Topical Outline of Mark’s Structure
A Commentary in Miniature, a Guide for Reading and Understanding the Second Gospel
Introduction
How one interprets the structure of a book partially reveals how one understands the work as a whole.1 Mark is rather complicated because the author2 arranged the Gospel to be incredibly self-referential and interconnected, so a single outline will ultimately fail to illustrate fully these intricacies. Moreover, it is paramount to understand some basic literary features of Mark’s structure and style before presenting an outline.
Important Stylistic, Structural, & Literary Features
The Marcan Sandwich (Intercalation)
One major stylistic and structural feature that demonstrates this interconnectivity is the Marcan Sandwich, also called an intercalation. An intercalation is made up of three separate narratives—“pericopes”3—that relate to one another. Typically, the first and third pericopes are similar, and the reader’s comprehension of the two adds further clarity to the middle passage, which then illuminates the entire unit. For example:
Elijah Must Come First | the Death & Resurrection of the Son of Man (9:9–13)
A Boy is Healed | An Image of Death & Resurrection (9:14–29)
The Second Passion Prediction (9:30–32)
In the above example, Jesus speaks of his suffering, death, and resurrection in the first and third stories. The middle passage, in turn, is an analogous miracle story wedged between the two discourses, meant to be representative—at least in part—of the message expressed in 9:9–13 and 9:30–32. As such, Mark intentionally placed these units together to make a point about Jesus’s death and resurrection.
Mark assembled the Gospel in this way to make an ontological statement about Jesus rather than record actual history.4 The book is more focused on presenting a view of Christology rather than ensuring the events recorded happened precisely in the order they did in reality, assuming there are no fabricated accounts by Mark or his sources.5
Parallel Passages
Another structural feature is parallel passages, where the reader is meant to see these stories as mirror images. Whether it be characters or themes, the corresponding pericopes are meant to highlight similarities (e.g., Jesus’ identity in the healing of a paralytic [2:1–12] and in the man with a withered hand [3:1–6]; the Sadducees’ and Pharisees’ misunderstanding when they interrogate Jesus at the temple [12:13–27]). Other times, the adjoining pericopes are meant to be seen as paradoxical, i.e., opposites (e.g., the character of Herod at his banquet [6:14–29] and that of Jesus at his [6:30–44]; the scribes [12:38–40] and the poor widow [12:41–44]).6 As with the intercalations above, Mark arranged these stories in such a way to further his narrative themes and characterizations; historicity is secondary in the Gospel.
Repetition of Words/Phrases
In antiquity, the literacy rate was abysmal, so most would have to hear a story rather than read it. Many auditory and literary devices are present in books like Mark to aid listeners in following a story. The repetition of words and phrases help an audience keep track of pace and themes. For instance, many pericopes in Mark have the word “immediately/then” (εὐθύς) in the first sentence to indicate a new scene in the narrative; it occurs about 40 times in Mark.7 Some translations unfortunately and incorrectly remove this word because—I assume—the repetition is jarring in English.8 Not every instance of this word in Mark indicates a new pericope, but it is a common element to assist the listener in recognizing transitions.
As for thematic repetition, The Way of the Lord (section 4) has “Way” (ὁδός) at the start of many stories to signal a narrative transition as well as display thematic connectivity. Here is a short outline to illustrate the point:
Jesus’s “Way” (ὁδός) to Jerusalem
Nota Bene: Ὁδός occurs in the Gospel more than what is listed here, but these are the passages that further the theme.
1:2,3 — The conflation text establishes Jesus’s ὁδός to Jerusalem
8:27 — On the ὁδός to Caesarea Philippi, Peter declares Jesus as the Christ; Jesus predicts his death for the 1st time
9:33, 34 — Disciples arguing on who is the Greatest on the ὁδός; Jesus predicts his death for the 2nd time
10:17 — As Jesus is setting out on the ὁδός, a rich man inquires about eternal life
10:32 — On their ὁδός to Jerusalem, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection for the 3rd time
10:46, 52 — Blind Bartimaeus on the ὁδός, cries out Son of David; he follows Jesus on the ὁδός
11:8 — Triumphal Entry | the people lay their cloaks on the ὁδός—Jesus enters Jerusalem
In each of these instances, there is a quality to the story that helps develop the theme of Jesus’s “Way” (ὁδός) to Jerusalem. Audio cues help the listener hone in on patterns in the narrative.
Irony
Irony is probably the most important literary feature to understand in Mark because so much of the narrative is centered around this. Irony, simply, is when something happens that is contrary to what is expected: actuality versus anticipation; the incongruence, though, must be the antithesis—the logical opposite—of what is anticipated. Otherwise, it is just misfortune. For example, Mr. Clean wearing a stained shirt (painfully pedestrian) or Oedipus killing his father unknowingly, then cursing his father’s murderer, and finally seeking to bring the regicidal villain to justice (dramatic irony; Oedipus Rex, Sophocles).
A perfect example is Alanis Morissette writing a song about irony, yet the lyrics—at least the majority of them—meant to display irony are ironically not ironic. Rain on your wedding day is not ironic; it’s just an unfortunate coincidence.
So, writing a song about irony and failing to understand irony, is itself ironic—wait, what if Alanis’s inability to implement irony is the intended irony of “Ironic”...
For Mark, the driving theme of Jesus as king is tinged with irony. The disciples and the text lead the reader to believe Jesus is headed to Jerusalem to be crowned, when in reality he is crucified, arguably as an insurrectionist. The entire irony is that Jesus is in fact crowned in the Gospel, but it is done in mockery.
Intertextuality (Mark’s Use of the Old Testament)
Mark’s use of Scripture—the Old Testament—is employed in a few different ways: (1) direct quotations; (2) allusions; (3) typologies/tropes.
