The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

R. Alan Culpepper

It was not easy to preach a crucified savior to people who had witnessed
crucifixions. Death on a cross was an ignomy usually reserved for slaves and
traitors1 For Jews, crucifixion defiled the land and was evidence of God's
curse on the crucified (Deut. 21:23); for Gentiles, the idea that a divine man
or an immortal could be crucified was foolishness (I Cor. 1:19); and for Mark
and his church, proclamation of the crucified Messiah would have been
exceedingly difficult during or just after the war of A.D. 66-70, especially if
they were in Rome. On the other hand, Mark did not write about the death
of Jesus because he could not deny that Jesus was crucified but because the
crucifixion and ensuing resurrection were central to his faith. If we are to
interpret the Second Gospel faithfully, therefore, we will need to answer the
question: What did the death and resurrection of Jesus mean to Mark?
The question is important, but it is probably not the question most
readers bring to the Gospel. Most students of Mark come to the text with
the question: What happened? Mark was interested in what happened, but it
would not have been sufficient to describe the death of Jesus without
providing some clues in the passion narrative itself (Mk. 14-16) as to why
this particular crucifixion had special meaning. Mark, therefore, wrote the
story in such a way that he shapes the reader's appreciation of the meaning
of the events he narrates. The place to begin is not with a quest for the
events by comparing Mark with the other Gospels or by attempting to
separate tradition from Mark's own work. That quest is important, but the
place to begin is with an attempt to understand what the death and
resurrection of Jesus meant to Mark. This understanding in turn will be of
value both for the one who preaches the New Testament as inspired and
authoritative and for the one who studies the origin and development of the
passion traditions.
How can one learn what the death and resurrection meant to Mark? In
general terms the answer is: by listening to the text and allowing Mark to
interpret himself. Since we invariably approach the text with our own biases,
confessional "blicks," twentieth-century perspectives, and a predisposition to
find certain answers; listening to the text is not an easy task. The task may
be facilitated, however, by identifying the interpretive devices planted in it
by its writer. The verses which concern us most directly are Mark 15:2116:8, but they can hardly be considered apart from the rest of the Gospel.
583

Close examination of the Gospel of Mark shows that the shadow of the cross
falls across the entire Gospel so that every pericope points ahead to the cross
and must be understood in its light/ Conversely, the passion narrative can
be understood only in the light of the themes developed in the rest of the
Gospel which reach their climax in it. The approach followed below,
therefore, is to examine each of the interpretive devices Mark used in
narrating the death and resurrection of Jesus: 1) the structure of Mark
15:21-16:8, 2) the phenomena which accompany Jesus' death, 3) the themes
which reach a climax or resolution in this section, and 4) Mark's use of the
Old Testament in these verses. 3
The structure of the passion narrative in Mark becomes apparent when
one notices that following the trial before the high priest, the narrative
describes three key events, each of which is followed by the response of some
participant(s) in the drama. The three responses do not advance the action;
they comment on the preceding event. Mark 15:1-39, therefore, develops in
three acts:
Act I. Event: Jesus is tried (15:1-15).
Response: The soldiers mock him (15:16-20).
Act II. Event: Jesus is crucified (15:21-27).
Response: The spectators mock him (15:29-32).
Act III. Event: Jesus dies (15:33-37).
Response: The veil is rent and the centurion confesses
(15:38-39).
Mark is fond of groups of three. He gives three passion predictions (8:31;
9:31; 10:32-34), measures Jesus' time on the cross with references to the
third hour (15:25), the sixth hour (15:33), and the ninth hour (15:34); and
presents three groups of mockers in 15:29-32: the passers-by, the chief
priests and scribes, and the two crucified with Jesus. 4 The structure of three
events and three responses is further supported by the use of "mock"
(empaizo) in 15:20 and 15:31 to describe the action of those scenes. The only
other occurrence of this word in Mark is in the passion prediction in Mark
10:32-34. It is commonly agreed that this prediction, the longest and most
detailed of the three, has been expanded by Mark. The centurion's confession in the third act provides a dramatic contrast to the two scenes of
mocking which precede it. The structure of the passion in Mark, therefore,
points emphatically to the third and final act, i.e. the phenomena which
accompany and interpret Jesus' death: the darkness (15:33), the cry of
dereliction (15:34-37), the rending of the veil (15:38), and the centurion's
confession (15:39). These events hold the key to Mark's understanding of the
death of Jesus.
584

The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

Review and Expositor

The use of accompanying phenomena to interpret the crucifixion is

confirmed by the increasing use of this device in the later canonical and
apocryphal gospels (e.g. Gospel of Peter 15-27; Gospel of the Nazoreans,
frag. 21 ). 5 Matthew, for example, adds:
. . . and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also
were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep
were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they
went into the holy city and appeared to many (Mt. 27:51b-53).
In Mark, however, the four phenomena do not simply heighten the
miraculous nature of the event, as they do in the apocryphal gospels; they
interpret its meaning.
The DarknessMark 15:33
Mark states that from the sixth hour (noon) until the ninth (3:00 p.m.)
darkness came upon the whole earth. Some interpreters speculate that the
darkness was caused by a black sirocco, or duststorm; others maintain that
the parallel in Luke 23:45 implies that the darkness was the result of an
eclipse; still others assert that it is legendary. The cause of the darkness is
irrelevant for understanding Mark! The proper question is: What significance
did the darkness have for Mark? The Gospel gives us few clues. The word
skotos does not appear anywhere else in Mark, and the verb form
(skotizomai) appears only in the quotation in Mark 13:24. Mark does not
interpret the darkness. One can only observe that it is tied to his three-hour
time periods, that the darkness was present during the time of Jesus' suf
fering, and that it apparently ended at the time of the cry of dereliction and
his death. The most one can say from the evidence is that Mark associated
the darkness with Jesus' suffering.
Passages in the Old Testament indicate that the darkening of the sun
was a sign of judgment. As such, it could express God's displeasure toward
other peoples (Ex. 10:15, 21-23; Ezek. 30:18-19; 32:7-8). God's judgment
upon Israel in the day of the Lord would also be expressed by darkness upon
the land (g = eretz) (Amos 5:18, 20; Joel 2:2, 10, 31; 3:15; Jer. 15:6, 9;
Isa. 13:9-10; 50:2-3; Lam. 3:1-2; Zeph. 1:15; cf. Wisdom 17:20-18:4). In
particular, darkness will come upon the false prophets and rulers of Israel
(Mie: 3:6). The closest parallel to Mark 15:33, however, is Amos 8:9.
' O n that day," says the Lord God,
"I will make the sun go down at noon,
and darken the earth in broad daylight."
The darkness in Mark, therefore, probably should be understood as a
cosmic, eschatological sign of God's judgment upon Israel and perhaps upon
her rulers in particular.7
586

