Topic: “Themes in Mark: Formation of Christology in Mark; Messianic Secret”

Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………...2

1. Background of Markan Christology ……………………………………………………

2
2. Formation of Christology in Mark .………………………………………………..…2-3
3. Narrative Christology …………………………………………………………………...3
4. Christological Titles in Mark ..
…………………………………………………………..4
4.1. Son of God .
…………………………………………………………………………..4
4.2. Son of Man
…………………………………………………………………………..4
4.3. Son of David
………………………………………………………………………...5
4.4. Jesus of Nazareth .
…………………………………………………………………...5
4.5. Messiah .
……………………………………………………………………………...5
5. Mark’s Portray of Jesus .……………………………………………………………...5-6
6. The Messianic Secret in Mark ..…………………………………………………………
6
6.1. William Wrede’s Analysis and Interpretation ..
………………………………...6-7
6.2. Criticism of Wrede’s Hypothesis .
………………………………………………..7-8
7. Themes related to Messianic Secret .……………………………………………………
8
7.1. Hiddenness and Openness in the Miracles Stories .
…………………………….…8

1
 7.2. The Silencing Commands to the Demons .
…………………………………………9
7.3. The Silencing Commands to the Disciples ..
………………………………………..9
7.4. The Parable Theory and the Messianic Secret .……………………………..…
9-10
8. The Purpose of the Messianic Secret ..…………………………………………………
10
9. Evaluation .…………………………………………………………………………..10-11

Conclusion .……………………………………………………………………………………..11

Bibliography ….……………………………………………………………………………..11-14

Introduction
The Christological theme in Mark is seen by the various titles of Jesus recorded in Mark.
However, the opinion of some theologians is that Mark used this title in a purely Messianic view,
understanding the Christology of Mark’s gospel is complicated among the Synoptic gospels. The
Messianic Secret is one of the most curious, and quite possibly one of the most key structures
contained in the Gospel of Mark. Therefore, this paper deals with the “Themes in Mark:
Formation of Christology in Mark; Messianic Secret”. The paper provides the background,
formations titles, and attempt to discuss the “The Messianic Secret”, including critiques,
purposes, and evaluation.
1. Background of Markan Christology

It is believed that the gospel of Mark was written by John Mark who was an attendant and
interpreter of Apostle Peter. Vincent Taylor says that Markan gospel is the first gospel written
around 65 to 70 AD which is another significant for Markan Christology.1 The Christology title

1
Vincent Taylor, The Gospels (London: Epworth Press, 1952), 47.

2
Messiah found in Mark was religiously interpreted from the beginning before Christ death and
resurrection in the history.2 In contrast, Mark’s Christology lies first in the events that climaxed
Jesus‟ ministry in Jerusalem.3 Markan Christology was also understood it represents the
Christology of the primitive church.4 Some scholars such as Rudolf Karl Bultmann are of the
opinion that Mark’s Christology is of the Pauline type since for them. 5 This tradition is
traceable historically to the period when Formgeschichte was the dominating method and Mark
and the other Evangelists were seen as collectors of tradition.6
2. Formation of Christology in Mark
Mark presents the high Christology formation. Mark theology is principally a Christology
where the title “the Chris is Jesus” is made in the first line of Mark. 7 William Wrede was the first
to see a Christological motif as giving shape to Mark’s Gospel. Gregg Morrison notes three
views: First, there is the Son of God as Royal Messiah, followed by the Son of God as Suffering
Servant, and finally the Son of God as Eschatological Prophet.8 Mark reports the content of his
teaching and often Jesus is often referred to as a teacher, Mark also portrays the humanness of
Jesus. Above all, Mark’s portrayal of Jesus is characterized by three factors: His Divine
Authority, His mission as the suffering servant of God, and His Divine Sonship. 9 Jesus, asks his
disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” (8:27) and then, more pointedly, “But who do you say
that I am?” (8:29).10 The characteristic of Jesus that left the most lasting impression on his
followers and caused the greatest offences to His opponents was his exousia, His sovereign
freedom and magisterial authority.11

2
Paul E. Davies, “Jesus in Relation to Believing Men,” Interpretation, XII (1958): 5.
3
D.H.Juel, “The Origin of Mark‟s Christology,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 458-59.
4
Archibald M. Hunter, The Work and Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950), 16.
5
Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament 1, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribners Press
1951), 129-135.
6
Cf. L. Chouinard, “Gospel Christology: A Study of Methodology,” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament, 30, no. 9 (January 1987): 21-37.
7
David E. Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Biblical Theology of the New Testament, eds. Andreas J.
Kostenberger (Michigan: Zondervan, 2015), 227.
8
Gregg S. Morrison, The Turning Point in the Gospel of Mark. A Study in Markan Christology (Oregon:
Pickwick Publications, 2014), 275.
9
James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark: The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D.A.
Carson (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 25.
10
Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology (Texas: Baylor
University Press, 2009), 1-2.
11
Robert H. Stein, Mark: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Michigan: Baker
Academic, 2008), 26.

