1985 - francis watson - the social function of mark's secrecy theme

7/27/2019 1985 - Francis Watson - The Social Function of Mark's Secrecy Theme

1/22

http://jnt.sagepub.com/

the New TestamentJournal for the Study of

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/7/24/49.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X8500702404

1985 7: 49Journal for the Study of the New TestamentFrancis Watson

The Social Function of Mark's Secrecy Theme

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Testament Journal for the Study of the NewAdditional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1985Version of Record>>

by guest on January 28, 2013jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/7/24/49.citationhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/7/24/49.citationhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/7/24/49.full.pdfhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/content/7/24/49.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/7/24/49.citationhttp://jnt.sagepub.com/


2/22

49

THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF MARKS SECRECY THEME

Francis Watson

Kings College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS

The recent publication of a collection of essays on Marks messianic

secret 1 reveals how far we still are from a consensus as to the

meaning of this puzzling theme. However, it is perhaps fair to saythat two of the views represented there have not gained widespreadsupport: the conservative view that the secret is to be interpretedhistorically in the context of Jesus ministry (Dunn2), and the viewthat it seeks to explain the failure of Israel to believe the gospel

(Burki113).There appear to be two main ways of interpreting Marks

secrecy theme: first, the view that its various aspects do not form a

coherent whole, and must be interpreted individually (Luz, Raisanen,

Robinson~), and second, the view that it states Marks understandingof the history of revelation, according to which Jesus is trulyrevealed as the Son of God only in his death and resurrection

(Strecker, Schweizer, DahI5). Some overlap between the two views is

possible: those who distinguish the messianicsecret

from themiracle secret may interpret the former in terms of the history ofrevelation view.

It is the purpose of the present article to argue in opposition to

these two views (1) that Marks secrecy theme is coherent; (2) that itis concerned not with the history of revelation but with a doctrine of

predestination; and (3) that this must be understood in terms of its

social function within Marks community.

1. The Coherence of Marks Secrecy Theme

The secrecy injunctions in Mark fall into two main groups: (i)Injunctions which are explicitly christological. Jesus commands the

http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/http://jnt.sagepub.com/


3/22

50

demon in the synagogue in Capernaum (1.24f.), the demons ingeneral (1.34; 3.11) and the disciples (8.30; 9.9) not to tell anyone ofhis identity as the Holy One of God (1.24), the Son of God (3.11;9.7) and the Christ (8.29). (ii) Injunctions in connection withmiracles. The leper (1.44), Jairus and his wife (5.43) and the deaf manand his companions (7.36) are all commanded to be silent about themiracles ofwhich they are the beneficiaries. In 8.26, the man whose

sight is restored is told, Do not even enter the village, and this is alsoprobably to be regarded as an injunction to secrecy. In 1.45 and

7.36f., it is said that the command was disobeyed, and this is in

keeping with the tendency of the Markan miracle stories to stress thefame gained by Jesus as the result of his miracles (1.27f., 32-34, 36f.,45; 2.12; 5.20f.; 6.14f., 53-56; 7.36f.).~These two different types of secrecy injunctions probably have

their origin in contemporary Hellenistic exorcistic and magicalpractices. In Mk 1.25, the command to silence is simply part of themeans by which the exorcist defeats the evil spirits use of the

apotropaeic power of miraculous knowledge (Theissen), and thusprobably belongs to the pre-Markan tradition (cf siopa, pephl*mo-so in

4.39, where nothing is said about keeping a secret). But 1.34 and3.lit

(whichare both

partof redactional

summaries)indicate how

Mark understood this feature of the tradition as an injunction to

secrecy about Jesus messiahship:9 He would not permit the demonsto speak, because they knew him (1.34). Thus, a traditional exorcisticmotif is transformed into a command to the demons to keep Jesusidentity secret, and this command is extended to the disciples in 8.30and 9.9.