Gentile readers would also understand the darkness as a cosmic sign

which often accompanied the death of great men and kings:
. . . the Sun will give you signs. Who dare say the Sun is false?
Nay, he oft warns us that dark uprisings threaten, that treachery
and hidden wars are ups welling. Nay, he had pity for Rome when,
after Caesar sank from sight, he veiled his shining face in dusky
gloom, and a godless age feared everlasting night.
Vergil, Georgics I.463f.
Similarly, Philo wrote that ". . . eclipses announce the death of kings and
the destruction of cities (De Providentia IL 50; cf. Plutarch Pelopidas xxxi.
2-3; Diogenes Laertius IV. 64). The significance of the darkness at noon
should not be underestimated, but an overly precise or restricted interpretation of its meaning would also be unwise. The following understandings all have some merit: a sign of God's judgment upon Israel
(esp. its leaders), an indication that the death of Jesus was linked with the
day of the Lord and the coming of the Son of Man (cf. Mk. 13:24), evidence
of the cosmic significance of Jesus' death (esp. if "all the earth" is taken to
mean more than the land of Israel8), and divine confirmation of Jesus'
kingship (cf. the references from Vergil and Philo quoted above and Mk.
15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32). From all these associations the reader understands
that God was at work in the event and that His purposes would not be thwarted: The sun would shine again on Easter morning (Mk. 16:1).
The Cry of Dereliction-Mark 15:34-37
The "cry of dereliction," as it is usually called, is the most enigmatic
word from the cross. Discussion of this saying has generally revolved around
three issues: 1) Did Jesus say anything articulate? 2) What did he say? and
3) What did it mean? The first issue is concerned with whether the saying is
authentic or merely an interpretation of the great cry Jesus uttered at his
death (15:37). The second issue relates to both the original language of the
quotation (Aramaic or Hebrew?) and the extent of the quotation from Psalm
22 (Did he recite more than the first words of the Psalm?). Finally, what did
the saying mean, both to Jesus and to Mark? Was it a "cry of dereliction"
or "the prayer of a righteous sufferer"? Did Jesus merely feel abandoned by
God or was he really abandoned? Although these issues cannot be dealt with
at length, it may be helpful to review the discussion that has developed
around them before proceeding to suggest an interpretation of the saying
based on the Markan themes which find their climax in it.
R. Bultmann challenged the authenticity of the saying with the
assertion, "Clearly v. 34 is a secondary interpretation of the cry of Jesus in
v. 37 (palin is missing in v. 37 though Matthew adds it!) on the basis of Ps.
586

The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

Review and Expositor

21 2 ." 9 This judgment has been followed by many subsequent interpreters.10

English-language commentaries, however, generally continue to regard the
saying as authentic.11 The presence of the Aramaic words in the text of
Mark is a strong argument for authenticity as is the difficulty of thinking
that the church attributed to Jesus such a stark and hostile saying.12 In
addition, Matthew, who often omits or re-casts sayings which reflect
negatively on Jesus, does not do so here. Had he some reason we do not
have to believe the saying was authentic? On the other hand, the fact that it
comes from one of the passion psalms from which the church drew heavily in
interpreting Christ's death and the possibility that the saying is a doublet
giving meaning to the original, inarticulate cry in 15:37 both preclude affirming the authenticity of 15:34 with much confidence.
Whether the saying is authentic or not, its meaning rests in part on
whether the quotation of Psalm 22:1 is meant to be understood apart from
the rest of the Psalm13 or as the "title" which should evoke the remainder of
the Psalm.14 The reaction of the bystanders (15:35-36) militates against the
possibility that Mark wished his readers to understand that Jesus recited the
entire Psalm in his last moments.15 Nevertheless, the quotation has been
understood both as a "cry of dereliction"16 and as a prayer which even in the
darkness of rejection and suffering began "My God . . . " and evoked the
triumphal ending of Psalm 22 as well as its beginning17 But, Mark provides
little evidence in support of the latter interpretation, and the former is often
related to the view, derived more from Paul (e.g. II Cor. 5:21) than from
Mark, that Jesus in some undefined way became sin or absorbed the sin of
the world into himself and therefore had to be abandoned by God.18 Mark,
however, gives little support for such an interpretation of the death of Jesus.
Mark 10:45, which has been used to support a substitutionary theology of
atonement, provides no evidence that Jesus thought he would assume the
sin of the world; the saying deals with the importance of service and affirms
the redemptive power of self-denial. This understanding of the passage is
given strong support by its position at the end of the section beginning with
8:31, since this section of the Gospel emphasizes the necessity pf Jesus'
suffering and offers it as a model for the status-seeking disciples.20 Sin, in
fact, is mentioned in only two passages in Mark (1:4-5; 2:5-10). Neither
passage is directly related to the death of Jesus and neither gives any
support for the contention that the death of Jesus was the necessary
prerequisite for the forgiveness of sins. On the contrary, Mark affirms that
the forgiveness of sins through the grace of God was proclaimed by John
(1:4-5) and mediated by Jesus prior to his death (2:5-10).
J. Moltmann has made some fresh contributions to the discussion of the
meaning of Mark 15:34. He accepts it as the church's interpretation of the
587

