom? Craig Evans answers the first group of questions as follows:
The second point the evangelist scores concerns the recognition, on the part of the scribe, of Jesus’
sound teaching. Jesus’ teaching is so persuasive that even a scribe, whose colleagues only
moments earlier had been trying to trip up Jesus, acknowledges its soundness. Indeed, the scribe’s
enthusiastic endorsement potentially undermines the primacy of the temple establishment itself.183

I would agree that it seems like the scribe’s willingness to agree with Jesus’ answer is the thing that nears
him to the Kingdom of God. Lane also comments:
The scribe’s openness and humility before God exhibited a favorable disposition, while his
enthusiastic approval of Jesus’ teaching revealed an attraction toward the one through whom God
had brought the Kingdom near to men in an eschatological and messianic perspective.184

Lane’s comments hint at what we have termed the attitude of the Kingdom. Whereas his
colleagues have been presented repeatedly as questioning Jesus and attempting to trap him in his words,
this scribe does nothing but validate the correctness of Jesus’ response. Certainly the jarring difference
between this exchange and the remainder of the exchanges between Jesus and the Jewish authority in the
Gospel would lead Mark’s audience to note the scribe’s willingness to agree with Jesus, even at the
potential expense to his standing with those around him. Mark makes the point many times that the Jewish
authorities, a group which we will see portrayed as distinctly opposed to Jesus, are driven by their desire
for the approval of the crowds. Here, one of their number apparently forsakes such a desire to affirm the
rightness of Jesus’ teaching and he is told he is near the Kingdom of God. The dichotomy between the
attitude of the Kingdom and the attitude opposed to it is once again demonstrated.
e. 7:24-30

183
Evans, 267.
184
Lane, 434.

95
 Jesus got up and went away from there to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a
house, He wanted no one to know of it, yet He could not escape notice. But after hearing of Him, a
woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at his feet. Now the
woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out
of her daughter.
And He was saying to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the
children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
But she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on
the children’s crumbs.”
And he said to her, “Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your
daughter.”
And going back to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, the demon having left.

Here again we have someone asking for healing in the stead of another, though Jesus’ reaction to
the request is somewhat unusual for the Gospel. Instead of agreeing to come with her, as is the case with
the synagogue ruler of 5:22-24, Jesus is presented as seeming to say that he will not heal her daughter; it is
not proper to give what he has (the Kingdom of God?) to the dogs (Gentiles?). However, it is at this point
that the passage truly becomes unique. After Jesus’ response to the woman’s request in parable form, she
rebuts Jesus’ own argument in parable form! The exchange closes with Jesus pronouncing the healing of
the girl because of the saying of her mother.
What, if any, elements of the attitude of the Kingdom do we find here? First of all we must note
the woman’s willingness to be dependent and insignificant. Not only does she come before Jesus on her
knees, but she even seems to accept the title of “dog”, a title even lower than that of “child”! In addition, it
seems the woman’s response demonstrates an uncanny faith and persistence. Her faith is shown by her
reply to Jesus’ initial statement. That she is even presented as replying at all seems to lend itself to an
almost tenacious picture of her will to see her daughter healed. However, it is what she says that truly
demonstrates her faith in Jesus’ healing ability. As the parable runs it seems proper to assign to the Jews the
role of children, to Gentiles the role of dogs, and to Jesus’ miraculous works the role of bread. After her
initial request, Jesus says that he cannot give bread to the dogs until after the children have eaten their full,
i.e., I cannot yet perform this miracle, for my mission to the Jews is not complete. In reply, the woman
asserts that even the dogs can eat the crumbs from the table, apparently while the children are still eating. It
is as if she is saying, “What I am asking of you is not even a full piece of bread, but a crumb; your power is
more than sufficient to feed both the children and the dogs at once.”185 The woman’s faith is the foundation
for her request and it gains the attention of Jesus, apparently changing his mind. The woman’s request is
granted and his daughter is healed. Nineham writes about this passage:
The woman does not contest Jesus’ first reply; she accepts the analogy and its implications, only
pointing out that when the children are fed, the dogs also get some small benefit incidentally. She
thus recognizes the divinely ordained division between God’s people and the Gentiles. Moreover,
but the very fact of her persistence, she reveals her conviction that it is from Jesus, the Jewish

185
This passage must be read in the light of the feeding stories where Jesus is presented as providing
enough food to allow twelve and seven basketfuls of crumbs to be picked up after everyone has eaten their
fill.

96
 Messiah, that salvation is to be obtained. Cf. Matt. 15:28, where her attitude is described as one of
‘great faith’.186

Tolbert also comments:

His [=Jesus’] rebuff provides the opportunity for her faith to be fully revealed, for she takes the
metaphor and turns it back on him… He agrees and tells her to “go,” for her daughter is healed….
All those who respond in faith share “the children’s bread.”187

So once again we see the effects of the attitude of the heart and their payoff for both the individual
and the Kingdom of God as a whole. It seems that more examples would do nothing but belabor the point
so it is unnecessary to examine in full the leper of chapter one, the synagogue leader of chapter five, the
deaf mute of chapter seven, the blind man of chapter eight, the father of chapter nine, or blind Bartimaeus
of chapter ten. However, it is my contention that all of these stories, in one way or another, demonstrate an
attitude on the part of the one requesting healing which is characterized by the attributes of faith,
dependence, obedience, and insignificance. Over and over again, it seems to be the ones who are willing to
admit their need, exercise faith, and embrace dependence who receive healing from Jesus and come under
the intended rule of God. Of course, not all of the characters of the story demonstrate this kind of spirit; in
fact, at times it seems that Mark shows us just what the opposing attitude of the heart looks like: a heart
characterized by its hardness and unreceptiveness to Jesus’ message.
4. The Attitude Opposed to the Kingdom: Hardness of Heart
a. Introduction
There are basically three sets of characters presented in the Gospel who are presented as being in
opposition to Jesus or having “hard hearts.” The first and most easily visible of these groups is comprised
of the members of the Jewish authority. While there are exceptions like the one noted above in chapter
twelve, for the most part the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees are presented as being in almost constant
and total opposition to the work of Jesus. The second group includes the other powerful characters of the
Gospel: the rich man of chapter ten, Herod, and Pilate. This group is scarcely mentioned in the Gospel text
and as a result we have little basis for founding much argumentation on their characters. However, it is
clear that each member of this group is presented as not responding as they should to the call of Jesus. The
third group is a one we actually mentioned in the last section under examples of a Kingdom-centered
attitude: the disciples. Their story is one of vast contrast; they enter the scene excited about Jesus’ ministry
and ready to do whatever it takes to contribute. They exit the scene having either abandoned or betrayed
him and his cause. Mark records their hardness of heart in chapter six and hints at it again in chapter eight.
As a result, any investigation of an attitude in opposition to the Kingdom must include Mark’s portrayal of
the disciples. In fact, because they are the only group to be portrayed in two ways, their story, as it is woven
through the text of the Gospel proper, may provide the greatest insight into the understanding of the attitude
of the Kingdom in the Gospel. For our purposes we will first examine the presentation of the Pharisees so

186
Nineham, 199.
187
Tolbert, 185.

97
as to give ourselves a standard against which to judge.188 Then we will examine the lives of the group
defined by power and finally try to discern what lessons Mark was trying to communicate through his
portrayal of the disciples.
b. The Jewish Authority189
There are two major blocks of material where Mark repeatedly includes the characters of the
Jewish authority. One block is found in what is commonly called the group of “controversy stories” of
chapters two and three, and the second is found from about chapter ten to the death of Jesus at the end of
chapter fifteen. Between these two large blocks of material, the Jewish authorities are presented as coming
in and out of the scene at somewhat random intervals.
The Jewish authorities first enter the scene in the story we have already discussed twice: the
healing of the paralytic who was lowered through the roof. In this story, as in all of the stories of the
controversy group, they are presented as questioning the actions of Jesus. The first instance of questioning
centers on Jesus claim to be able to forgive sins; the second instance concerns Jesus’ dining with sinners,
the third issue, though the Pharisees are only an absent third party in it, concerns Jesus’ fasting habits; and
the fourth and fifth stories focus on the Sabbath regulations. It is my contention that in these stories we see
a progression of the hardness of heart of the Jewish authority from honest questioning to outright
conspiracy. Let us now examine this progression in more detail.
As was said above, the first instance of questioning comes about after Jesus is presented as
pronouncing his ability to forgive sins directly preceding the healing of the paralytic. About this question
Nineham writes:
They [=the scribes] were deeply shocked by such a claim [=Jesus’ claim to have the ability to
forgive sins]. The forgiving of sins, they say, is the prerogative of God alone and for anyone else
to claim it is blasphemy. They are certainly right on the first point, and would be right on the
second point too in the case of any ordinary person such as they took Jesus to be…. The evidential
healing is a triumphant success and if, in the fact of all that, St. Mark implies, the scribes continue
with their opposition, they are utterly without excuse.190

As Nineham insinuates, the initial questioning of the scribes seems to be totally understandable and
probably even expected. The claim that Jesus made was indeed one that only God himself should have been
able to make and for the scribes to respond with the reply they did was only natural. Indeed, Jesus does not
explicitly rebuke them for their thoughts. Instead, he is presented as offering them a tangible proof of the
claim he has just made, perhaps even meeting their skepticism with further a further verification of the
legitimacy of his claim.
The second controversy story concerns Jesus’ dining with sinners and his association with them.
This time it is the scribes of the Pharisees who ask Jesus’ disciples about his behavior, again, probably
rightly so. For a man of power and prestige like Jesus to be dining with the outcasts of Jewish society was

188
This is valid because to the best of my knowledge there is no scholar to my knowledge who does not
agree that they are presented as the primary adversaries of Jesus in the Gospel.
189
By this phrase I mean the groups presented in opposition to Jesus throughout the Gospel, including: the
scribes, the priests, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees.

98
hardly fitting of the Pharisaical expectations. In reply, Jesus answers for his disciples by remarking
concerning the needs of the healthy and righteous, or lack thereof, and the needs of the sick and the sinners.
The third controversy does not directly involve the Jewish authority, though their practices are
certainly compared with Jesus’ in the passage. Mark reports a question about Jesus’ lack of fasting practice
as opposed to the Pharisaical twice-a-week routine. In response, Jesus states that no wedding party would
fast when they are with the bridegroom; it is only after he is taken away that they will fast. In addition,
Jesus tells his first parables of the wineskins and the cloth, the point being that the mixing of new and old is
a dangerous proposition for the old.191
As I said above, the fourth and fifth controversies focus on Jesus’ Sabbath behavior and the
scribes’ displeasure with it. The first instance takes place in a grain field and centers on the disciples’
picking of heads of grain; the second occurs in the synagogue and relates to the question of whether it is
right to heal on the Sabbath. In both cases, Jesus is depicted as acting in a way that contradicts the normal
practices of Judaism legitimizing the picking of grain and the healing of a cripple on the Sabbath.
Common threads run throughout this controversy section. The first is clearly the old versus the
new. Jesus is presented repeatedly as offering a new way of practice which contrasts directly with that of
the scribes and Pharisees. In every instance except the final one in the synagogue, Jesus is presented as
offering some sort of justification for his actions, whether it be Old Testament precedence or common
sense parables.
While there are similarities among the stories, there are also differences, especially between the
first three and the last two. With regard to the first trio of stories, the questions which Jesus is presented
with certainly seem rather normal and appropriate. In all three cases he is operating differently than people
might have expected; it therefore does not seem completely inappropriate that they would question him
concerning his motives. However, in the last two sections it is possible to sense a somewhat different tone.
As I said above, the fourth instance takes place, according to the Markan timeline, on a Sabbath day in the
grain fields. What is unusual is not necessarily that Jesus and his disciples were there, but that the Jewish
authorities were there as well. Indeed, it seems as if Mark may have presented them in such a way as to
suggest that they were trailing Jesus so as to catch him in some sort of violation.192 The final story also
seems to read this way. In the final story, the only activity ascribed to the Jewish authorities is “watching”
Jesus so they might “accuse” him. Here the trap is made obvious by the evangelist.193 It is at this final
incident that Jesus’ reaction finally turns explicitly sour towards the authorities. Mark states:
And He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?”
But they kept silent. After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart,
He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to
how they might destroy him. (3:4-6)

190
Nineham, 90.
191
New wine eventually destroys old wineskins because of the expanding nature of fermenting wine.
192
See Witherington III, 128-132 for an opposing position.
193
Because of the obvious nature of the Jewish authorities’ trap in this fifth instance it seems reasonable to
read this back into the fourth controversy story concerning the grain fields.

