For many scholars Mark, indeed all the Synoptics, lack an explicit teaching on Christ’s pre-existence that we encounter in the Philippians hymn (Phil 2:6-11) or John’s theologically profound prologue on the Logos. However, one scholar to challenge the consensus is Simon J. Gathercole in The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006). If you haven’t read it, you can listen to an audio-recording (part 1, part 2, part 3; HT Nick Norelli and Daniel James Levy), consult the RBL reviews with a highly critical one by James Dunn or the positive one by Frank J. Matera and see how various bloggers have interacted with him here, here, here, here, here. There is also criticism in Adela & John Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God. My focus will not be on the book as a whole but mainly the parts that pertain to Mark and my notes will be a summary of its contents. In future posts I will summarize books/articles with a very different take on Mark’s Christology but will probably leave my own thoughts or critique to the end of the series.
After an introductory review of scholarship (pp. 1-20) and a chapter arguing a pre-existence christology was widespread before 70 CE in passages such as Phil 2:6-8; 2 Cor 8:9; 1 Cor 15:47; Rom 10:6; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Gal 4:4; Rom 8:3; 1 Cor 10:4-5; Heb 1-2 (if one accepts a pre-70 date); Jude 1:5 (depending on the text-critical solution) (23-43), he moves to discuss examples of the heavenly transcendence of Christ in the Synoptics (46-79). So for Markan examples (i.e. excluding the Matthean/Lukan redaction such as “Emmanuel” or Luke’s revised call narrative of Peter)
- Jesus stands above the Twelve who symbolize Israel (55-56) and angels (Mk 13:37) (56).
- Forgives sins, which is not something priest or prophet could pronounce, nor is it a divine passive for the passage goes on to emphasize that the Son of Man “can” and “has authority” to forgive and one should not read too much into “on earth” as God also acts on earth (57-58).
- Accused of blasphemy for forgiving sins and at the trial for his claim to the heavenly throne (cf. b. Sanhedrin 38b) (59-61).
- Sea miracles as divine acts (Ps 107 [Ps 106 LXX]; Job 9:8 LXX; cf. ego eimi in Mk 6:50) (61-64)
- Jesus “Name” (Matt 28:20; 28:19) and use of ego eimi (I am) (Mk 13:6 par; Matt 7:22; 12:12) (65-67)
- The recipient of obeisance/worship. There is little evidence in Mark though the Leper and rich man fall on their knees and Jairus at Jesus’ feet (Mk 1:40; 10:17; 5:22) (69-70)
- Supernatural knowledge into people’s thoughts (cf. Marcus, Mark 1-8, p. 222) (70-71)
- “Why do you call me good” seems to distance Jesus from God, but Jesus goes on to issue a command alongside the divine commandments and thus shares in the divine goodness (74)
These passages may imply a transcendent status for Jesus, but the heart of his case is part two on the “I have come” sayings (p. 84 lists 10 sayings: Mk 1:24 [par Lk 4:34]; Matt 18:29; Mk 1:38 [Lk 4:33]; Mk 2:7 [par Matt 9:13/Lk 5:32]; Matt 5:17; Lk 12:49; Matt 10:34/Lk 12:51; Matt 10:35; Mk 10:45 [par Matt 20:28]; Lk 19:10; p. 86 on Nag Hammadi). These usually have “I have come” (ēlthon) (alternatively “the Son of Man,” “you”) + purpose clause in the infinitive (exception Mk 1:38). He excludes 3 sayings - in Matt 11:19a/Lk 7:34 the emphasis is not on “came” but on on the modus vivendi of Jesus and John and has no infinitive of purpose (88-9); Lk 9:55 has text-critical issues (89-90) and Mk 1:45 probably a reference to the Leper (90-91). Although he sees an initial plausibility to the pre-existence option as it implies a “coming” from somewhere (86-87), ch. 4 (92-111) disputes all the “false perspectives” on the formula:
- Hellenistic prophets (cf. Bultmann) with the parallel of Vespasian in Josephus War 3.400 (but Josephus is speaking about one episode in Vespasian’s life rather than his whole life and ministry [p. 96]) and Origen Against Celsus 7.9 (but Celsus is parodying Christian claims and his prophets claim to be divine [p. 96-98]) (95-99)
- Aramaic idiom for “I am here”, “I will”, “it is my task” (Jeremias), but its problems have been exposed elsewhere and it should not be imported to Greek Gospels (99-100)
- … from Nazareth. This may only be possible for a few of Mark’s sayings but is still questionable (e.g., Mk 1:38 is hardly Jesus’ movement out of obscurity if he is just sticking to small villages but rather his purpose in coming to minister).