dying cry of Jesus, but asserts that it "seems to be as near as possible to

the historical reality of the death of Jesus."21 The cause of Jesus was so
linked with his person and the proclamation of the nearness and grace of
God that Jesus' death marked also the death of his cause. Therefore, the
cry, interpreted by the opening words of Psalm 22, inquires not only "Why
hast thou forsaken me?" but also "Why hast thou forsaken thyself?"22 It is
the cry of the Son to his Father, so the abandonment reflects an enmity
between God and God which "requires a * revolution in the concept of
God'."*23 The theology of the cross which Moltmann develops asserts not
only the suffering of the Son, who laid down his life in obedience, but also
the suffering of the Father, who allowed his Son to die, and the suffering of
the Spirit of love and self-surrender. The nature of God, the Trinity, is
therefore revealed in the cross: "The unity of this account of Father, Son,
and Spirit on the cross can then a posteriori be termed "God." The word
"God" means an event, precisely this event."24
The "cry" may be an impenetrable mystery. Certainly the precise
meaning it had for Jesus, assuming its authenticity, is irrecoverable. We
have a better chance of understanding its meaning for Mark, however. In
keeping with our pursuit of the meaning of Jesus' death for Mark, I will
suggest an interpretation of Mark 15:34 which derives from the Markan
themes which culminate in it: 1) the abandonment of Jesus, the righteous
sufferer, and 2) the assurance of God's (and the risen Lord's) presence with
the persecuted community. Each of these themes must be traced briefly.
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is gradually abandoned by all his supporters. The religious and political leaders, who never supported him, plot
his death early on (3:6). His family apparently does not understand his
ministry (3:31-35). His home town rejects him (6:1-6), and even his disciples
do not understand him (4:40; 6:52; 8:17; 21; 29-33; 9:32). They seek glory,
while he is on his way to suffering (9:33-37; 10:28; 35-45); and they fail him
when he needs them (14:32-42). Ultimately, Judas betrays him (14:43ff.), the
disciples all flee (14:50), and even Peter denies him (14:66-72). The crowd
comes after him with swords and clubs (14:43), and Pilate, desiring to please
the crowd, hands Jesus over to be crucified (15:15). The soldiers mode him
(15:16-20), the spectators blaspheme him (15:29-30), and the two thieves
revile him (15:32b). Even the women who stood by the cross and watched
the burial fail to carry out the angelic commission in the end (16:8). Jesus'
abandonment by his Father, therefore, fits the pattern of progressive
betrayal and abandonment which pervades the Gospel of Mark. This
abandonment heightens Mark's emphasis on the significance of suffering,
but the abandonment by God proves not to be the last word.
588

The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

Review and Expositor

Mark is especially interested in affirming that the struggling church

should expect to suffer and should accept suffering as an opportunity for
expressing its commitment to Christ and his kingdom. John the Baptist
suffered and died (1:14; 6:14-29); Jesus suffered and died (cf. 8:31; 9:31;
10:32-34; 12:6-8): the disciples should therefore expect to suffer as well (4:17;
8:34-38; 10:29-30; 13:9, 11-13). They should not interpret their suffering as
abandonment by God, however. The Lord will come to the believers in the
midst of their turmoil, as he came to the disciples in the midst of the storm
(6:45-51). Persecution and distress are necessary, but the Son of Man will
come quickly to deliver the oppressed believers (13:14-27). The suffering of
Mark's community may have been heightened by the feeling that they had
been abandoned by their Lord, but Mark reminds them that Jesus had felt
abandoned in his suffering as well, and God, just as he was not acting to
prevent their suffering, had not acted to prevent Jesus' death. The suffering
would not be the end. Beyond the suffering of the obedient Jesus there was
the vindicating action of God. Beyond death there was resurrection. If the
community could identify with the suffering of its Lord, it could also draw
assurance from his resurrection. The Lord had not abandoned the persecuted
community; just as the Father had not abandoned His Son, although he had
felt abandoned.
God would accomplish through the suffering of Jesus and the distress of
the Christian community what he could achieve in no other way: the
disclosure of His nature as suffering love and the redemption of mankind,
which could come only through the power of that disclosure. The "cry of
dereliction," therefore, reveals the depth of suffering in both the Son and the
Father. It was the moment of Jesus' greatest agony. For Mark it was the
moment of the supreme disclosure of God's nature.
The Rending of the VeilMark 15:38
Immediately following the death of Jesus, Mark notes: "and the curtain
of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" (15:38). The way in
which this verse intrudes between verses 37 and 39 strongly suggests that it
has been placed here by Mark and is perhaps "a Markan supplement to the
foundation narrative."2" Even apart from the question of Mark's sources, its
intrusion in his narrative indicates the importance of verse 38 for Mark's
understanding of Jesus' death. Both the use of the passive voice and the
direction of the tear, i.e., from the top down, imply that this was God's
action. The reader of the Gospel understands that God has vindicated Jesus'
judgment on the temple. Nevertheless, the precise meaning of this verse is
surprisingly elusive. Progress in understanding it is best achieved by noting
the way in which it climaxes the temple motif in Mark.
589

