THE THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK: AN EXPLORATION OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET AND COROLLARIES

GREG STEELE
Rowlett, TX Ever since William Wredes The Messianic Secret,1 it has become somewhat standard to refer to the various strands of the secrecy motif in the Gospel o f Mark under the umbrella phrase the messianic secret. The theme and its concomitant motifs, which I will deal with under the phrase theology of hiddenness, function as a rhetorical tool the second evangelist uses to address the congregation to which the Gospel is directed. Though the audience was probably experiencing (or had recently experienced) persecution,2 they also conceive of themselves as the community o f the risen Lord. The mechanism that allows all such apparent paradoxes to exist is perspective. Just as an artist uses perspective to allow a painting of an entire landscape to fit onto a limited canvas, the evangelist uses perspective as a way of framing the cognitive dissonance between the churchs faith and its experience. I will begin with a few words on methodology and then proceed to trace the lines of Marks thought.3 Methodology The central locus o f Marks theology of hiddenness is the messianic secret proper, defined here as instances in which Jesus deliberately hides his identity (Mark 1:25, 34; 3:11-2; 8:30; 9:9). A correlate of the messianic secret is the evangelists theme of the hidden nature of the kingdom of God, a motif in a number of parables (most significantly in ch. 4, although also 3:23; 7:179; 12:1-12; 13:28), Jesus theory of parables (4:11-2), prohibitions against
1 William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (trans. J. C. G. Greig; Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1971). 2 Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 28-29, provides a cogent argument for the persecuted status of the original audience of the Gospel as well as giving a solid overview of the range of scholarly theories about the occasion of the Gospel. 3 While this paper will from time to time employ the moniker the evangelist to designate the writer of the Gospel of Mark, I will also refer to the author or authors (and perhaps redactors) simply as Mark.

170

RESTORATION QUARTERLY 54:3 (2012)

proclaiming Jesus miraculous power (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26) and Jesus tendency to seek privacy (1:35[?], 45; 3:7, 9; 4:10; 5:37, 40; 6:31-2; 7:17, 24, 33; 8:23; 9:2, 28, 30-1, 33; 13:3; 14:33). While several scholars have correctly noted that these and other concepts are not identical with the messianic secret proper, this paper will treat them as connected with the secret. Such a decision4 must depend at least in part on the extent to which Mark draws out these themes in his presentation. First, Wrede correctly noted that both the theme of secrecy and those elements that run contrary to it occur throughout the narrative;5 there is no progression in the revelation of Jesus identity.6 The prevalence of the theme of hiddenness throughout the text does, however, indicate that Mark did not accidentally imbed the theme throughout his narrative.7 Also consistent with the intent to represent Marks conception o f the theology of hiddenness is the decision to trace the distinct but related concepts within that cluster not separately from each other, but instead by reading them together, following the text of the Gospel straight through from beginning to end to see how the evangelist develops the interrelated ideas through the course of the narrative. At this point one more word about methodology will suffice, after which I will commence with the proposed reading of the Second Gospel. Without wishing to deny the validity o f other reading strategies, this paper will pursue a sequential synchronic reading. Risnen8 and others have provided quite fitting redaction-critical treatments of the text of the Gospel in general and the messianic secret in particular. This paper, however, will for the most part leave aside the diachronic aspects o f tradition and redaction in favor o f an attempt to read the final form of the text as a coherent document.9 The approach is thus synchronic in that it has to do with the final form of the text.
For a presentation of the evidence somewhat similar to that offered here, see 4 Lewis Scott Hay, 6 Marks Use of the Messianic Secret, JAAR 1 ) 1967(: 19. .William Wrede, Messianic Secret, 16-18, 124 25. On the other hand, N. T 5 Wright, The New Testament and the People o f God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992(, 104, is quite correct to critique Wredes overly complex explanation of a relatively simple .phenomenon Wrede, Messianic Secret 6, 21-23 . Wrede, Messianic Secret, 14-15, draws a distinction between Marks intent and 7 .his consciousness of the theme For helpful discussion of the tradition history of the messianic secret, see Heikki 8 Risnen, The Messianic Secret" in Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990(. Although without unduly dismissing tensions that arise from the juxtaposition of 9 contrasting materials and/or motifs, Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 36insists that a synchronic reading that discovers disunity or unevenness in the text ,37 .must necessarily turn to redaction criticism, a point on which this paper will differ While the interpreter certainly cannot deny the occurrence of the redactional process, it is nonetheless a process that ended at some point Even taking into account text-critical issues, the text at some point reached an essentially fixed form, and it is that form that a synchronic reading is best suited to address,

STEELE/THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 171 The reading strategy that I will employ is sequential in that it gives particular attention to the original audiences experience of the text.10 Thus instead of presenting the whole text as a flat, monolithic entity and grouping the material thematically, this reading will take account of the text in approximately the way the original audience did: by following the narrative from beginning to end, noticing along the way recurrent themes in the evangelists presentation. Theology The first instance of Jesus hidden identity comes in the exorcism in Mark 1:21-8. Although this silencing originally referred to the act of overpowering the demon,1 1 the evangelist makes the silencing of demons a regular part of Jesus work of healing/exorcism in the first of the books summaries (1:3234).1 2 According to the evangelist, the silencing occurs because they [the demons] knew him (v. 34).1 3 The next occurrence o f the theme of hiddenness takes the idea in a different direction. In 1:40-45 Jesus attempts to keep his healing work under wraps (w . 43-44) and even keeps his location secret (v. 45). Here is also the first place in which the evangelist introduces points of tension with the theme o f secrecy.1 4 Even though Jesus wants to keep his location hidden, he is unable to do so (1:45). Also, in spite of Jesus command to the contrary, the healed man goes out and spreads the word of Jesus healing power (also v. 45).