- Prophetic commission (cf. 1 Sam 16:1-5). But others “come” out to offer the sacrifice and the emphasis is on David who comes out to be annointed (103-4). The other example is Pesikta Rabbati 20, but it does not emphasize Moses’ prophetic status but the unique function of his ascent to heaven to receive Torah.
- The Messiah (cf. Isa 61; the Baptist’s “coming one”). But the formula does not emphasize the coming per see (i.e. Jesus’ coming or presence as fulfilling prophecy) but rather the goal of the coming and there is little specific messianic functions in the sayings (107-8)
- An epiphany (Dibelius). But “come” cannot be construed as some kind of technical term and proponents are too vague on what they mean by epiphanic (108-9)
- A leader’s boast. Gathercole sees this as a frivolous suggestion and one potential example (e.g. Julius Caesar’s veni, vidi, vici) is again a single episode rather than whole purpose (109-10)
The best parallel Gathercole can find is for angels (113-47), the heavenly Elijah (137-141) and God’s own coming (or the Angel of YHWH = a divine theophany) (141-45). They come from heaven with prior intent and sum up their mission with this formula and make up the best parallel to the sayings of the gospels that imply Jesus came from heaven (113-16). He also later notes that the early reception of these sayings took it in an incarnational sense (Heb 10:9; Jn 1:9; 3:19; 6:14; 16:28; 18:37) (174). Turning to the Synoptics (148-76), lets examine his exegesis of specific Markan sayings. He sees the “us” in Mk 1:24 as not just a reference to the name “Legion” or the plurality of demons residing in the man but to the whole demonic realm, the purpose of which Jesus’ came to destroy and the demons recognize his supernatural origin as the “holy one” (cf. Deut 32:3; Ps 89:6, 7; Dan 4:17; Zech 14:5) (152). Mk 1:38 is not just a local task (e.g. 1:9 from Nazareth, 1:34 from a house) but his whole purpose of proclaiming the kingdom for which he was sent (cf. Lk 4:43) and coming forth implies from somewhere (147). A local sense is unlikely in 2:17 where his mission is to save sinners (158). Mk 10:46 sums up Jesus’ entire “first” coming and carries the implication that Jesus did not exercise his right to be served, a right no mere prophet could assume (167-68). He does note that the parable of the tenants both the servants (i.e. prophets) and the son are sent by the tenant owner, but he argues that Mark already revealed Jesus’ heavenly identity as son in the baptism and transfiguration and so readers would bring heavenly resonances to the sending of the son which they would not for the commission of the prophets (188). Much of the rest deals primarily with Matthew (i.e. critiquing the identification of Jesus with divine wisdom, Christ’s presence in Israel’s history) or Luke (the Anatolē from on high); here are a few notes from his chapters on the traditional titles (Messiah, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man) as they pertain to Markan passages. Regarding the debate over whether the Christ is David’s son or his Lord in 12:35-37, he sees a critique of the idea that the Messiah was merely David’s son when his lineage was more exalted and the passage may even suggest that the Lord was addressing him in primeval time (cf. Hebrews interpretation of Ps 110 and the heavenly Melchizedek) (236-38). Along with 1:2-3, he entertains the option that the quoted scriptures are addressed to the Son from the Father outside of narrated time in eternity past or at least that 12:35-37 may hint at the Messiah’s pre-existence at the time of David, though he admits that this is inconclusive and may point to Jesus’ eschatological lordship (250-52). 5:19-20, like 1:2-3 and 2:28, present Jesus already as the exalted Lord and very closely identified with Yahweh (244). After covering some of the history of research on the Son of Man as a pre-existent heavenly being (254-58), he notes the fit with the expectation that the Son of Man ought to be served and from where he “came” in 10:45 (259). As for Son of God, this identity is recognized by supernatural agents and miraculously by the centurion (273). Son of God could just be a royal title but this Son of God shares in the divine holiness in the battle against evil (cf. Mk 1:24), causes demons to confess and bow down before him, is proclaimed as such by God on the mount of transfiguration with his shining clothes/appearance and accompaniment by heavenly figures (Moses, Elijah) suggesting he belongs to their world, is revealed to be of heaven origins (12:34-37), is above the angels (13:32) and is divinely sent (12:6) (276). There is more but that should give an idea of how Gathercole sees a transcendent, pre-existent Christ even in the pages in Mark, so let me know what you think are the strengths and weaknesses of his case.