Quotations
The use of quotations is fairly straightforward; the author directly quotes the Old Testament (OT)—likely from the Septuagint9—to speak about Jesus or further explain a situation. The best example of this is at the outset of the Gospel when Mark quotes from “Isaiah”—really it is a conflation text of Isa 40:3, Exod 23:20, and Mal 3:1. This sets up the scriptural framework of the Gospel and is clearly marked: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet...” (1:2). As for explaining a situation, when Jesus remarks why he speaks in parables (4:12), he quotes Isa 6:9–10 (cp. Ps 135:15–18), though there is no lead-in like in 1:2. Mark does not use direct quotations often; he is subtle in the majority of the Gospel.
Allusions
Allusions are a trickier situation because it is not always obvious what the reference is. The implementation can be a phrase from the OT, a paraphrase, a rewording, or a veiled hint at a character or theme. For instance, in the Feeding of the 5,000, the narrator comments, “[Jesus] had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd,” (6:34). There is no consensus,10 but Mark could be alluding to Num 27:15–17 or 1 Kings 22:17. Compare:
Num 27:15–17, “Moses said to the Lord, ‘Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in; that the congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep which have no shepherd.’”
1 Kings 22:17, “And he said, ‘I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd; and the Lord said, “These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.”’”
This is complicated because both have compelling resonances with the overall narrative. Is the Moses typology at the forefront considering the circumstances of miraculous bread (i.e., manna) feeding the crowd in the wilderness, or a prophecy against the kings of Israel and Judah, just like Herod is an inadequate king in the previous story?11 Both may be in the author’s mind, and 1 Kings 22 could certainly be dependent on or referencing Numbers 27.12 To iterate, allusions are not always a simple situation, but Mark clearly makes furtive references throughout his Gospel.
Typologies
Lastly, typologies and tropes are even more nebulous since it is dependent on a construction, and many times it is not abundantly apparent.13 A “typology” or “trope” is merely a reference to a figure or idea from another source that is developed within the narrative to foster a deeper meaning in the text. For instance, if Mark portrays Jesus doing something similar to an OT character, it would be considered a typology.14 This is implemented in order to develop Jesus’ character in the story; it’s a subtle exposure of who Jesus is. There are more complicated tropes in Mark—the Ironic King Motif—and simpler ones. A simple typology is John the Baptist as the New Elijah. How John is described in 1:6 is similar to how Elijah is also described,
Now John was clothed with camel’s hair (τρίχας καμήλου), and had a leather girdle (ζώνην δερματίνην) around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey. (1:6)
They answered him, “He wore a garment of haircloth (MT: שֵׂעָ֔ר; LXX: δασὺς), with a girdle of leather (ζώνην δερματίνην) about his loins.” And he said, “It is Eli′jah the Tishbite.” (2 Kings 1:8)
From this, we can establish an Elijah Typology for John the Baptist. This becomes a significant trope in Mark, for there are references to Elijah and the necessity of him coming (e.g., 9:9–13; 15:35).
Foreshadowing
Foreshadowing is a narrative device used to let the reader peer into the future of the story so that when the event actually occurs, there is added weight to the context. This happens in Mark both blatantly (e.g., the three passion predictions [8:31ff.; 9:30–32; 10:32–34]) and subtly (e.g., the request of James and John to sit on Jesus’ right and left in his glory [10:37]). In these instances, Mark allows the reader to anticipate the ending of the Gospel, which helps construct a through line to emphasize the point of the work. Upon re-reading—or hearing—the Gospel, the audience can then see how the book tacitly explains the significance of Jesus’s death throughout his ministry. The narrative prescience displays the interconnectivity of the work.
Major Sections of the Second Gospel
I consider there to be 7 major sections in Mark, grouped based on certain characteristics—geographic, lexical, and/or thematic. These groupings make up the larger skeletal structure of the Gospel, and the transition between each one marks significant shifts in the storytelling:
Setting the Scene | The Prologue to Mark’s Gospel
Jesus Proclaims “The Good Tidings of God” in Galilee and the Surrounding Regions
Bread From Heaven and the Wilderness Generation
The Coming of Our Lord | The “Way” to Jerusalem
Jesus in Jerusalem and the Temple
The Ironic Enthronement | The Crucifixion, Death, and Burial of the Christ
The Women Flee in Fear, Christ is Risen? | The Lord’s Promise to Meet them in Galilee
Section 3 for instance hinges on a keyword, “bread” (ἄρτος), since it crops up in nearly every passage, and it informs how the reader is to understand this unit in Mark—related to belief and understanding in the Gospel.15 The nucleus lies in 6:52 (“[The disciples] were exceedingly astounded, for they did not understand the bread, but their hearts were hardened.”) because the disciples’ comprehension ultimately reflects the reader’s. The reader is supposed to be perplexed; it is a narrative feature that causes you to experience the disciples’ own confusion. Afterall, in the context of this pericope, what does bread have to do with Jesus’s ability to walk on water?16 Only at the end of the Gospel does the reader begin to realize what has happened—who Jesus is—but everything still looks like “trees, walking” (cp. 8:24).
Finally, there is a major red—rather, “purple,” cp. 15:17—thread that runs through the Gospel, which I call the Ironic King Motif. This is a significant driving force of the Gospel. Mark intends the reader to see Jesus as the coming King of Israel (Son of God/Son of David/the Christ), established at the beginning of the Gospel (1:1–3), which develops throughout and leads up to the ironic coronation at the end of the book (15:16–41). The Way of the Lord17 is a vital unit (section 4) that traces the final events in Jesus’s ministry up to his arrival in Jerusalem, where he will be enthroned on the Cross, revealing his glory,18 but the entire theme is dripping with irony since there is no “real” triumphant moment, e.g., Jesus overthrows Rome and is seated on a proper throne. Rather, this all occurs in the narrative of his humiliating death. The Gospel ends as Jesus’s ministry ultimately began, with secrecy and uncertainty with the women fleeing, terrified, assuming 16:9–20 is not original to Mark.