1 0 These first auditors heard the text read aloud from beginning to end, rather than reading it to themselves from beginning to end and then rereading with the end in mind, or taking an eclectic approach (i.e., skipping around) as the modem reader might. 1 1 Ulrich Luz, The Secrecy Motif and the Marcan Christology, in The Messianic Secret (ed. Christopher Tuckett; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 81, rightly affirms that the spirits recognition of the exorcist (Jesus) and the exorcists silencing of the spirit are normal parts of most exorcism narratives. Mark has actually transformed the apotropaic silencing by interpreting it to be a direct response to the articulation of Jesus identity by the spirit (cf. 1:34; 3:11-12). On this basis, William C. Robinson Jr., The Quest for Wredes Secret Messiah, in The Messianic Secret, 105, is able to assert that the secrecy motif here belongs to Mark since he has transformed the silencing command in 1:25 into an attempt at secrecy via the summary in 3:14. 12 Cf. 3:7-12; 6:54-56. 1 3 Wrede, Messianic Secret, 24-26, emphasizes that Jesus here protests against the proclamation of his identity. Although in the cases of the other (non-demoniac) healings Jesus prohibits the publication o f his miracles, he silences the demons because they know him (that is, they know who he really is). Perhaps this knowledge of the demons even forms a contrast with the general supposition that Jesus identity was not otherwise known (see p. 34). 1 4 Moma Dorothy Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (BNTC 2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 68, notes in general Marks juxtaposition of the themes of secrecy and openness.

172

RESTORATION QUARTERLY 54:3 (2012)

In another summary statement (3:11-12), Mark essentially recapitulates the prior summary (1:321 5 .(34 Despite the presence of the titular opening sentence1 6 and the voice from heaven in 1:11, the narrative leaves Jesus identity hidden from everyone in the narrative;1 7 he is known only to the supernatural spirits. In chapter 4 Mark begins to expand the theology of hiddenness. The evangelist highlights Jesus tendency for parabolic discourse (already mentioned in 3:23-29) in order to depict Jesus teaching as in some way mysterious.1 8 Marks construction o f the discourse reveals how he conceives of Jesus secretiveness in the prior episodes.1 9 As such, chapter 4 serves as an interpretive index for other sections of the book.20 The chapter opens with the parable of the sower (4:3-9), a parable about the reception of the word, essentially equivalent with the kingdom in Marks linguistic habits.2 1 While the parable is not of itself related to the messianic secret, Mark contextualizes the parable in a way that connects the reception of the kingdom o f God with the nature o f that kingdom by using his

1 5 We may note that the evangelist introduces this summary by placing Jesus in private with his disciples (3:7). 1 6 The titular phrase may or may not have originally identified Jesus as Son of God. 17 Ironically, neither the proclamations of the demons (1:24,34; 3:11) nor those of the divine voice (1:11; 9:7) have any effect whatsoever on the characters within the story. In every instance, those standing by give no indication that they have heard or understood the articulation of Jesus identity. In this general direction, see Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark. 18 Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 132, is correct to point out that it is the not the content of Jesus teaching that the evangelist wishes to highlight. The teaching itself can be quite clear; the evangelist simply wishes to underline the fact of Jesus secret teaching; John R. Donahue, The Gospel o f Mark (SP 2; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), 140. On the other hand, it is advisable to connect the parable theory with the messianic secret quite apart from any considerations of the chapters construction. Wrede, Messianic Secret, 64-65, does so despite detaching the theory entirely from its context (or indeed from any of the actual parables). 19 Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark (Hermeneia 41; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 240-41, gives a similar view of the construction of the chapter. She notes how rabbinic chains of meshalim (the idea behind the word parabole in Marks usage), use several parables with similar narrative outlooks to transport the reader from the point of origin (often a biblical text) to the conclusion (also often a biblical text). Yarbro Collins suggests that 4:2-20 can be read in this way. 20 Somewhat similarly, note the weight N. T. Wright, People o f God, 394, places on Mark 4:1-20. 2 1 Note that Yarbro Collins, Mark, 241, reads 4:2-20 as a reference to the kingdom of God from different vantage points.

STEELE/THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 173 typical literary structure (i.e., the Markan sandwich).22 The parable of the sower (4:3-9) is separated from the explanation of the parable (4:14-20) by Jesus theory of parables (4:11-12),23 The theory thus serves as the crux of the meaning for the entire parable unit.24 The parable itself ends with the admonition Whoever has ears, let them hear (v. 9), forming an ideologically consistent transition into the following verses (w . 10-12),25 which explicate the reception of Jesus parables.26 The parable, framed by Jesus insistence to listen (vv. 3, 9), lays out a framework for the varying responses to the gospel evident in the world of the author(s) and recipients of the text. The parable of the sower allegorizes that ministry in an attempt to illustrate the existence of varying responses to the gospel and to affirm the import of the gospel. The disciples ask for an explanation in 4:10. Before explaining the allegory, however, Jesus addresses the actual significance of the parable, interpreting the parable in a specific light and identifying the nature of the parable in general as a form of discourse 27
22 The Markan sandwich is a literary device whereby the evangelist breaks up a large block of material by inserting a smaller passage into the middle of the longer passage in order to explain the outer framework. Scholars have suggested various structures for ch. 4. Donahue, The Gospel o f Mark, 143, suggests a chiasm that actually separates the parable of the sower (vv. 3-9) from its explanation (4:14-20), even though he readily admits that the two may have been closely united and even describes the parable theory as an interposed saying, as though assuming that the two belong together but have been separated by the insertion of 4:10-12. 23 As Yarbro Collins, Mark, 251, notes, this arrangement creates some tension between vv. 11-12 and v. 13, for the dialogue does not fit together. In w . 11-12, Jesus responds to the disciples question as though it pertained to all the parables, but then in v. 13 he gives another response to their question as though it applied only to the parable of the sower. 24Risnen, The Messianic Secret" in Mark, 85, confesses that the majority scholarly view credits the parable theory in particular to Marks own theology. Risnen offers a partial critique of this view, accomplished mostly on redactioncritical grounds (see p. 92), but his critique of the centrality of the parable theory equates inconsistency in Marks presentation with unimportance, although it is not manifestly obvious that such should be the case. What are we to make of the frequent recurrence of these related themes if they are not central to Marks theology? How can any redactor, let alone the final redactor, have included so many similar comments for no reason, especially given that in some instances (4:10-12 is a perfect example) the comments are presented with a load of theological freight attached to them? 25 Donahue, The Gospel o f Mark, 139. 26 The injunction also recurs in v. 23. 27 Georg Strecker, Theory of the Messianic Secret in Marks Gospel, in The Messianic Secret, 59; Eduard Schweizer, The Question of the Messianic Secret in Mark, in The Messianic Secret, 68. Note the distinction drawn by Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, who seems to approach this idea in his explanation for the occasion of the juxtaposition of election and rejection (113).