In the case of the secrecy injunctions after miracles, G. Theissenhas convincingly argued that they derive from the idea of secret,miracle-working magic words, or rhesis barbarik.lo He argues onstructural grounds that in the pre-Markan tradition underlying Mk

5.42f., the secrecy injunction followed the miraculous words, talitha

koum; thus, The presence of a magic word and a command to

secrecy in the same passage is no accident.&dquo; The same conjunction

of motifs is found in 7.34-36, where the secrecy injunction follows themagic word, ephphatha.12 In both cases, the secrecy motif is thereforetraditional.Although there is no magic word in 1.40ff., Theissenalso regards the secrecy injunction in 1.44 as traditional: it reflectsthe Jewish Christian communitys outward conformity to the MosaicLaw (cf Mt. 17.24ff ), and the fact that those who wanted to take



4/22

51

partin

Jewish worshipwere wise to

keeptheir

Christianitysecret

(cf Jn 9.1ff.).13 In the case of 8.26, Theissen argues that an originalword of dismissal has been transformed by the insertion of a

negative: in the original, the man is taken out of the village (v. 23),healed (vv. 24f), and sent home into the village (cf v. 26).As in

5.19f., Mark regards home as a place of secrecy. 14As with the christological secret, Marks miracle secret thus

represents a transformation of traditional motifs. But the secrecyinjunctions in their present form are largely the product of Marks

redaction, 15 and this raises the question of whether both types of

injunction have the same meaning for Mark-i.e. whether themiracle secret is part of the messianic secret, or whether the two

themes are independent. U. Luz argues in favour of the latter view.

Following H.J. Ebeling, 16 he asserts that in Marks view the miracle

is testimony intended for the public.17 Thus, in 1.45 and 7.36f thesecrecy injunctions are broken: The silence simply underlines thefact that the miracle cannot be kept hidden.18 Such a view could beseen as tending in the direction of the hellenistic theios aner (&dquo;divineman&dquo;) conception.19 But the miracle secret is balanced by themessianic secret, whose purpose is to show that Jesus majesty can

only be understood in the light of the cross which is united with theresurrection. 20

But there are two reasons why the miracle secret should be seen as

part of the messianic secret, and not as independent: (1) the miraclesare messianic-for the disciples they are signs pointing to Jesuss true

identity; (2) despite the publicity motif in the miracle stories,

Jesuss identity is concealed from the crowds.

(1) Jesusis manifested as the Christ to his

disciples throughhis

miracles.21 This is indicated by the close relationship between 8.14-21 and Peters confession of Jesus as the Christ in 8.27-30. 8.14ff

opens with a description of the disciples anxiety about lack of food

(vv. 14, 16), and in vv. 17-21 Jesus attacks their blindness and lack offaith in his miracle-working power. 22 He has twice before performedstupendous feeding miracles (vv. 19-20), and the implication is that

he is able to do so again if necessary. The passage ends on a note ofdissonance: Do you not yet understand? (v. 21). In the context of anattack on the disciples anxiety about lack of food, this must mean:Do you not know that I have the power to meet your needs? Verse

18 has described the disciples as blind, and vv. 22-26 describe the

restoration of sight to a blind man. This is probably to be understood



5/22

52

symbolicaRy,23as an illustration of the

disciplestransition from

blindness (8.14-21) to sight (8.27-30). If the three passages arelinked in this way, then the question of 8.14-21, Do you not believein my power to work miracles?, is answered by Peters confession,You are the Christ (v. 29). Indeed, 8.29 should be seen as theculmination of Marks argument so far; Peters confession does notarise out of nothing, but is a response to the miracles of which the

narrative has been so full. If Mark does not intend the miracle storiesto prove his claim that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God (1.1),then it is hard to see why he has made so much use of them. Thus,

Jesus is manifested as the Christ in his miracles; for the disciples,they are signs pointing to his messiahship. Unbelief responds to themwith sheer astonishment and incomprehension: Who then is this,that even wind and sea obey him? (4.41); And they were utterly

astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but theirhearts were hardened (6.Slb-52). But faith responds to them withthe confession, You are the Christ. For Mark, miracles and messiah-

ship are inextricably linked, and so injunctions to secrecy aftermiracles are implicitly injunctions to secrecy about Jesus messiahship.The miracle secret is thus a part of the messianic secret, and

should not be separated from it.