3
3. Narrative Christology
Robert Tannehill introduced the Narrative Christology. It is a corrective for the imposition of
theological categories onto the characterization of Jesus in the narrative of Mark. 12 Edwin
Broadhead said Christology is characterization. Pheme Perkins presents Markan Narrative
Christology in five categories with four characters. The five categories are: Enacted Christology,
Projected Christology, Deflected Christology Refracted Christology, and Reflected Christology.
The four characters are: what they say, by what they do, by what others say and do to and about
or in relation to them.13
Enacted Christology is known as action Christology which contributes to a narrative
Christology.14 Projected Christology is the view of Jesus that is projected onto him by the
narrator.15 Deflected Christology where Markan Jesus mentions, what Jesus’ response for those
words said by others on Jesus. Refracted Christology have to do primarily with the Markan
Jesus’ focus on God.16 Reflected Christology suggests that how other characters relate to Jesus
may in fact mirror how Jesus relates to God.

4. Christological Titles in Mark

Mark refers to Jesus by various titles such as teacher, rabbi, Son of David, Christ, Lord, Son
of Man, Son of God.17 In the gospel of Mark, the title “Christ” (“Messiah”) occurs by the Jesus’
enemies, the high priest gave the title “the Son of the Blessed One”, the high priests and teachers
of the law gave the title “the Christ, the King of Israel.” 18 Discussion of the New Testament
Christology used to focus almost exclusively on titles.
4.1. Son of God

12
Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology, 16.
13
Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology, 17.
14
Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology, 55.
15
Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology, 57.
16
Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology, 216.
17
Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark: The Pillar New Testament Commentary, 27.
18
David E. Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Biblical Theology of the New Testament, eds. Andreas
J. Kostenberger (Michigan: Zondervan, 2015), 194

4
 Jesus is seen as “the Son of God” in Mark. In fact, some interpreters would say that “Son of
God” is Mark’s particular designation for Jesus.19 In the opening verse Mark introduced Jesus as
the Son of God (1:1), and 1:1-13 serves as the beginning of the good news concerning him. 20 In
the beginning of His gospel Jesus is identified as the Son of God (1:1), and in the concluding and
climactic confession of the centurion at the cross, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”
(15:39).21 The key to understanding the Son of God is in His suffering.22

4.2. Son of Man

Mark opens and concludes his narrative by identifying Jesus as the “Messiah, Son of God”
but the designation that occurs most frequently is “Son of Man”. 23 According to Karkkainen, the
Son of Man in Mark 2:10, 28 is about Jesus’ present authority; Mark 8:31 referring of Son of
Man is about His suffering and resurrection; Mark 8:38; 13:26 is referring about His glorious
coming.24 Peter’s declaration signifies the Son of Man as present authority. 25 According to Mark
13, Jesus Son of Man is eschatological title of Christology.26

4.3. Son of David

This title is directly attributed to Jesus by Bartimaeus (Mk10.46-480). It is also a royal title
(Mk 11.10), and a messianic title (Mk 12.35-37). 27 The religious leaders accepted the
identification of Messiah with Son of David. Some have considered the incident to show that the
Davidic descent of the Messiah is being rejected. Others consider that the political aspect is
being denied. Yet others consider that the passage presents a two-stage Christology, “Son of
David” for the span of His human life and Messianic Lordship for the risen Lord.28

19
R.A. Guelich, “Gospel of Mark”, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, Scot
McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), 519.
20
Stein, Mark: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 38.
21
Jesse J. Northcutt, “The Christ of Mark’s Gospel,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 1(1958): 55-58.
22
Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark: The Pillar New Testament Commentary, 27.
23
Guelich, “Gospel of Mark”, 520.
24
Veli Matti Karkkainen, Christology: A Global Introduction (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003), 25.
25
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Illinois: IVP, 1981), 174.
26
Karkkainen, Christology: A Global Introduction, 21.
27
Cf. Pheme Perkins, Reading the New Testament: An introduction (New York: Powlist Press, 1988), 102.
28
Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 255-56.