174

RESTORATION QUARTERLY 54:3 (2012)

Here is where Marks construction comes to the fore. In isolation, the theory of parables deals only with Jesus use of parables as a didactic device. In context, however, Mark has placed the logion here between the parable of the sower and its explanation. The consequent effect is different from the effect achieved by the logion in isolation.28 In context, the parable theory highlights the distinction between insiders, or those who receive the word, and outsiders, or those who reject the word,29 a distinction that is the crux of the parable (4:3-9).30 Those on the inside receive the secret/mystery o f the kingdom of God (v. II),3 1 which is the hermeneutical answer to the failure of those outside to understand the meaning of the parable, as well as
28 Risnens is basically consistent with mine, although this paper will broaden what Risnen calls missionary failure to include the persecution of Christians as well as the rejection of the gospel. 29 The import of the distinction is of course different for Mark than for Matt. 13:13-15, where the author takes Jesus logion to mean that Jesus speaks in parables because the people are unable to understand his teaching (the exact opposite of Mark 4:12). Luke agrees with Marks interpretation in Luke 8:10, though the quotation of the text (ostensibly by Paul) in Acts 28:26 addresses merely the refusal of the people to hear the word of God, not Pauls utilization of obtuse teaching techniques (cf. Rom
11:8).

30 Donahue, The Gospel o f Mark, 141-42, affirms that the repeated failure to hear (and inculcate) the word illustrates the parable theory. 3 1 What exactly is meant by the secret of the kingdom of God? On the analogy of several texts from Qumran (4Q417 frg. 2 1:10-11; lQphab 7:4-5) that use the word raz (a loanword from Persian), Yarbro Collins, Mark, 248-49, understands the secret/mystery to refer to the eschaton, stating that the eschatological dimension expresses both the fulfillment of the divine plan and the fact that only at the end will the plan become evident to all. Yarbro Collinss proposal has the advantage of fitting Jesus (i.e., Marks) meaning of the phrase kingdom of God, which indicates the eschatological reign of God. While Yarbro Collins does not affirm as much, this reading essentially treats the kingdom of God as an epexegetical genitive, with the sense the secret, which is the kingdom of God. It is also possible to find a referent for the secret in the parables themselves, specifically the parable of the sower (4:3-9). Marcus, Mark I S , 302-3, suggests that the secret is the advent of the eschaton without the complete destruction of the current age. In this regard, it will be important to note the parables of the growing seed (4:26-29) and the mustard seed (4:30-32), which make points that are corollaries of this mystery/secret. We may also cite evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 3:18; 1QH 5:36) and the NT (2 Thess 2:7; Rom 11:25-26), where the word refers to Gods unexpected and unpredictable behavior toward humans. Although Marcus does not cite them, Pauls use in Ephesians (1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 5:32; 6:19) and Colossians (1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3) is very similar. For further work along these lines, refer to Schweizer, The Question of the Messianic Secret in Mark, 65-66. Schweizer explicates the idea of secrecy in the Qumran and NT bodies of literature as reflective of Jewish apocalypticism in the background of the secrecy motif. More recently, N. T. Wright, People o f God, 392, has argued forcefully for the apocalyptic character of the evangelists thought as the background for the motif of secrecy.

STEELE/THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 175 the driving mechanism behind the reception of the gospel (or kingdom) by those on the inside.32 The theory implies that, according to Mark, Jesus uses parables both to conceal and to reveal the kingdom.33 Jesus speaks in riddles in order to create a distinction between those on the inside and those on the outside.34 While, according to Mark, Jesus himself speaks in parables in order to prevent repentance by those outside (4:12), Mark does not follow up on the idea, and the parable theory itself does not account for Marks inclusion of it or the motif of hiddenness. Jesus sometimes speaks quite clearly in public, in the hearing of all (6:2, 34; 7:14-6; 8:1; 12:1-12). It is then altogether likely that the theory represents an explanation for the manifest failure of Jesus mission, both in the cross and in the experience of the Markan community.35 Furthermore, it becomes clear that verse 9, although also corresponding to verse 3, sets the parameters for the parable theory in the following verses. It is not, as some have understood,36 an injunction to the crowds at large to