The Outline
I have sowed many seeds in this outline/mini-commentary that I hope to nurture and grow—well, I water, but God makes it grow; cp. 1 Cor 3:6–8—later, specifically writing on the importance of Bread, the Messianic Secret,19 Christology, and the Ironic King Motif. If there is anything that I have covered above or in the notes below that you wish to read about more, let me know. My goal was to provide a basic overview of the Gospel, but it has developed into a bit of a beast, while also not fully fleshed out. And, to make a long story short, here is the outline.
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ
The Gospel According to Mark
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]20
The Beginning of the Good Tidings21 of Jesus Christ, [the Son of God]22
Nota Bene: Not all pericopes will be present. This topical outline lays out the general narrative and themes of the Gospel, but it is not comprehensive.
Setting the Scene | The Prologue to Mark’s Gospel (1:1–12)
The “Way” (ὁδός) Begins | The Scriptural Framework of Mark (1:1–3)23
The Appearance of God’s Messenger | John the Baptist as the New Elijah (1:4–8)
The Epiphany of Our Lord | The Baptism & Anointing of the Christ (1:9–11)
Tribulations in the Wilderness (1:12–13)
Jesus Proclaims “The Good Tidings of God” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ24) in Galilee and the Surrounding Regions (1:14–6:13)25
Jesus Preaches in Galilee (1:14–4:35)
The Son of Man has Authority to Forgive Sins | Jesus Heals a Paralytic (2:1–12)
Jesus Does Good (ἀγαθόν) on the Sabbath | The Man with a Withered Hand Healed—A Tacit Revelation of Jesus’s Identity26 (3:1–6)
Jesus Heals by the Sea, Spirits Declare He is the “Son of God” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) (3:7–11)
Jesus Selects the Twelve Disciples (3:12–19a)
The Source of Jesus’ Power, the Holy Spirit or Beelzebul? (3:19b–30)
Jesus’s True Siblings (3:31–35)
The Kingdom of God, the Parables and their Purpose | Anticipating Gentile Inclusion27 (4:1–34)
Jesus Among the Gentiles | The Spread of the Kingdom of God (4:35–5:20)
Jesus & Jonah | en route to the Gentiles and the Stilling of a Storm (4:35–41)
Jesus Among the Gerasenes | The Kingdom of God Begins to Grow like a Mustard Seed (5:1–20)28
The Return to Galilee (5:21–6:13)29
Jesus, Jairus, and a Bleeding Woman (5:21–43)
Jesus Rejected at Home, Nazareth (6:1–6a)
The Disciples Become Apostles30 (6:6b–13)
Bread from Heaven and the Wilderness Generation (6:14–8:21)31
How a King Should Entertain his Guests (6:14–44)
Interlude: Exodus Motifs Outside of Manna from Heaven (6:45–7:23)
Theophonic Images from the Exodus34 | Jesus Walks on Water and the Disciples do not Understand the Bread (ἄρτος) (6:45–52)35
Healings in Gentile Territory, Gennesaret (6:53–56)
The Disciples Eat Bread (ἄρτος) with Defiled (κοιναῖς) Hands | The 10 Commandments, the Tradition of the Elders, and What Defiles a Man (7:1–23)
Jesus Amongst the Defiled36 Dogs | Jesus, the Gentiles, and the Importance of Bread (7:24–8:21)
Bread (ἄρτος) for God’s Children... and the Dogs? | The Syrophoenician Woman Prepares the Meal for the Gentiles (7:24–30)
Jesus Heals a Deaf Man | An Image of Eyes that Do Not See and Ears that Do Not Hear (7:31–37)
The (Good) King’s Second Banquet | Jesus the Christ Serves his 4,000 Gentile Guests—Dogs—Bread (ἄρτος) (8:1–10)37
“This Generation” (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη)38 who Squanders their Meal | A Sign (σημεῖον) will not Be Given (8:11–13)
The Return Journey39 | The Meaning of Yeast & Bread (ἄρτος), but the Disciples Still Do Not Understand (8:14–21)
The Coming of Our Lord | The “Way” (ὁδός) to Jerusalem (8:22–11:11)40
The Turning Point of the Gospel | Jesus Heals the Blind Man at Bethsaida (8:22–26)41
The “Way” (ἡ ὁδός) Begins en route to Caesarea Philippi | Peter Declares Jesus to Be the Christ, the Messiah Predicts his Enthronement—Death—for the First Time (8:27–9:1)
The Transfiguration of Our Lord | Jesus Reveals His Glory, Death & Resurrection (9:2–32)
The Transfiguration (9:2–8)
A Discussion and Illustration of Death & Resurrection (9:9–10:32)
Elijah Must Come First | the Suffering, Death, and Resurrection of the Son of Man (9:9–13)
A Boy is Healed | An Image of Death & Resurrection (9:14–29)42
The Christ Predicts his Enthronement—Death—for the Second Time (9:30–32)
Who is the Greatest and Various Teachings | The Importance of Children (9:33–10:16)
On the “Way” (ὁδός), the Disciples Squabble Over Greatness | An Illustration from Children (παιδίον) (9:33–37)
Another Driving Out Demons in Jesus’s Name and Causing a “Little One” (ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν) to Stumble (9:38–50)
A Test from the Pharisees | On Divorce (10:1–12)
The Disciples do not Understand the Importance of Children (παιδία) | The Kingdom of God Belongs to Children (10:13–16)43
The “Way” (ὁδός) Nears Its End | The Christ Comes to Jerusalem (10:17–11:11)
“As he was setting out on [the44 “Way”] (ὁδός),” Jesus Encounters a Rich Man (10:17–31)45
On the “Way” (ὁδός), the Christ Predicts his Enthronement—Death—for the Third Time (10:32–34)
James and John Request to be Enthroned with Christ (10:35–45)46
Blind Bartimaeus is Healed and Joins The Son of David47 (υἱὲ Δαυίδ) on the “Way” (ὁδός) (10:46–52)48