99
It is interesting to note that it is only after Mark has made explicit that the Jewish authorities are plotting
against Jesus by looking for a way to accuse him in the synagogue does Mark portray him as reacting in a
clearly negative way to them. Here there is no honest question of clarification; Mark presents the Jewish
authorities as tongue-tied because of the wrong they are about to do, i.e., plot to take life on the Sabbath.
Guelich’s summarizing comments on this final section are worth quoting at length.
The opponents’ response of complete silence, and Jesus’ action of healing the man demonstrate
that more was at stake than Jesus’ challenge of the sabbath law. If the matter had concerned the
interpretation of the Law, the opponents had no cause for silence. They not only agreed in
principle but could have applied that principle to the situation. They did not. Jesus did. And
therein lies the difference…. He [=Jesus] lays claim here to be doing God’s work of making a
person whole…. The opponents’ silence and their subsequent actions indicate they rejected the
claim of Jesus’ ministry. Instead of arguing the point of legality, they found his claim to be a
fundamental threat to their understanding of how God worked and would work in history…. As
one who called into question the very premises of their understanding of God’s action in history
by his own claims and ministry, he represented an ultimate threat. He could neither be tolerated
nor easily dismissed. They sought to remove him from the scene.194

Following this series of five controversy stories and a short break, Jesus is again pictured as being
confronted by the scribal authority concerning his authority to cast out demons, again a section we have
already examined. At the heart of the scribes’ argument is the contention that Jesus is possessed by Satan
and gains his power from that relationship. In response Jesus accuses his accusers of being guilty of
blaspheming the Holy Spirit, i.e., what Mark terms the unforgivable sin. Through this exchange the battle
lines are firmly drawn. Mark’s readers know that Jesus has condemned the attitude of the Jewish authorities
as worthy of damnation, the Jewish leaders have condemned Jesus as worthy of death.
What patterns, then, do we observe here as an example of the attitude that opposes Jesus? First and
foremost we see and unwillingness to accept a new way of doing things. At the heart of the Jewish
authorities’ portrayed conflicts with Jesus is their concept of God’s work and desires for the world, played
out in legal debates. Thus we see an unwillingness to submit to the “new wine” of Jesus. In addition to this,
we can begin to see the evidences of pride and the reluctance to give up power. The Markan Jesus’ ministry
threatened the societal structure of the day and therefore threatened the power and influence of those who
were its religious leaders. Hence, it seems reasonable to assert that the Jewish authorities’ desire to
maintain their societal standards may have been due, at least as Mark portrays it, to their desire to maintain
significance.
There are two additional passages which come before the final string of debates recorded in
Mark’s final few chapters which deserve examination so as to gain a fuller picture of the attitude of the
Jewish authority. The first takes place in chapter seven and again concerns the interpretation of the Mosaic
law. The passage (7:1-23) reads:
The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from
Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that
is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands,

194
Guelich, 140-141.

100
 thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the marketplace, they do not
eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in
order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the
scribes asked Him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but
eat their bread with impure hands?”
And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship
Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to
the traditions of men.” He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the
commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and
your mother’, and ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a
man says to his father or mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say,
given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother; thus invalidating
the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as
that.”
After he called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to me, all of
you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but
the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. When he had left the crowd and
entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable.
And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand
that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his
heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders,
adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, and well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride
and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

Here we have another instance which compares quite readily with the stories which make up the
controversy section of chapters two and three. However, here we are able to gain a much fuller picture of
the Markan Jesus’ thoughts on the Jewish authorities.
In this passage we see many of the same themes as we noted in our comments on 2:1-3:6. We are
able to see how Mark’s depiction of Jesus’ description of the Jewish authorities characterizes them as
obstinate, unwilling to submit to what is right, prideful, hypocritical, and selfish: hardly the attitude which
Jesus is portrayed as honoring in the rest of the Gospel text.
While the context of Jesus’ statement concerns a legal debate it seems that at least part of the
passage centers on the question of the heart of man. Twice Mark mentions the term “heart” and four
additional times he uses a phrase such as “out of a man” or “from within a man” seeming to make the point
that true defilement comes from the heart of man and is not grounded in external righteousness. In fact,
Mark presents Jesus as listing such qualities as “deeds of coveting,” “envy,” “deceit,” and “pride” as
symbolic of an unclean heart; qualities which certainly seem to be congruent with the portrayal of the
Markan hardness of heart demonstrated in the lives of the Jewish authorities. Lane writes concerning 7:6:
It [= Jesus’ pronouncement to the Pharisees] implies that even the concern to sanctify all of life,
which is presupposed in the assumption of the priestly purity laws, rests less upon the
commandment above all others, the love of God with the whole heart, than upon a tradition which
has been received and passed on as an expression of formal piety. This gives pointedness to the
charge of hypocrisy which emphasizes the contradiction between what a man seems to be in the
opinion of his peers and what he is before God. In the outward appearance of their piety the

101
 Pharisees were impeccable since they scrupulously observed numerous prescriptions and
commandments. It was, nevertheless, a lie because they had not surrendered themselves to God.195

Indeed, it seems that Jesus’ proclamation concerning the purity of the heart in v. 21 seems to point directly
back to his accusation against the hearts of the Pharisees in v. 6. Thus, it seems reasonable to assert that
Jesus’ list of traits which “defile a man” can be seen as a characterization of a hard heart. The Pharisees not
only have hard hearts but also unclean hearts rendering them defiled before God.
As a side note, its is perhaps worth noting the major external contention that Jesus is presented as
leveling against the Pharisees, i.e., the failure to take care of their parents. Although the precise practice of
“corban” is not fully known, most scholars believe we can gain a roughly accurate picture of the practice.196
Jewish society placed a heavy burden upon the children to take care of their familial responsibilities,
especially as their parents grew in age and their ability to take care of themselves decreased. Scholars
believe that the practice of corban to which Jesus is depicted as referring probably entailed the forsaking of
this obligation under a guise of spirituality. It seems that corban may have entitled the child to vow
whatever money might have been used to support his or her parents as an offering to the temple treasury,
thereby removing it from possible service on behalf of his or her parents. While it is certainly true that there
are scholarly questions as to whether or not such a practice really went on, Mark presents it as a reality. It
seems that he portrays Jesus as accusing the Jewish authorities of being bad children and encouraging
others to be the same, a classification which certainly seems in line with his depiction of their attitudes.
Yet another recorded interaction worthy of examination occurs in chapter eight where the
following passage (8:11-12) appears:
The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to
test him. Sighing deeply in his spirit, He said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I
say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

Here again we see the Pharisees, perhaps as representative of the larger Jewish authority, in direct
opposition to the work and person of Jesus. Here they are presented as seeking the sign that Jesus has
perhaps already offered them in 2:1-12 when he healed the paralytic. Lane comments upon this verse by
saying:
Behind the demand for a sign was the prior, firm conviction that Jesus’ authority was demonic in
origin, his works an expression of black magic. Jesus was thoroughly aware of the hostility and
unbelief of the Pharisees. The emotion displayed in his deep sigh was an expression of indignation
and grief. There is a note of exasperation in the question… which reflects on the perverseness and
unbelief of a people who oppose themselves to the revelation of God’s grace.197

Nineham also comments on Mark’s audiences’ reactions to this verse:

To the Christians of St. Mark’s day the signs that Jesus had already wrought seemed so
compelling that they could only regard any further request for a sign as due to deliberate refusal to
be convinced , or to a blindness so complete that it must have been produced by God as a
punishment for sin. The Pharisees’ attitude, they felt, exactly mirrored the attitude of the notorious

195
Lane, 248.
196
See Guelich, 368-369 for a further explanation of “corban.”
197
Lane, 277-278.

102
 ‘generation’ of the great deliverance under Moses, which had repeatedly ‘tempted’ God by
demanding further proof of his power and goodwill even after he had performed innumerable
‘signs’ for them.198

In this passage we see, although only implicitly, Mark’s depiction of the scribes as lacking the
faith to believe that Jesus’ miracles and words were valid. The demand for a sign would only come if it
seemed that further proof was needed, but Mark portrays Jesus’ ministry up to this point to highlight the
absurdity of the Pharisees’ request. Their hearts are characterized by (deliberate?) unbelief and it is that
which defiles them in the presence of God and prohibits their entrance into His Kingdom.
The final major section in which the Jewish authorities appear is in relation to Jesus’ final week in
Jerusalem and Mark’s account of his death. During the course of that week Jesus is presented as debating
with the authorities over the legitimacy of divorce, the practice of buying and selling in the temple, Jesus’
own authority, the practice of paying taxes to Caesar, the resurrection, and the relation of the Messiah to
David. Rather than examine all of the specific debates offered by the Jewish authorities to Jesus, it is
necessary only to examine brief snippets of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ reactions to the authorities during
the course of their debates. In Mark 10:5 Jesus again comments on the hardness of heart we have seen
being so prevalent. Mark 11:18 reads as follows:
The chief priests and the scribes heard this [=Jesus’ proclamation against the business of the
temple sacrifices, i.e., his overturning of the tables], and began seeking how to destroy Him; for
they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.

Again it seems that violence and envy of Jesus’ popularity are presented as fundamental to the attitude of
the Jewish authorities. Another pericope in Mark 12:1-12 records Jesus’ parable against the chief priests
and scribes in which Jesus compares them to selfish tenants bent on stealing from their master (God) and
killing his servants (the prophets) and eventually his son (Jesus) whom the master had sent to collect
revenues.
Finally, Mark records Jesus’ summary statement regarding the Jewish authorities in 12:38-40:
In His [=Jesus’] teaching He was saying: “Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long
robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and
places of honor at banquets, who devour widow’s houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long
prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.

Here we have Jesus’ final reported proclamation against the scribes and an indicative one it is. In Mark’s
storyline Jesus has just finished deposing with question upon question from the Jewish authority about his
ministry and his person, and he concludes the conflict with this statement about his adversaries. In it we are
able to see quite clearly the attitude of the Pharisees yet again; an attitude which stands in direct conflict to
the attitude of Jesus and his followers.
The passage speaks once again of the overwhelming desire of the Jewish authorities to be
recognized and to maintain significance, to be independent and important, and their inherent hypocrisy. In a
word, the Jewish authorities may be described as selfish: interested in their own well-being at the expense

198
Nineham, 210.

103
of all else, including both other people and righteousness. It is the hardness of their hearts, characterized by
selfishness, envy, deceit, self-preservation, and obstinacy which leads them to challenge Jesus’ ministry,
attribute his work to Satan, and ultimately kill the one proclaimed by a voice from heaven to be God’s son.
In summary then, what is the attitude of the Jewish authority, that is, those who have hard hearts?
Their attitudes compare inversely to that of the attitude outlined above which is favored so highly by Mark.
Whereas the attitude of the Kingdom has faith, the hard-hearted do not and request more signs. When the
Kingdom-centered attitude exercises faithful obedience, the hard-hearted refuses to submit to the rightness
of Jesus’ commands. Where the attitude of the Kingdom embraces insignificance and lowliness, the hard-
hearted strives for the places of honor in society. This is the backdrop against which all other negative
portrayals must be measured for it is sure that no other group in the Gospel is as hostile to Jesus’ message
as is the Jewish authority. Let us now turn to an examination of the group of the powerful: the rich man,
Herod, and Pilate, to discover how their portrayals compare with that of the Pharisees.
c. The Rich and the Politically Powerful
Mark’s depiction of those who do not respond correctly to Jesus message also includes a trio of
characters from several points throughout the Gospel: Herod, the Roman governor in chapter six, the rich
man of chapter ten, and Pontius Pilate, another Roman political leader in chapter fifteen. We shall examine
the accounts of Herod and Pilate first because of their almost uncanny correlations. Following this we shall
examine what Jesus says about those who are rich in relation to his specific interactions with a rich man in
chapter ten.
The story of Herod comes to us in chapter six after the account of the disciples’ being sent out to
preach and cast out demons. The storyline is basically this. Mark records Herod’s reaction to the news of
Jesus, apparently as a result of his disciples' itinerant ministry. Herod’s reaction is then recorded as harking
back to John the Baptist by claiming that Jesus is John raised from the dead. From this point, Mark
launches into what appears to be an appositional pericope and explains how it is that John died. Mark
recounts how Herod had enjoyed listening to John and had sought to protect him but was forced to kill him
after taking an oath at a party to a young girl in response to her dancing. However, Mark notes that behind
the little girl stands Herod’s second wife, who was angry at John and who desired his death. Mark reports
that after Herod made the oath to the young girl, who scholars believe may have been his niece, she
returned to her mother who then prodded her to ask for the head of John the Baptist. It is at this point that
Mark writes of the King’s demeanor:
And although the King was very sorry, yet because of his oaths and because of his dinner guests,
he was unwilling to refuse her. Immediately the king sent an executioner and commanded him to
bring back his head. And he went and had him beheaded in the prison, and brought his head on a
platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother. (6:26-28)

The account of the character of Pilate in the storyline has many similarities. Mark records Pilate’s
role in the crucifixion of Jesus like this:
Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council,
immediately held a consultation; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered him to Pilate. Pilate
questioned Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”

104
 And He answered him, “It is as you say.”
The chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying “Do You
not answer? See how many charges they bring against You!” But Jesus made no further answer; so Pilate
was amazed.
Now at the feast he used to release for them any one prisoner whom they requested. The man
named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the
insurrection. The crowd went up and began asking him to do as he had been accustomed to for them.
Pilate answered them saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he
was aware that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy.
But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask him to release Barabbas for them instead.
Answering again, Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Him whom you call the King of
the Jews?”
They shouted back, “Crucify Him!”
But Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?”
But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him!”
Wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having Jesus scourged,
he handed Him over to be crucified.199

We are able to see several similarities between these two stories which allow us to gain insight
into this grouping of Markan characters. In both stories Herod and Pilate display a reluctance to carry out
the task they are asked for; neither of them want to kill their prisoner, and Mark makes such a point explicit
in his text. In addition, both Pilate and Herod appear to be driven by the desires of the crowd; though they
know what is right they do not do it for fear of what those around them might say. Finally, we are able to
see how we have a similar scheme behind each execution. In the case of Herod, it is the young girl who
actually makes the request for John’s death, though at the instigation of her mother. In the case of Pilate, it
is the crowd who asks for Jesus’ death, although at the instigation of the chief priests. Clearly Mark has
depicted these stories in very correlative ways so as to link the characters of Herod and Pilate.
What then does link the attitudes of these two characters together? Two points are preliminary:
both are in places of power and both are responsible for putting to death a messenger of God. We see both
as being somewhat perplexed by those whom they will kill, though they clearly do not fully understand
what it is they say. Neither of them wants to perform the execution, but ultimately it is their desire to
maintain face and please those around them which seems to lead to the deaths of John and Jesus. It does not
seem unreasonable from Mark’s presentation to assume that this desire to please the crowd came as a result
of an attitude which longed for power and respect from those around them. As Mark depicts it, the failure
to comply with the demands of the crowds around them would have seriously damaged the power and
prestige of each of the rulers, and it is in order to save that power that they are presented as ordering the
murders.
What then do we further learn about the attitudes of those who are presented as opposing Jesus?
Certainly that power is a trap and the desire to keep power is fundamentally opposed to the plan of God. It
seems that these characters’ attitudes resemble quite closely those of the Jewish authorities who also
wanted to hold on to power for their own sake and to maintain their significance in the socio-economic

105
realm of their time. Tolbert writes concerning the attitude of Herod, which I believe is also symbolic of
Pilate:
Herod values his position, his reputation, and his oath more highly than what he has been hearing
gladly. Riches, worldly power, and concern about the regard of others are all noxious weeds that
kill the word.200

Again we see this attitude as fundamentally opposed to the attitude of the Kingdom which Mark
displays so prominently throughout the Gospel. Whereas the person interested primarily in the Kingdom
embraces insignificance and dependence, the hard-hearted cling to their significance at all costs.
The next character example in this category of the powerful comes from 10:17-31 where Mark
writes:
As He [=Jesus] was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him,
and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, to not steal, do not bear
false witness, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”
Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and
sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow
Me.”
But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who
owned much property.
And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are
wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus
answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich ma to enter the kingdom of god.”
They were even more astonished and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?”
Looking at them, Jesus said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all
things are possible with God.”
Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.”
Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house of brothers or sisters or
mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will
receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and
mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life. But
many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”

In this passage we have another example of one who is wealthy in the world’s eyes interacting
with Jesus. Unlike in the cases of Herod and Pilate, the rich man certainly does not act to harm Jesus or his
ministry; however, his reaction to Jesus’ word is clearly not what Jesus had desired due to the way in which
Mark presents Jesus’ discourse following the interaction. In that discourse Jesus, in quite emphatic terms, is
depicted as saying that it is very difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. This proclamation
follows on the heals of what may be an example of a rich man failing to enter the Kingdom. Witherington
comments upon this passage:

199
It should be noted that the vast majority of scholars do not attest the historicity of this account citing
multiple reasons. However, for the purposes of this paper, I am interested only in what Mark produced and
not specifically what historically happened.
200
Tolbert, 158.