32 Dahl, The Purpose of Marks Gospel, in The Messianic Secret, 30, further asserts that the juxtaposition of parables spoken to those outside with the revelation of the secret of the kingdom to the insiders (kat idian) demarcates the character of the entire book as a secret(-ive) revelation. Though this is probably a case of stretching the evidence too far (Dahls article is brief, and as such includes no evidence for such an expansive interpretation), it seems to me that Dahl hits the mark in attributing the 4 6 parable theory to the force that creates the distinction between insiders and outsiders. We may now find a parallel for the hard predestinarianism and sectarianism in the Qumran community; David Aune, Problem of the Messianic Secret, NovT 1 (1969): 15-16. 33 Wrede, Messianic Secret, 56-57, emphasizes the aspect of concealment, as is proper and consistent with the emphasis in the text; Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark. 34 Donahue, The Gospel o f Mark, 140, points out that those outside may refer to those physically absent from this private scene (spatially outside) or to those who do not accept the message (those spiritually outside). 35 Risnen, The "Messianic Secret" in Mark, 114. For Risnen this literary mechanism is essentially a fusion of Marks own world with the world of the story, which is in Risnens view the occasion of disruption in the continuity of the story world (21). See also 119-21, where Risnen carries through his fusion theory in his discussion of Jesus interpretation of the parable of the sower (4:14-20). 36 I am unable to follow most commentators in taking 4:33 as a statement indicating the openness of Jesus teaching. The phrase as they were able to hear it (kaths dunanto akouein) is a modifier; Jesus spoke the word to them, at least as much as they were able to hear it. The longer injunction to listen in vv. 9,23 is similar. Whoever has ears to hear is a modifier; thus these two injunctions are not parallel to the short injunction in 4:3 (akouete). Even the shifting of the imperative from a second person singular (4:3) to a third person singular (4:9, 23) indicates a difference in audience. James D. G. Dunn, The Messianic Secret in Mark, in The Messianic Secret, 128-29, comes closest to such a view, who says, Bearing in mind v. 33f, I take the parallelism of this verse (4:11) to signify that all Jesus teaching was in the nature of a parable; that is, to those who had ears to hear (4:9) the parable unfolded its

176

RESTORATION QUARTERLY 54:3 (2012)

understand the parable (otherwise what can the parable theory immediately following mean?).37 It is rather an indication o f the nature of Jesus parabolic speech as both concealing and revealing, the very theme that verses 10-12 will bring to the forefront. Whoever has ears to hear does not signify everyone present, but only those to whom the secret of the kingdom of God has been given (v. 11). Contrarily, verse 13 inserts a logion that brings the dullness of the disciples (presumably insiders) into sharp relief, especially in light of the immediately preceding parable theory in 4:11-12. The insiders have been given the secret o f the kingdom, but the disciples still do not understand (cf. 4:38-41). The parable theory also acts as a control for the explanation of the parable of the sower in verses 14-20. The reason that there are a variety of responses to the word, including rejection, is that the word is a secret, the very secret of the kingdom of God. Why do some reject the gospel? For Mark, they do so because God has hidden the kingdom from them.38 Following the explanation of the parable o f the sower, Mark inserts a pair of logia (apparently unrelated to each other) that he probably considers parables. The first logion, the parable of the lamp (v. 21), continues on the theme of the revelation of the hidden kingdom initially sounded in verses 1112. In this parable, Mark inverts Jesus I have come statements by using the figure of the lamp instead of a simple pronoun or circumlocution such as the Son o f Man.39 The explanation of the parable of the lamp (v. 22) interprets
meaning; to those whose ears were dulled to the note of divine authority the parable gave no light. 37 Yarbro Collins, Mark, 246, picks up on the same point. The translation of Donahue, The Gospel o f Mark, 137, 139, is particularly fitting: You who can hear what I said, pay attention. 38 Yarbro Collins, Mark, 249, gives a similar reading on the basis of seemingly analogous occasions for Isa 6:9-10 (the text quoted) and Mark 4:11-12. The most pivotal word of the passage may be . It seems unavoidable that it does here mean in order that. The consecutive usage of is rare, and with a subjunctive would be a more likely formulation if the author intended to indicate result. Thus we will assume that oti here indicates purpose. Commentators have offered various explanations for the affirmation that parables are a deliberate cloaking device; perhaps these words reflect a historical reappraisal of the failure of Jesus5 mission (Yarbro Collins, Mark, 249). As Marcus, Mark 1-8 , 299-300, rightly points out, though, the confluence of (the typical usage of) and demand that the reader understand v. 12 as a purpose clause. 39 The verb is a simple present active indicative third person singular. The phrase reads simply Does the lamp come. Attempts by translators to convert the verb to a passive voice (e.g., Is the lamp brought) are inaccurate and unconvincing, especially when we consider that the phrase is followed by v. 22, which depends on understood subjects, and v. 24, which utilizes a triple wordplay that juxtaposes a relative clause with a passive verb. In fact, there are seven passive verbs in vv. 21-25, and this phrase is the only one in the section with a noun-active verb construction (v. 21b-c use passive verbs, v. 22 uses an implied subject, v. 23 uses a pronoun as the subject, v. 24 uses a passive verb, v. 25 utilizes relative pronouns as subjects). If Mark

STEELE/THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 177 the parable in light of the revelation of the kingdom. The true purpose of the implied subject in this verse, as of the lamp in the prior verse, is revelation. Although initially hidden, it is hidden only in order that it may come to light.40 The parable of the lamp also introduces an idea that the evangelist will take up again in 9:9, namely that the hiddenness of Jesus identity and mission will have an end point.4 1 There will be a time when Jesus and his kingdom will be revealed before all.42 The parable closes with an echo of verse 9, indieating both concealment and revelation. The parable of the measures (4:24-25) stands in some relation to the parable of the lamp. Once again, the parable draws a sharp line between insiders and outsiders. At the revelation of the lamp (that is, Jesus), those on the inside will be given more, while those on the outside will lose even what they have. Thus the author draws out the theme of revelation and proclamation (4:21-22) as well as the theme of secrecy (4:11-12) by weaving the themes together here.43