From chapter 11 on, Jesus' opposition to the temple is a major concern

in Mark.26 From the Mount of Olives27 Jesus entered the Holy City and the
temple; its evening had come (11:11). The cleansing of the temple on the
next day is sandwiched in typical Markan fashion between two notices
concerning the cursing of the fig tree; the two events interpret one another.
Jesus cursed the fig tree even though it was not time for fruit. This reference
to the time of the year has theological overtones. It was not yet the time for
the inclusion of the Gentiles, since Jesus had not yet died; it was not yet the
time for judgment, since the eschaton had not yet arrived. The cleansing of
the temple was a prophetic sign of its eventual destruction. When, later,
Peter saw the withered fig tree, he remembered and observed that Jesus'
curse had been fulfilled. Likewise, one is to understand, when one sees the
destruction of the temple, he should remember the words of Jesus. Those
words are significant. Jesus quoted Isaiah 56:7 and alluded to Jeremiah
7:11; both passages deal with the temple. Jesus' opposition to the temple
rooted thus in both its failure to be a house of prayer and its exclusion of the
Gentiles. As will be shown later, Mark was intensely interested in the in
clusion of the Gentiles in the Christian community. While the temple cult
effectively excluded Gentiles from the worship of God by allowing commerce
in "their" court, the church would be "a house of prayer for all nations."28
Jesus also charged that the temple had become a "den of robbers." The
thieving money changers and merchants would find no asylum from their sin
in the sanctuary.29 The reference probably also relates to the events of
A.D. 68-70, when the temple was occupied by zealots and brigands.30 The
cleansing of the temple thus intensifies the opposition to Jesus and leads one
step further toward the cross.
The parable of the wicked husbandmen is related to the temple motif in
that the "tenants" are the religious leaders, who know that Jesus told the
parable about them (12:12). Because they killed his "beloved son" (11:6), the
Lord of the vineyard will take it away from the "tenants" and will give it to
others (11:9). Thereafter, Jesus agrees with the scribes' judgment on the
lesser value of the sacrifices in relation to love for one's neighbor (12:33-34)
and prophesies the destruction of the temple (13:2; cf. 13:14).
The most difficult development in the temple theme comes in the trial.
False witnesses testify: "We heard him say, will destroy this temple that
is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with
hands.' Yet not even so did their testimony agree" (14:57-59). The verses
present a tangle of problems which have yet to yield a very satisfactory
solution. Foremost is the question, "Why is the charge presented as false?"
Does Mark mean for his readers to understand it as false or as ironically or
590

The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

Review and Expositor

partially true? Probably the latter.31 Up to this point Mark has consistently
used the term hieron (11:11, 15, 16, 27, 12:35; 13:1, 3; 14:49). Here and in
the two succeeding references (15:29, 38) he uses naos; he does not use
hieron again. Apart from the question of whether there is any difference in
the meaning of the two words, the pattern of Mark's usage suggests that he
did not intend them to mean the same thing.32 A partial solution to the
perplexities of these verses emerges from observing that: 1) the witness is
false because Jesus had not said that he would destroy the templehis was
not a revolutionary movement; and 2) his declarations and prophetic actions
had concerned the hieron, not the naosJesus would not destroy the naos,
the sanctuary of God's presence; his death would open it to the Gentiles. On
the other hand, the hieron, the temple structure and cult, was condemned
and would soon be destroyed; at the cross it became obsolete. The temple
made with hands would be replaced by one not made with hands, i.e., the
church, Mark's church.33
Mark takes up the temple theme at the trial (14:58), the second mocking
(15:29), and the death of Jesus (15:38), because the significance of Jesus'
death cannot be understood apart from it. The rending of the veil indicates
that God confirmed Jesus' judgment on the temple. Its destruction was
sealed; so attention should focus on the church, the temple not made with
hands (cf. Jn. 2:19-21).
The rending of the veil also means that all now have access to God.
Interpreters are rather evenly divided on the question of whether the veil in
question was the inner veil concealing the holy of holies or the veil between
the forecourt and the sanctuary.34 Generally, those who choose the former
find the symbolism to indicate that now the way to the presence of God
through Jesus is open for all; those who choose the latter find a sign of the
destruction of the temple. Mark does not make it clear which curtain is
meant, nor does he give any indication that the meaning of the sign is
related to understanding which curtain was affected. Hence, while we would
like to know which curtain he had in mindassuming he knew of the two
curtainsthe information is not necessary for understanding the verse. The
splitting of the curtain may convey both of the meanings that have been
claimed for it: the destruction of the temple and access to God's mercy for
all peoples.
The vineyard had been given to others (12:9) and the temple had
become a house of prayer for all nations (11:17); it was appropriate for the
christological high point of the Gospel to follow immediately and to come
from a Gentile: "Truly this man was the Son of God" (15:39). Like the
breaking down of the "dividing wall of hostility" (Eph. 2:14-15), the rending
591