(2) Even when the secrecy injunctions are broken (1.45; 7.36f),Jesus identity is concealed from the crowds. In non-Markan miracle

stories, onlookers frequently respond to miracles by bestowingexalted titles on the miracle-worker (Lk. 5.8; Mt. 12.23; 14.33; Jn1.49; 6.14; 9.35-38;Acts 8.10; 14.llf- 16.30; 28.6).24According toMatthew, the disciples responded to Jesus walking on the water withthe

words, Truly youare

the Son ofGod (14.33). In John,the

peopleacclaim the feeding miracle by saying, This is indeed the prophetwho is to come into the world (6.14). There is no such titularacclamation in the Markan parallels to these passages or in any otherMarkan miracle stories.25 Jesus fame spreads everywhere as a resultof his miracles, and those who hear of them exclaim, He has done all

things well (7.37). Yet these miracles do not lead to perception of

Jesus identity but to misunderstanding: some think he is John theBaptist, others, Elijah, others, one of the prophets (8.28; cf 6.14-16).Although the injunctions of 1.44 and 7.36 are disobeyed, the messianicsecret (which is their true meaning) is preserved. The publicitymotif therefore cannot be used as a means to distinguish between amiracle secret and a messianic secret, for the miracle secret is



6/22

53

simply one aspect of the messianic secret. Contrary to the view of anumber of scholars, Marks secrecy injunctions form a coherentwhole.

But it is often argued that in the later chapters of Mark, the secrecytheory is put under increasing strain: 16 Jesus is acclaimed as the Sonof David by Bartimaeus ( 10.47f.), and his entry into Jerusalem islinked by the crowds to the kingdom of our father David that is

coming (11.10). He speaks of himself as the Son (12.6-8); heacknowledges that he is the Christ before the high priest (14.62); athis death, he is acclaimed by the centurion as Son of God (15.39).The latter two passages may be explained on the history of revelation

view if one shifts the emphasis from the resurrection (Wrede) to thecross as the place where secrecy is brought to an end and revelationoccurs. But what of the other passages?

In the case of the Davidic references, one might argue that thecrowds attempt to silence Bartimaeus is for the evangelist and

expression of the secrecy theme. 27 One might also point to the

vagueness of the language in 11.9f, and conjecture that it has

replaced an earlier, definite acclamation ofJesus as the Son of David

(cf Mt. 21.9, 15).28 But the solution is more probably that for Markthe title Son of David

representsas

inadequatea

christologyas the

identification of Jesus with John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the

prophets (cf 6.14-16; 8.28). His polemic against it could not beclearer: How can the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?

David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son? (12.35, 37).9Certainly the Epistle of Barnabas understands the argument as a

polemic against this title:

Since therefore they are going to say that the Christ is Davids son,David himself prophesies, fearing and understanding the error ofthe sinners, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right handuntil I make thy enemies thy footstool ... See how David calls himLord and does not say Son (12.10-11, Loeb translation).

The fact that elsewhere in the New Testament Jesus is referred to as

Son of David (or of the seed of David)30 is not a sufficient reasonfor holding that Mark and the tradition he is using must have sharedthat view. Rom. 1.3 is the only certain evidence for the early use ofthis idea, and the difficulties it caused for Matthew and Luke suggestthat it was not in universal use in the early church: (i)Artificial (andcontradictory) genealogies have to be constructed (Mt. 1.1-17; Lk.



7/22

54

3.23-38). (ii) Theseare

themselves contradicted by the story of thevirgin birth; Mt. 1.16 and Lk. 3.23 show that the evangelists wereaware of this difficulty. The circles in which the virgin birth storywas formed evidently did not hold that Jesus was descended fromDavid. (iii) Jesus was from Nazareth, not Bethlehem. In order to linkhim with Bethlehem, Matthew has to assert that Jesus familyoriginally lived in Bethlehem but had to leave because of the hostility

of Herod, whereas Luke has Jesus family living in Nazareth butvisiting Bethlehem for the census. The artificiality of the link withDavid is obvious. John apparently did not know of it; some of the

people respond to the claim that Jesus is the Christ by objecting, Isthe Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the

Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the

village where David was? (Jn 7.41f.). The polemic against the titleSon of David in Mk 12.35-37 should therefore not be watered down.