had intended the phrase to be understood passively, such a construction would have fit the context far better than does the given text. The fact that this phrase is the only straightforward construction in the paragraph indicates that Mark intended it to be understood as it is written, that is, as an active verb. More immediately to the point, Mark uses two passive verbs to refer to the lamp within the same verse. Surely the choice of the active represents a choice in view of the distinction the text appears to draw between the appearance of the lamp and its positioning. Lane, Mark, 164-65, agrees with an active translation, speculating that Jesus uses the lamp to refer to himself. 40 William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (NICNT 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 166-67. If Mark intends to connect this logion (or pair of logia) to the preceding verse (v. 21), then that verse must refer to Jesus and his mission, either directly (the lamp = Jesus) or indirectly (the place of the lamp as a figure for the character of Jesus mission). On 166 Lane notes how the juxtaposition of these two verses underlines the contrast between hiddenness and revelation; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 253. 4 1 Georg Strecker, Theory of the Messianic Secret in Marks Gospel, in The Messianic Secret, 60. Although the foregoing parables deal with the hiddenness of the kingdom, the parable of the lamp insists that such hiddenness will not last forever, for nothing is hidden, except in order that it might be revealed (4:21). Here is the first intimation of the necessary corollary of the idea of a messianic secret: its eventual disclosure or revelation. 42 R. T. France, The Gospel o f Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 31; Wrede, Messianic Secret, 70-71 connects this passage with the Transfiguration account (Mk 9:2-13) and understands the time of revelation to refer to the resurrection. 43 The kingdom is a secret, but it will one day be revealed. There is no tension between these two (in the evangelists mind) because the revelation of the kingdom will serve as yet another demonstration of its hidden nature; those who were in on the secret will be brought in, but those who never knew the secret will be pushed even further away.

178

RESTORATION QUARTERLY 54:3 (2012)

Mark 4:26-29, 30-32 contains two parables that strike at the heart of the hiddenness of Jesus and may provide a bit of an explanation as to the purpose of the secret. Mark returns to horticultural metaphors (picking up from the parable of the sower) in two parables about the kingdom. These parables also continue the bent of chapter 4 in using figures to describe conceptual corollaries of the messianic identity of Jesus.44 The parable of the growing seed (4:26-29) emphasizes the vitality of the kingdom completely apart from human effort or ability45 as well as its hidden nature. The kingdom, like a seed, grows by itself (automatically, 4:28), although the farmer does not know how.46 Like the parable of the lamp, there is an interminable period of time at the end of which (the harvest time) the mystery will become known.47 Furthermore, the parable utilizes the theology of hiddenness to upbraid those living in the shadow of Gods hidden kingdom.48 The community for which the Gospel is intended likely lived in the (frankly eschatological) tension between the current status of the kingdom as hidden and the knowledge that the kingdom will be revealed to all at some time.49
Here we may differ with Yarbro Collins, Mark, 253. While Yarbro Collins is quite right to note the element of revelation present in the parable of the lamp, it .stretches the shape of the text to apply the idea of proclamation to w . 24-25 as well E.g., the word in the parable of the sower, the secret of the kingdom of God 44 in the parable theory, the revelation of the eschatological kingdom in the parable of the .lamp, and the sociology arising from the secret in the parable of the measures Yarbro Collins, Mark, 254, who suggests that the parables thus serves as an 45 .encouragement in the face of missionary failure and/or eschatological impatience The word here seems to mean that the man is unaware of the process of 46 the seed.s growth or the cause of that growth See Joel 4:13, where the harvest refers to the day of the L o r d or a similar 47 ,idea. The sickle seems to be more of a weapon in that context than here. In any event .it refers to the end of the age; perhaps Jesus intends something similar Yarbro Collins, Mark, 241, is quite helpful in noting how 4:21-25, 30-32 carry 48 forward the theme of encouraging those who are sowing the word from vv. 2-9 , 14.although she leaves the parable of the growing seed out of account ,20 For such an audience, the parable of the growing seed proclaims that the 49 kingdom will not remain hidden forever. Despite the apparent failure of the mission of Jesus (at the cross) and of the community in spreading his message (for which the parable of the sower is a figure), the church has been given the secret, which is the ,kingdom of God, and the knowledge that the secret will be revealed. Along these lines see Lane, Mark, 170, although he does not carry his interpretation through to the Sitz .im Leben of the audience The evangelist here returns to the same idea field evoked by the word in v. 11 ; Lane, Mark, 157, asserts the eschatological overtones of the word, particularly in the LXX (Dan. 2:27, 28, 29, 30, 47; 4:9Q ; Wis. 2:22). See also Donahue, The ,Gospel o f Mark, 28-29, on the issue of eschatological usage of . Risnen The Messianic Secret" in Mark, 122-24, offers a somewhat similar view, although he insists that Mark, following Paul, has invested in the idea of mystery/secrecy such a realized eschatology that he no longer looks to any future fulfillment. The fact that