of the veil opened the way for the inclusion of Gentiles in the community of
believers.35
The Centurion's ConfessionMark 15:39
The centurion's confession, "truly this man was the Son of God,"36 is
the last interpretive element in Mark which defines and finally reveals the
significance of Jesus' death. As noted above,37 verse 39 connects with verse
37, and verse 38 disrupts the flow of the narrative. It was the manner of
Jesus' death, and specifically his last (victorious?) cry which prompted the
centurion's confession. Mark is precise about the position of the centurion
relative to the cross (literally, "he stands by over against Jesus" 38 ), but he
does not indicate why Jesus' cry led to the confession. The reader is well
aware, however, that he has reached the climax of Mark's revelation of
Jesus' identity. As we have noted,39 the crucifixion in Mark unfolds in three
acts, each of which presents both an event and the response to it. The
response to both Jesus' sentencing and his crucifixion was mockery (15:1620a and 15:29-32). What the mockers say is important because Mark intends
for the reader to understand that the vindication of Jesus by the phenomena
which accompany his death and by his resurrection shows that he in fact
was that which the unbelieving accomplices in his death refused to believe
about him. He was the king of the Jews (15:18), the one worthy of worship
(15:19), the one who would build a new temple and destroy the old (15:29),
the one who was able to save (15:31), and the Christ, the King of Israel
( 15:32).40 Just as the denial by Peter (predicted by Jesus in 14:30) confirmed
at the trial that Jesus was in fact a prophet in spite of the mockery (14:65),
so here the manner of Jesus' death and his ensuing resurrection confirm that
as the centurion said, "he was the Son of God." Mark underscores this point
by bringing the christological titles into the narrative at both the trial and
the mockings, just as he inserted the temple theme in both passages. 41 The
chief priest asked: "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed [a circumlocution for "Son of God"]" (14:61), and the chief priests mocked him by
calling him "the Christ, the King of Israel" (15:32). Finally, the Gentile
centurion sees what the chief priests, the religious leaders of Israel, were
unable to see: He was the Son of God! This is the disclosure, the "messianic
secret" Mark has been disclosing from the start. It was announced by Mark
in the opening verse of the Gospel,42 partially revealed by Peter at Caesarea
Philippi after Jesus' teaching on the kingdom and his miracles,43 revealed by
Jesus before the high priest (14:61-62), recognized by the centurion (15:39),
and confirmed by the demons (3:11; 5:7), and by God at the baptism of
Jesus (1:10) and at the transfiguration (9:7). It is clear, therefore, that the
centurion's confession of Jesus as the Son of God is the christological high
592

The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

Review and Expositor

point of the Gospel. The meaning of the confession, however, must be

defined by tracing its association with the "Son of Man" title in Mark, the
Gentile theme, and the emphasis on suffering.
Throughout the Gospel of Mark, the "Son of God" title seems to be
waiting in the wings for its moment on center stage.44 That moment arrives
at the confession of the centurion, but it arrives only after the reader has
been carefully prepared to understand the significance of the title. Up to this
point, the title has appeared only obliquely: in the superscription, in utterances of demons who are immediately silenced, and in epiphanic moments
which point ahead to the full disclosure of Jesus' identity. Jesus himself
avoided the title, consistently preferring "Son of Man."45 Even when asked
directly if he were the "Son of the Blessed" (14:61), Jesus answered in terms
of his role as the Son of Man (14:62). It was only in the light of his death on
the cross that his identity as the Son of God could be revealed without being
misunderstood. Mark, therefore, kept the title waiting in the wings until the
reader understood the significance of Jesus' suffering and the way in which
his power was disclosed in weakness (II Cor. 12:9). There could now be no
possibility that the Gospel could be used to foster a christology of glory
which allowed its adherents to avoid suffering.46
Mark emphasized the significance of Jesus' suffering and its necessity.
Immediately following Peter's confession, "You are the Christ" (8:29), Mark
structured three units in which Jesus predicts his suffering, the disciples
misunderstand and seek glory instead of suffering, and Jesus teaches that
self-denial and suffering are essential to true discipleship.47 The suffering of
the righteous Son of God is redemptive. Therefore, ironically, he could not
save himself if he were going to save others (15:31). The message to anyone
who desires to follow Jesus and enter into the coming kingdom is that
following Jesus means following in the way of the cross. It means self-denial
(8:34), the loss of property and family relationships (10:28-30), conflict with
oppressive power structures and institutional, religious authorities (13:9),
and faithful witness to "the gospel" in the midst of adversity (13:10-11). The
specific implications of Mark's message regarding what it meant to follow
the Messiah who had been executed by the Jewish and Roman authorities
would have been very clear to Mark's church when it read his Gospel during
or just after the war of A. D. 66-70. They are still clear today.
One other aspect of Mark 15:39 must be given due attention: It is not
by accident that the first person to confess that Jesus is the Son of God is a
Gentile. The text does not state that the centurion was a Gentile, but we
may safely assume that he probably was and that Mark's audience would
have understood him as such. He was a representative of the "Gentiles" to
593

whom Jesus was delivered (10:33), but he was also a representative of the
Gentiles to whom the gospel must be preached before the parousia (13:10)
and who would have a place in the new temple not made with hands (cf.
11:17). Just as the shadow of the cross falls back across the entire Gospel,
so the echoes of the centurion's confession can be heard throughout it. The
associations with the Son of God title and the teachings on suffering have
been traced. Associations with Jesus' acceptance of Gentiles into his new
community can also be seen.48
The references to Gentiles in Mark indicate that he understood that
Jesus by his example had himself launched the Gentile mission of the early
church. In an extensive Markan summary section (3:7-12) we find that Jesus
drew followers "from Idumea, and across the Jordan, and around Tyre and
Sidon" (3:8). After exorcising the demon legion from the Gerasene demoniac,
Jesus broke his pattern of commanding the ones he healed or exorcised to
"tell no one" (1:24-25, 34, 44; 3:12, 5:43; but also 7:36 [in the Decapolis])
and commanded the man to go to his house and his people and to tell them
what the Lord had done for him. Thereafter, the man preached in the
Decapolis, a primarily Gentile area (5:20). Mark stops short of lauding the
success of the ministry in the Decapolis, but notes that "all were marveling"
(5:20). According to Mark, when Jesus sent the twelve out on mission he did
not send them only to Israel (6:6b-13); Mark's silence at this point may be
significant in view of Matthew 10:5-6, which states that the disciples were
not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans but to Israel only. Then, just
following his account of Jesus' rejection of the traditions of the elders in 7:123, Mark tells how in Tyre the Syrophoenician woman, a Gentile, persisted
in her faith in Jesus and received healing for her daughter (7:24-30). This
pericope in turn introduces a period of ministry in Sidon and the area of the
Decapolis (7:31). Following the transitional story of the healing of the deaf
mute (7:31-37), which Mark may have intended to be illustrative of the way
in which Jesus was able to awaken faith in Gentiles; Mark adds the account
of the feeding of the four thousand (8:1-10). This feeding took place in a
Gentile area (cf. 7:31), and various references suggest that it was primarily a
feeding of Gentiles: four thousand who had come from afar (Gentiles from
each of the four corners of the earth), and seven baskets left over (a reference to the seven deacons of Acts 6 who were appointed, initially at least, to
feed the widows of the Hellenists?).49 Again, Mark probably understood the
"others" to whom the vineyard would be given (12:9) to include Gentile
Christians. Finally, the reference to the Gentile mission is explicit in 13:10.
This command is reminiscent of the words from the risen Lord elsewhere
(Mt. 28:19-20; Lk. 24:47; Acts 1:8; and in the second-century, longer ending
of Mark16:15). Mark may well have included this word of the risen Lord
594