106
 Jesus apparently knows there is one major obstacle to his [=the rich man] offering total devotion
to God—his many possessions. Thus Jesus says the young man lacks one thing, and so issues a
command that he sell whatever he has and give to the poor. Instead of such possessions, the man is
to have treasure in heaven and to come and follow Jesus…. There is no substitute for obedience
when God calls one to do something more than obey the Ten Commandments. Mark is making
clear that the demands of discipleship to Jesus go beyond the demand of the Law. The ultimate
test of obedience, then, is seen as the willingness to assume the yolk of discipleship to Jesus.201

Clearly Mark presents the man’s possessions as being an important barrier to being able to enter the
Kingdom of God. However, Jesus words are interesting at this juncture. Mark does not record Jesus as
saying that the man has something standing between him and the Kingdom (what could be considered
riches); rather, Mark has Jesus assert that the man is lacking something. Though it is certainly not explicitly
present in the text, is it unreasonable to postulate that that “one thing” may have been the proper attitude?
An attitude centered on the Kingdom would have set aside anything and embraced dependence for the sake
of faithful obedience to the word of Jesus.
This possible correlation may be hinted at again in Jesus’ direct proclamations concerning the
Kingdom. Why is it that it is so difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom in Mark’s account? The answer
seems rather certain that their entrance is more difficult because it requires that they give more up. A poor
fisherman may join the cause more easily than a rich ruler because he has less to sacrifice; he is closer to a
lifestyle of insignificance and dependence. To embrace meekness and submission is directly contrary to the
stereotypical attitude of the rich, therefore making it nearly impossible for them to enter into the Kingdom
of God. Evans also notes this conclusion:
[This passage] teaches important truths about entry into the kingdom of God. Paradoxically, the
least powerful, least wealthy, least influential have a greater prospect of entering the kingdom than
do those who are most powerful, wealthy, and influential. The children who approach Jesus
exemplify the former. They not only exemplify those who more readily enter; they are identified
by Jesus as role models for others to follow. Whoever is to enter the kingdom must receive as a
child would—without calculation and without hedging. In marked contrast to the example of the
child, there appears a wealthy man who wishes assurance of eternal life. Tragically, he exemplifies
the latter category of persons. Although his intentions are good and he is by all appearances a
Torah-observant man, his loyalty to wealth proves too great an obstacle. He cannot give it up, and
he cannot follow Jesus.202

In the background of this exchange stand the disciples who, according to Mark, were nearly
overcome with amazement at Jesus’ words. It seems from Mark’s depiction that they began to question
even their own standing with regard to the Kingdom and Jesus’ proclamation against them. It is this
standing to which we now turn.
d. The Disciples
For years scholars have mused over the role of the disciples in Mark’s Gospel and their apparent
shortcomings. Theory upon theory has been offered concerning Mark’s depiction, especially given its
seeming incongruity with its synoptic partners, Matthew and Luke. It is true that on the surface Mark’s
Gospel seems to be exceedingly hard on the characters of the disciples. However, before we examine the

201
Witherington III, 282-283.

107
progression of characterization which Mark uses in his Gospel, let us first briefly summarize the disciples’
appearances in the Gospel text.
The disciples first enter the scene at Jesus’ initial call for them to follow along the shore of the Sea
of Galilee. Jesus calls them, and they are presented as following immediately with no reservation, leaving
behind family and financial stability for the sake of Jesus. Almost immediately after this Mark depicts the
disciples as bringing Jesus to Peter’s house in order to heal his mother-in-law. In 1:36-38 Peter is
mentioned as seeking out Jesus during his morning prayers and being invited alongside of Jesus’ itinerant
ministry. In 2:19 Mark portrays Jesus as referring to the disciples as the “guests of the bridegroom”,
apparently symbolizing their intimate relationship to himself.
In chapter three the twelve are officially appointed as disciples. Mark records that “He [= Jesus]
went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He himself wanted, and they [= the twelve] came to
him.” The twelve are officially appointed by Jesus to be with him, to be sent out to preach, and to have
authority over the demons. Guelich writes concerning this appointment:
The appointment of the Twelve finds its significance in the calling together of twelve men to share
indirectly and directly in Jesus’ ministry. By sharing in his company and in his mission, the
Twelve become an integral part of ministry. To this extent they stand apart from all others who
respond positively or negatively to Jesus’ ministry.203

Following this, the disciples are highlighted following Jesus’ enigmatic parable of the sower, where he
explains that they have been given the secret to the Kingdom of God, a blessing which appears to be
reserved for a select few. Following the next several parables of chapter four, Mark notes again that the
disciples received private explanation of all the parables by Jesus himself, clearly a position of favor.
Lane’s comments are helpful here:
With Jesus’ utterance before the multitude the evangelist contrasts his private exposition of “all
things” to his own disciples. “All things” within this context means more than parabolic
utterance; it refers to the mission of Jesus in which the mystery of the Kingdom was veiled. The
summary, accordingly, points back to the contrast developed in Ch. 4:11-12 and exhibits the two
aspects of the revelation of God in the mission of Jesus. There was veiling before the multitude
and disclosure to the disciples.204

So at this point in Mark’s narrative the disciples are pictured as receiving preferential instruction from
Jesus while awaiting their time of appointment to preach and cast out demons, the tasks of their leader.
Next, Mark tells us of Jesus’ stilling of the sea when he is with his disciples in a boat on the Sea of
Galilee. In response to the miraculous work of power, Mark depicts the disciples as follows: “They became
very much afraid and said to one another, ‘Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?’ ” At
this point the disciples are depicted as not fully comprehending who it is that they are following and not
believing in his power. Jesus’ proclamation to the elements stuns them and leaves them dumbfounded,
wondering who he really is.

202
Evans, 103.
203
Guelich, 165.
204
Lane, 173.

108
 The next major appearance of the disciples occurs at the beginning of chapter six where Mark
presents Jesus as officially sending them out to follow in his footsteps: preaching the good news of the
Kingdom and casting out demons. Apparently the disciples’ mission was a large success, for Mark notes
that Herod himself heard of it, and when the disciples return Mark includes the following passage:
The apostles gathered around Jesus, and told him all that they had done and taught. He said to
them, “Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while.” For many were coming
and going, and they had no leisure even to eat.” And they went in the boat to a deserted place by
themselves. Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they hurried there on foot from
all the towns and arrived ahead of them (6:30-33, NRSV).

From this point of vast success forward, the standing of the disciples appears to go sharply down.
Following the feeding of the 5,000 by Jesus’ power and the disciples’ distribution, Mark records this
reaction of the disciples to Jesus as he is walking towards them on the water:
But when they saw Him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; for they all
saw Him and were terrified. But immediately He spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do
not be afraid.” Then He got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly
astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened (6:49-52,
NRSV).

To summarize, in the space of two chapters Mark presents the disciples as being sent out by Jesus to extend
his ministry, returning after experiencing apparently overwhelming success, and then being lumped
together with the Jewish authorities suffering from hardness of heart! The importance of this passage
cannot be underestimated, and we shall return to it later in the hope of better understanding the disciples’
degeneration.
The next appearance of the disciples occurs in chapter seven, where they are again presented by
Mark as failing to understand Jesus’ teaching concerning true defilement, a passage we have already
examined for its relation to the Pharisees. Next comes the feeding of the 4,000, where the disciples again
play a central role. Just like before, they are presented as distributing the baskets of bread to the needy
people, though this time Jesus seems far more pedagogical in his method towards the disciples, explaining
quite fully why he is doing what he is doing and initiating the action, whereas before the disciples brought
the crowds’ need to his attention.
Following this second feeding Mark records the following fascinating interaction:
And they [=the disciples] had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one
loaf in the boat with them. And He [=Jesus] was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out!
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod!” They began to discuss with one
another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you
discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a
hardened heart? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not
remember, when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many large baskets full of
broken pieces you picked up?”
They said to him, “Twelve.”
“Whey I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken
pieces did you pick up?” And they said to Him, “Seven.”
And He was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

109
Certainly this passage too is of utmost importance for understanding Mark’s portrayal of the disciples, and
we shall return here again as well. However, for now it is enough to note the continued emphasis placed by
Mark on the disciples’ failure to understand Jesus’ actions with the loaves and the second usage of
“hardness of hearts” in relation to their characters.
Later in chapter eight Mark depicts the disciples’ interactions with Jesus on the topic of Jesus’
identity. In response to the question, “Who do you say I am?” Peter responds by stating that Jesus is the
Messiah. Though Jesus’ response to Peter’s answer is somewhat unclear, we likely can assert that Jesus
acknowledged the correctness of the response.205 However, directly after, Mark depicts Jesus’ first
prediction of his death and Peter’s “rebuke” (επιτιµαω) of Jesus, a word used only of Jesus’ actions toward
demons and storms up to this point in the Gospel. In reply, Jesus rebukes Peter and says to him, “Get
behind me Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things” (8:33). Here
again, Peter’s misunderstanding of Jesus is emphasized.
Following the above exchange, Mark includes the story of Jesus’ transfiguration, an event which
the disciples again do not fully comprehend. Peter is depicted as asserting the idea to build three booths and
is harshly silenced by a voice from heaven. Mark notes as well that “He did not know what to say, for they
were terrified” (9:6, NRSV).
After their descent down the mountain, Mark tells the story which we have already examined
concerning the disciples’ inability to cast out a demon and Jesus’ proclamation that their inability came
from a lack of prayer.
In chapters nine and ten three interactions of note take place. Twice Jesus reminds the disciples
that children are valuable to him and the Kingdom of God, emphasizing that to serve children and to
become like them are absolutely necessary for entrance into it. Sandwiched in between these accounts is the
story of the disciples’ prohibition against an exorcist working outside of their group. Jesus overturns their
prohibition, proclaiming the danger of causing a “little one” to stumble, again, a concept we have already
examined.
The final exchange before Jesus arrives in Jerusalem occurs among James, John, and Jesus as they
are presented as asking to sit in the places of power when Jesus comes into his glory. As might be expected
the remaining disciples are presented as indignant with the request, and in this context Jesus is reported as
saying:
You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them.
But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be
served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (10:42-45, NRSV).

Once again Mark presents the disciples as interested in power and Jesus as interested in submission and
service, a theme we have seen often in the Gospel text.
At this point Mark offers a bit of a break in the characterization of the disciples before they return
at the Last Supper. At that time Jesus is depicted as predicting their betrayal. In reply Peter announces his

110
steadfastness, and in response to that Jesus prophesies that Peter will deny three times that he even knows
Jesus.
Following this, the disciples move out to the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus, and Mark tells of
his taking of three of them along with him. Three times he charges Peter, James, and John to pray with him
in his hour of trial, and three times he returns to find them asleep. The disciples appear as a group one final
time in 14:50 where it is reported that “All of them deserted him and fled.”
Peter then becomes the lone representative for the disciples at Jesus’ trial, during which Jesus’
earlier prediction comes true and Peter denies his knowledge of Jesus three times before the crow of the
rooster. Mark depicts Peter’s awakening like this:
At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said
to him, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and
wept (14:72, NRSV).

With that, the characters of the disciples exit the scene of the Gospel. They are mentioned one final time in
Mark’s final chapter by the angels at the tomb, who proclaim the good news of Jesus’ resurrection to the
women who went to the tomb. The angel’s words are these:
Go, tell his [= Jesus’] disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will
see him, just as he told you [= at the last supper Jesus promised this same thing to the disciples
directly following his prophecy of their betrayal.] (16:7, NRSV).

However, Mark’s Gospel ends without the disciples’ having received the word of Jesus’ resurrection, for
the women who received the message “said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”
Witherington summarizes Mark’s account of the disciples:
Mark’s approach to the Twelve and the other disciples is a study in contrasts. Mark does not exalt
or exonerate the Twelve; he makes their faults painfully obvious. Nonetheless, he features them
prominently as the ones who Jesus has called, equipped, commissioned, and sent out. In the first
half of the Gospel they are presented as responding for the most part in the right way, though their
comprehension level is low…. These high moments are counterbalanced by Peter being called
Satan, and his denial of Christ three times after he had sworn emphatically never to do so and
never to abandon Jesus even if it meant death. In this, Peter is only revealing the lack of faith and
comprehension and thus the misunderstanding which is a theme that runs like a red thread through
Mark’s presentation of the disciples. The two themes of Jesus’ teaching and the Twelve’s
misunderstanding clash again and again, so that there are even point at which it seems Jesus might
reject the Twelve, just as they implicitly and finally explicitly reject him and what he stands for.
That Jesus does not abandon the Twelve reflects God’s mercy and grace, not the Twelve’s
personal indispensability or unique gifts.206

What are we to make of Mark’s depiction of the disciples? What sort of broad patterns emerge?
It seems, in agreement with Witherington above, that the Markan depiction of the disciples is indeed one of
stark contrasts. The disciples comprise the innermost circle of Jesus’ followers, are given the secret of the
Kingdom of God, are proclaimed to be the guests of the bridegroom, and are sent out to participate in the
ministry of their leader. However, they are also portrayed as repeatedly misunderstanding Jesus, lacking
faith in his provision, and eventually abandoning Jesus in his greatest time of need. Outside of the stilling

205
See Gundry, 428.

111
of the storm, it seems that these contrasts group themselves sequentially in the Gospel with all of the
positive portrayals being found in the first five chapters.
The first half of the Gospel seems to portray the disciples in a positive light. We have already
examined their obedience to the call and authority of Jesus in chapters one and two, so more comment on
these verses is extraneous. However, other verses in Mark’s first six chapters are relevant to this debate. As
I stated above in my summary of Mark’s depiction of the disciples, Peter is presented as bringing Jesus to
his house so as to heal his mother-in-law. In his comments on this passage Lane writes:
The reference to Peter’s mother-in-law serves to clarify what it meant for Peter to be confronted
by Jesus’ summons to follow him. He had a family and a home for which provision had to be
made; the call to be a fisher of men demanded total commitment to Jesus. The healing
accomplished within Peter’s home indicates that salvation had come to his house in response to
the radical obedience he had manifested.207

Mark 2:19 records the next passage of interest for our study. In it, Jesus is presented as comparing
himself to the bridegroom and his disciples to his guests, again seemingly a favorable description.
Witherington writes concerning this portrayal:
Jesus then draws on an analogy with a wedding, and apparently we are meant to think of Jesus as
the bridegroom and his disciples as the “sons of the bridal chamber.” The latter are likely
groomsmen, and more particularly groomsmen who had the responsibility of guarding the bridal
chamber when the bride and groom entered it.208

