Why is Jesus' divinity not recorded in Mark?

[jeffreyclong]

How can it be that the author of Mark, who is chronologically closest to the Jesus tradition, could have completely missed Jesus' divinity. The author of John's gospel, believed to be the apostle John himself, directly quotes Jesus proclaiming his divinity. If John is telling the truth, then all of the disciples knew that Jesus said He was one with the Father. They were there when he said it.

So, if all the disciples knew that Jesus was God, it would have been one of the most important parts of the spread of the gospel and thus found itself in Mark's Gospel. Even more significant is that it is believed that Mark was reporting Peter's teaching. Peter of all people would have known that Jesus taught that he was God.

This is such a blatant omission on the part of the gospel of Mark that I find it incomprehensible.

How do you deal with it? I know that the easiest answer is to view the New Testament as a monolithic parallel text. If the Bible is inspired, then it doesn't matter who records what and when: God said it. But that doesn't take into account that the New Testament is a linear book. Each book being written at a chronologically different time and reflecting the development of beliefs at that time.

I think that this is a very blatant problem. It doesn't cause me to lose my faith. But I think that it needs to be reframed.

How do you deal with it?

Thanks for your time..

Jeff

[mattrose]

I have an annoying habit of answering questions with questions.

Granting all the claims in your post (which, technically, I don't grant), why would you expect 1st century Jewish monotheists to quickly depart from traditional monotheism? Why would you find it surprising that the earlier sources reflect less clarity on this issue? Do you really think that the moment Jesus ascended Peter had a full-fledged Trinitarian theology, even granting some of Jesus' stronger statements?

But, like I mentioned, I don't even grant some of your premises. You are certainly overstating your case when you suggest that Mark has 'completely missed' in regard to Jesus' divinity. We, of course, have something approaching (at least) divinity when we talk of Jesus as the Son of God in the very first chapter of Mark (1:1, 11). The demons know him in advance and refer to him as the Holy One of God (1:24, 34).In chapter 2 Jesus forgives sins and the teachers know that that is something only God can do (2:7). Why do you suppose Mark wrote that? In the last verse of chapter 2, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (a term that actually speaks more to deity than many at first realize) and calls himself the 'Lord of the Sabbath.' Again, who is the Lord of the Sabbath, but God? Again we have demons recognizing Jesus as the Son of God in 3:11. He also picks 12 apostles in that chapter (symbolically re-starting Israel). Who has the authority to create a new Israel but God? He ends the chapter by saying that whoever does God's will is related to him. In chapter 4 he calms the winds/waves (something God alone is said to be capable of in the OT) and provokes the disciples question (who is this?). What do you think Mark is implying? In chapter 5, again, we see that demons recognize him as the Son of God and know that he has authority over them. In the end of the chapter he brings someone back from the dead! In chapter 6 he feeds 5000 and walks on water and continues to do such miracles in 7 and 8. In chapter 9 he is transfigured, called the Son by the Father, and exalted over Moses & Elijah. In chapter 10 Jesus suggests that his death will ransom 'many'. Why would an ordinary man's death do that? In chapter 12 Jesus himself begins to get them thinking outside the box about the Messiah by asking them the question about David's "Lord". In chapter 14 Jesus takes the Passover meal and re-interprets it to be about himself! Who has the right to do that? Later in 14 he admits to Pilate that he is the Messiah and the Son and predicts (rightly) that he’ll ascend to heaven to sit right next to the Mighty One. And, of course, Jesus rose from the dead.

Now, I just wrote all that by reading through Mark very casually just now. So I have to question your major premise. Sure, a strong case can be made that the fourth Gospel is more direct about Jesus’ deity. But I hardly think mark is completely missing it!

I think there are some legitimate issues in your post that are worth discussing. But I’d recommend you avoid surrounding them with bad assumptions so that we can get to more interesting conversations without having to clear up so much debris.

[jeffreyclong]

I unfortunately lack time at the moment... headed to a cabin without internet after about 4:00pm pst.

The conclusion that I would offer is that Jesus is the first-born creation of God. In other words, all those titles and comments you gave in Mark can apply to the most significant creation of God, who sits on His right hand. They don't imply deity, but the do imply cosmic uniqueness.

I am feeling around in the dark. So, I can't really clear away the debris you are talking about. I have to work through all of it. I'm not a theologian and lack a thorough understanding of the entire New Testament. I am asking the questions for help. I'm not trying to be antagonistic.

[jeffreyclong]

Another point that has struck me during this investigation is that we can be more flexible with others regarding theology because the gospel recorded in Mark and many of the Pauline epistles are not as dogmatic as the creeds and confessions that have defined our churches.

I don't know if this is an adequate summary.. but it seems that the gospel was "Jesus is the way to the Father." That the kingdom was upside down. And that ethics were defined as the 10 commandments (I have not come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it), love for neighbor and God, and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. So much more has been added.

The church (Judaism) of his time did not trust people to make good decisions or believe right things and so they lorded it over them with extra laws and discrimination against sinners.

But when Jesus came, he empowered individuals, not to be libertines or universalists, but empowered by the Holy Spirit to serve God.

But then following that, religious leaders picked it up where the Pharisess left off.. didn't trust people, wrote creeds, and eventually become intermediaries between people and God. The image I have in mind is like an hour glass.. Judaism thick with authoritarianism, and then narrow in the middle where Jesus empowered people, and then thick at the bottom again where the church got authoritarian again.