STEELE/THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 179 The parable of the mustard seed (4:30-32) stretches the agricultural metaphor yet further. Again the accent falls not on the (human) process of farming but on the divine causation of growth.50 The growth of the kingdom is like the growth of the mustard plant in that it begins small but ends up much larger.5 1 The mustard seed represents the idea of divinely motivated growth that is inexplicable from a human perspective.52 While the use of trees as metaphors for kingdoms is a well-attested move in the biblical texts current in Marks world, the author of the Second Gospel inverts these images by playing a mere garden shrub or weed off against the more royal foliage of the HBs political landscape.53 The kingdom of God is not a kingdom because of its size or magnificence, but because of the supernatural character of its growth.54 The capstone of the section is 4:33-34. In reiterating the assertion that parables represent Jesus characteristic mode of speech (cf. 4:11-12), the evangelist further articulates the mechanics of the parable as a mode of discourse. The parable both reveals and conceals because through it Jesus speaks to the audience as they [are] able to hear (4:33). Jesus still reveals the secret of the kingdom, however, when he is alone with those on the inside. These two juxtaposed phrases form Marks summary of the whole issue of Jesus parabolic discourse.55
Risnen makes his assertion in the midst of his discussion on the parable of the lamp (4:21-23, although he includes the parable of the measures [w. 24-25] along with it) is doubly curious. The parable of the lamp seems to articulate an eschatology quite the opposite of Risnens proposed use of . His central evidence comes from the usage in Colossians, which I consider to be consistent with the general tone of the word sketched here (see above, n. 34). 50 Yarbro Collinss comments noted above in n. 47 pertain here as well. 5 1 Donahue, The Gospel o f Mark, 153-54. 52 Ps 103:12 (104:12 Eng,) also emphasizes that natural processes are in fact the work of God. In vv. 10-13 the gushing of the springs provides a habitat for the birds. The point seems to correlate to Marks intention, especially with the parable following on the parable of the growing seed. Like that parable, the mustard seed grows because God makes it grow (even though it is the smallest seed). 5 3 Ezek 17:23 refers to animals and birds resting in the shade of a tree that God will plant in Israel. Like the mustard seed, this cedar will come from a young sprig, because God brings low the high tree . . . [and] makes high the low tree (v. 24). Ezek 31:6 uses similar language of Assyria; cf. Dan 4:12, 21 (LXX), where the tree is Nebuchadnezzar. Whether the author actually intends to parody overblown messianic expectations (as Yarbro Collins, Mark, 256, argues), the choice of the mustard plant is hardly an accident. 54 From a mere seed, the mustard plant sprouts up into a large shrub. In the same way, the kingdom grows rapidly and dramatically, in ways that seem unlikely given the size of the original manifestation of the kingdom; Donahue, The Gospel o f Mark, 154; France, The Gospel o f Mark, 32. 55 In this, the parables are much like Jesus miracles, which he performs in public but still prohibits the receptors to speak about. Perhaps the miracles also are not comprehensible on the face of the event, but must in fact remain hidden and remain

180

RESTORATION QUARTERLY 54:3 (2012)

The next block of text (4:35-6:6) contains several pericopae relating mighty revelations of Jesus (in word and deed) with tangential relationships to the mysterious identity of Jesus and/or the theme of hiddenness. At the conclusion of the story of Jesus calming of the storm (4:35-41), the disciples wonder just who Jesus is (4:41). In the following pericope (5:1-20), Jesus gives his only injunction in the entire Gospel to go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you (5:19), introducing a point of conflict with the prohibitions against publication of Jesus miracles. In the healing of Jairuss daughter (5:21-24, 35-43), Mark once again records Jesus prohibition of those present from proclaiming the result of his mighty deed (5:43), even though in this instance the prohibition is impossible to observe, practically speaking.57 In the next section (6:6b-8:26), the messianic secret as such fades into the background, although the motif of secrecy does occur at several points. At 6:11, Jesus already makes a contingency plan to account for the rejection of the gospel during the disciples missionary activity. At 6:31-32, Jesus and his disciples withdraw into private. Later, in the midst of a controversy, Jesus withdraws, and his disciples ask for an explanation of his teaching once more (7:17-19).58 Mark again allows tension to develop between the opposing themes of hiddenness and openness in 7:24. Even though Jesus wants to keep himself hidden, he is unable to do so.59 In 7:31-37, Jesus heals a man in private,60 then commands them [sic] not to say anything about it.6 1 Jesus is,
dependent on revelation of the mystery of the kingdom in order for those who witness the miracles to perceive their true significance. 56 We may note, however, that Jesus sends the man home to his friends (in other passages, Mark puts Jesus in a house [oikov] or in private [ ] when he gives secret teachings or explanations). The mans proclamation in the Decapolis (v. 20) may in fact form a contrast with Jesus command; Wrede, The Messianic Secret, 140-41, reads the text along these lines, although he admits that his is not the generally accepted reading. 57 Hooker, St. Mark, 67; France, Mark, 240, notes the obvious incongruity of the nature of the miracle with Jesus command to keep it hidden. What might Jesus or Mark mean by the command to keep the healing secret? Surely the command functions at least in part as a rhetorical device (since it cannot have been literally obeyed). 58 It is notable that here the disciples ask Jesus to explain this parabole to them, even though the preceding logion is neither a metaphor nor an allegory. Two points bear mentioning: first, the evangelist probably intends the word parabole to carry the semantic range of the Hebrew term msl> which could mean anything from a riddle to a figure of speech. Second, the evangelist here introduces yet another point of inconsistency, yet as always does so in service of his greater story. Risnen, The ,4 Messianic Secret in Mark, 132, says it best: the fact of esoteric teaching seems more important to him [Mark] than its content. 59 Note esp. the phrase , here translated he could not be hid. 60 Here again we find Marks typical nomenclature for Jesus withdrawal into private ( ). 6 1 The verb recurs here (as already in 5:43; the verb will appear once more in 9:9).