The “Way” (ὁδός) Concludes | Jesus the Christ Enters Jerusalem, Honored Like Jehu49 (11:1–11)
Jesus in Jerusalem and the Temple (11:12–13:37)
The Fig Tree and the Cleansing of the Temple (11:12–25)
Jesus is Questioned at the Temple | Jesus Responds in Parables (11:27–12:44)
The Source of Jesus’ Authority (11:27–33)
Salvation History and the Christ | The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (12:1–12)
Pharisees Inquire about Taxes, Sadducees about Resurrection (12:13–27)
Questions on the First Commandment and the Son of David (12:28–37)
A Contrast of the Scribes and a Poor Widow (12:38–44)
The Mini-Apocalypse | Of Destruction, Persecution, Desolation, and Fig Trees (13:1–37)
The Ironic Enthronement | The Crucifixion, Death, and Burial of the Christ (14:1–15:47)
The Prelude to the Christ’s Coronation | A Plot, an Anointing, and Betrayal (14:1–11)50
The Plot to Kill Jesus just prior to Passover (14:1–2)
Jesus Anointed for Burial at Bethany (14:3–9)
Judas’s Plot of Betrayal (14:9–11)
The (Good) King Serves Bread (ἄρτος)51 at his Final Banquet | The Institution of the Eucharist, the Passover Meal (14:12–31)
The Disciples Disappoint and Desert, The Government and High Priest Ironically Dub Jesus King (14:32–15:15)
Prayer in Gethsemane, the Disciples Fail, and Judas’s Betrayal (14:32–52)
Ironic Declarations and Peter’s Denial (14:53–15:5)
The Release of Barabbas (“Son of the Father”) or Jesus (“Son of God”) | The Christ Is Sentenced to Coronation, his Crucifixion (15:6–15)
The Soldiers Enrobe the Christ in Purple | The Ironic Coronation (15:16–21)54
The Christ Enthroned on the Cross | The Revelation of Glory and the Irony of “Truly, This Is the Son of God” (15:21–41)
“...and was Buried” (15:42–47)
The Women Flee in Fear, Christ is Risen55? | The Lord’s Promise to Meet them in Galilee (16:1–8)56
[[The authenticity of 16:9–20 is dubious and is believed to be a later addition to Mark’s Gospel]]
Thank you so much for checking out my truncated analysis of the Second Gospel. Let me know below what you found most interesting. Please like the post down below if this brought you any pleasure and share with anyone you think would enjoy reading up on Mark’s style and structure.
If you want to read more about Mark specifically or the New Testament generally, would you kindly hit that subscribe button?
To provide a topical outline of the Gospel is quite difficult; one could take many approaches to assess the narrative. Depending on how one wants to trace the development of the story, one will frame the outline differently.
We do not know who wrote the Gospels. The names of the Evangelists were added later.
This is terminology for Form Criticism. For an overview of Form Criticism, see D. Aune, “Form Criticism” in The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament, ed. D. Aune (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010), 140–153. G. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford, 2002), 27–29 has an excellent, concise summary.
Ultimately, this is a comment on the genre of the book. The Gospels, generally, are not considered historical texts, meaning the author’s impetus for writing was not to record the facts of what happened. These documents are more similar to the Greco-Roman Bios than history, so the purpose of writing is to make a claim about the person being recorded. In the case of the Second Gospel, Mark is more concerned with Jesus’s identity than making sure all the events he records are historically precise. For a more in-depth analysis on the Gospel’s genre and the various views, consult Stanton, Gospels, 13–36.
As a final comment, knowing the genre is critical when reading a text. If one were to read a satirical piece as history, this would lead to a complete misunderstanding of the work. Addressing the historicity of the Gospel is not a slight against the author; rather, it is a description of what Mark is.
A few things to note: (1) we are ignorant of Mark’s sources, written or oral; this is conjecture. (2) Mark is more than a redactor/compiler. He is also an editor of these pericopes. He would have to be in order for the narrative to have this amount of connective tissue; the story would otherwise be rather disjointed. (3) Remarking that Mark or a source invented a story or narrative is not meant to cast judgment on the credibility of the work. This is a technique to illustrate something about the person being discussed. A more modern example of this is the fabricated story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree by Mason Locke Weems, as I mentioned in my Introduction to Paul.
And sometimes, there is a mixture of the two, for instance Mark comparing the deaths of John the Baptist and Jesus. As C. Black, Mark (Nashville: Abingdon, 2011), 157 notes, “…Herod Antipas foreshadows Pontius Pilate in the same way that John presages Jesus (cf. 1:1–15; 9:9–13; 11:27–33).” Black also describes how John's disciples lay John in a tomb similarly to how Jesus was. The difference, though, is that Jesus' disciples have abandoned him and it is left to “Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God” (15:43). John's disciples remained loyal to him where Jesus’ were not; they were not yet ready to take up their own crosses.