For Mark, the title Christ is identified not with Son of David butwith Son of God;31 Christ and Son (of God) are interchangeable(1.1, 10; 3.11; 8.29; 9.7, 41; 12.6; 13.32; 14.61). The messianic secretis not endangered by the acclamation of Jesus as Son of David.

In 12.6-8 Jesus directly refers to himself as Son. This takes placein the context of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants

(12.1-12),and

here the parable theory of 4. lit must apply: the parable is intendedto blind the eyes of those who are outside, so as to prevent them from

repenting and being forgiven. They perceive only that the parable(whose true meaning is mysterious to them) is directed against them,and this leads to an attempt to arrest Jesus (12.12); the parable hashardened their hearts, in accordance with 4.l lf. The secret ofJesus

identity is again preserved.The view that Marks secrecy theme is inconsistent should there-

fore be rejected. There is no distinction between a messianic secretand a miracle secret, for the miracles are for the disciples signspointing to Jesus divine sonship, although they do not disclose his

identity to the crowds. Nor is the secrecy theme contradicted by thereferences to Davidic kingship and the Son in the parable; the secret

ofJesus identity remains intact.

2. Secrecy and Predestination

The secrecy injunctions thus form a unity, and we must now turn tothe question of their significance within Marks purpose. We have



8/22

55

seen that the miracles disclose Jesus identity to the disciples, but thatit is concealed from the crowds, and this suggests that the secrecyinjunctions arise from a doctrine of predestination: saving knowledgeis granted to the chosen few but withheld from the rest. But amongthose who accept the coherence of the secrecy theme, it is widely heldthat its purpose is to differentiate not between two different groups of

people but between two chronological epochs: the time of secrecy

(Jesus earthly ministry) and the time of revelation (Jesus deathand/or resurrection), at which his identity as Christ and Son ofGodis disclosed. On this view, the key to the secrecy theme is 9.9:32 Andas they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell noone what they had seen, until the Son of man should have risen fromthe dead. Thus, according to G. Strecker, the secret is limited intime and

belongsto past history.As such, it has validity only for the

life of Jesus. 33 The secrecy theme is an essential expression of atheology of salvation history.34According to N.A. Dahl, The Easterevents place a dividing-line between the period when Jesus lived asthe hidden and misunderstood ,Messiah, and the time when he is

openly proclaimed as the Crucified and Risen One.35But the mention of a time-limit to secrecy in 9.9. should be

regarded as the exception rather than the norm.36 It is accepted bymany scholars that the story of the transfiguration was originally a

resurrection-story which was placed within the earthly life of Jesus ata later date. 31 In addition to the usual arguments,3~ the followingpoints are worth emphasizing: (i) There can be no doubt that 2 Pet.1.17f understands the transfiguration as a post-resurrection story.The brief narrative is prefaced with the words, When he received

honour and glory from God the Father ... , and this can only be areference to the resurrection; cf Heb. 2.9 (We see Jesus ... crownedwith glory and honour), 1 Pet. 1.21 ( ... who raised him from thedead and gave him glory), and 1 Tim. 3.16 (taken up in glory). (ii)Other stories are found in two versions, one in Jesus earthly life, theother after his resurrection: the miraculous catch of fish (Lk. 5.1-11;