The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

Review and Expositor

here since it was important to him; yet he did not plan to give an account of
a post-resurrection appearance in which it could be placed. These references
indicate clearly the importance to Mark of the inclusion of Gentiles in the
fellowship of the church. He took pains to be sure the readers of his Gospel
would see that their inclusion was ordained by Jesus himself. Hence, the
first person to perceive the true identity of Jesus was the Gentile centurion.
The centurion's confession stands as the climax of Mark's Gospel,
because it is the culmination of his revelation of the hidden identity of Jesus
as the Son of God. That revelation takes place only at his death, in the
context of his suffering; and it is a Gentile who first understands who Jesus
was, and is therefore in a position to begin true discipleship to him.
The Meaning of Jesus' Death in Mark
Our survey of the structure, accompanying phenomena, Markan themes,
and use of the Old Testament in the third act of Mark 15 has revealed the
rich significance Jesus' death had for Mark. Above all, the death of Jesus
revealed his identity as the Son of God and the nature of God as suffering
love. Only in his abandonment and agony was his divine nature clearly
revealed. Hence, the primary significance of the cross for Mark was
revelatory! This revelation carried with it several important consequences: It
demonstrated that Israel had been judged; the temple was condemned; and
the "way" was open for the gathering of a new community, a new temple
"not made with hands," i.e. the church. This community would be defined
by its faith in Jesus as the Son of God, its appropriation of the way of
suffering love in response to God's suffering love, and its inclusion of
Gentiles (all peoples) in its experience of God's mercy. The death of Jesus
was a moment of cosmic significance, for it revealed the nature of God and
charted the path for the future of those who were able to grasp its
significance. It assured the believing community which would gather in
response to its signal revelation that the Son of God would be with them and
vindicate them in the end in spite of their present sufferings. Jesus, the Son
of God, was none other than the Son of Man who would come in the future!
The Meaning of the Empty Tomb in Mark
After defining the meaning of Jesus' death for Mark, the question
naturally arises: What did the resurrection of Jesus mean to Mark? Why did
he end his Gospel with an account of the discovery of the empty tomb?
Space allows only a cursory discussion, but again study of the interpretive
devices planted in the narrative by its author yields suggestive insights. One
is struck by two impressions: 1) the narrative seems to be much less
developed than the narrative of Jesus' death, and 2) it serves only to
595

confirm and make explicit the message already conveyed by Mark's account
of Jesus' crucifixion. The resurrection is God's answer to the cry of
dereliction. Like the darkness and the rending of the veil, it is God's vindication of Jesus and his ministry.
The disciples failed utterly and abandoned Jesus (14:50). The Gentile
centurion and a Jewish councilor arranged for Jesus' burial (15:43-45), while
the women watched with concern. From such persons as these the new
community could be formed. It would be a community in which failures
could find forgiveness; the disciples and even Peter would be reconciled to
the risen Lord (16:7). The invitation to reconciliation, however, carried with
it an implicit commission, for Galilee is probably to be understood here both
literally and symbolically. It represents the place of the mission to both
Jews and Gentiles, the place of proclamation of the gospel, the place where
the new community would be formed.50
The young man (or angel) who appears at the tomb is the most obvious
interpretive device in Mark 16. The statement that he was "seated on the
right hand dressed in a white robe" (16:5) is not a casual reference. By his
dress and location the young man indicates that Jesus has left behind the
grave and the linen grave clothes,51 just as the young man left behind his
linen garment when he eluded would-be captors in the garden (cf. "linen"
[sindon] in 14:51-52; 15:46, and "white robe" in 9:3; 16:5).52 Similarly, the
reference suggests that by his suffering Jesus had attained the seat at the
right hand of power which his disciples had coveted (cf. 10:37; 12:36; 14:62).
The tomb was empty, for Jesus had ascended.53 But, he would appear again
to his disciples in "Galilee" and set them about the tasks for which he had
prepared them, and the events alluded to in chapter 13 would all take place
before his parousia as the Son of Man.54
The ending of Mark's Gospel is shocking.55 Why would anyone end such
a narrative with the words of Mark 16:8? The women's fear is not so puzzling; in Mark "fear" is the typical response of individuals who witness the
revelation of the Lord's power (cf. 4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 10:32). But why
does Mark say that they told no one? The question has perplexed every
interpreter of Mark, so any suggestion must be tentative. Associations with
earlier passages in Mark offer two possibilities. First, the women, like the
disciples, have failed to carry out the terms of their discipleship. The theme
of discipleship failure is therefore completed;56 every disciple stands in need
of grace. Second, as we have noted, Jesus often commanded those who had
witnessed the disclosure of his power in a mighty act to tell no one. Here,
for the first time, ironically, the command is obeyed. The supreme revelation
of the identity of Jesus as the Son of God remains the moment of his death,
not the morning of his resurrection. The power of the risen Lord must
596