Not all parallels are positioned side by side like the examples above. For instance, the Two-part Healing of the Blind Man (8:22–26) and Blind Bartimaeus (10:46–52) are parallel accounts, but they are separated by many pericopes. Both accounts represent a metaphorical disclosure of understanding; the narrative ramps up its explicitness after each healing of blindness.
This feature was removed from Matthew and Luke; the word only occurs 6 times in the First Gospel and 3 in the Third. Acts has εὐθύς only 4 times, and the rest of the NT does not include the word except for in 2 Pet 2:15. A final note on εὐθύς, when it occurs in other books, it is commonly an adjective, not an adverb like in Mark.
NRSV/NRSV(UE), NIV, NLT, for example.
Simply, the Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament + Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha).
E.g., J. Donahue & D. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2002), 205, Num 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16. M. Hooker The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 166-66, Num 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Ezek 34:5. W. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 226, Num 27:17; Ezek 34:5. NA28 has a marginal note for Num 27:17, Jud 11:19, 2 Chron 18:16; Ezek 34:5, 8; Zech 10:2.
1 Kings 22:19 is also intriguing for the broader narrative: “And Micai′ah said, ‘Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left...’” M. Sweeney, I & II Kings (Louisville: Westminster, 2013), 260 remarks, “Micaiah depicts a vision of judgment in which Israel is metaphorically portrayed as sheep scattered on a mountain without a shepherd (cf. Ezek 34:1–31; Zech 13:7). The call-to-attention formula in v. 19 (cf. Jer 7:2; Hos 4:1; Amos 3:1; 4:1; 5:1) directs his audience’s attention to the following statements. The vision builds upon the earlier depiction of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, dressed in royal regalia and seated on their thrones (v. 10), by portraying YHWH sitting upon the divine throne before the host of heaven (cf. Isa 6; Ps 82; Jer 23:18–22; cf. Job 15:8). The analogy with the enthroned Ahab and Jehoshaphat demonstrates that both kings actually stand under the authority of YHWH.”
See M. Cogan, I Kings (New Haven: Yale, 2008), 491–492 on parallels to “sheep without a shepherd.”
It is critical to understand that Mark works with a template of conflated ideas, meaning he mixes stories and concepts to concoct his thematic typologies/tropes. Just one source is not always the nucleus of Mark’s thought; rather, he draws on a bricolage of OT references to solidify these resonances.
This was a common means of interpretation in patristic literature, e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 1.5.23.
That said, the Gentiles do seem to realize who Jesus is, at least better than the Jews, the Wilderness Generation, in the narrative. This is perfectly displayed by the Syrophoenician woman. Unclean spirits, for that matter, understand Jesus better than the Wilderness Generation.
I cannot believe there is a single reader who has ever read 6:52, and at first glance, completely understood what the author meant. As Black, Mark, 166 comments, “...’not understand[ing] about the loaves’ is hardly the most lucid explanation.”
The foundational work on this subject is J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (Louisville: Westminster, 1993).
The revelation of Jesus’s glory in Mark is a complicated topic, so space does not allow a fully developed explanation. Briefly, one might assume it was fully revealed at the Transfiguration (9:2–8), but Jesus’s glory is truly displayed at the Crucifixion, when the Kingdom of God is ushered in. This is fully realized when 2 interdependent—though connected—pericopes reach their narrative conclusion:
(1) Prior to their arrival in Jerusalem, James and John request of Jesus “to sit, one at [his] right hand and one at [his] left, in [his] glory (δόξῃ)” (10:37), to which Jesus retorts: “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup (ποτήριον) that I drink...” (10:38). V. 40 outright denies James and John the honor, stating those who will be on Jesus's left and right is not his to grant. This is an illustration of both misunderstanding and foreshadowing. James and John do not understand that his glory and the cup are looking forward to the cross. That said, the apparent allusion is to Jesus’s prayer in Gethsemane, requesting the cup (ποτήριον) be removed from him (14:36), but I believe there is another subtle connection, which concerns the Last Supper.
(2) At the institution of the Lord’s Supper, just after he blesses the cup (ποτήριον) (14:23), Jesus claims, “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine (γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου) until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (14:25). The idea being, Jesus will not consume wine of any kind until the Kingdom of God has been fully realized. Both of these play into the Ironic King Motif.
Finally, these two narrative features reach their conclusion when Jesus is on the cross, specifically 15:21–28, 36. There are a number of key elements here:
Jesus is brought to Golgotha—not yet on the cross—and is offered “wine mingled with myrrh (ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον); but he did not take it” (15:23).
Upon being crucified, the inscription of his crime reads, “The King of the Jews” (15:26).
There are two bandits crucified, “one on his right and one on his left” (15:27)
After Jesus cries out—just prior to expiring—“one ran and, filling a sponge full of [sour wine] (ὄξους, LSJ A. “poor wine, ‘vin ordinaire’”; A.2. “vinegar made therefrom”), put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink” (15:36).
The cross is the culmination of the two elements I just described. It is here, when Jesus is on his “throne”—the cross—that the Kingdom of God has arrived, and Jesus is dubbed “King of the Jews.” This is underscored when Jesus is offered the sour wine to drink. As such, Jesus has fulfilled these interconnections, ironically. James and John have abandoned him, but he has two others, “one on his right and one on his left,” when he is “in [his] glory,” drinking “fruit of the vine” in the Kingdom of God.
Put simply, those instances in which Jesus attempts to conceal his identity, e.g., silencing unclean spirits and telling others not to tell what he had done for them. For a concise overview on the Messianic Secret, see E. Boring, Mark (Louisville: Westminster, 2006), 264–71. The earliest developed work on the topic is W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901). It is a strange feature in the Gospel, but it is integral to the narrative. See, for example, 1:25, 34, 44; 3:12; 4:33, 40; 6:52; 8:26; 9:9.