5
4.4. Jesus of Nazareth

The title Jesus of Nazareth is a fine example from Mark’s gospel that Jesus is realistically
human which represents Jesus as human. The example from Jesus grieved in His Spirit (7:34;
812); He moved with pity (6.34); He “marvels” at the unbelief of His fellow countrymen (6.6);
He grows “indignant” at the conduct of His disciples (10.14); His anger on His critics (3.5);
seized with “deadly fear” (14.33) are characterized into humanity.29

4.5. Messiah

Mark introduces Jesus as “Christ” (Messiah,” Anointed One”). 30 Mark announces that the
significance of Jesus is rooted in two titles, “Messiah” and “Son of God.” 31 The Messiah is
confirmed at the first appearance of Jesus in the story (1:11-15). The voice from heave at the
baptism (1:11) calls Jesus “My Son,” an echo of Psalm 2:7 (cf. “You are My Son, this day have I
begotten You”).32

5. Mark’s portray of Jesus

A spectacular characteristic of Mark’s account is the humanistic portrait of Jesus. Jesus is

often painted in the moods and motions of man, in which he becomes angry, tired, hungry, shows
pities etc.33 A Jesus who as a real human person; can stand as an example and an inspiration for
worthy cause.34 Jesus is portrayed in a very Jewish light as the Messiah, the authoritative Son of
God. Again, Jesus is portrayed as an authoritative teacher. This portrayal of Jesus as an
authoritative Son of God is also recognized by even the unclean spirits.35
6. The Messianic Secret in Mark
The word musthvrion is best translated “secret”, something which is available only to those
to whom it has been revealed.36 One of the most notable characteristics of Mark’s Gospel if the

29
Archibald M. Hunter, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: SCM, 1948), 22.
30
Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 726.
31
Paul J Achtemeier, Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament: Its
Literature and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 208.
32
Guelich, “Gospel of Mark”, 518.
33
Cf. Keith F. Nickle, The Synoptic Gospel an Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2001), 69.
34
Cf. A. Schweiter, The Quest of Historical Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 398-403.
35
Cf. James R. Edwards, “The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark”, Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 37, no. 2 (June 1994), 219.
36
R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Michigan: Grand Rapids, 2002), 31.

6
secrecy with which Jesus cloaks His identity.37 The term Messianic Secret is developed by
William Wrede in 1901 where Jesus is commanding His followers to silence about His messianic
mission on earth and the miracles He performed. 38 According to Jack Dean Kingsbury, the
Messianic Secret is a literary device.39
6.1. William Wrede’s Analysis and Interpretation
William Wrede were supposed to be a common secrecy motif: (1) Jesus commanded the
demons to keep silence, for they recognized Him (Mk. 1:23, 34, 3:6, 9:20), (2) Those who were
healed by Jesus where enjoined to remain silent (Mk. 1:43,44, 7:36, 8:26), (3) His disciples were
ordered not to reveal that He was the Messiah after Peter’s confession (Mk. 8:30), (4) Jesus
asked His disciples not to speak of the Transfiguration until after the Resurrection (Mk. 9:9), and
(5) Jesus frequently withdrew from the crowd to go on secret trips with His disciples and gave
private instruction to them (Mk. 4:10-13, 34, 7:17-23, 9:28; 8:1, 9:31, 10:32-34, 8:3). 40 It
becomes evident that what is being thus guarded is the Messianic secret. Jesus’ Messiahship is
and must be a secret.41

According to Wrede, “the idea of the secret arose at a time when as yet there was no
knowledge of any messianic claim on the part of Jesus on earth.” 42 Heikki Raisanen summarized
Wrede’s interpretation of the messianic secret in four main points: 1) All the elements in the
complex of themes concerned with the secret. 2) 9:9, provides the key: Jesus’ messiahship
should be hidden until the resurrection. 3) The Messianic secret stems neither from the historical
Jesus nor from Mark, but from Mark’s tradition. 4) The Messianic secret is a transitional idea by
means of which an attempt is made to reconcile the old view that Jesus became Messiah only at
the resurrection with the later messianic interpretation of Jesus’s life.43

37
Kilgallen, J.J., “The Messianic Secret and Mark’s Purpose”, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of
Bible and Culture 7, no. 2 (May 1977): 60.
38
Morna D. Hooker, Black’s New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to ST Mark (London:
A & C Black Publishers, 1991), 66.
39
Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 10.
40
Aune, “The Problem of the Messianic Secret”, 2.
41
D.G. Dunn, “The Messianic Secret in Mark”, Tyndale Bulletin, 21 (1970): 92-93.
42
William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, trans. J. C. Grieg (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971), 228.
43
Heikki Raisanen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, trans. Christopher Tuckett (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1990), 48.