The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

Review and Expositor

remain veiled in his suffering death. Still, the reader is shocked; how could
the women who had witnessed the death of Jesus (15:40) and who could
testify to the kernel of the kerygma, "He is risen" (16:6), go and not tell
anyone? Mark was a skillful writer. Perhaps shock and surprise were the
reactions he intended for the church to have, for now it knew everything the
women knew. So, the question comes home to haunt those who hear Mark's
Gospel. How could they, how can we, hear these words, go, and tell no one?
1
M. Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), gathers references from
primary sources, which demonstrate the brutality of crucifixion and illuminate what it would
have meant to preach a crucified savior in the first century.
2
Cf. J. R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? "Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation
Series," 10 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 173), pp. 190-191.
3
Space and time have not allowed me to present an adequate treatment of Mark's use of
the Old Testament in Mark 15:21-16:8. See H. C. Kee, "Scripture Quotations and Allusions in
Mark 11-16," The Society of Biblical Literature One Hundred Seventh Annual Meeting
Seminar Papers (1971), II, 475-502.
4
P. F. Ellis, "Patterns and Structures in Mark's Gospel," Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought, d. M. Ward (Somerville, Mass.: Greene, Hadden, & Co., 1975), p. 100,
cities other triads in Mark's Gospel and claims that Mark had a propensity for "thinking
three. "
8
See E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL.
Wilson (Philadelphia: Wesminster Press, 1963), I, 150, 184-185.

Cf. Gospel of Peter 22.

7
Mark repeatedly points an accusing finger at the powerful, especially the leaders of
Israel (3:6; 8:15, 31; 10:23-25, 33; 11:18; 12:13; 14:43, 53; 15:1, 31) and affirms the powerless
(a leper, 1:40-44; a paralytic, 2:5-10; tax collectors and sinners, 2:15-17; little ones, 9:42; a
widow, 12:42-44; a woman, 14:6-9).
* Cf. Gospel of Peter 15; "Now it was midday and a darkness covered all Judaea.1* (Italics
mine).
9
R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. J. Marsh (Rev. ed.; New
York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 273.
10
E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark, trans. D. H. Madvig (Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1970), p. 351; Donahue, Are You the Christ? p. 193; E. Linnemann, Studien zur
Passionsgeschichte (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), pp. 148-153; L. Schenke, Der
gekreuzigte Christus: Versuch einer literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Bestimmung
der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte, "Stuttgarten Bibelstudien," 69 (Stuttgart: KBW
Verlag, 1974), pp. 96-100; W. Schenk, Der Passionsbericht nach Markus (Gtersloh: Cterd
Mohn, 1974), pp. 55-56; J. Schreiber, Theologie des Vertrauens: Eine radaktionsgeschichtUche
Untersuchung des Markusevangeliums (Hamburg: Furche-Verlag, 1967), p. 25; G. Schneider,
Die Passion Jesu nach den drei alteren Evangelien, "Biblische Handbibliothek," Bd. XI
(Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1973), pp. 123-124; J. H. Reumann, "Psalm 22 at the Cross: Lament
and Thanksgiving for Jesus Christ," Interpretation, XXVIII (January 1974), 57: "In short,
we find the evidence and arguments for genuineness in the logion of Mark 15:34 to fall short of
definite proof that Jesus said it" (Reumann's italics).
n
V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan & Co., 1952), p. 594;
W. L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, "The New International Commentary" (Grand

597

Rapids: Wm. . Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 572-573; C. E. B. Cranfieki, The Gospel according to
Saint Mark, "The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary" (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1959), p. 458: "The view of Bultmann . . . is most improbable; for the early
Church is not likely to have invented Jesus' quotation of such words. . . We are on the
firmest historical ground here." H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, "New Century Bible
(London: Oliphants, 1976), p. 345, hedges on the point: "We should accordingly approach this
report [vss. 33-39] less with an eye to exact historical reconstruction than to its major con
tribution to the theological meaning for the Church of the event of the cross."
12
The latter argument was propounded by F. N. Schmieden It is rejected by D. E.
Nineham, The Gospel of Saint Mark, "The Pelican Gospel Commentaries" (Baltimore: Penguin
Books, 1963), p. 428; and Reumann, "Psalm 22 at the Cross," p. 57.
13
Lane, Mark, p. 572.
14
J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (4 Aufl.; Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1969), p. 373 . 64;
Nineham, Mark, p. 428.
16
Cf. J. Jeremas, New Testament Theology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971),
p. 189.
16
E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriohgy, "Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series," 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p.
100; Anderson, Mark, p. 346; Cranfield, Mark, p. 458; Lane, Mark, p. 573.
17
The quotation affirms Jesus' faith in his vindication: Nineham, Mark, pp. 427-428;
Schreiber, Theologie des Vertrauens, p. 163. R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, "Herders
theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament" (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), II, 494-495,
emphasizes that the cry is a prayer which expresses Jesus' faith even in his most extreme
need.
18
H. C. Read, "The Cry of Dereliction," Expository Times, LXVIII (1975), 260-262;
Cranfield, Mark, p. 458. Taylor, Mark, p. 594, responds that Jesus was not actually abandoned but merely felt abandoned: " . . . Jesus felt the horror of sin so deeply that for a time
the closeness of His communion with the Father was obscured."
19
For various interpretations of this verse see: C. K. Barrett, "The Background of Mark
10:45," New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 1-18; Anderson, Mark, pp. 256-258;
Cranfield, Mark, pp. 342-344; Nineham, Mark, pp. 280-281.
20
Cf. R. C. Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role,"
Journal of Religion, LVII (1977), 400-401.
21
J. Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism
of Christian Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), p. 147; cf. p. 149.
22
Ibid., p. 151.
23
Ibid., p. 152.
24
J. Moltmann, "The 'Crucified God': A Trinitarian Theology of the Cross," Interpretation, XXVI (1972), 295.
25
Taylor, Mark, p. 597.
2e
For recent discussions of the anti-temple theme in Mark, see: W. Kelber, ed., The
Passion in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 121-129, 168-172.
27
For the eschatological significance of the Mount of Olives, see Zech. 14:1-9; Ezek. 43:29; cf. Lane, Mark, p. 394.
28
Mark emphasizes Jesus' teachings on prayer (9:29; 11:24-25; 12:40; 13:33; 14:38) and
presents Jesus as an example for the disciples, i.e. Mark's church (1:35; 6:46; 14:32, 35, 39).
Cf. D. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, "Society of
Biblical Literature Dissertation Series," 31 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 135.