STEELE/THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 181 however, unable to maintain secrecy, as his prohibition has rather the effect of encouraging the crowd to acclaim him all the more (v. 36).62 In the healing of the blind man in Bethsaida, Jesus takes the man out of town (v. 23), heals him, and then sends him away, but warns him not to go into the town (v. 26(. Contrary to several interpretations that try to find in Peter s confession the turning point from the lack of understanding exhibited by the )8:27-30 ( disciples to the revelation of the secret of the kingdom of God) to this )4:11 privileged group of insiders,63 we must note that even directly after the central confession,64 Peter is unable to understand the destiny of the Son of Man incurring rebuke from Jesus 65,)8:31-33 (.66
62 Thus Yarbro Collins, Mark, 374, theorizes that the commands to silence in the miracle stories are not perceived to protect the identity of Jesus, but rather function as a rhetorical device to demonstrate that Jesus supernatural power cannot be hidden. 63 This pericope stands in the middle of Marks narrative, and the reader must recognize its significance. While Wrede and others are correct to note that this passage does not inaugurate a new era in the narrative wherein the disciples now understand Jesus messianic identity, it is a turning point in the narrative. The passage is a hinge where the narrative pivots from emphasizing Jesus mighty deeds to emphasizing his destiny (to suffer, die, and rise again); see Lane, Mark, 288-89. The central position of the confession indicates not that the disciples thereafter understand but that the narrative thereafter turns toward explaining what Peters confession entails. Wrede, Messianic Secret, 115-20, argues persuasively against viewing Peters confession as the point after which the disciples understand who Jesus is. 64 It is difficult to pin down what exactly Mark intends by placing these words in Peters mouth. The following pericope (8:31-33) demonstrates that Peter specifically still does not understand that the Son of Man must suffer and die. Either Mark is attempting to report that Peter did not understand that the Son of Man was the Messiah (or did not understand the Isaianic literature as the later Christian community did) or Mark is using the character Peter in two contrasting ways in as many successive pericopes in order to contrast the revelation of Jesus identity and destiny with the continued failure (by the disciples, the Jewish leaders, and the crowd) to understand precisely these aspects of who they say that he is (w. 27, 29). Mark simply uses characters and character groups in whatever way suits his purposes at the moment. When he wishes to emphasize the privileged position of those within the community, he can put a confession of Jesus identity in Peters mouth. When he wants to highlight the hiddenness of Jesus mission, however, he can also have the same character attest a lack of understanding. These comments fall generally within the scheme outlined by several wherein one way to resolve the tensions between hiddenness and openness in the Gospel is to read the text synchronically (that is, to read it as though Mark held both ideas in mind, apparently without considering them to be mutually exclusive in any absolute sense, although contradictoiy at some points, wherein he [Mark] gives evidence of some confusion). See Hooker, St. Mark, 68. 65 Peter, in 8:27-33, provides an excellent example of a character who fulfills more than one role for the author, on account of which the character is inconsistent. See Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark. It is the function of the characters or character groups that counts, not their actions (pp. 20-21). 66 occurs in 8:30, 32, 33, first in Jesus command not to reveal his messianic identity (v. 30) and then as Peter struggles to come to grips with the destiny

182

RESTORATION QUARTERLY 54:3 (2012)

Soon after, Jesus reveals his glory to Peter, James, and John in his transfiguration (9:2-9).67 After the event is past, Jesus sternly commands68 his disciples not to proclaim what they had seen.69 In Mark 9:9 we may discern something of the meaning that the evangelist assigns to the whole theme of hiddenness. Here Mark records Jesus5 warning to the disciples not to tell anyone what they have seen until the Son of Man has risen from the dead (9:9). Wrede thought that the best understanding of this modicum of evidence was to simply give the text a straightforward reading and suppose that the resurrection is the hinge of the theme of secrecy in Marks thought.70 We must ask, however, to what extent 9:9 is determinative for the rest of the text.7 1 The application of 9:9 to the entirety of the book first of all must explain how the original auditors were supposed to connect a theme that Mark only introduces in the second half of the book with all the various motifs in the first half of the book.72 Concurrently, those who defend the theory must also account for why Mark makes no mention of this terminal point anywhere in the narrative after 9:9. For a sequential, synchronic reading such as the one proposed here, Wredes theory is, in the final evaluation, untenable: Marks audience probably did not (or was not able to) read back-to-front or eclectically. Therefore, the evangelist probably did not imbed the key to his theme of secrecy more than halfway into the book and expect the auditors to instantaneously apply it to all previous occurrences of the theme.7 3 Mark then proceeds to relate Jesus healing of a boy with an evil spirit, a healing that perhaps takes place in order to avoid creating a scene (9:25).74
of the Son of Man (that being, to suffer and die at the hands of the Jewish leaders and then to rise again, vv. 32-33). The verb occurs in Marks narrative already in 1:25; 3:12 (both in response to demons/demoniacs revealing his identity); 4:39. The latter instance is not related to the others. Based on the other two occasions when Mark uses the word to describe Jesus prohibition against the revelation of his identity, we may understand the verb the same way here. Thus the theory that Jesus rejected Peters confession is inconsistent with the prior evidence, although 8:32, 33 do seem to support such a meaning for the verb. At other points, it seems to be the word for Jesus exercising of miraculous power (1:25 may fit here; cf. 4:39; 9:25). The final usage in Mark (10:48) returns once again to the veiling of Jesus identity, although only indirectly. 67 Here again, the character of Peter displays startling ignorance (9:6, cf. 9:1013). 68 occurs several times as Jesus prohibition against the proclamation of his identity. See above, n. 62. 69 Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 185, esp. n. 149. 70 Wrede, The Messianic Secret, 67-68. 7 1 Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 188-89. 72 Even if the parable of the lamp (4:21-23) and perhaps the surrounding parables prefigure the eventual eschatological revelation of Jesus, the theme is still not brought out into the open until 9:9. 7 3 Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark. 74 Lane, Mark, 334, states that Jesus demonstrates the reserve he exercised on other occasions when exorcising malignant spirits.