7
 According to Wrede, Jesus had made no explicit or implicit messiah claims during His
lifetime.44 Wrede understood the wide explanations sometimes it was a question of Jesus’s
modesty.45 Ebeling agrees with Wrede that the sole guarantee of the Messiahship of Jesus is the
resurrection.46 Wrede advocated his thesis using three lines support: the gospel of Mark, the other
gospels, and historical elucidation. 47

6.2. Criticism of Wrede’s Hypothesis

Albert Schweitzer was among the first sharply to attack Wrede’s interpretation of Mark.
Schweitzer’s support for Mark’s chronology is of historical interest only.48 Schweitzer finds three
“Messianic facts” in the Markan narrative which have forced Wrede to go beyond the bounds of
literary criticism: 1) the triumphal entry, 2) Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi, and 3) the
high priest’s knowledge of Jesus’s messiahship. 49 Oscar Cullmann believes that he can explain
the messianic secret historically by tracing it back to the historical Jesus.50 Vincent Taylor also
stresses that Jesus did not want to appear as Mesiah before He had fulfilled His own mission of
suffering.51 Bultmann and Dibelius, the secrecy theory has generally been ascribed wholly to the
evangelist. Bultmann’s pupils have developed the remarks of their master further in the direction
of redaction-criticism.52 The parable theory, which speaks of the hardening of the hearers, seems
to be decisive here. The apologetic theory remains primarily related to the parable theory. 53 The
form-critical work of Bultmann demonstrated repeatedly that the Gospels provide evidence not
of a historical Jesus, but only of the Christ of the church’s faith, and that one cannot merely
assume the two be identical.54 The work of the former pupils of Bultmann (Bornkamm,
Conzelmann, Kasemann and Fuchs) who have renewed the quest of the historical Jesus.55

44
David E. Aune, “The Problem of the Messianic Secret”, Novum Testamentum,11, no. 1 (January 1969):
2-3.
45
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 38.
46
Powely B.G., “The Purpose of the Messianic Secret: A Brief Survey”, The Expository Times, 80, no. 10
(January 1969): 309.
47
John M. DePoe, “The Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark: Historical Development and Value of
Wrede’s Theory,” www.apologeticsinthechurch.com. (accessed) 27 July 2022.
48
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 49-50.
49
Aune, “The Problem of the Messianic Secret”, 5.
50
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 48-54
51
Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark 2nd edn. (London: The Macmillan Press, 1966), 123.
52
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 55-56.
53
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 76.
54
Lewis S. Hay, “Mark Use of the Messianic Secret”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 35,
no. 1 (March 1967): 16-17.
55
B.G., “The Purpose of the Messianic Secret: A Brief Survey”, 310.

8
7. Themes related to Messianic Secret

The themes related to Messianic Secret are such as: 1) Hiddenness and Openness in the
Miracles stories, 2) The Silencing Commands to the Demons, 3) The Silencing Commands to the
Disciples, and 4) The Parable Theory and the Messianic Secret. Which are explain below:

7.1. Hiddenness and Openness in the Miracles Stories

The relevant texts are Mark 1:43-44 (cf. Matthew 8:4 and Luke 5:14); Mark 5:43 (cf. Luke
8:56); Mark 7:36; and Mark 7:24.56 Raisanen, brought the hiddenness and openness in the
miracle stories of Mark. He narrated in Mark 10:40-45, Jesus cleansing the leper and asking the
leper not to reveal to anyone and go and show to the priest is a messianic secret. This implies in
two ways. Firstly, by requesting the leper not to reveal anyone in hiding the messianic secret and
asking him to show to the Priest is an openness to show the authority of the Old Testament
Torah. However, the leper went and witnessed to others about the messianic secret. Raisanen
called this as the commands to silence which are disobeyed. In another one concession Mark
7:37-40, the healing of the deaf and mute man, after the healing he was also instructed by Jesus
not to proclaim outside. But here, the crowd in public were overwhelmed to see the miracle of
Jesus and witnesses to the public. Here commands to silence are disobeyed by the audience.57