It seems clear that we are to understand that Mark portrayed Jesus as describing his disciples in this passage
as his closest confidants, his best friends.
This theme is continued in the story of Jesus’ commissioning of the twelve where Mark says that
Jesus “summoned those whom He himself wanted,” i.e., the twelve disciples. Guelich writes concerning
this call:
The verb for “called” (προσκαλειται) occurs nine times, eight of which offer almost a formulaic
“summons” of the disciples, the crowds, or a centurion for teaching or instruction. The usage here,
however, has more the sense of “to call” or “to select”…. The object and basis of this calling
follow in the relative clause, “whom he himself wanted”. The use of the intensive pronoun αυτοσ
[= translated as the emphatic “himself”] clearly accents that the choice was Jesus’ alone based on
his own desire. One cannot help but hear a faint echo of the OT references to God’s sovereign call
or selection of his own.209

Thus, here again we are presented with a depiction of the disciples of Jesus as “desired” by him and called
to “be with him.” Concepts which certainly seem to speak to their favor in Jesus’ eyes, a postulation
supported by the Markan account of Jesus surnaming three of his disciples.
The last two appearances of the disciples prior to chapter six both occur in chapter four. One of
these focuses on the parables of chapter four, where Jesus is presented as proclaiming the disciples’
possession of the “secret of the Kingdom of God” and explaining all of his teaching privately to his

206
Witherington III, 441-442.
207
Lane, 78.
208
Witherington III, 124.
209
Guelich, 157.

112
disciples. Though the disciples are like the crowds in that they do not understand Jesus’ initial parable, the
general tenor of this pericope seems once again to designate special favor to the disciples, perhaps on the
basis of their actions.210
The final passage worth examining occurs as the disciples are crossing the sea with Jesus. When a
storm comes up, they are portrayed as questioning Jesus concerning his care for them, and following his
quieting of the storm they are depicted as being in a state of utter amazement as Jesus seemingly chastises
their unbelief in his provision. Here appears to be the only negative portrayal of the disciples in the
passages of the Gospel prior to the feeding of the 5,000. The disciples misunderstanding and unbelief come
through loud and clear in this section. Nineham writes:
The disciples showed themselves, as on other occasions, to be men of little faith. When a storm
arose which threatened to fill the ship, they became terrified, and were so far from sharing Jesus’
untroubled faith that they mistook it for careless indifference and woke him with a rebuke. Once
awake, he performed the characteristically divine act, and the disciples were now filled with a
different kind of fear and awe, realizing that they were in the presence of one who disposed of
power nothing less than divine.211

Thus, generally speaking, the first part of the Gospel prior to the feeding of the 5,000 portrays the
disciples in a positive light, except of course for the stilling of the storm pericope. They respond obediently
to the call of Jesus to leave their worldly situations behind and follow him. Peter provides for the healing of
his mother-in-law by bringing Jesus to her.212 They are described as the intimate friends of Jesus and are
called to be apostles because he “desired” them. They are given the secret of the Kingdom of God and
receive private instruction as to the meaning of the parables. They are sent out as emissaries of Jesus
himself and encounter extraordinary success. However, they are presented as seemingly ignorant of Jesus’
person and power in chapter four as they are crossing the sea, and after the feeding of the 5,000 account in
chapter six, there are virtually no positive portrayals for the remainder of the Gospel text.
Thus it seems reasonable to summarize Mark’s depiction of the disciples as follows: they are
initially compliant with Jesus’ word and are portrayed in such a way that Mark’s audience would pick up
on Jesus’ favor towards them. Although Mark’s descriptions of their motives and actions in the first six
chapters are significantly fewer than his descriptions of Jesus’ actions, we can say assuredly that the
Markan account is certainly not negative and probably even positive. Whether it is because of Jesus’
selection of them or their proper attitude, the disciples are those closest to Jesus’ person and his
representatives in ministry. However, the stilling of the storm in chapter four begins a quite different
portrait of the disciples’ standing before Jesus. Throughout chapters six through sixteen the disciples are
described repeatedly as failing to understand Jesus and his purposes. They are often bound in unbelief and
are eventually compared directly with those explicitly opposed to Jesus.

210
We shall examine this passage in far more detail below p. 127.
211
Nineham, 147.
212
Might Mark have intended his audience to understand this to be a faithful act, especially given the
emphasis placed on faith for healing throughout the following passages?

113
 Two events seem to be quite important to understand concerning the contrasting portrayals of the
disciples in the Gospel. First are the events surrounding the feeding of the 5,000 in chapter six, after which
there is virtually no explicitly positive portrayal of the disciples. Before the feeding they are shown,
generally, in a positive light; after the feeding that description changes significantly. In addition to the
feeding of the 5,000, Jesus’ depicted chastisement of the disciples in chapter eight may serve as a reference
point so as to understand better why the story of the disciples is told like it is.
Let us first examine the events surrounding the feeding of the 5,000 which, as I have already
noted, takes place after Jesus has sent the disciples out with his mission and they have returned to nearly
overwhelming success. The text of the account reads as follows.
The apostles gathered together with Jesus; and they reported to Him all that they had
done and taught. And He said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a
while.” (For there were so many people coming and going, and they did not even have time to
eat.) They went away in the boat to a secluded place by themselves. The people saw them going,
and many recognized them and ran there together on foot from all the cities, and got there ahead of
them. When Jesus went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and He felt compassion for them because
they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things. When it was
already quite late, His disciples came to Him and said, “This place is desolate and it is already
quite late; send them away so that they may go into the surrounding countryside and villages and
buy themselves something to eat.”
But He answered them, “You give them something to eat!”
And they said to Him, “Shall we go and spend two hundred denarii on bread and give
them something to eat?”
And He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go look!”
And when they found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.”
And He commanded them all to sit down by groups on the green grass. They sat down in
groups of hundreds and of fifties. And he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up
toward heaven, He blessed the food and broke the loaves and He kept giving them to the disciple
to set before them; and he divided up the two fish among them all. They all ate and were satisfied,
and they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish. There were five
thousand men who ate the loaves. Immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go
ahead of Him to the other side to Bethsaida, while He Himself was sending the crowd away. After
bidding them farewell, He left for the mountain to pray.
When it was evening, the boat was in the middle of the sea, and He was alone on the
land. Seeing them straining at the oars, for the wind was against them, at about the fourth watch of
the night He came to them, walking on the sea; and He intended to pass by them. But when they
saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out; for they all saw Him
and were terrified. But immediately He spoke with them and said to them, “Take courage; it is I,
do not be afraid.” Then He got into the boat with them and the wind subsided and they were
utterly astonished, for they had not gained any insight from the incident of the loaves, but their
heart was hardened. (6:30-52)

Several things must be noted concerning Mark’s account of this occurrence. First of all, we must
constantly be mindful that this entire sequence of events is presented as coming on the heals of the
disciples’ wide-ranging success in ministry. That is the context of these events for Mark, and it must not be
taken lightly. With regard to the text itself, several key points make themselves apparent. The first is that
the disciples are the ones who initiate the entire exchange with Jesus. When Jesus and his disciples land on
the shore, Jesus is pictured as teaching the crowd because of his compassion upon them. Notice that when
the disciples enter the scene, Mark describes them as “coming to” (προσερχοµαι) him, apparently

114
meaning that they were not near him before. The question then becomes, why is it that they came to Jesus
now? The answer seems to revolve around the dismissing of the crowds. However, instead of complying
with their desires, Jesus commands the disciples to feed the people. In response the disciples highlight the
impossibility of such a command. The disciples’ interaction with Jesus at this point carries with it what
may be a hint of contempt or sarcasm. Lane writes concerning the disciples’ response:
They were utterly unprepared for Jesus’ instruction to provide for the needs of the multitude. This
is evident from the astonishment expressed in their question about purchasing bread, which is
disrespectful in tone, but points unmistakably to the impossibility of complying with Jesus’
order.213

Regardless of their motives, the disciples are clearly dumbfounded by even the thought supplying the food
for the mass of people. In any case, we see the disciples publicly questioning Jesus’ plan of attack for the
problem. Another point worth noting is that it is most certainly the disciples who actually do the feeding.
Yes, Jesus is responsible for the abundance of food, but it is the disciples who actually pass it out to the
crowds.
After everyone has eaten their fill Jesus, in a rather unique way, commands the disciples to go
ahead without him while he retires to pray.214 The disciples comply and begin to paddle, though Mark
records that the wind was against them, thus making their progress minimal. Guelich notes that the feeding
likely took place about sunset, perhaps 9 p.m. at the latest.215 While Jesus is up praying, the disciples are
apparently rowing against the wind. When Jesus comes down and sees the disciples it is some six to nine
hours later216 (3-6 A.M.), and Jesus is presented as somehow still being able to see them. Two possibilities
arise. Either Mark attributed to Jesus some sort of supernatural vision without making such attribution
explicit, or the disciples are still close enough to the shore for Jesus to see them; an explanation which
makes sense noting Mark’s emphasis upon the wind against them. This means that the group of disciples,
which Mark reports as containing at least some experienced fishermen, has been rowing for approximately
seven hours and are still close enough to shore for a man to see them struggling at night. An explanation for
this phenomenon would be a stretch from the evidence, but for now it is enough to note the seemingly
amazing nature of the situation. When Jesus sees them struggling at the oars, Mark records that he went to
them walking on the sea. However, when the disciples see Jesus, they are terrified and think that he is a
ghost walking on the water. The passage ends with the key verse saying in effect that the disciples were
afraid because they did not understand about the loaves. That is to say, in an inverse manner, if they had
understood about the loaves they would not have been surprised to see Jesus walking on the water.
Therefore the question becomes, what did they not understand about the loaves? Mark offers no
explicit answer. Lane offers a possible solution:

213
Lane, 228.
214
It is worth noting that the last time Mark recorded Jesus as on a mountainside (to pray?) was directly
prior to his calling of the Twelve disciples (3:13).
215
Guelich, 340.
216
Ibid., 349.

115
 The disciples certainly realized that the multitude had been fed with five loaves and two fish, but
they had failed to grasp that this event pointed beyond itself to the secret of Jesus’ person.217
Because they were not truly open to the action of God in Jesus they had missed the significance of
the miracle of the loaves for them, and saw only “a marvel.”218

Witherington also offers his opinion:

[The evidence from the passage] suggests that we are to see this story as theophanic in character,
yet the only response the disciples show is astonishment. Mark adds that this inadequate response
is because they had not understood about the bread or, more aptly from the feeding miracle, that
they were in the presence of more than just a wonder-worker. Painter says even more pointedly
that they failed to make the connection between the miraculous provision of bread and the walking
on water, which should have made clear that they were in the presence of both a latter-day Moses
figure and yet at the same time one who could manifest the qualities of Moses’ God. Indeed, as
Mark says, their hearts were hardened and so not open to this truth yet, which is also precisely the
complaint about Jesus’ opponents.219

It seems clear that the disciples’ misunderstanding was because of their hardness of hearts and that this
misunderstanding prevented them from gaining some sort of insight into who Jesus was. However, the
question still remains as to how their hearts had become hardened when only a chapter earlier they had
been sent out as the very emissaries of Jesus. Up to this point in the Gospel, “hardness of heart” has only
been used of the Jewish authorities directly prior to Mark’s report of their plotting to kill Jesus and
following an entire string of controversy stories in which we saw their ever-growing hostility towards
Jesus’ message. I believe that what we know about hardness of heart may help us find the answer to this
question.
To restate, I have shown that “hardness of heart” in the Gospel has tended to be directly opposite
of the attitude of the Kingdom. Those who are hard of heart seem consistently to be interested in their own
self-preservation and power. They pursue the recognition of others and enjoy significance. Those who are
hard-hearted are characterized as unbelieving, power-hungry, and not submissive. We have learned that
such characteristics are embodied most clearly in the Gospel by those who are the most powerful and
significant.
My hypothesis concerning Mark’s portrayal of the hardening of the disciples’ hearts is this:
perhaps Mark depicted them so as to suggest that they had allowed the success of their mission to
supercede the attitude of the Kingdom that they had possessed earlier in the Gospel when they dropped
everything at Jesus’ word and faithfully pursued the meaning of the parables in chapter four.
Does such a hypothesis make sense? The disciples are presented in chapter six as coming off their
greatest triumph. It would be as the crowds are swarming around them abuzz of their works of power that
the temptation to chase significance and prestige would be greatest. Mark certainly presents them as less
than submissive and obedient to Jesus’ command to feed the people. Instead they respond in sarcasm,
demonstrating unbelief as to the possibility of Jesus’ request. Remember as well that according to Mark it

217
The disciples do as much as admit this reality in chapter eight during Jesus’ questioning about the
feedings.
218
Lane, 237-238.