Jn 21.1-8), and Peter walking on the water (Mt. 14.28-31; cf Jn 21.7).There is therefore no reason why a resurrection story should nothave been placed in Jesus earthly life. (iii) There are several parallelswith the ascension story in Acts 1.9-12, notably the cloud, the

mountain, and the two men in white robes.39 The latter might havebeen identified with Moses and Elijah because of the tradition that

these two figures were taken up bodily into heaven. 40



9/22

56

If this iscorrect,

then 9.9 is

probablyan

apologeticdevice intended

to explain why the transfiguration (now seen as an event within

Jesus earthly life) had once been regarded as a post-resurrectionstory :41 it took place during his earthly life, but the disciples obeyedhis command not to make it known until after the resurrection, and

so the misunderstanding arose. 16.8 may perform a similar functionfor the story of the empty tomb, explaining why the story was not

part of the earliest preaching: the women were too afraid to tellanyone of their experience.42 Both pasages are analogous to theapocalyptists device of disguising the recent origin of their visions byclaiming that they are ancient but have only now come to light.Thus, Daniel is told, Seal up the vision, for it pertains to many dayshence (Dan. 8.26). 43Mk 9.9 is therefore a special case, and cannot be used as the key to

the secrecy theme. It is anyway not entirely satisfactory for thosewho hold a history of revelation view of Marks secrecy theme, butwho wish to stress Jesus death (rather than his resurrection) as thelocus of revelation, at which secrecy is brought to an end (cf 14.61 f.;15.39).~~ On the other hand, those who in reliance on 9.9 stress theresurrection as the disclosure of jestfs identity have difficulties with14.61f and 15.39. But if9.9 refers not to the secrecy theme in generalbut specifically to a reinterpretation of the transfiguration story, thistension disappears.

14.61f. (Jesus answer to the high priest) and 15.39 (the centurions

confession) again raise the question of a time-limit to the secret of

Jesus identity.According to N. Perrin, 14.61f marks the formaldisclosure by Jesus of the Messianic Secret .4 But this passage

shouldnot

be understood in connection with the secrecy injunctionsbut in terms of the apologetic concerns of the passion narrative. The

charge which led to Jesus crucifixion was that he claimed to be kingof the Jews (15.26, 32). Mark, following the tradition, is concerned toavoid the misunderstanding that Jesus and his followers were politicaloffenders. He therefore asserts that Pilate did not really believe the

charge that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews (15.10, 14), and that

Jesus offence was committed not against the Romans but againstthe Jewish law of blasphemy (14.60-64). It is thus necessary for Jesusto make a direct christological claim. But even in 14.61f, the secretremains intact, for revelation does not occur:46 Jesus claim is

rejected (14.63f.), and the chronological dividing-line between thetime of secrecy and the time of revelation is established not by the



10/22

57

crucifixion and/or resurrection, but by the parousia: You will see theSon of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with theclouds of heaven (14.62).47Nor does the centurions confession (15.39) favour the history of

revelation view of Marks secrecy theme .41 It follows the tearing ofthe veil in the temple (15.38), which signifies Gods abandonment ofthe Jewish system of worship and, by implication, Israel as a whole.

According to 15.38f, the cross reveals Gods rejection of the Jewishpeople, who have themselves rejected their Messiah, and his creationof a new community among the Gentiles who, like the centurion, willconfess Jesus as the Son of God (cf 12.1-9). There is here adistinction between those to whom the secret is revealed and those

from whom it is hidden (cf. 4.1 If ). The point of 15.39 is therefore notthat only in and through his death on the cross can it become knownwho Jesus really is (Anderson). 49 Mark does not intend to distinguishbetween a time of secrecy (prior to the cross) and a time of revelation,for Jesus is revealed as the Son of God in his baptism ( 1.11 ), in hisexorcisms (3.11) and in his transfiguration (9.7), no less than in hisdeath and resurrection. 15.39 is not claiming that Jesus identity isrevealed onlv in his death on the cross, but even in his death on the

cross. The crucifixionappears

to be an

overwhelmingobstacle to

Marks claim that Jesus is the Son of God, and he must thereforeshow that here too Jesus sonship is revealed-and not only in

baptism, miracles and transfiguration. In addition to the centurionsconfession Mark does this by stressing Jesus foreknowledge of hisdeath (8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34; 14.18-21, 27-30), his fulfilment of scrip-ture (14.21, 27, 49) and the miraculous signs at his death which bore

witness to his identity (15.33, 38 ).50 His presentation of Jesus deathis occasioned not by the theologia cruci~ of dialectical theology, but byapologetic needs.&dquo; The view that Marks secrecy theme stresses the

centrality of the cross as the place of revelation is thereforeunwarranted.