7.2. The Silencing Commands to the Demons

The relevant texts are Mark 1:23-25 (cf. Luke 4:33-35); Mark 1:34 (cf. Luke 4:41); and
Mark 3:11-12.58 Jesus forbids the demon in the Mark gospel to reveal his name Mark 1:24 (the
Holy one of God); 3:11 (the Son of God); 5:7 (the Son of the Most High). Raisanen said,
traditionally Jesus silencing the demon is to drive them out in the Markan narrative it should be
understood to stop the knowledge of the demons about Jesus.59 Mark qualifies the demons’
correct identification of Jesus as the Son of God by having Jesus silence them, commanding
them to keep it a secret.60 When this original sense of the pericope was lost, the cry of the demon

56
Hay, “Mark Use of the Messianic Secret”, 21.
57
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel, 144-68.
58
Hay, “Mark Use of the Messianic Secret”, 19.
59
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel, 168-74.
60
Guelich, “Gospel of Mark”, 521.

9
was transformed into an action of clairvoyance whereby the evil spirit recognized and declared
Jesus as the Messiah, and so the prohibition of Jesus an attempt to hide His identity.61

7.3. The Silencing Commands to the Disciples

Jesus’ command that disciples tell no one what they had seen on the mountain must therefore
understood as determined by his prophetic disclosure of His passion.62 Jesus puts to the disciples
the “socratic” question who the people think He is (8:27b). The disciples report the idea of the
people: Jesus may be John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the other prophets (v.28). Peter replies
“You are the Christ”. Jesus commanded Peter to be silence. 63 The command to silence must have
had some considerable importance for Mark, since he has concluded the periscope about Peter’s
confession with it.64

7.4. The Parable Theory and the Messianic Secret

According to Wrede’s the parables mentioned in the Mark also portrays the Messianic Secret
which is known as parable theory.65 The parable theory provokes a series of questions and
objections. The theory contradicts the overall picture which the gospels portray not only the
character of Jesus’ activity in general but also of his use of parables. 66 For example in Mark 4:11
the use of “musterion” (mystery) is not to focus on the Son of God rather it is a general
designation for the Christ event or God’s eternal plan of salvation to the believers as a messianic
secret. The secret of Kingdom of God is favoured group of chosen one who were the followers
asked the meaning of the parables to Jesus. But the parable also talks about the secret of
Kingdom of God to those who are outsider who do not belong to the followers mentioned in the
parable.67

8. The Purpose of the Messianic Secret

There are several issues from a historical setting which explain the Messianic Secret:

61
Hay, “Mark Use of the Messianic Secret”, 20.
62
Hay, “Mark Use of the Messianic Secret”, 22.
63
David R. Catchpole, “The Triumphal Entry,” in Jesus and the Politics of his Day, eds. Ernst Bammel and
C.F.D. Moule (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 327.
64
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel, 176-77.
65
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel, 79.
66
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel, 79
67
Raisanen, The Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel, 78

10
 1. Jesus thought it would cause a political revolution if His identity was revealed.
2. It would hinder His ministry if His identity was revealed.
3. Jesus views of Messiah was different than His contemporaries.
4. Jesus spiritualized the Kingdom.
5. The title Son of Man gave His identity a new meaning.
6. Jesus may have thought of Himself as the hidden Son of Man.
7. The secret must be kept because the eschaton has not appeared.
8. The Messianic Secret is connected to miracles, healing, and demons.68
9. Evaluation

In the Gospel of Mark Christ is mainly viewed as “Son of Man”. Jesus is portrayed as an
authoritative teacher and an authoritative Son of God. The various other titles of Jesus such as,
rabbi, Son of David, Christ, Lord, Messiah refer the high Christological theme in the Gospel of
Mark. The term “Messianic Secret” emerged from the work of William Wrede in 1901. Wrede
advocated his thesis using three-line support: the gospel of Mark, the other gospels, and
historical elucidation. However, Wrede’s theory was highly criticized by Albert Schweitzer,
Oscar Cullman Vincent Tylor, and the former pupils of Bultmann who have renewed the quest of
the historical Jesus.

Despite the popularity and appeal of the Messianic Secret, there is still some debate. The
Messianic Secret continues to puzzle those who are aware of this presence. Whether by historical
examinations or literary analyses, this remains mysterious. There remain many legitimate
questions to consider, none of which seem to have definitive answers. This device of the author
of Mark perhaps shall never be fully understood.