116
was the disciples themselves who actually passed out the bread. Note also their apparent tenacity in rowing
into the wind and their leaving of Jesus, albeit at his command. Mark portrays them as attempting to take
on the next challenge on their own, apart from Jesus. So perhaps the hypothesis is not that far-fetched.
Perhaps it was the disciples’ very rise to significance which Mark depicted as their ultimate downfall.
Maybe it was their thirst for recognition and importance that continued to lead them down the path of
hardness of heart. What else could explain the truly radical degeneration in the space of only a chapter?
Let us now reexamine the interaction in chapter eight between Jesus and his disciples concerning
the feedings and their lack of understanding. For the sake of simplicity, here again is the text of the
passage:
And they [= the disciples] had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one
loaf in the boat with them. And He [=Jesus] was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out!
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod!” They began to discuss with one
another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you
discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a
hardened heart? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not
remember, when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many large baskets full of
broken pieces you picked up?”
They said to him, “Twelve.”
“When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken
pieces did you pick up?” And they said to Him, “Seven.”
And He was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

We notice first that Jesus immediately warns the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod, two
people/groups whom we have already demonstrated were known for their opposition to Jesus’ purpose and
their hardness of heart. Both Herod and the Pharisees are depicted as primarily interested in their own
power and prestige and the increase of their authority. Both are also characterized by a failure to understand
and obey what is true and right. Mark portrays Jesus as warning the disciples of becoming like those who
desire to make themselves great: exactly what my hypothesis suggests the disciples were portrayed as
pursuing and desiring.
In this passage the disciples are presented as understanding fully the numbers involved in the
feedings Jesus has performed. Jesus questions seem aimed at getting them to understand the significance of
his actions. The disciples are presented as understanding the miraculous nature of Jesus’ action but not
understanding their relevance to Jesus’ person. What could explain their failure to link the two concepts? It
seems from the text that it is their apparent “hardness of heart” that again keeps them from understanding
Jesus’ warning. Here again, we are confronted by the question as to what this heart state resulted from.
Certainly the phrase harkens back to its usage in chapter six, another instance where Jesus and his disciples
were in a boat on the water.220 In that passage we determined that there was certainly no explicit reference

219
Witherington III, 222.
220
This is the third such occurrence in the Gospel text, the first two coming in chapter four (the stilling of
the storm) and chapter 6 (post-feeding). While all three contain notions of the disciples’ unbelief and failure
to understand Jesus, only the last two speak of their hardness of heart. This again seems to reinforce the

117
to the reason for the disciples’ hardness of heart, but we also noted the possibilities concerning the disciples
desire for power and prestige as the source of their demise. Whatever the reason behind the disciples’
hardness of heart, it seems reasonable to assert that it is the same thing in both of these stories; both stories
raise the issue of the disciples’ misunderstanding and their hardness of heart, and both occur in a similar
venue.
In summary, while specific conclusions may be unwarranted concerning the disciples’ downfall,
some general trends may be observed. The first chapters of the Gospel present the disciples in a positive
light. They are invited by Jesus to follow him and respond with an obedience that forsakes all else. They
witness the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law as a result of his action. They are called the guests of the
bridegroom in chapter two and are appointed to be apostles because Jesus desired them. They are said to
have been given the secret of the Kingdom in chapter four and eventually fulfill their calling traveling to
the villages and towns engaging in the ministry of their master. However, the downfall foreshadowed by
their lack of understanding and unbelief after Jesus stills the storm becomes painfully more apparent as the
Gospel moves on. Soon after they return from their successful mission they are labeled as having hard
hearts. They repeatedly fail to understand Jesus’ purpose for ministry and are constantly portrayed as
interested in power and greatness. Each time the disciples vocalize their desire for greatness, Jesus rebukes
that desire and reminds them of the true greatness of humility. However, ultimately the disciples fail the
one who called them. One betrays him to his death; ten more flee as he is taken into custody; one more
denies three times that he knows the one he professed to be the Messiah. All twelve of the disciples exit the
gospel having failed to stand with Jesus in his hour of greatest need.
As has been noted the portrayal of the disciples seems to hinge on the feeding of the 5,000.
Directly before this event, the disciples are the representatives of Jesus engaging in itinerant ministry, what
would have to be described as a position of favor. Just as Jesus’ ministry bears the fruit of healing,
exorcism, and understanding, theirs too advanced the word of the Kingdom through powerful deeds and
preaching. Following the feeding they fail to understand the significance of the loaves because their hearts
were hardened. How could Jesus’ most important followers degenerate to the point of being compared to
his vilest enemies in the space of less than a chapter? My answer is that the disciples’ success led them to
chase after the glory of the world, a characteristic of the attitude fundamentally opposed to the Kingdom.
When they experienced the success of their ministry, their willingness to submit to Jesus and obey his word
vanished, and their ability to exercise faith and receive understanding went with it. Before their success the
disciples were learning how to be faithful followers. After it they became examples of how not to follow. I
believe the Markan presentation of the disciples is one that explains their downfall in the terms of their
success. Only after they experience accomplishment are their hearts depicted as hard. Their greatest
moment of achievement becomes the engine that drives their demise. The proper attitude of heart brought

importance of chapter six for an understanding of the disciples’ demise, even though it is perhaps hinted at
in chapter four.

118
them to Jesus’ side and empowered their success, it is the secret of the Kingdom of God; hard-heartedness
carried them away and left them having betrayed the one they left everything for.
5. The Attitude of the Kingdom Classified
Our discussion up to this point has demonstrated the characteristics which Mark attributes value
to: faith, obedience, dependence, and significance. Over and over again we have seen how Mark depicted
those who received healing or instruction from Jesus as possessing an attitude steeped in these qualities.
From this point the question becomes whether Mark categorized this attitude any further, or if he offered
any additional explanation as to the proper understanding of it. Is there a classification which seems to
encompass all of these attributes? Is there a description which seems to include all of those who are
honored by Jesus in the Gospel? I believe the answer to both these questions is affirmative. Let us turn to
chapter ten of Mark’s Gospel.
Mark 10:14-15 states:
But when Jesus saw this [=the disciples preventing children from touching him], he was indignant
and said to them [=the disciples], “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the
kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the
kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Might this be the classification we are seeking? What exactly do these verses mean? Is it reasonable to
redefine the attitude of the Kingdom as an attitude of childlikeness? The comments of some of the scholars
in our survey may help. Tolbert emphasizes children’s faith when she says that “The fearless, trusting
confidence of children supplies an analogy for this faith [=faith that expands the Kingdom].”221 Evans notes
that a childlike attitude is one that is not focused on “self-importance and self-empowerment.”222 He also
states later:
Paradoxically, the least powerful, least wealthy, least influential have a greater prospect of
entering the kingdom than do those whoa re most powerful, wealthy, and influential. The children
who approach Jesus exemplify the former.223

Nineham also provides for clarification when he says concerning children that they are “content to be
dependent on other’s care and bounty; it is in such a spirit that the kingdom must be received.”224 Lane’s
comments on the section serve as a kind of summary. He writes:
The Kingdom belongs to children, and to others like them who are of no apparent importance,
because God has willed to give it to them…. Unlike adults, who do not want anything to be given
to them, children are comparatively modest and unspoiled. The Kingdom belongs to such as these
because they receive it as a gift. The ground of Jesus’ surprising statement is not to be found in
any subjective quality possessed by children but rather in their objective humbleness and in the
startling character of the grace of God who wills to give the Kingdom to those who have no claim
upon it.225

221
Tolbert, 174.
222
Evans, 94.
223
Ibid., 103.
224
Nineham, 268.
225
Lane, 360.

119
In summary, what then are the characteristics of a child which Mark highlights so dramatically in this
section, going so far as to say that the Kingdom belongs to those who are like children? Do they not include
faith, dependence, obedience, and insignificance, the very characteristics we have seen Mark acclaim time
and again in the other stories of his Gospel? Indeed, it seems that this mysterious attitude of the heart which
has so often led to the expansion of the Kingdom can be characterized quite well by the notion of
childlikeness! It appears that Mark’s audience has been shown what the attitude of the Kingdom is
throughout his Gospel, and finally in chapter ten it is named. The attitude of a child is what allows the
Kingdom to expand in such powerful ways; it is the secret of the Kingdom of God.226
6. Jesus’ Relation to Childlikeness
a. Introduction
The only remaining character whose attitude has a bearing on Mark’s understanding of a childlike
attitude yet to be analyzed is that of Jesus. How is Jesus portrayed in the Gospel? Does he fit the mold we
have seen developing in the pages above? My contention is that indeed Jesus is portrayed demonstrating
the perfect attitude of the Kingdom; he is the one whom all of his followers are intended to imitate. His life
is demonstrated by Mark to be the perfect example of a childlike attitude and thus the model for the
characters of the Gospel proper and Mark’s audience. I also hold that Jesus’ childlikeness is so prevalent as
to transpire into even further action than we have seen up to this point from those who are portrayed as
living with a childlike attitude. Whereas before, the attitude of a child has led to healing and understanding,
in Jesus’ case it enables the works of power he performs and ultimately leads him to be the “servant of all”
(9:35) who “gives his life as a ransom for many” (10:45). It is Jesus’ stance as the perfect Son of God
which ties the whole of the Gospel text together under the theme of the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ life, death,
and resurrection are depicted as testaments to the greatness of a childlike heart, the secret of the Kingdom
of God.
b. The Titles of Jesus
The first group of evidences we see in the Gospel for this theme of Jesus’ childlikeness is easily
observable from the titles given to Jesus throughout the Gospel. Two titles dominate the Gospel, both of
which refer to Jesus as a “son.” The first is the title “son of man” which is used fourteen times in the
Gospel text, always by either Mark the narrator or Jesus himself. Never is Jesus referred to as the son of
Man by any other human figure in the Gospel text. Guelich offers a spectrum of the possible interpretations
of this designation:
“Son of man” in 2:10 [=one of many places the title is used] has received at least three major
interpretations: (a) an Aramaic expression for humanity in general; (b) an Aramaic circumlocution
for “I” or the speaker; and most commonly (c) a Christological title, the “Son of man.” The first

226
An extended note is pertinent here, for Jesus does not choose to call children to follow him; rather, he
chooses adults to become like children. In my discussion of childlikeness it is important to keep in mind
that although children can be seen as the epitome of dependence, humility, faith, and obedience, they can
also be utterly selfish. Of course, I do not believe this self-centeredness is inferred by Mark in his
explication of the attitude of childlikeness. Rather, I believe Mark presents Jesus as calling adults, with
their concept of the need for “others-centeredness” to become like children in that they take on the
characteristics of faith, obedience, dependence, and insignificance.

120
 option supposedly based on the “usual” Aramaic meaning of the expression would mean that
authority to forgive sins on earth had been given to humankind…. This view has found few
followers because the context clearly focuses on Jesus and his claim of special authority…. The
second choice also stems from a supposed idiomatic Aramaic usage as a circumlocution for “I.” “I
have the right to forgive sins”…. The third possibility takes “Son of man” to be a Christological
title. The suggested content of this title, however, runs the gamut from a supposed apocalyptic,
preexistent, heavenly being about whom Jesus spoke and with whom he later became identified to
simply a phrase without any “messianic” connotations characteristically used by Jesus to refer to
himself and preserved by the Church as Jesus’ self-designation.227

What the exactly correct interpretation of the phrase is is not of relevance to this paper, for this is not a
study of the Christology of Mark, though such a topic is certainly related to my own and is of importance.
For our purposes it is important for now only to note the vast number of times in the Gospel text where
Jesus uses this self-designation.
The other major title for Jesus in the Gospel is “son of God” which is used at different times by
Mark, demons, a Roman Centurion and a voice from heaven. In addition, Jesus appears to refer to himself
as the Son of God at several points, though never explicitly. Let us now examine each of these potential
“son of God” addresses.228
The first comes in the opening line of Mark’s Gospel as a kind of superscript for the text as a
whole: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”229 From there, almost immediately,
Jesus is affirmed by a voice from heaven of his divine sonship in 1:11: “You are My beloved Son, in You I
am well-pleased.” From there the next reference to Jesus as the son of God comes on the lips of the demons
he is exorcising in 3:11 and 5:7. Both are explicitly clear about Jesus’ divine sonship. The voice from
heaven returns in 9:7 and once again says to the onlookers: “This is My Beloved Son, listen to Him!” After
this there is one more explicit reference in the Gospel proper and it is portrayed as coming from the lips of
the Roman centurion responsible for crucifying Jesus. After seeing the way Jesus died (with a loud cry,
something absolutely extraordinary for a crucifixion due to the trauma caused to the respiratory system),
the centurion exclaims, “Truly this man was the son of God!” (15:39).
Beyond these explicit pronouncements there are additional inferred references to Jesus’ divine
sonship. In 14:61, the high priest is presented as asking Jesus whether he is the Christ, the “son of the
Blessed one.” Jesus’ reply is to the affirmative, and he also uses a “son of man” reference: “I am; and you
shall see the son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Surely
Mark is implying, though not with the actual words “son of God” that Jesus is in fact the divine son. He
answers that he is the “son of the blessed one” and that in the future his accusers will see the son of Man
sitting at the right hand of “power”, a clear reference to God. Gundry agrees:

227
Guelich, 89-90.
228
It should be noted that by the term “divine sonship” I am not meaning to imply a specific ontological
position. Rather, I am intending this term only as a synonym for “the Son of God.” Of course this debate is
a huge one through the history of Christianity; this paper is not intended to contribute significantly to this
debate.

121
 To another question from the high priest, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus
does make answer; for though he is no criminal, he is the Christ and God’s Son. Mark emphasizes
the question of Jesus’ christhood and divine sonship by…[a number of technical Greek writing
characteristics]. Jesus’ affirmation, “I am”, feeds into Mark’s writing this gospel to argue for
Jesus’ christhood and divine sonship despite the scandal of the Cross.230

Yet another reference by Jesus himself occurs at 13:32 where he, in the midst of his most
extensive discourse in the document on the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, says “But of that day [=the
day of Jesus’ return] or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father
alone.” Here, it seems quite clear that Jesus is pictured as having himself in mind by his reference to the
“son.” Evans and others take this as a foregone conclusion in their discussion of this verse.231
The final reference to Jesus’ intimate relationship with God his father is found in the parable of the
tenants in chapter twelve. Though Jesus does not explicitly use a title of sonship for himself, his parable
speaks of the son that was sent from the master of the vineyard to come and collect the rent from the
master’s tenants. Mark records Jesus’ words this way:
He [=the master of the vineyard] had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last of all to
them, saying, “They will respect my son.’ But those vine-growers said to one another, ‘This is the
heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’ They took him, and killed him and
threw him out of the vineyard” (12:6-8).

Especially given the prophetic nature of these words on Jesus’ tongue just days before he would be
executed by the Jewish authority, it seems clear that Mark presented Jesus in such a way that his self-
awareness as the son of the vineyard owner was clear. Mary Tolbert clearly agrees:
Jesus, of course, does exemplify one special emissary, the last, and that position is part of his
distinctiveness…. The description of the heir as a “beloved son” recalls Jesus alone, for the voice
from heaven has twice called him beloved son (1:11; 9:7). Thus, both his position and his identity
distinguish him from all the previous messengers, including John the Baptist [=whom Tolbert
believes is represented in Jesus’ parable by the messenger who was wounded in the head
(12:4)].232

Therefore, though Mark does not report Jesus as explicitly saying so, the distinct and intimate relation
between God and his son Jesus is implied inherently in the parable of the vineyard.
In addition to the references found in the Gospel to Jesus as the “son of Man” and the “son of
God” he is also called by the phrase “son of David”, though it is used only in one small portion of the
Gospel by a blind roadside beggar. While this title certainly is less prevalent in the Gospel than are the
other two “son ofs”, does it not also highlight Jesus’ sonship?
At this point some summarizing comments are in order. Clearly we see a Markan emphasis upon
Jesus’ sonship in the titles used for him. Other titles like “teacher”, “holy one of God” and “Christ” are also
used in the Gospel. However, a case could be made on the basis of 14:61 that the title of “Christ” was also

229
It should be noted that there are textual problems with “son of God” for not all ancient authorities
include the phrase. See Gundry 33 and 34 for an extensive argument concerning the validity of the phrase
in the original manuscript.
230
Gundry, 886.
231
Evans, 337.