1:1 serves as the title of the book; see E. Boring, Mark, 39.
Akin to this is an inscription about Octavian (ca. 9 B.C.), which reads, “Because providence has ordered our life in a divine way... and since the Emperor through his epiphany has exceeded the hopes of former good news (ευαγγελια), surpassing not only the benefactors who came before him, but also leaving no hope that anyone in the future will surpass him, and since the birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of his good news [may it therefore be decreed that]…” Translation from B. Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 69.
“Son of God” (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) may not be original, but it certainly fits Mark’s Christology. Since υἱοῦ θεοῦ is omitted in א Θ 28c, many such as J. Marcus, Mark 1–8 (New Haven: Yale, 2000, 141 and A. Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 130 believe it to be secondary. The reason for its deletion may be due to a scribe’s oversight while copying the text, and its addition could be explained by the copyist’s desire to expand the title, as they have been known to do. The phrase is supported by B D W, and is “extremely strong.” Due to the antiquity of the witnesses of the shorter reading, though, and possible expansion by a scribe, the committee decided to bracket the phrase and give the authenticity of the reading a C rating; see B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Freiburg: Freiburger Graphische Betriebe, 1994), 62.
A conglomerate quotation from Isa 40:3, Exod 23:20, and Mal 3:1. On the importance of Isaiah for establishing the Way of the Lord, consult R. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).
The proclamation about the birth of God, a potential interpretation of the phrase. It could also entail an official edict of the emperor, the ushering in of the Kingdom of God.
Mark establishes many geographical details throughout his Gospel. They are important for understanding Jesus' mission, which is why I have chosen to break down this section in this way. I use the geography to dictate the thematic breakdown of Jesus' message prior to his “Way” (ὁδός) to Jerusalem. Boring, Mark, vi. also frames this section based on geographical locale. That said, this unit based on geography truly runs from 1:14–8:21, but section III has been inserted because it traces another key thematic element in Mark. That is not to imply that geographical details in 6:14–8:21 are of no importance.
Who is able to do good? This pericope’s tacit Christological claim comes to fruition in 10:17–31.
J. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 331 remarks, “It is therefore relevant for the decipherment of the Parable of the Mustard Seed that these OT passages use ‘birds of heaven’ as a symbol for Gentiles.” His discussion centers around the marcan community that would be reading the text and witnessing Gentiles entering the Christian community. On a narrative level, though, Jesus is about to enter a Gentile region and begin his mission there. This also anticipates Gentile inclusion starting in 7:24 with the Syrophoenician woman.
Another tacit Christological statement at the end of the narrative. Jesus tells the man to tell what “the Lord has done for you,” and he goes and “proclaim[s] in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him...” The switch from “Lord” to “Jesus” is not accidental; Mark intends the reader to realize the divine association.
R. T. France’s title for his 6:31–56 is a good assessment of what is occurring in these passages: “A Sequence of Miracles Around the Lake; Who Is Jesus?” (The Gospel of Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 259). It is in these sections that there are more subtle hints as to who Jesus is. As the narrative develops, the Messianic Secret crumbles and the reader slowly perceives who Jesus is. In these pericopes, Jesus has much public exposure, but "interspersed with that public exposure is the more intimate and more Christologically revealing experience of the disciples, now returned from their mission (vv. 31–32, 45–52). Yet even they remain unable to grasp the significance of what they are witnessing (v. 52)” (259).
Gk. ἀποστέλλειν, “sent out”
As Q. Quesnell, The Mind of Mark (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 277 stated in his conclusion, “The possibility of a highly elaborate code, cypher or allegory which no one has yet mastered, can never be absolutely ruled out.” I believe there is a running theme in this section, which I will discuss in a later publication.
Technically, Herod was not a king; he was a tetrarch. There are numerous historical discrepancies between Mark and Josephus which are enumerated in M. Beavis, Mark (Grand Rapids: Academic, 2011), 102–104. Regardless, the reader is to take this as a motif parallel rather than for historical facts. On the intentionality of mislabeling Herod Antipas “king,” see Marcus, Mark 1–8, 398–99.
...and fish. For a possible parallel, see Num 11:4–6, “The rabble among them had a strong craving (ἐπεθύμησαν ἐπιθυμίαν); and the Israelites also wept again, and said, ‘If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish (τοὺς ἰχθύας) we used to eat in Egypt for nothing… but now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna (τὸ μαννα) to look at.’”
Jesus Passes By [Exod 33:17–23] and Proclaims I AM [Exod 3:13–22]—Images of divine association.
Also, V. 50, “Take heart, [I Am]; do not be afraid” (θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε). Cp. Isa 41:10a, “Do not fear, for I am with you, do not be afraid, for I am your God…” LXX: μὴ φοβοῦ, μετὰ σοῦ γάρ εἰμι, μὴ πλανῶ, ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ θεός σου...
This is the nucleus of the Bread Section, particularly 6:51b–52, “[the disciples] were exceedingly astounded, for they did not understand the bread, but their hearts were hardened.”
The word is never attached to “dogs” in the narrative, but dogs were considered unclean animals. See Marcus, Mark 1–8, 463–64, “Although it may come as a shock to readers in our canine-loving society, the OT/Jewish tradition generally thinks negatively about dogs... To call someone a dog, therefore, was an insult (see e.g. 1 Sam 17:43; Isa 56:10–11). This negative imagery is related to the fact that the dogs pictured in the Bible and in Jewish tradition are generally the wild, scavenger sort rather than the domestic variety (see e.g. m. Kil. 8:6; cf. Joseph and Aseneth 10:14, which contrasts the two types). Such wild dogs lived outside of cities (cf. Rev 22:15) and ate carrion, including the flesh of unclean animals and even human beings (cf. Exod 22:31; 1 Kgs 4:11); dogs, therefore, are often associated with uncleanness (see b. B. Qam. 83a).”