Conclusion
This paper dealt with the “Themes in Mark: Formation of Christology in Mark;
Messianic Secret”. It described the brief background of the Markan Christology. The Formation
of Christology in Mark is seen with regards to Jesus’ identity. In narrative Christology the
Markan Jesus is characterized in five categories such as enacted, projected, deflected, refracted,
and reflected Christology. The various titles of Jesus such as Son of God, Son of Man, Son of

68
Allen Black, “The Messianic Secret in Mark 3:7-12” (Ph.D.diss., Harding University Graduate School of
Religion, 2009), 13.

11
David, Jesus of Nazareth, and Messiah described the high Christology in Gospel of Mark. The
discussion of Messianic Secret is made in the analysis and interpretation of William Wrede and
later who critiqued on his hypothesis. Finally, it the paper is concluded with the purpose of the
Messianic secret and evaluation of the paper. Therefore, through this paper a reader can
understand the formation of Christology, and Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark.

Bibliography
Books
Achtemeier, Paul, J Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson. Introducing the New
Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament 1. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. New York:
Scribners Press, 1951.
Catchpole, David R. “The Triumphal Entry.” In Jesus and the Politics of his Day. Edited by
Ernst Bammel and C.F.D. Moule. New York: Cambridge University Press,
1984.
Garland, David E. A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Biblical Theology of the New Testament.
Edited by Andreas J. Kostenberger. Michigan: Zondervan, 2015.

12
Garland, David E. A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Biblical Theology of the New Testament.
Edited by Andreas J. Kostenberger. Michigan: Zondervan, 2015.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Illinois: IVP, 1981.
Hunter, Archibald M. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: SCM, 1948.
Juel, D.H. “The Origin of Mark‟s Christology.” In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest
Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1992.
Karkkainen,Veli Matti. Christology: A Global Introduction. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology. Texas:
Baylor University Press, 2009.
Morrison, Gregg S. The Turning Point in the Gospel of Mark. A Study in Markan Christology.
Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2014.
Nickle, Cf. Keith F. The Synoptic Gospel an Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2001.
Perkins, Cf. Pheme. Reading the New Testament: An introduction. New York: Powlist Press,
1988.
Raisanen, Heikki. The Messianic Secret in Mark. Translated by Christopher Tuckett. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1990.
Schweiter, Cf. A. The Quest of Historical Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1971.
Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark 2nd Edition. London: The Macmillan Press,
1966.
Taylor, Vincent. The Gospels. London: Epworth Press, 1952.
Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. Translated by J. C. Grieg. Cambridge: James Clarke,
1971.

Journal Articles
Aune, David E. “The Problem of the Messianic Secret.”, Novum Testamentum, 11, no. 1
(January 1969): 2-3.
B.G., Powely. “The Purpose of the Messianic Secret: A Brief Survey.” The Expository Times,
80, no. 10 (January 1969): 309.

13
Chouinard, L. “Gospel Christology: A Study of Methodology.” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament. 30, no. 9 (January 1987): 21-37.
Davies, Paul E. “Jesus in Relation to Believing Men.” Interpretation. XII (1958): 5.
Dunn, D.G. “The Messianic Secret in Mark.” Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970): 92-93.
Edwards, Cf. James R. “The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 37, no.2 (June 1994): 219.
Hay, Lewis S. “Mark Use of the Messianic Secret.” Journal of the American Academy of
Religion, 35, no. 1 (March 1967): 16-17.
Hunter, Archibald M. The Work and Words of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950.
J.J., Kilgallen. “The Messianic Secret and Mark’s Purpose.” Biblical Theology Bulletin: A
Journal of Bible and Culture 7, no. 2 (May 1977): 60.
Northcutt, Jesse J. “The Christ of Mark’s Gospel.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 1 (1958):
55-58.

Commentaries
Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark: The Pillar New Testament Commentary.
Edited by D.A. Carson. Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002.
France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Michigan: Grand Rapids,
2002.

Hooker, Morna D. Black’s New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to ST Mark.
London: A & C Black Publishers, 1991.
Stein, Robert H. Mark: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Michigan: Baker
Academic, 2008.

Dictionaries
Guelich, R.A. “Gospel of Mark.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B.
Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Illinois: Inter Varsity
Press, 1992.

Webliography

14
DePoe, John M. “The Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark: Historical Development and
Value of Wrede’s Theory,” www.apologeticsinthechurch.com. (accessed)
27 July 2022.

Thesis Dissertation
Black, Allen. “The Messianic Secret in Mark 3:7-12.” Ph.D.diss., Harding University Graduate
School of Religion, 2009.

15