STEELE/THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 183 Jesus then once more heads indoors, where his disciples ask him questions in private (9:28). The pericope is followed by a passion prediction (9:30-32) that highlights Jesus desire to travel incognito (v. 30). The question of Jesus identity features prominently in the buildup to the passion narrative, beginning in the controversy story located in ll:27-33.75 The identity of the Christ then recurs once more in 12:35^40, Jesus exposition on Ps 110.76Mark later provides an expected setting for Jesus eschatological discourse in chapter 13: Jesus sits alone with the four fishermen (13:3-4).77 During the apocalyptic discourse (13:28), Mark also records Jesus exhortation to the disciples to learn from the fig tree its parabole.78 Within the passion sequence, Jesus yet again removes himself from others (14:33). Mark breaks from the messianic secret at 14:62-63, where he records Jesus articulation of his identity and destiny in decidedly messianic terms before the Sanhdrin.79 Again in 15:2 Jesus affirms to Pilate that he is King of the Jews. The centurion at the cross makes an ironic confession of the identity of Jesus (15:31-32), even at the nadir of Jesus rejection by both the people and the authorities. While the ending of the Gospel has justly received a great deal of textcritical attention, it will do to note that, if we accept the shortest ending (v, 8) as original, the ending of the story is still shrouded in mystery. Although the man at the tomb proclaims the resurrection of Jesus, Mark gives no description of what that might mean (cf. 9:10). To the very end, all those around Jesus remain unable to penetrate the mystery of Gods work through him, and even his followers flee the tomb in fear and trembling (16:8).80 Conclusion The various parts of the theology of secrecy are connected by a common purpose.8 1 Although it is correct to separate the various elements from one another, the moniker messianic secret is still useful as a descriptor for the several and various lines of thought that all point toward a central leitmotif in Marks presentation: the ideology and theology of hiddenness. The prohibitions

75 The pericope introduces another parablethe parable of the tenants (12:1-12). 76 On the connection of 12:35-40 with Bartimaeuss acclamation of Jesus as Son of David (10:47,48), see Risnen, The Messianic Secret in Mark. 77 13:3 says the disciples questioned Jesus , a pet phrase of Marks, which I have elsewhere translated as 4 in private. 7s Syntax altered. Again, the following teaching is not a parable per se. Mark simply wants the auditor to get the impression that Jesus spoke in riddles, whether the specific teaching is ambiguous or unclear. 79 Ironically, although Jesus articulates his identity here for the first time in the narrative, the authorities reject him, and as such his identity remains hidden. 80 At the narrative terminal point, the reader is uncertain whether the secret about Jesus resurrection will ever get out (or at least whether the women at the tomb will spread the news). 8 1 Yarbro Collins, Mark, 172.

184

RESTORATION QUARTERLY 54:3 (2012)

directed to demons represent an attempt to hide Jesus identity.82 While the characters in the narrative are in large part unaware of Jesus status as messiah, the spirits have a supernatural awareness of Jesus dignity, despite which the very identity brought into question remains hidden. The prohibtions to the disciples function similarly: they are not to reveal the identity of Jesus, at least not right now.8 3 A close corollary of these themes is the miracle secret, wherein the theme of secrecy often functions as a sort of foil for the contrasting theme of revelation.84 Jesus commands those whom he heals not to make his healing capabilities known, but he is unsuccessful. Although Jesus wishes to keep his glory hidden, people cannot keep silent about his miraculous power.85 Mark also wishes to emphasize in his presentation of Jesus teaching that Jesus taught in riddles {parabola!). Even when Jesus teaching is quite intelligible, Mark insists that Jesus teaching was mysterious. Jesus cryptic speech highlights and perpetuates the distinction between insiders and outsiders. While Jesus reveals the secret of the kingdom of God to the insiders, he speaks in riddles in order to prevent outsiders from understanding his identity or the nature of the kingdom. The evangelist also presents Jesus at times attempting to hide his presenee from the public eye. He often withdraws from the crowds and explains things to his disciples in the house or in private, where a number of his miracles also occur. Here again, Mark sometimes utilizes the motif of secrecy in order to bring out the opposite point, namely, that he could not be hid (7:24).86 All of these lines o f reasoning point to the same general motif, a motif that runs throughout Marks narrative. The messianic identity and dignity of Jesus was hidden during his lifetime. The kingdom of God, or the action of
82 France, The Gospel o f Mark, 31. 83 France, The Gospel o f Mark, 31. 84 Though he refers not to the healing miracles but to other dramatic turning points in the narrative, N. T. Wright, People o f God, 395, emphasizes that the evangelist uses the theme of secrecy to invite insiders to discover the inner secret behind the strange outer story. 85 Marcus, Mark 1-8 , 480, makes this point with reference to the healing in 7:3137; similarly Luz, The Secrecy Motif and the Marcan Christology, 79. Dunn, The Messianic Secret in Mark, 121-22, delivers a solid rebuttal to Wredes proposed impetus for the creation of the secret on precisely this point; if the secret were intended to revamp an originally unmessianic life of Jesus, what on earth might Mark have meant by including alongside of it the repeated emphases on openness? As such, we cannot assign the creation of the secret to a Christologizing tendency; for in the text of the Gospel as we have it, the theme of secrecy frequently occurs side by side with the opposing theme of revelation. 86 In fact, Luz, The Secrecy Motif and the Marcan Christology, 77, is correct that Mark actually intends the miracles to have significance in the public eye. Even when Jesus takes aside the person to be healed or performs the healing in the house or in private, these measures instead lead to proclamation.

STEELE/THEOLOGY OF HIDDENNESS IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 185 God in the world, is present in Jesus in mysterious ways.87 Jesus and his message experience rejection (both in his life and in the life of the Markan community), but rejection does not negate the validity of the mission.88 Furthermore, in spite of Jesus best attempts to hide his identity, his glory breaks through. People proclaim Jesus miraculous power because it simply cannot remain concealed. While Jesus and his message were at one time hidden, they are even now (in the audiences present time) in the process of being revealed, first in his resurrection (9:9) and eventually in his glorious appearing (14:62). The Markan community likewise lived in the eschatological mystery, tom between the evident hiddenness of the message (as evidenced by the missionary failure by the church and persecution of the church by the state)89 and the revelation of the secret to the insiders (as evidenced by Jesus secret teaching delivered to the disciples, which is seen as the foundation of the teaching inherited by the Markan community). The theme of secrecy both affirms them in the midst of apparent failure and reframes their self-image as the people to whom God has given the secret of the kingdom.

87 T. A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation, in The Messianic Secret, 44, affirms that it is according to Gods purpose that Jesus identity remains a secret. 88 Ibid. 89 France, The Gospel o f Mark, 28-29.

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.