Note Psalm 78, which has striking parallels for connecting the miraculous feeding accounts with the Last Supper. Consider vv. 19 & 20b (LXX, Ps 77), “Can God spread a table in the wilderness (Μὴ δυνήσεται ὁ θεὸς ἑτοιμάσαι τράπεζαν ἐν ἐρήμῳ;)?... can he also give bread (ἄρτον δύναται δοῦναι), or [prepare a table for his people] (ἢ ἑτοιμάσαι τράπεζαν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ)?”
Other uses in Mark include 8:38 (Jesus Foretells his Death & Resurrection #1), 9:19 (Disciples Fail to Heal a Young Boy), 13:30 (Lesson from the Fig Tree). Cf. Heb 3:7–11. Other relevant uses of “this generation”: Deut 32: 5, 20 (Song of Moses); Ps 78:8 (God’s Goodness and Israel’s Ingratitude).
Two significant references for this context are Ps 95:10–11 (LXX 94) and Num 14:11, 20ff.
Though I have labeled this as the return journey, it is crucial to note that Jesus will not yet leave the Gentile region quite yet; Bethsaida and Caesarea Philippi are both Gentile cities. I understand the boat ride to be the beginning of the journey, ultimately towards Jerusalem.
This section of the Gospel drives the narrative onward for it is the section where Jesus begins to reveal his mission more and more rapidly. The Messianic Secret rapidly deteriorates, thus, in most instances when the ὁδός is mentioned, a highly important Christological statement is made. C. Focant, L'évangile selon Marc (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2004), 319 claims, “Les disciples sont omniprésents dans cette section soigneusement construite autour de leur rôle. Plus encore que lors du ministère en Galilée, toute l'attention est centrée sur l'enseignement reçu par ces interlocuteurs privilégiés qui sont « en chemin » avec Jesus vers Jérusalem” (2004, 319). The phrase, "ces interlocuteurs privilégiés" is apt since not all can join Jesus on the Way. In chapter ten, the rich man is denied the privilege, whereas blind Bartimaeus is able to join. The focus on the disciples is correct, but it should be remembered that Jesus is drawing closer and closer to his throne.
Boring Mark, vii. agrees, but he ends "the Way" at 10:52. Similarly, G Stanton The Gospels and Jesus, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford, 2002), 48 agrees, but he focuses too much on discipleship (as does Focant). This is a paramount theme in Mark, but the Christology is central for understanding what the “Way” (ὁδός) truly means for disciples. The “Way” (ὁδός) includes the Triumphal Entry, though, because it marks the end of the Lord’scoming to Jerusalem.
This is another instance of the impaired (e.g., deafness 7:32–37) being healed, which serves as a metaphorical image of understanding in the Gospel, i.e., who Jesus is. Beavis, Mark, 132 comments, “Both pericopes [this healing and Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi] are about the healing of blindness: the physical blindness of the man, and the spiritual blindness of those who wrongly identify Jesus (8:28), who are like the blind man when he partially regains his sight: “Look, I see people like trees, walking around!” (8:24). A second level of spiritual insight recognizes, with Peter, that Jesus is not simply one of the prophets (8:28), but rather that he is the messiah (8:29). By making this confession, Peter shows that, like the blind man restored to full vision, he sees things clearly (8:25), at least with respect to Jesus’s messianic status.
For the Moses typology in these sections, see Marcus, Mark 8–16 (New Haven: Yale, 2009), 651ff.
A larger intercalation, this section is bookended by the importance of children, yet the disciples fail to understand. Jesus places a child (παιδία) in their midst and commands them to welcome them (9:37). He further warns about causing “little ones who believe” to stumble (9:42); shortly after, they attempt to repel the children (παιδία) from touching Christ (10:13). Those closest to Jesus continue to see and hear, but they do not understand.
RSV and NRSV do not include “the” in its translation,—RSV, “his journey”; NRSV/(UE), “a journey”—but since Greek does not require a definite article following a preposition. I believe there should be one present. The narrative accelerates at this point as Jesus rapidly approaches his throne, i.e., the cross; it is the Way.
This passage is of paramount christological importance. In short, Joel Marcus highlights that there is a reference here to the Shema (6:4–9) when Jesus claims, “Why do you call me good (ἀγαθός)? No one is good (ἀγαθός) [except one, God] (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός)” (10:18). This phrase is quoted verbatim earlier in the account of who has the authority to forgive sins (2:7). At first glance, it appears that Jesus denies any equality with God by alluding to Israel’s most monotheistic claim to a man who just praised him as good. That is the irony of the passage. If one observes the use of “good” in Mark, ἀγαθός appears only here in 10:17, 18 and 3:4 (the other synoptics change this). Mark describes Jesus as performing a good (ἀγαθός) act in 3:4, which tacitly reveals that Jesus seemingly has divine associations. This pericope is extremely important for Mark's Christology. It is also impactful because it is on the “Way” (ὁδός) to Jerusalem. For more, consult J. Marcus, “Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth: The Shema in the Gospel of Mark” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. C. Evans & R. Stegner (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1994), 196–211.
This passage is so crucial because it has Jesus predict his ultimate enthronement on the cross. The two disciples know not what they request, which plays into the irony motif that Mark so ingeniously employs throughout the Gospel.
C. Black, Mark (Nashville: Abingdon, 2011), 234 states “David was considered the Lord’s special designate (2 Sam 7:4-17; Ps 89:3-4); the DSS and the Psalms of Solomon (17:32) expected an eschatological messiah of the Davidic line.” M. Hooker Mark, 252–53 writes, “Son of David became a fairly common title for the messianic king in later Jewish literature and would have been understood in that sense by Mark... the title points forward to the story of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem which immediately follows.”