122
understood to be a reference which focused on the son-like relationship of the bearer to God, for in this
verse, the high priest is pictured as saying “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Thereby
placing “Messiah” and “Son of the Blessed One” in apposition, signifying their synonymous nature.
However, the titles used for Jesus in the Gospel are not the sole indicator of his intimate childlike
relationship to God the Father. The following passages demonstrate to Mark’s readers Jesus’ actions and
words, which I believe point quite clearly to a childlike attitude and relationship to God.
c. Jesus’ Words and Deeds
One passage specifically details what Mark considered to be the relationship between Jesus and
God the father:
And He went a little beyond them, and fell to the ground and began to pray that if it were possible,
the hour might pass Him by. And He was saying, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You;
remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will. (14:35-36)

In this passage taken from Mark’s account of Jesus’ time in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately prior
to his death, the intimate relationship of son to father is again implied in Jesus’ language and reported
attitude. Jesus use of abba, the Aramaic term for father, highlights his intimate relationship with the one to
whom he is praying. Evans reports on the work of J. Jeremias:
In a series of series of studies Jeremias [=a famous New Testament scholar] has claimed that
Jesus’ use of Father is original, even unique. Jeremias avers that “here there is something quite
new, absolutely new—the word abba”.233 He further claims, and has made famous in doing so,
that Jesus’ use of abba parallels the way children addressed their fathers or father-figures and so
could be legitimately translated “Daddy”.234

Though Evans goes on to note the many contesting viewpoints to this interpretation, certainly it seems clear
that Mark is attempting to present Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane as distinctly unique, for no other character
in the Gospel uses such language in prayer. At the same time as he is using the term which Jeremias
believes should be translated as “daddy” Jesus is pictured as submitting to the will of the Father in spite of
his own wishes and committing himself to obedience: the marks of a truly childlike attitude.
What other evidences of Jesus’ childlikeness do we have beyond the titles that are used on his
behalf in the Gospel? It seems that Mark makes a point of highlighting Jesus’ emphasis on the attitude of
childlikeness at the same time as he presents Jesus as embodying that ideal.
In 9:33-37, a passage I have already quoted above, Mark presents Jesus as receiving, and perhaps
even serving a child, thereby showing himself to be the greatest of all. The passage reads:
They came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them,
“What were you discussing on the way?”
But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them
was the greatest. Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first,
he shall be last of all and servant of all.” Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in

232
Tolbert, 238-239.
233
Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1967), 96.
234
Evans, 412. It should be noted that nearly all scholars acknowledge that ‘abba does not mean daddy’ but
rather is a term of intimacy between son and father carrying a different meaning.

123
 His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and
whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Lane’s comments on this verse hint at a similar interpretation as my own. He says:

His [=Jesus’] action on this occasion, however, introduces an enacted parable. The child is set
before the Twelve as an example of discipleship, and the fact that the same Aramaic word means
“child” and “servant” lends to his presence the character of a dramatized play on the affirmation in
verse 35. The disciples are to identify themselves with children and become “the little ones” who
have no basis for pretensions to greatness. The statement that to receive a little child is equivalent
to receiving Jesus must, therefore be interpreted of the disciples…. “Receive” must be understood
in the same sense this word has in 6:11, where it refers to the welcome extended to the disciples
because they come as Jesus’ representatives.235

As Lane states, it then seems that “to receive” carried with it a connotation of receiving and serving, as one
might do to a houseguest. Perhaps then Mark is showing that by “receiving” the child of little significance,
which he may have even been presented as given his disciples opportunity to do first; Jesus is truly the
greatest, because of his willingness to receive the least.
d. Jesus’ Death as a Service to Many
Other passages which refer to the importance of Jesus’ death also demonstrate a lowly, childlike
spirit. In what certainly seems to be yet another “purpose statement” for the Markan Jesus in 10:45, Jesus
proclaims that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for
many.” It is my contention that such service flows freely only from a heart that is truly childlike and
humble in nature. Only someone who is totally selfless and utterly willing to embrace insignificance is able
to serve well. Jesus’ inner childlike attitude in the Gospel of Mark is demonstrated outwardly by his
willingness to serve even the lowliest of people. In fact, could not the whole of Jesus’ ministry in Mark be
categorized as service? His meals with sinners, his interactions with lepers, his healings of the sick, and his
exorcisms of the demon-possessed, and his death on the cross as a ransom for many all speak to his
portrayed willingness to serve everyone, no matter how insignificant or unworthy they may seem. Even a
Gentile demon-possessed girl receives healing from his word in chapter seven; could there be a more
insignificant person to a popular Jewish male?
In addition to his acts of service to people by means of physical or spiritual healing, Mark also
notes that part of Jesus’ purpose is to give his life as a ransom for many. This theme is picked up later in
Mark’s account of the last supper. The text of 14:22-24 reads:
While they were eating, He took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it He broke it, gave it to them,
and said, “Take; this is my body.” Then He took a cup, and after giving thanks He gave it to them,
and all of them drank from it. He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured
out for many” (NRSV).

Here again we see Jesus’ depicted language of service “for many.” While this is not a study of the
soteriology of Mark, i.e., Mark’s position on the doctrine of salvation, it seems appropriate to at least affirm

235
Lane, 340-341.

124
that Jesus’ death is pictured as being on behalf of others and for their benefit.236 Thus we have Mark’s
affirmation of Jesus’ death for others, i.e., the ultimate act of selflessness and self-denial. An action which
could only flow out of a heart that was willing faithfully to embrace insignificance and submission, i.e., a
childlike spirit. Witherington comments on 10:45:
V. 45 is in many ways the key verse in Mark so far as understanding the theology of the cross in
this Gospel is concerned. Jesus comes not as a glorious one, but as a humble Son of Man, one who
comes to serve rather than be served…. Jesus comes not merely to offer just any sort of service but
rather to offer the greatest service of all to humankind—to give his life as a
λυτρον αντι πολλων [= “ransom for many”]…. Very clearly the idea of equivalence, a quid pro
quo, is in the background here. Furthermore, the preposition αντι should likely be taken to mean
“in place of” or “as a substitution for.” Here we have enunciated the notion of substitutionary
atonement. Jesus came to set people free from the wrong sort of servitude so that, like himself,
they might become free servants of God, exchanging all false masters for a true one.237

So, regardless of the question of soteriology, it seems clear at least that Jesus’ death for Mark
carried with it an element of service for other people, an action which I contend is the direct result of a
childlike spirit.
Yet another passage in the Passion narrative may clarify this point further. In 15:5-15 Mark
records the exchange between Pilate and the crowds concerning Jesus death. As Mark portrays it, the crowd
was offered a choice to free either Jesus or Barabbas, a criminal imprisoned in a political uprising.
Ultimately, of course, Barabbas is released and Jesus is sentenced to death. While it is again not made
explicit, perhaps Mark included here too a notion of Jesus’ death in the place of someone else, i.e., his
service to them based on 10:45. If Jesus had been freed, Barabbas would have been killed. Because
Barabbas was set free, Jesus was sentenced to death. The options seem to match up to a kind of substitution
of persons. This proposition gets especially interesting if we consider the meaning of “Barabbas”. We have
already examined the meaning of abba above and found it to be an intimate term meaning father. In
Aramaic, like in Hebrew, bar is a prefix meaning “son.” Therefore, “barabbas” means “son of a father” a
rather generic name. Could Mark have intended a kind of symbolism by Jesus’ switch with the “son of a
father” to mean Jesus’ substitutionary death for mankind as a whole? Perhaps, though the potential link is
certainly less than definite.
e. Summary
Again, some summarizing statements are in order. First, to rehearse what was concluded above
concerning the titles of Jesus, certainly we find an emphasis on Jesus’ sonship through Mark’s use of “son
of Man”, “son of God”, “son of David”, and perhaps even his use of “Messiah.” Jesus is referred to over
and over again in the Gospel as someone’s son, which leads to an emphasis on this kind of thinking. In
addition to this, Jesus is pictured as operating in an intimate relationship to his father. Such a relationship is

236
It is my opinion that the Gospel of Mark is less than clear as to the specific doctrine of salvation to
which it adheres. However, it does not appear to contradict the traditional doctrine of substitutionary
atonement, i.e., that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice for the sins of the world to appease the just wrath of God
toward those sins. In fact, Mark’s words of “for many” and “covenant” would seem to support this view.
However, that is the topic for another paper.
237
Witherington III, 288-290.

125
demonstrated explicitly in Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and implicitly in the two references
by the voice of God to Jesus as a “beloved son” and Jesus’ constant emphasis on the Kingdom of his
Father, i.e., the Kingdom of God. Finally, we see quite clearly that Jesus is pictured in the Gospel as a
perfect example of a Kingdom-Centered attitude, which Mark rephrases as “childlikeness.” An attitude
filled with faith, eager to be obedient, emphasizing dependence, and willing to embrace insignificance.
Jesus’ life is presented as being the epitome of all of these characteristics of the attitude of the Kingdom,
i.e., childlikeness, thereby making him the model for his followers and the greatest of all in the Kingdom of
God. Evans notes this correlation:
To be great in the Kingdom of God will require a willingness to suffer and a willingness to serve,
and the prime example of one who is willing to serve and to suffer is the “son of man,” who “came
not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”238

The specific Markan accounts of Jesus’ action over and again emphasize his compassion on the needy and
downtrodden, his willingness to interact with those who were of no consequence, and his choice to obey the
will of his father and give his life as a service for others’ well-being. Truly, this is the Markan attitude of
childlikeness exemplified to the fullest extent. It is thus Jesus’ attitude as the faithful, dependent, obedient,
and humble son of God who embraces the humiliation of the cross for others which is ultimately able to
link the Kingdom of God to the death of Jesus, for the perfect childlike spirit is ultimately exemplified
through his death for many.
7. The Secret of the Kingdom of God Revisited
The intent of the preceding discussion concerning the attitude of the Kingdom was an attempt to
understand what all is entailed in this attitude in the Gospel text. Surely the above argument has shown the
high regard that Mark seems to give to the qualities of faith, obedience, dependence, and humility, i.e.,
what I have argued Mark understands as falling under the classification of a childlike spirit. While we have
made this argument secure, it remains to be proven conclusively that such a direct relation exists between
this attitude of childlikeness and the Kingdom of God as I have posited; for it is my contention that it is
indeed the “secret of the Kingdom” in Mark. It is to this argument that we now turn. First, I will make some
general points which I believe show the interrelatedness of the two concepts in the Gospel. Then, I will turn
to the parables of chapter four and the interactions portrayed in them.
a. The Centrality of 10:14-15; 24-25
The first argument to be offered for the interrelatedness of the Kingdom of God and the attitude of
childlikeness is found in the Gospel itself in chapter ten. One final time, here are the appropriate verses:
But when Jesus saw this [=the disciples preventing children from touching him], he was indignant
and said to them [=the disciples], “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the
kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the
kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

No case needs to be made for the obvious interrelatedness of the Kingdom of God and the attitude of
childlikeness in this verse. Jesus is presented as saying that the key to receiving the Kingdom is receiving it

238
Evans, 121.

126
like a child, with the attitude of a child. In addition, Mark presents Jesus as saying that the Kingdom of God
belongs to those who are like children. The word Jesus is portrayed as using is a verb of being, ειµι,
meaning “to be”; so Jesus says that the very nature of the Kingdom is linked inextricably to the attitude of
children. Again, it is my case that Mark in fact painted the picture of this attitude throughout his Gospel,
though he did not name it specifically until chapter ten. Thus, though the stories which emphasize faith,
etc., do not explicitly mention an attitude of childlikeness, I believe that Mark’s Gospel is written in such a
way that the inference that these characteristics are classified under childlikeness is clear.
To emphasize the importance of these verses, allow me to present some quick facts on the Gospel
of Mark. As has been mentioned numerous times before, there are thirteen verses in the Gospel which use
the phrase “the Kingdom of God” and of these, four are located in the span of twelve verses in chapter ten,
making the ratio of verses which mention the Kingdom of God to total verses in this section is 1:3. The
average ratio for the Gospel as a whole is 1:51, and for the 654 verses outside of the twelve verses of
chapter ten, the ratio is 1:73! That is to say that quite simply it is clear that Mark placed an extreme amount
of emphasis on these four references and these twelve verses for the Kingdom of God as a whole. What is it
these verses refer to? The first two speak to the importance of being a child in order to enter the Kingdom,
and the second two talk about how difficult it will be for those who have riches, i.e., those who are in
power, to enter the Kingdom. Clearly, Mark is trying to communicate to his readers the importance of
childlikeness for the Kingdom of God by using the simple tools of repetition and contrast. Quite simply, it
seems he is saying that those who are like children get in and even are the Kingdom, and for those who are
powerful and have wealth, it is next to impossible to enter what a child can receive so freely.
b. The Centrality of the Kingdom of God and the Attitude of
Childlikeness in Jesus’ Teaching and Ministry

Though this piece of evidence is admittedly less clearly supportive of my case than the previous
one, I believe it is still a reasonable supporting argument for the validity of my thesis. My contention is
basically this: both the Kingdom of God and the attitude of childlikeness appear to be major topics which
Jesus is presented as addressing in the Gospel. Excluding the topics of Jewish tradition and the events
leading up to the return of Jesus (chapter 13), it seems that the majority of Jesus’ teaching provided by
Mark relates almost directly to the attitude of childlikeness or the Kingdom of God. In fact, if we survey the
times in the Gospel where Jesus is presented as initiating a teaching moment (as opposed to being asked a
question by the Jewish authority or by his disciples) we see the following: 1:14-15 records Jesus’
proclamation about the Kingdom of God; all of chapter four relates to the Kingdom of God explicitly; Mark
six depicts Jesus’ charge to the disciples before their missionary journey; chapter eight verses fourteen
through twenty-one picture Jesus as warning the disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees; 8:31-9:1; 9:9-
13; 30-32 tell of Jesus’ predicted fate and the cost of discipleship, i.e., denying one’s self; 9:33-37 deals
with the importance of maintaining a servant’s heart; 10:14-15 speak about childlikeness; 10:23-27 speak
about the difficulty the rich will have in entering the Kingdom; 11:15-19 deal with Jesus’ teaching
concerning the temple; 12:1-12 has to do with the Jewish authorities’ treatment of Jesus; 12:35-37 speak of

127
the identity of the Messiah; 12:38-44 address the hypocrisy of the scribes; 12:41-44 deals with the widow’s
offering; 13:1-37 relates to the events preceding and surrounding Jesus’ return; 14:17-25 speak of the
disciples’ desertion and the institution of the Lord’s supper; and 14:62 addresses Jesus’ coming return. Of
these topics, only those having to do specifically with the temple building, i.e., Jesus’ actions against it in
chapter 11, and the future return of Jesus, which I have not yet addressed at all, have not and could not have
been used at one time or another by my argumentation to shed some light on the Kingdom of God or the
attitude of childlikeness.239
In summary, we have seen how Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ initiated teaching has focused
predominantly on the Kingdom of God, Jesus’ role in that Kingdom (as the perfect example of
childlikeness), and the attitude of childlikeness. Indeed, if Jesus is the unique agent of God in the
advancement of the Kingdom of God and if Jesus is presented as the perfect example of childlikeness, how
could the two not be related intimately?
In addition to Jesus’ teaching content we have seen over and over how important the attitude of
the heart is to Jesus’ work with those around him. Again, not once is Jesus presented as healing or
exorcising a demon apart from a request grounded in the attitude of the Kingdom displayed in either faith,
dependence, obedience, or insignificance. If indeed, Jesus’ ministry is summarized by his initial
proclamation concerning the Kingdom of God in 1:14-15, then that which serves to bring healing and
understanding must be central to the Kingdom and the ministry of Jesus as a whole. We have seen that the
single most important characteristic in Mark’s Gospel for those receiving Jesus’ power is the attitude of
their heart.
c. The Parables of Chapter Four and the Secret of the Kingdom of
God
For my final section concerning the attitude of childlikeness, I return again to the above discussion
on the parable of the sower and its interpretation in chapter four of Mark’s Gospel. However, rather than
examining the actual parable and its interpretation again, let us now turn to the pericopes which link the
parable of the sower together. These intermediary passages read (Double space indicates omitted material):
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about
the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of
God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and
not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return
and be forgiven.”