Speaking of Jesus in Mark starting only with Jesus’ baptism and Jesus looking up and seeing the spirit descending on him and God calling Jesus “my son,” someone wrote a monograph on the topic of adoption in first century Rome, and how seriously they took such matters, making the adopted son literally their own son, and how Mark reflects that first century Roman idea. Fascinating detailed monograph, though I can’t recall it’s name, nor all the examples cited in it or even the author’s name, though I made a copy. It came out only a few years ago, maybe three.
As you said, it’s not obvious that anyone is worshiping Jesus in Mark, they are in awe, but not worshiping him. Even during the transfiguration scene, Moses and Elijah are not worshiping Jesus though, being on the “other side,” they of all people must know Jesus is God, or might even have worshiped him “as God” before he “came down” from heaven (that is if that’s what Mark wanted to portray). Yet no point is made other than that Jesus shone brightly like Moses’ face once did and spoke with Moses and Elijah, nobody is prostrating themselves. Jesus may be greater than them, the final greatest miracle working prophet and teacher, but it doesn’t look like he’s God at that point in the earliest Gospel.
Also in Mark, Jesus is depicted as doing his work via the power of God’s Holy Spirit which enters him at his baptism, when a hymn of coronation is employed. “Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness” Later in Mark Jesus is depicted saying, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven,” I see Jesus in Mark as being specially animated by God’s Spirit, but not particularly worried that people might blaspheme Jesus himself.
As for “the Son of God” passages, that is not the same as calling Jesus “God, the Son.”
On forgiveness, Mark 1:4, “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” I bet it’s possible he reassured people as soon as they came out of the water, “your sins are forgiven.”
Also in Mark 2:5 note that it says, “When Jesus saw THEIR faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Compare Mark 11:25, “And when you stand praying, if YOU hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” It’s important not conjure up later Christian doctrinal definitions of “faith” and “forgiveness” or a list of latter Christian beliefs “about” Jesus. And the story continues with, “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” That simply leads to the whole Son of Man question, but nobody has yet pulled “The Trinity” out of The Son of Man hat. At most we get the Son of Man in Daniel or Enoch or as a self-referential term of humility, again, NEVER the Trinity, nor “God the Son.”
And since Mark puts the charges of blasphemy and “being equal with God” in the mouths of Jesus’ opponents isn’t THAT telling us something about Mark’s Christology? Because who misunderstood Jesus more than his opponents? Compare THAT with how Mark depicts those who approved of Jesus rather than his opponents, When Jesus entered Jerusalem they shouted, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” So the people who approved of Jesus are not depicted as imagining Jesus being guilty of blasphemy.
Jesus could indeed have been thought of as a heavenly anointed one, filled with the Spirit and exemplifying God’s wisdom like no other, the final end times prophet with more wonder working power than Moses and Elijah or Elisha, and there was indeed a two thrones view back then that the Pharisees opposed, of two thrones in heaven, not just God’s but one for the ultimate Messiah as well, but again, that wasn’t Trinitarianism, there was no “God, the Son.”
Seeking IMPLIED clues in Mark that he held a high Christology is a nice game, but no implied connection provides its own sure interpretation.
Obviously the author was connecting Jesus with God and with “Son of Man,” and “Son of God” ideas. But no such connections proves that Mark thought Jesus WAS God. No title given Jesus is the same title as God (“Emmanuel” is used in the O.T. as a child’s name and a sign in Isaiah’s day that God was with King Hezekiah and his successful defense of Jerusalem, and many Hebrew names had “God” in them, but it doesn’t mean they were God). And Jesus in Mark is “given” authority.
It remains of interest to me that Paul’s Christology could be as high as it is in places, while Mark is never that explicit, and the interpretation of Mark remains a battleground. Actually, some of Paul’s passages remain a battleground as well. Is Paul’s hymn in Philippians about Jesus as equal to “God” or is it about Jesus as the “form/morphe of God” (just as Adam was in the form/image of God ), but Jesus is a second Adam who is obedient (unlike Adam in the garden who was disobedient and sought the forbidden fruit that would make him equal with God), but Jesus, this second Adam does not think “equally with God is something to be grasped” (which turns the Genesis story upside down finally, per Paul’s harping on Adam in Romans, etc.). So what is Philippians really saying? Paul also apparently speaks about God separate from Jesus. But Jesus is no doubt held in the highest esteem and compared with God’s wisdom during an age when wisdom-language was applied to the Torah, the Temple, whatever people felt drew them to God.