This pericope forms a giant Marcan Sandwich with “The Turning Point of the Gospel: Jesus Heals the Blind Man at Bethsaida” (8:22–26), two stories of Jesus healing a blind man. This episode illustrates that Jesus is about to enter the final stage of his Way (ὁδός) to Jerusalem. Jesus is now going to be fully revealed to be the “Son of David,” the ironic, unexpected king who will be enthroned on a cross. J. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 686, 691–92 claims, “Jesus heals the blind man at Bethsaida in two stages, a point that may have deep symbolic meaning for Mark... The healing of the blind man at Bethsaida... symbolizes the two-stage healing of the spiritual vision of Jesus’ disciples: first with Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah at Caesarea Philippi (8:27-30) and finally with the full vision of Jesus as Son of Man and Son of God, a vision made possible only by his death on the cross and resurrection (cf. Mark 9:9-13; 15:39; 16:6-7).” Meier also draws to the reader's attention the significance of Bartimaeus’ confession of Jesus as the Son of David, that it “is echoed in the very next pericope, the triumphant entry into Jerusalem (11:1-11) when the crowd cried out” (686-7).
There is a similar account in 2 Kings 9:13 when Jehu is anointed king. Consult France, Mark, 433. After Jehu is anointed King of Israel, the people lay down their cloaks: “Then in haste every man of them took his garment, and put it under him on the bare steps, and they blew the trumpet, and proclaimed, ‘Jehu is king.’” Jesus, similarly enters Jerusalem, and the people hail him as king, laying down their garments, but that they do not fully comprehend. Mark chooses to display them welcoming the Christ in a correct but inappropriate manner. Jesus is worthy of such a greeting unlike the wicked Jehu, but the people do not know why. The irony is revealed at his mock coronation in 15:16–20; as E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1966), 378 states, “So blind sind diese Menschen, daß sie nur in dem, was sie für einen Unsinn halten, die göttliche Wahrheit berühren.” They unknowingly gave Jesus the “proper” respect he deserved.
Focant Marc, 661 breaks up this section similarly. 14:1–11 is labeled as, “Le complot contre Jésus et son onction funèbre anticipée.” Vv. 1–2 and vv. 10–11 form a sandwich. These two pericopes frame the anointing that happens in vv. 3–9.
One might believe Judas’s betrayal is signaled by “bread,” but the RSV/NRSV—along with NIV, ESV, CSB—misleadingly translates 14:20 as, “He said to them, ‘It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the bowl with me...” It should read, “the one dipping into the bowl with me...”—so also KJV/NKJV and NASB95. There is no object in the text; it is just implied. This is likely intentional because Mark would not wish to sully a word that has held significant theological weight in the Gospel, and it is about to reach its climax in v. 22.
It is critical to see this in the Greek, but I will provide a translation, retaining the syntax strictly for 15:61,
πάλιν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ;
Again, the High Priest asked him, and said to him, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
Were it not for the narrator stating the High Priest asked (ἐπηρώτα) him, the syntax could easily lend itself to be read as a statement, “You are the Christ...”. In Greek, questions are determined by tone or by interrogative words, such as pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, or particles; see Sm. §2637, 2638. In Mark, when questions are asked, the syntax/vocabulary also indicates a question, e.g., question words, particles, conditional et al.
For Mark, this question should have been a statement of declaration for Jesus is indeed that person; this is an instance of an ironic declaration of the truth. Jesus’s response, ἐγώ εἰμι (v. 62), signifies an acknowledgement to the question as well as “an allusion to the self designation of God familiar to readers of the Greek OT” (L. Hurtado, Mark [San Francisco: Harper, 1976], 242).
Mark employs the same literary ploy with Pilate as he did with the High Priest; again, my translation retains the syntax strictly for 15:2,
καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Πιλᾶτος· Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ λέγει· Σὺ λέγεις.
And Pilate asked him, “You are the King of the Jews?” and [Jesus], answering him, said, “You say [so].”
The syntax again looks like a statement. Jesus’s retort, though, underscores Mark’s intent—the High Priest and the Roman Official have both acknowledged ironically the ontological truth of Jesus. He is the Christ, the King of the Jews.
Haenchen, Weg, x also makes this connection when he entitled 15:16–20, “Die Verspottung des Judenkönigs.”
Notice the repetition of ἀνίστημι for raising the dead or predicting the Son of Man’s resurrection:
“And immediately the little girl rose (ἀνέστη)” (5:42)
“It is necessary that the Son of Man... be killed, and after three days rise (ἀναστῆναι)” (8:31)
“...until whenever the Son of Man rises (ἀναστῇ) from the dead.” (9:9)
“And Jesus, after grasping [the boy’s] hand, raised (ἤγειρεν) him” (9:27)—note, not from ἀνίστημι; cp. 16:6 below.
“...and they will kill [The Son of Man], and after three days, since he was killed, he will rise (ἀναστήσεται)” (9:31)
“...and they will kill [the Son of Man], and after three days he will rise (ἀναστήσεται)” (10:34)
“He is risen (ἠγέρθη), he is not here...” (16:6), like in 9:27—Frustratingly, though, at the empty tomb, ἀνίστημι is not here; cp. 9:9 above.
I hold to the viewpoint that the gospel ends at v. 8. For a description of the various options as to where the Gospel ends, see Metzger, 102–106. The Gospel ends with only a mention of Galilee. Geographically, this pulls the narrative together in a sense, but there is no actual event that happens. The Gospel ends with a cliffhanger.