And He was saying to them, "A lamp is not brought to be put under a basket, is it, or
under a bed? Is it not brought to be put on the lampstand? For nothing is hidden, except to be
revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it would come to light. If anyone has ears to hear,
let him hear." And He was saying to them, "Take care what you listen to. By your standard of
measure it will be measured to you; and more will be given you besides. For whoever has, to him
more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him."

239
In fact, I plan on using both of the references to the future to better explicate Mark’s understanding of
the future element of the Kingdom, thereby leaving Jesus’ teaching while in the temple as the only
inapplicable teaching of Jesus.

128
The format of the above passage in the larger scheme of chapter four follows this basic pattern: the parable
of the sower is first, followed by what seems to be a teaching concerning why Jesus teaches in parables.
Next comes an explanation of the parable of the sower and finally further explanation concerning parables
in general. Because I have already addressed the actual content of the parable and its interpretation above,
let us now turn our focus to the intermediary sections which speak of Jesus’ parabolic methodology.
Our examination shall start with the first paragraph above. Following the parable of the sower
Mark records that those about Jesus, including the disciples, asked Jesus concerning the parables and in
response were told that they possessed the secret of the Kingdom of God. In addition, Mark reports through
the words of Jesus that those who are on the outside, apparently those who are not near to Jesus, only
receive instruction in parables so that they will be confused, lest the turn and receive forgiveness.
It seems clear that in these few verses Mark is highlighting several points. First is the distinction
between those about Jesus and those who are “outsiders”. Clearly Mark understands the two as distinctly
different groups.240 In addition, we are introduced to the concept of the secret of the Kingdom of God.
Thirdly, we are presented with what seems to be a rather harsh statement on the lips of Jesus: that he
teaches so as to confuse outsiders.
We shall address the first point at present. Whereas almost all scholars agree with the
aforementioned dichotomy between the two groups, there are many varying interpretations as to what
constitutes the separation put forward by Mark. Tolbert argues the following:
The division between those who are given the mystery, the insiders, and those who hear riddles,
the outsiders, is not a simple opposition of disciples versus crowds; instead, it is an opposition of
categories: those who do the will of God and those who do not, those who have ears to hear and
those who have not.241

Tolbert argues this case on the basis of a connection between the end of chapter three and the above verses.
3:31-35 relates the story of Jesus’ family being on the outside of a group listening to his teaching and
asking for Jesus’ attention. In response, he declares that his true family is those who are about him, namely,
those who do the will of God. Tolbert contends that this is the division raised by Mark in chapter four; it is
not merely a division between the crowds and those about Jesus. Guelich also notes this connection.242
Gundry and Nineham present the argument that those who are outside are understood by Mark to
be those who are not destined for salvation, i.e., those who are predestined to damnation. Gundry especially
argues that Mark portrayed Jesus teaching in this way so as to argue against a potential view that Jesus’
teaching failed to convert all his hearers. By arguing that Jesus intended for those outside not to understand,
Gundry is once again able to focus on the absolute power of Jesus in light of the scandal of the cross.243

240
Almost all scholars agree that Mark is forwarding a view of two groups in Jesus’ ministry. See Tolbert,
160 and Nineham, 136-137 as examples.
241
Tolbert, 160.
242
Guelich, 207-208.
243
See Gundry, 196.

129
 Lane delineates the groups along the lines of faith and unbelief. Those who are understood to be
insiders are those who have faith and understand; those who are outsiders see only “an enigma” when they
observe Jesus’ ministry.244
With these potential interpretations laid out, let us now turn to the passage itself. In it we find two
potential options which appear to delineate the two groups. One is simply the respective groups’ proximity
to Jesus, i.e., one group is presented as close to him and the other apparently not close. The second option
has to do with the insiders’ behavior. Only the insiders are presented as asking Jesus concerning the
parables; the outsiders do not ask. Of these two the second seems far more important to Mark for he does
not record Jesus’ declaration concerning the secret of the Kingdom of God merely when he is alone with
his disciples but rather only after the insiders ask him concerning the parables; it is at this point he tells
them that the secret has been given to them. This evidence would seem to lend itself to the position laid out
by Tolbert, that there is indeed more to being an insider than merely being a disciple; there are other traits
which distinguish their owner as an insider, i.e., doing the will of God and apparently asking concerning the
parables. The question then becomes, “What is the secret of the Kingdom of God that has been given?”
Here too, numerous theories have been offered.
Lane’s theory of what the secret is revolves around the person of Jesus. He writes:
The fundamental secret, which is common to all of the parables, concerns the one who spoke
them. It is the secret that in Jesus the Kingdom of God has begun to penetrate the experience of
men.245

This theory is also held by many of the commentators we have examined above, though with different
twists. Nineham, Guelich, and Ambrozic all point to the secret as being the inbreaking of the Kingdom in
the person of Jesus, whereas Gundry and Witherington emphasize Jesus’ role less. However, most all of our
scholars believe that the secret has something to do with the new inbreaking of the Kingdom through Jesus’
ministry.246 Kelber takes a slightly different route, linking the secret of the Kingdom to what he terms “the
great eschatological reversal” awaiting the Kingdom when it will come into its full glory.247 My position is
distinct from all of these. However, before I lay out what I believe the secret of the Kingdom of God to be,
let me first offer a critique of this scholarship.
My primary problem with all of the above options is that the solutions offered to the question
“What is the secret of the Kingdom?” is that they do not seem to be in the possession of the insiders and not
the outsiders. That Jesus’ ministry was a new inbreaking of the Kingdom is something that he has been
presented as saying since the first chapter. What is secret about that? It would seem to be a stretch that the
disciples understand far more than the “outsiders”, for they are repeatedly chastised for their lack of
understanding in the remainder of the text. Thus it does not seem sufficient to define the secret as the
knowledge of Jesus’ unique role in the inbreaking of God. In response to the solution offered by Kelber, I

244
Lane, 158.
245
Ibid., 158.
246
The argumentation for these scholars’ positions may be found on the following pages: Gundry, 197;
Witherington, 166; Nineham, 138; Guelich, 215; and Ambrozic 92

130
would offer again that the language of harvest, which is considered to be so intimately linked to the
eschatological notion of the Kingdom is utterly missing in the text of the parable of the sower, though it is
certainly present in the final two parables of chapter four. In addition, up to Mark four there seems to be
little evidence that Mark included clearly future references to the reality of the Kingdom. If the secret has to
do with an eschatological reversal of the world, would not more eschatological language be explicitly
present in the first part of the Gospel? In addition, this is not presented as something that the disciples
understand throughout the rest of the Gospel. Rather, it seems that they are rather similar to the crowds,
neither understanding Jesus’ purpose very well. This too seems like an insufficient explication of the text,
for like the others above it does not place the highest importance on the immediate context of the verse, i.e.,
the telling of the parable of the sower and the insiders’ question about the meaning of this parable. It seems
logical that Mark would have the secret of the Kingdom of God relate to this circumstance given his
placement of the phrase in such close proximity.
Here then is my contribution to the argument. It is my proposal that the secret of the Kingdom of
God is in fact an attitude of the heart which leads the disciples and those about Jesus to ask him concerning
the parables. Again, according to Mark’s portrayal, it is the question about the parable that elicits the
response concerning the Kingdom of God; it is not the mere presence of the disciples alone with Jesus, for
this reality has been pictured several times before in the Gospel. Now, we can only go so far in assessing
the motivations and attitudes of the insiders in this passage, but several things are clear. First, they did not
understand the parables but wanted to. They are defined by curiosity. Second, in order to ask, they must be
willing to admit they do not know. No question is asked before one’s ignorance is first admitted. They then
can be seen as demonstrating at least humility and dependence. Indeed, it is my proposition that Mark
portrayed Jesus’ teaching in such a way so as to demonstrate that Jesus’ teaching was intended to illicit this
kind of humble, curious response from his audience, in a way, offering an invitation to understand but not
forcing his audience to welcome his word.
In support of this proposition let us now turn to the second paragraph of text outlined above in
which Jesus speaks of the purpose of a lamp, i.e., to cast light on things. In a similar fashion one may
paraphrase Jesus’ above words as something similar to the following: “You would never bring a lamp into
a dark room to cover it up. No, you bring a lamp into a dark room so that it can give light. In the same way,
the only reason things are hidden is so that they may be revealed, and the only reason things are secretive is
so that they will come to light.” Indeed, it seems that in vv. 24 and 25 Jesus is portrayed as practically
begging his audience to realize the motives behind his teaching: he conceals so that he can bring to light; he
makes things confusing so he can explain them; he teaches in parables so that he can explicate their
meaning. Tolbert states concerning the revelation of secrets in the Gospel:
The secret of the Kingdom of God, given to the insiders who do the will of God, can remain a
secret only for a brief time, for nothing is “secret except to come to light.” Neither Jesus himself,
nor his powerful healing word, nor those of the good earth who bear fruit can remain secret or be
hidden, for secrecy is only for the purpose of bringing to light. All the apparent secrets in the

247
Kelber, Kingdom 38.

131
 Gospel—Jesus’ identity, his healing miracles, his control over evil spirits—have as their goal the
revelation of the kingdom.248

If it is the case that the Markan Jesus’ teaching was aimed at bringing revelation through confusion, we
must question why Mark would present Jesus in this way. In response, it may perhaps be because Mark
knew the brilliance of such a method. If indeed the above is an accurate representation of the text, which I
believe it is, we can summarize Jesus’ teaching like this: Jesus always teaches first in parables so as to
confuse his hearers so they will seek him out and ask him what they mean. When they ask, he gladly
reveals to them the secret behind the parable, therefore teaching those who truly want to understand and
seeking to lure those who at present do not. Thus Jesus’ audience is trained in the attitude of a humble
student learning from its teacher!
Now, to return again to the notion of childlikeness in this section. Granted, the reference is
certainly not explicit and is perhaps not even implicit. However, consider the pattern of revelation and
miraculous action we have seen so far. Only when Jesus is approached and asked for a healing miracle does
he perform one. Only when an exorcism is requested does it occur. We have noted the importance of the
attitude of the ones approaching Jesus for the ultimate outcome of their request. Those who approach Jesus
with faith, dependence, and insignificance receive the healing they desire. Is it unreasonable to assume that
Mark also portrayed Jesus’ teaching ministry in this way? I have argued that the Kingdom of God expands
when Jesus heals a leper or gives sight to a blind man, however, this only happens at the faithful request of
the one to be healed or a representative thereof. In the same way, I have argued that the Kingdom of God
advances when Jesus’ audience hears his word, accepts it, and bears fruit. It does not seem unreasonable
that Mark would include the same basic ingredient for this kind of Kingdom expansion as he did for other
kinds: an attitude centered on the Kingdom and characterized by faith, humility, dependence, and
insignificance. In summary then, there is certainly no way to prove conclusively that Mark portrayed the
insiders of chapter four as acting with childlike motives. However, it does not seem at all inconsistent with
the rest of his Gospel, thereby making it a feasible option for consideration. It serves to reason that Mark’s
partiality toward the formula of Kingdom expansion which combines childlikeness with the power of Jesus
would carry over into his portrayal of Jesus’ teaching.
8. A Summary of Childlikeness
My contention regarding the expansion of the Kingdom of God has been this. There are four
means through which Mark understood the Kingdom to be advanced. The first is through Jesus’
authoritative exorcisms in response to the challenge of demonic forces. On this level, the Kingdom expands
in a supernatural way as people are freed from the spiritual bondage that once enslaved them. The final
means, which we have yet to examine in full, concerns the ultimate consummation of the Kingdom. I
believe that it is Mark’s belief that it is at Jesus’ return that God will finally establish fully his reign. At
that point, the borders of the Kingdom of God will know no boundaries as all creation is brought into
subjection to the will and judgment of God.