This view is often linked with the assertion that Marks secrecy

injunctions relativize the significance of the miracles. Thus,Anderson

comments on 7.36f.: The insertion of the injunction to &dquo;secrecy&dquo;represents Marks warning to his readers that the miracle itself is notthe decisive thing, and that admiration for Jesus merely as wonder-worker does not come near the truth that waits to be revealed (whenhis way to the cross is complete).52 But the secrecy injunctions nomore relativize the miracles than they relativize Jesus divine sonship



11/22

58

(3.11;cf

1.34; 8.30; 9.9).53Miracle stories form a

higher proportionof Marks material than the material of the other evangelists, and are

perhaps the most important means by which he seeks to prove that

Jesus is the Son ofGod in the face of the contradiction posed by thecrucifixion.

Marks secrecy injunctions should therefore not be interpreted asan expression of a history of revelation; they do not represent a

dividing-line between two epochs. But there is another facet ofMarks secrecy theme which has so far not been discussed: the secret

teaching given to the disciples. Knowledge is granted to the disciplesbut withheld from the rest. It may be that this aspect of the secrecytheme will shed light on the secrecy injunctions.The distinction between the disciples and those outside is most

clearly asserted in 4. lit, whose position in the parable chapter is the

product of Marks redaction: 14 To you has been given the secret ofthe kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything is in parables;so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hearbut not understand; lest they should turn again and be forgiven. 55By breaking the earlier connection between the parable and its

interpretation in this way, Mark emphatically asserts the view thatwas

alreadypresent in the tradition: true

understandingis given only

to the disciples.The distinction between disciples and crowds is also evident in

4.21-25, where Marks assembling of various originally independentsayings is to be understood as a further explication of the parabletheory of 4.11lf5 The disciples are told that as far as they are

concerned, the parables are intended not to conceal but to reveal the

truth: Isa

lamp brought in to be put undera

bushel,or

undera

bed,and not on a stand? For there is nothing hid, except to be made

manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light (4.21f.).These words are addressed only to the disciples; the division between

disciples and outsiders established in 4. lit is also presupposed here

(cf. 4.25).57 4.24 is an exhortation to those who have (4.25) topersevere in seeking to understand the mystery of the kingdom of

God, so that still more insight may be given. The promise of 4.11 isthus to be fulfilled progressively, as 4.21f, 25 also imply. 5 4.255confirms that the distinction in 4.llf. between the elect and those

outside is also the presupposition of 4.21 ff.: For to him who has willmore be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will betaken away.59



12/22

59

4.34 makes this distinction onceagain:

He did notspeak

to them

without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explainedeverything. Thus, throughout the chapter Mark repeatedly assertsthat parables are not intended to reveal the truth to all peopleindiscriminately; they reveal it to the disciples, but conceal it fromthe rest.6 The same parable theory underlies 7.14-23, where theriddle of 7.15 is explained to the disciples only when he had entered

the house and left the people (7.17). Despite the call, Hear me, all ofyou, and understand (7.14), it is assumned that the crowd remains in

ignorance: Are you also without understanding? (7.18). Elsewherein the gospel, this aspect of Marks secrecy theme is extended to other

aspects of Jesus teaching. teaching about exorcism (9.28f.), remarriageafter divorce (10.10-12), the crucifixion and resurrection (9.30f.), and

eschatology (13.3) is given only to the disciples (or to a small group of

them in 13.3), in private. It is presumably for the purpose of privateteaching that Jesus seeks to conceal his presence in the region of

Tyre and Sidon (7.24). However, the theme of secret teaching ismore emphatic in ch. 4 than it is elsewhere.