598

The Passion and Resurrection in Mark

Review and Expositor

29

P. J. Achtemeier, Mark, "Proclamation Commentaries" (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1975), p. 24: "The brunt of the accusation thus concerns the use to which the temple is put:
people think so long as the temple services are continued, they may retreat there, no matter
how they have acted outside its walls, and still find forgiveness and fellowship with God."
30
Juel, Messiah and Temple, p. 134 n. 22; G. W. Buchanan, "Mark 11.15-19: Brigands in
the Temple," Hebrew Union College Annual, XXX (1959), 177.
81
Cf. Donahue, Are You the Christ? pp. 72-77; Juel, Messiah and Temple, p. 121.
32
Cf. Juel, Messiah and Temple, p. 128; against O. Michel, "Naos," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, d. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), IV,
882.
38
Cf. Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 138-139, 143-157; Best, The Temptation and the
Passion, p. 99.
34
Inner veil: Anderson, Mark, p. 347; T. A. Burkill, "St. Mark's Philosophy of the
Passion," Novum Testamentum, II (1957-1958), 268 n. 1; Cranfield, Mark, pp. 459-460; C.
Schneider, "Katapetasma," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, III, 629-630;
Taylor, Mark, p. 596; H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus
Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1922), I, 1045. Outer veil: Donahue, Are You the
Christ? pp. 202-203; Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 140-142; Lane, Mark, pp. 574-575. Cf.
Testament of Levi 10:3-4; Testament of Benjamin 9:4.
38
See Nineham, Mark, p. 430; Best, The Temptation and the Passion, p. 99.
" The translation "a son of God" in the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible is
unfortunate. The absence of the definite article does not necessarily mean that the construction
is indefinite. See E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New
Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 12-21.
"See above, p. 589.
38
Taylor, Mark, p. 597.
39
See above, p. 584.
40
Cf. Best, The Temptation and the Passion, pp. 96-97.
41
Juel, Messiah and Temple, p. 72.
42
For a defence of the authenticity of "Son of God" in Mk. 1:1, see Cranfield, Mark, p.
38.
43
Mark's use of "Christ" in the Mk. 1:1 indicates that Peter's confession, while
inadequate, was not entirely wrong.
44
For recent studies of the title and its use in Mark, see: M. Hengel, The Son of God
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976); Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 77-83, 108-114; H. C.
Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1977), pp. 121-124.
46
See N. Perrin, "The Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark," Union
Seminary Quarterly Review, XXIII (1968), 357-365; Juel, Messiah and Temple, pp. 85-95;
Kee, Community of the New Age, pp. 129-139.
46
See T. J. Weeden, "The Cross as Power in Weakness," in The Passion in Mark, pp.
116-121, and his earlier monograph, MarkTraditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1971).
47
See the outline of Mark, pp. 619-622.
48
See Kee, Community of the New Age, pp. 92-97; and W. Kelber, The Kingdom in
Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 57-65, for
discussions of the Gentiles in Mark. Mark's interest in the Gentile mission is all the more
interesting if in fact the evangelist is John Mark and if John Mark withdrew from Paul's first
missionary journey because of the conversion of Gentiles, as I have argued elsewhere ["Paul's
Mission to the Gentile World: Acts 13-19," Review and Expositor, LXXI (Fall 1974), 488].

599

49

Cf. Lane, Mark, pp. 274-275.

For the impact and subsequent qualifications of the theses of E. Lohmeyer and R. H.
Light foot, see: G. H. Boobyer, "Galilee and Galileans in St. Mark's Gospel," Bulletin of the
John Rylands Library, XXXV (1953), 334-348; C. F. Evans, " I Will Go Before You into
Galilee," Journal of Theological Studies, V (1954), 3-18; Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark, esp.
p. 11; N. Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 26-27; and G. Stemberger, "GalileeLand of Salvation?" in W. D.
Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 409438.
61
Cf. J . D. Crossan, "Empty Tomb and Absent Lord," in The Passion in Mark, p. 148.
52
For a suggestive alternative interpretation, see Tannehill, "The Disciples in Mark," p.
403.
63
See C. H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1977), p. 42.
54
For convincing responses to the thesis that Mk. 16:7 points to the parousia rather than
a resurrection appearance, see: R. H. Stein, "A Short Note on Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7," New
Testament Studies, XX (July 1974), 445-462; N. R. Petersen, Literary Criticism for New
Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), pp. 76-77.
55
For a helpful synopsis of the various theses which have been advanced regarding the
interpretation of Mark 16:1-8, see J. E. Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of
the Gospel Tradition (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), pp. 88-89 . 266.
56
Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, pp. 27-32.
60

600

^ s
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(s)' 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 a journal
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.