248
Tolbert, 161.

132
 The second and third means of Kingdom expansion are Jesus’ healings in response to faithful
requests and Jesus’ initiated teaching. I have argued that the Kingdom is expanded through both of these
means when one additional element is present. Jesus’ teaching or his ability to perform miraculous healings
by themselves do not advance the Kingdom; rather, I have argued that it is when Jesus’ teaching leads to
understanding and when his power is manifested in miraculous works of power that the boundaries of the
Kingdom are advanced. I have argued that the key to both of these realities is the attitude of childlikeness,
an attitude which is characterized by faith, dependence, obedience, and insignificance. Over and over again
in the Gospel, whether it be in order to elicit the response of Jesus or in response to his teaching, an attitude
which demonstrates faith, dependence, obedience, and insignificance is presented as leading to Kingdom
expansion.
Though it is not made explicit until chapter ten, I believe that time and again Mark includes
examples of this kind of attitude in his Gospel text. He then makes explicit in chapter ten what has been
implied for the previous nine chapters, namely, that an attitude which demonstrates faith, obedience,
dependence, and insignificance, an attitude which Mark defines as childlike, is always received by Jesus,
and is in fact the secret behind his most important kinds of present Kingdom expansion.
I have also argued that Mark portrays a different set of characteristics as stereotypical of those
who oppose Jesus, i.e., those who have hardened hearts. This attitude is one of selfishness and
stubbornness, interested in the power and prestige of the world. I have argued that this attitude is the polar
opposite of the attitude of childlikeness which Mark portrays as so vital to the expansion of the Kingdom
through Jesus’ ministry.
J. The Future Element of the Kingdom of God
1. Introduction
Up to this point the above discussion has focused almost exclusively on the Kingdom of God as a
present reality corresponding to the ministry of Jesus. Very little attention has been paid thus far to the
future element of the Kingdom as it is portrayed by Mark. It is to this future element that we now turn.
With the exception of the liberal scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries, virtually no scholar has argued
that the Gospel of Mark is devoid of all apocalyptic and eschatological language. Time and again scholars
have noted the presence of this kind of language in the Gospel text and at times, in the case of Weiss and
Schweitzer and those who followed them, have even argued that the eschatological language overshadows
nearly all else in the Gospel. My position concerning the future element of the Kingdom is a middle of the
road position which holds that the future element is certainly present in the text of the Gospel, but that it is
balanced by elements of the Kingdom which are non-eschatological. Our examination of this fourth and
final means of Kingdom expansion will follow this pattern. I will first seek to show that Mark clearly
intended to portray the “unfinished” nature of the Kingdom of God in the final chapters of his Gospel both
preceding and following Jesus’ death. Next, we will examine those texts which suggest when and how the
consummation of the Kingdom will occur, i.e., what events will surround it and ultimately bring the

133
Kingdom in full. Finally, we shall examine several passages in the Gospel which include a future notion of
the Kingdom of God for insight into how Mark understood this future reign of God.
2. The Kingdom as Unfinished Business
Of the thirteen passages in the Gospel text which speak of the Kingdom of God, only two occur
after chapter 12. It is these two verses which I believe clearly show that Mark portrayed Jesus as awaiting
some sort of additional fulfillment to the advance of the Kingdom undertaken by his ministry. The first of
these verses (14:25) occurs in the context of the last supper and reads: “Truly I [=Jesus] say to you [=the
disciples], I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom
of God.” Here we have Jesus, just hours before his crucifixion, presented as affirming that he will drink
wine anew in that day in the Kingdom of God. Surely this speaks to the unconsummated nature of the
Kingdom. Evans argues a similar case when he writes:
Jesus has announced the kingdom of God, whose inbreaking and advancing power is attested by
the exorcisms, which in turn document the retreat of the kingdom of Satan. Jesus will not drink of
the fruit of the vine; that is, he will not celebrate Passover until he may do so in the kingdom of
God, when God has completed his liberation and restoration of Israel.249 (Italics mine)

Of course, the intricacies of this passage are far more extensive than I am noting here, but for our purposes
it is enough to note that Mark portrayed Jesus in a way in this chapter to suggest some sort of future
fulfillment to the Kingdom.
Chapter fifteen verse forty-three speaks to a similar reality. This passage actually follows the death
of Jesus and is described the character of Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Jewish council
which convicted Jesus as worthy of death. The passage reads:
When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the
Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was
waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate and asked
for the body of Jesus.

Again, the specific details of this passage go beyond our purposes. However, we see here that Mark
portrays a prominent member of the Jewish society as still awaiting the Kingdom of God following his
death. Therefore, we can be assured that, according to Mark, the Kingdom of God did not ultimately come
at Jesus’ death. The specific nature of Joseph’s expectation is unimportant for our survey; the main point
worth noting is that we once again see an expectation of the arrival of the Kingdom beyond Jesus’ earthly
ministry. At the point this verse is included, Jesus is dead and unable to advance the Kingdom any more,
though after his resurrection this condition will change. However, Mark’s point remains that the desire for
the consummated Kingdom was not met during Jesus’ earthly life.
3. The Kingdom Linked to the Return of Jesus as the Son of Man on the Clouds of
Heaven

Given that so much of Mark’s Gospel is about the nearness of the Kingdom in the person of Jesus
and the expansion of its borders through his ministry, for Mark to end his Gospel with the task unfinished

249
Evans, 396.

134
seems a bit odd. However, most scholars have agreed that Mark was not silent as to his predictions
concerning what would signal the ultimate consummation of the Kingdom, namely, Jesus’ return on the
clouds of heaven.
Three passages in the Gospel speak of Jesus’ coming on the clouds of heaven: 8:38; 13:26; and
14:62. The first reference is presented as being spoken to the disciples and the crowd which was following
Jesus; the second occurs during what scholars have termed the Olivet discourse, i.e., Jesus speech in
chapter thirteen; the final reference is pictured as being spoken during the trial of Jesus before the High
Priest. We shall examine the first and last of these references. The texts of the three verses are:
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the
Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the Holy
angels. (8:38)

Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are you the Christ, the
Son of the Blessed One?”
And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the son of Man sitting at the right hand of power,
and coming with the clouds of heaven. (14:61-62)

We are able to discern several points of similarity among these passages. First, both passages speak of the
Son of Man’s return and do not explicitly mention Jesus. However, it has already been noted the number of
times which “son of Man” is used in the Gospel to refer to Jesus’ person, and these passages should be
interpreted no differently. In addition, we see at least implied references to Jesus’ power and glory in both
sections. Both passages also note the movement of the Son of Man, i.e., his coming, though his destination
remains somewhat obscure. In a similar fashion, both of these references seem to imply that people will
observe the happenings. Evans’ comments are fairly representative of the widespread interpretation of these
verses. He writes:
God’s reign on earth will be brought to completion in the drama of the coming of the “son of
man,” that heavenly humanlike figure described in Dan. 7:13-14, accompanied by “holy
angels”.250

The meaning of the mysterious epithet “son of man,” which Jesus had employed in reference to
himself many time before, now becomes much clearer. The epithet is messianic after all and points
to a messianism that is much more than being a mere “son of David.” The anointed “son of man,”
who has received from God kingdom and authority is more than David’s son; he is David’s “lord”
(12:35-37). He is also lord of the temple and its caretakers, as they will find out, when they see
the “son of man” coming with the clouds, seated at the right hand of God.251

These two passages seem to point clearly to Jesus’ return to the earth to establish God’s Kingdom once and
for all. The Kingdom’ whose inbreaking was intimately related to Jesus’ earthly ministry will one day be
fulfilled by his heavenly return.
Let us now turn to the final two parables of chapter four for their content concerning the Kingdom
of God.
4. The Kingdom of God as a Mustard Seed and a Seed Growing Secretly

250
Evans, 27. (Comments on 8:38)
251
Ibid., 459. (Comments on 14:62)

135
 The final two parables of chapter four are the only two parables in the Gospel which deal
explicitly with the Kingdom of God. Their texts read as follows:
And He was saying, “The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil;
and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows—how, he himself
does not know. The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then the head, then the mature
grain in the head. But when the crop permits, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the
harvest has come.
And He said, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we
present it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, through it is smaller than all
the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the
garden plants and forms large branches; so that the birds of the air can nest under its shade.

As with all the parables of Jesus, these have also come under intense scrutiny which has led to multiple
interpretations. However, before we get to those interpretations it is pertinent first to observe patterns in the
text. First, we see that both parables concern growth, seed, and plants. The first parable seems to emphasize
the process of growth with its talk of the specific steps of metamorphosis which the seed undergoes. The
second parable seems to emphasize the vast discrepancy between the beginning and ending realities,
especially given its use of “smallest” (µικροτερον) and “largest” (µειζον). Only the first parable
specifically mentions the harvest, though one could make the case that a kind of “final reality” is certainly
present in the second parable as well.
Now, for the interpretations of the parables, beginning with the secretly growing seed. Ambrozic
writes concerning this passage:
In the face of persecution and “anxieties over life’s demands, and the desire for wealth, and
cravings of other sorts” (4:19), the unfathomable approach of the kingdom may become too much
to bear. Yet the parable calls for confidence: no matter how dark the horizon or how strange the
ways of God, he has decided to bring about his kingdom through the word of Jesus which the
community [=Mark’s community] has heard and accepted.252

Guelich’s interpretation is similar; he writes:

Thus, the certainty of the seeds’ growth offers assurance to the disciples or readers of the presence
and work of the Kingdom despite its enigmatic character. Just as the seed “sprouts and grows”
apart from the understanding of the farmer, the Kingdom is present even though the disciples, who
have been given the mystery of the Kingdom, fail to understand how or fully comprehend it.253

We can see in these two quotations scholarships’ emphasis on the interpretation of this parable as
containing a notion of the determination of the Kingdom against all odds. Despite the ignorance even of the
one who sows the seed, the seed grows and produces a crop which leads to the harvest: a concept we have
already noted as having eschatological overtones.
Therefore, the parable of the seed growing secretly seems to be aimed at communicating a hope in
the ultimate consummation of the Kingdom in spite of overwhelming odds in the present. The Kingdom
will come to fruition no matter what hurdles must be crossed.
With regard to the parable of the mustard seed Lane writes:

252
Ambrozic, 121.
253
Guelich, 241.

136
 This parable is concerned with the enigmatic present manifestation of the Kingdom as embodied
in Jesus’ person. Its appearance may be characterized by weakness and apparent insignificance—
but remember the mustard seed. The day will come when the Kingdom of God will surpass in
glory the mightiest kingdoms of the earth, for it is the consequence of God’s sovereign action. The
mustard seed is the word of God proclaimed by Christ. This word possessed the power which one
day will make all things new. When the glory of that manifestation breaks forth before men they
will be as startled as the man who considers the tiny mustard seed and the mighty shrub.254

Witherington’s comments line up nicely with this interpretation:

Though the dominion [=Kingdom of God] seemed to be small and ineffectual at present, it will
eventually blossom into something enormous, even attracting those far off. It is usual to apply the
reference to the birds to the people of the Gentile nations…. Though the dominion appeared small
like a seed during Jesus’ ministry, it would inexorably grow into something large and firmly
rooted, which some would find shelter in and others would find obnoxious and try to root out.255

It is my contention, along with the majority of scholarship, that this parable serves as a kind of broad
overview of the Kingdom of God present in the ministry of Jesus. In the Gospel the Kingdom is presented
as starting very small and in an insignificant way, indeed in only one man. From there, however, it begins
to grow. As Jesus casts out demons, heals the sick, and preaches the Gospel, the boundaries of the
Kingdom expand. By the time contemporary with Mark the Kingdom is still growing and has left its
humble beginnings behind. It’s influence has begun to spread throughout the Mediterranean region and
Mark’s audience may well consider themselves a part of that Kingdom. This process is understood to
continue on, providing shade for the nations in its large branches until one day the ultimate consummation
arrives at Jesus’ return, and the Kingdom is revealed for its full and unveiled glory.
This is the growth of the Kingdom for Mark: it underwent a new inbreaking in the ministry of
Jesus and continues in a path of growth until it will one day reach fruition and harvest at Jesus’ second
coming; at which point the rule of God over all the earth will be established.

VIII. Conclusion
This brings us to the end of a long and arduous process of examination, formulation, and
interpretation. It is proper at this point to restate my understanding of the Kingdom of God in Mark in full
one final time.
It has been my contention that the Kingdom of God in Mark is seen as advancing through four
different means. The first concerns Jesus’ authoritative exorcisms of the demonic forces around him.
Though he is never presented as initiating one of these exchanges, often Mark portrays him as responding
to the challenge of the demonic powers. We have seen how Mark understood this interplay as a kind of
plundering of the kingdom of Satan in favor of the Kingdom of God. When Jesus is depicted as exorcising
a demonic presence, the Kingdom of God is advanced as the kingdom of Satan is overcome.

254
Lane, 171-172.
255
Witherington III, 171-172. Witherington offers an interesting alternative to the normal positive angle on
the mustard plant, noting that it is a rather noxious plant, taking over the ground and not allowing other
growth. Witherington likens this to Jesus’ effectual overcoming of old Judaism. See Witherington 171-172
for more detail.

137
 The second means through which I argued the Kingdom in Mark is advanced is through Jesus’
healings in response to faithful and humble requests. Time and again Mark emphasizes Jesus’ healing
ability, but like the exorcistic activity recorded in Mark, not once is Jesus presented as initiating a healing;
only in response to the faith of individuals and groups does he put his power to work healing the sick. The
right attitude is necessary to enable the growth of the Kingdom through Jesus’ healing miracles; when the
correct attitude is present, the intended rule of God over a person’s life is exercised and they are made well:
the Kingdom of God expands.
The third facet of the Kingdom which I have presented concerns Jesus’ teaching ministry. I have
noted that teaching appears to be at the center of the Markan Jesus’ initiative. I have also argued that Mark
portrayed Jesus’ teaching as confusing so as to elicit a response from his hearers. When the desire for
understanding is expressed, which is a consequence of the condition of one’s heart, Jesus is presented as
explaining the intricacies of his ministry and the Kingdom of God as a whole. When his word falls on good
soil, i.e., the hearts of those who are willing to hear his words, they accept it and bear fruit which is
portrayed as understanding and obedience.
With regard to both the second and third categories, I have argued that the attitude of childlikeness
is in fact the secret which unleashes the power of the Kingdom. When people come to Jesus with an
attitude which demonstrates faith, dependence, obedience, and the willingness to embrace insignificance,
he is presented as honoring them and expanding the boundaries of the Kingdom over their lives, whether it
be through freeing a son or daughter from demonic oppression, lifting the blindness of a man’s eyes, or
enlightening one’s mind so as to better understand the Kingdom of God, the attitude of childlikeness is at
the heart of the majority of Kingdom expansion work done by Jesus in the Gospel. Indeed, I have also
noted how Jesus’ own life should be understood in the terms of this attitude of childlikeness, for he is the
perfect example of childlikeness before God. Jesus is again and again referred to by titles which emphasize
his sonship and his attitude is that of perfect submission, dependence, obedience, and faith on behalf of the
Father. This attitude manifests itself in Jesus’ service to others, ultimately exemplified by his death on the
cross as a ransom for many.
The fourth and final means through which the Kingdom is established is through Jesus’ eventual
return on the clouds of heaven. I have argued that Mark understood the Kingdom to be awaiting the
ultimate consummation which would only come at Jesus’ return on the clouds of heaven. In the mean time,
I have argued that Mark understood the responsibility of all disciples of Christ, whether it be himself, his
community, or our churches and communities today, to be centered on continuing the ministry of Jesus
which he began during his earthly life. Just as the disciples were sent out to preach the good news of the
Kingdom, heal the sick, and cast out demons, so are all of Jesus’ followers to engage in these activities for
the expansion of the boundaries of the Kingdom.
The Kingdom of God in Mark is more than merely one portrayed action of Jesus or a specific
word spoken by him. It is not merely a present or future reality. It is not only a set of ethical guidelines or
the perfect society here on earth. Rather, it is all these things. The Kingdom of God in Mark is presented as

138
incorporating all facets of life, from physical and spiritual health to intellectual understanding. It’s demands
are the sacrifice of self and the embracing of a childlike heart. However, when this attitude is present, the
Kingdom is released in truly miraculous ways to the glory of God, whose Kingdom it is.

139