This parable secret or teaching secret is an expression of adoctrine of predestination:61 it is Gods will to reveal saving know-ledge to some but to hide it from others. We have argued above thatthe secrecy injunctions which in general follow exorcisms and

healing miracles are not intended to emphasize Jesus death and/orresurrection as the locus of his revelation as Son of God at the

expense of his earthly life (the history of revelation view). Thistherefore raises the possibility that the concern of the secrecyinjunctions is the same as the concern of the parable theory: to assert

that God gives saving knowledgeto some

but conceals it from others.Analysis of the secrecy injunctions seems to confirm this inter-

pretation. On the two occasions when in redactional summaries

Jesus is said to have silenced the demons confession of his identity(1.34; 3.lit), the result is that the crowds who have gathered to hearhim or to be healed by him are kept in ignorance about who he is. Inthese passages, nothing is said about the revelation of Jesus identityto the chosen few. But the two themes-concealment from thecrowds, revelation to the disciples-are brought together in 8.29f.

According to that passage, the crowds are to be kept in ignorance of

Jesus messiahship (cf 8.28), knowledge of which is confined to the

disciples. It has been argued above that the fact that the secrecyinjunctions after miracles are twice broken (1.43-45; 7.36f.) does not



13/22

60

contradict the messianicsecret,

for the titular acclamations which

are so common in non-Markan miracle stories are absent from Mark.

Mark uses these secrecy injunctions to show that it was Jesus desirethat the miracles-considered as signs pointing to his messiahship-should be concealed from the people. In neither case are the disciplesmentioned, but Mark presumably believed that they were presentwith Jesus. This is certainly the case in 5.43, in which Peter, James

and John have accompanied Jesus (5.37; cf 9.2, 9). The secrecyinjunctions therefore differentiate the disciples, to whom savingknowledge is given, from the crowds, from whom it is hidden. The

parallel with the parable secret (4.lit; etc.) means that the various

aspects of Marks secrecy theme form a coherent whole, in that theyall give expression to a doctrine of predestination. 62 When Jesus isportrayed as commanding that his identity and his miracles be keptsecret, and as confining his teaching to the twelve, Mark is assertingthat it is Gods will to reveal to some that Jesus is the Christ and theSon of God, but to hide it from others.But why should Mark wish to assert this so forcibly? To answer

this question correctly, we must reject the view that the doctrine of

predestination is to be understood in purely theological terms-thatit is intended to

safeguardthe ideas that man has no claim on God,

that faith is Gods gift, and that we are saved by grace alone. From ahistorical standpoint, it is more illuminating to understand it in

sociological terms, in the context of the relationship between the

community or sect and society.

3. The Social Fzinctl*on of Marks Secrecy Theme

The relationship between Marks community and society as a wholewas evidently characterized by a tension experienced by the

community as suffering. From 8.31 onwards, the gospel is dominated

by the theme of suffering-not simply Jesus forthcoming sufferings,but the necessity for the disciples to share that suffering.13 The Sonof man must suffer many things (8.31), and so must the disciple: If

any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up hiscross and follow me (8.34). 8.35-38 presents the disciple with a starkchoice: either he may confess his faith before his opponents, and so

suffer in this world but gain eternal life, or he may renounce his faith,and so find security in this world but fail to obtain eternal life in theworld to come. The fact that the evangelist has linked the sayings of



14/22

61

8.34-38 to the firstpassion prediction (8.31-33)

indicatesclearly

the

main significance he sees in the suffering ofJesus: it is a pattern forthe disciple.As Jesus suffered at the hands of the ungodly, so mustthe disciple. Mark makes the same point in 10.35ff., where after thethird passion prediction (10.32-34), James and John are firmly toldthat they must abandon their hopes of personal advantage and expectto share in Jesus sufferings. We should also note that the prediction

of the suffering of the church in 13.9ff. immediately precedes Markspassion narrative. 64 Jesus predicts the sufferings of the disciples onthe eve of his own sufferings, thus implying a link between the two.The link between the sufferings ofJesus and the necessity for the

disciple to suffer is all the more striking in that the twelve disciplesdid not in fact share Jesus sufferings in Jerusalem. In stressing thetheme of imitation ofJesus sufferings, Mark is therefore not motivated

by historical interest but by the situation of the disciples in his own

day. His own community is experiencing suffering,65 and Mark callson its members to endure it on the grounds that the disciple mustfollow in the footsteps of his master.