Books like Mark, or 1 Thessalonians, or 1 Corinithians, taken in isolation, as they likely were during their initial distribution are liberating from sectarianism because we can realize that the followers of The Way who were informed by those books were authentic Christians.. despite their not accepting the Nicean Creed or access to a canon of letters and gospels. I've actually heard Steve say things like this on the radio.

So, that's context.

But I still believe my original one is an honest question. And while we could imply some hints of divinity in the book, it certainly isn't direct.

[mattrose]

The conclusion that I would offer is that Jesus is the first-born creation of God. In other words, all those titles and comments you gave in Mark can apply to the most significant creation of God, who sits on His right hand. They don't imply deity, but the do imply cosmic uniqueness.

I am feeling around in the dark. So, I can't really clear away the debris you are talking about. I have to work through all of it. I'm not a theologian and lack a thorough understanding of the entire New Testament. I am asking the questions for help. I'm not trying to be antagonistic.

There is nothing wrong (and very much right!) with pondering such things. Just keep in mind that the first 'believers' were Jewish monotheists. Even after spending 3+ years with Jesus and having Him appear to them post-resurrection, they would have still been cautious about labeling Him directly as God. Nor, in my opinion, was doctrinal precision incredibly important to them. They simply knew that Jesus had come from God, acted like God, had gone back to God, and was in charge.

As I showed, Mark leaves plenty of hints (and sometimes more direct allusions) to Christ's deity. But he was writing the story of Jesus and his interactions from Ad30-33 (or something close to that). We shouldn't expect to see all kinds of direct statements about the divinity of Christ (especially considering the Gospels are not systematic theology text books). Even by the late 50's or early 60's I wouldn't expect there to have been doctrinal precision on the issue of the relationship b/w Father and Son. It would take more than a generation after God became flesh for His people to flesh out exactly what that means (Indeed, we're still working on it 2000 years later!).

It will be important for you, I think, as you continue your investigation, to realize that arguments for Christ's divinity need not only be direct statements. Sometimes an action is even more significant than a statement. Sometimes the way Christ relates to people is more significant than any statement could be. When you are analyzing what individual books declare about Jesus' divinity, then, you can just look for quotable quotes.

Perhaps you would enjoy Ben Witherington's "The Christology of Jesus"

All that being said, I am largely in agreement with your most recent longer post

[darinhouston]

I think we have to be really specific when we're talking about such things, as terminology has led to much of the confusion. Terms like "deity" and "divinity" have a wide semantic range, and don't really tell us much beyond what Mark hints at. Even "Godhood" and sharing in the "nature" of God don't necessarily imply the precise thing the common trinitarian formulas assume. Consider the term "royalty." A prince is "royalty" -- that doesn't mean he is the King. It merely means he has the authority and power of the King. For the "subject," that is all they need to know -- he has the ring and carries out the King's wishes and can do anything the King can do (answerable only to the King if he should exceed such authority). Also, as far as it concerns the "subject," when they see any of the royalty, they have "in a sense" seen the King.

I'm not saying this is necessarily the sort of thing the apostles or Christ had in mind when they discussed His "Deity," but it is possible semantically and certainly would resolve a lot of controversy.

[steve7150]

. But I think that it needs to be reframI think that this is a very blatant problem. It doesn't cause me to lose my faithed.








I think the gospels need to be read in their entirety as in Judaism you needed at least 2 witnesses to validate and here we have 4 different accounts. The key is that they are 4 different accounts each having a partial revelation of Jesus and i think God reserved the most important revelation for the last gospel and not by accident. God saved the best for the last and that seems to be the way God works things out in his timing not ours.

[darinhouston]

Don't get me wrong, but in strict reply to your last post if you had 4 partial accounts, then you don't have multiple witnesses of the same account. At best, you have multiple witnesses only of the parts they have in common.

[steve7150]

Don't get me wrong, but in strict reply to your last post if you had 4 partial accounts, then you don't have multiple witnesses of the same account. At best, you have multiple witnesses only of the parts they have in common.




I don't think they are partial accounts as they all are about Jesus and his ministry & why he came and died and about the kingdom of God.
There's nothing partial about any of them , they just emphasize different things. I was trying to point out that perhaps God saved the clearest revelation of Jesus divinity for the last gospel by design. Perhaps earlier gospel readers would not have been able to absorb it initially.

[Michelle]

I read Mark today because of this thread (thanks, Jeff!) After I read the book, I looked at commentaries, and every single one of them suggests that Mark was written in Italy, probably Rome, and to a Roman audience. It makes sense (at least to me) that Mark, instead of listing a checklist of theological points in some kind of creedal form, simply states that Jesus is the Son of God ( The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God Mark 1:1) and then goes on to prove that by recounting various things that Jesus did and said that only deity could do or say. The Romans had a plethora of gods, and by the time Mark was written, Caesars were being declared gods. Making a statement that Jesus was God hardly seems like it would sway an audience surrounded by these images of divinity, but showing Jesus' power and authority in order to prove his divinity might.

The commentaries also point out that Mark's gospel emphasizes the servant nature of Jesus, which demonstrates the character of the true God and is in stark contrast to the behavior and character of Roman gods and the Caesars.

By the way, does the descriptor Son of God really only indicate that he could be a creation of God? Does it not imply deity?

While I agree with Jeff's statements about being more flexible with people whose theology doesn't exactly match up with the creeds and confessions, I'm a little wary that you might be suggesting that we accept prooftexting as a legitimate reason for excusing poor theology.