Thanks Ed for all these comments and apologies for the delay in responding. Most of the points above are just me trying to reproduce the argument of the book whether I agree with them or not. I agree it is not that obvious that Jesus is worshipped in Mark rather than just shown a certain degree of reverence by other human and spiritual beings as God’s chosen agent (one major difference is how the disciples hearts are hardened after Jesus walks on water in Mark versus how they give him obeisance in Matthew and declare his divine sonship). I think you make some good points on Mk 11:25 as a possible parallel and whether Jesus’ opponents should be understood as reliable characters on the forgiveness question, though obviously the debate over the meaning of the “Son of Man” title and if Dan 7 and further developments (Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra) has influenced it. I think there is a lot I agree with how you summarize Mark’s christology: end times prophet, filled with wisdom, Messiah who will sit on a heavenly throne. But I still debate back and forth in my head whether Paul is moving beyond the Jewish concept of agency to a full binitarianism while perhaps the Synoptic tradition preserves some of the earliest christology? The Philippians hymn does seem pretty high to me as it seems to imply pre-existence (Jesus gave up a status he once had to become a servant and be found as a human) and not sure morphe is ever used for Adam as in the image of god and then there is Jesus not only receiving the divine name (probably kurios) but also universal acclamation in an Isaiah passage that was originally referring to Yahweh.
Hi Mike I agree the Philippians hymn appears to be Paul’s highest Christological statement, and it does not appear to directly parallel Paul’s Adam-Christ connection in Romans. I shared another view of the background to the Philippians Hymn in a comment left on a more recent post on your site: http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/seelyphl.html
I do wish we had copies of the original letters of Paul, because some things in them seem to stand out more than others like the Philippians Hymn, 1 Cor chapter on agape/love, 1 Cor 15 list of people to whom Jesus appeared. And I wonder how much of those “stand-out” items are from Paul, or earlier compositions Paul was citing, or even later insertions made into Paul’s letters (with at least partial edits added later).
The trouble with the hymn of course is that morphe seems to refer to outward appearances, even in the Septuagint. So Paul never defines Jesus as God and continues to keep them separate in name. Jesus had an appearance like God. And you can’t ignore the following passage in the same hymn where it says Jesus adopted the appearance of a slave. Same word, morphe. So what was Jesus exactly, behind his shifting changes in appearance? Paul doesn’t say. Maybe they didn’t have a word for it, not an angel but a sort of archetype of all human beings who pre-existed? Though the prophet Jeremiah was also said to have a sort of pre-existence, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” And, in Second Temple Judaism even the Torah was said to have a pre-existence in heaven! I’m unsure if they spoke about the Temple that way too.
And yes, Mark might preserve some earlier pre-Philippian, form of Christology. Speaking of which, we don’t know exactly when Philippians was composed, was it before 1 Thess., Romans and 1 Corinthians? I suspect it might have been composed last of all, when Paul’s churches were already taking root, and some prophet inside them wrote the hymn about Jesus that Paul added to his letter. It’s seems obvious to me that when people start adding to stories to make them more glorious that pre-existence is a natural progression, i.e., that something is so amazing it must have been amazing even from its start, even from before it’s start. The Hebrews likewise employed hyperbole about their badness, not just their goodness, as in the saying in the Psalms about being a sinner from my mother’s womb, since the Psalmist wants to detract from himself as much as he can, so he pre-dates his sinfulness to the womb to self-abase himself that much more. So when glorifying someone with a hymn the opposite hyperbole occurs, they are great from before they were born, from before they came to earth. Hyperbole seems to come naturally to religion.
The reference to the passage in Isaiah in the Philippians hymn says:
GOD exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of GOD the Father.
As I said, if Jesus was himself God, then God is raising God by his own bootstraps. Paul never says that. And also if Jesus was God then He has always been in the Highest place to start with and finish with, instead of having to be raised up to get there. Paul always distinguishes between God and Jesus, but connects worship of Jesus as a way to give God glory. Jesus is like the ark of the covenant, like the Temple, you don’t wanna f*ck w/ the ark or the Temple, and you need both to feel connected with God.
[...] being pre-existent, and that’s what is occurring with Jesus when he came or was sent (see here for a response to that sort of argument). Dunn also does not think that the title “Son of [...]
[...] at Euangelion Kata Markon, a discussion is going on about the Christology of Mark (which bleeds into the other Synoptics). [...]