Suffering in this context may be defined as the experience of

societys hostility encountered by a group which has isolated itselffrom the norms, beliefs and values of that society.66 The separationof Marks community from the surrounding society and its norms

may be inferred from such passages as Mk 1.16ff., 3.31ff., 8.34ff , and

10.29f., which stress the incompatibility of the call of Jesus with

ordinary life in the world. The experience of suffering arises from

societys resentment at this sudden aloofness and adherence to new

norms; it is for this reason that tribulation and persecution arise on

account of the word(Mk 4.17).

Socialpressure

on those who have

abandoned societys norms is vividly portrayed in 1 Pet. 4.4: Theyare surprised that you do not now join them in the same wild

profligacy, and they abuse you. This experience of suffering endangersthe life of the community:1,7 its members are tempted to be ashamedofme and ofmy words in this adulterous and sinful generation (Mk

8.38); When tribulation and persecution arise on account of the

word, immediately they fall away (4.17). The communitys leadersrespond to this situation in a number of ways. They warn thatsalvation is dependent on remaining within the community and

enduring societys hostility (8.38; 13.13b). They argue that sufferingis to be expected: Jesus himself predicted the suffering of his

followers (10.9f~), and suffering is therefore a confirmation of faith



15/22

62

rather than a contradiction.

Discipleswho suffer have the

privilegeof

following in the steps of Jesus (8.31ff.; 10.38f.), and are therebyproving themselves to be true disciples. This is the situation withinwhich the doctrine of predestination expressed in Marks secrecyinjunctions is to be understood.

What is the social function of a doctrine of predestination within

this situation of suffering? There appear to be two related functions.

The first is that it is intended to strengthen the barrier between thecommunity and the world-a barrier which is in danger of beingbroken down. It confirms the communitys sense of eliteness: To youhas been given the secret of the kingdom of God (4.11).68 Thecommunity is assured that its existence in opposition to society isGods own work, and not the result of arbitrary and perhapsmisguided human decisions. It is God who has called out its

members from the world, bestowing on them saving knowledge; it ishe who has rejected the rest ofmankind as unworthy of his kingdom.For this reason, Mark argues that it was Jesus intention to withhold

knowledge of his miracles, teaching and identity from society at

large, bestowing it only on the small group of his disciples. The

community is made to feel that it alone possesses the key to theeternal purposes of God; it alone knows of the coming of the Son ofGod into the world, and it alone will participate in salvation in the

Age to come. Thus, the separation of the sect from society is

legitimated through being ascribed to divine activity. By emphasizingthis doctrine, its leaders seek to maintain the groups distinctive

identity and cohesion, in the face of the external threat posed bysocietys hostility.The doctrine

of predestinationhas a second

function,related to the

first. It not only ascribes the creation of the sect in its opposition to

the world to Gods own activity, thereby reinforcing its sense of

eliteness; it also provides an explanation for societys incomprehensionand hostility. The fact that so few people believe the message of the

gospel may affect its subjective plausibility for members of the group.If it is rejected by the vast majority of people, how is one to be sure

that it is really true? Such a danger necessitates an explanation ofunbelief It may be argued that idolatry and vice has blinded theminds of the unbelievers (Rom. 1.18ff.; Eph. 4.17ff); or unbelief maybe attributed to Gods inscrutable decree. Marks secrecy theme

takes the latter course: if the majority do not believe, it is because it is

Gods will that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may



16/22

63

indeed hear but not

understand;lest

theyshould turn

againand be

forgiven (4.12). Jesus plainly stated that his miracles and identitywere not to be divulged, and much of his teaching was given to his

disciples in private; it was therefore his purpose that outsiders shouldremain in ignorance. The incomprehension and hostility of society isnot outside his control, and should not lead one to doubt the truth of

the gospel, for the incomprehension of the majority is as much the

result of divine activity as the knowledge revealed to the minority.God hardens some and gives grace to others.The doctrine of predestination expressed in Marks secrecy theme

thus has a twofold social function: (i) It reinforces the communityssense of eliteness by attributing its separation from society to the

saving activity of God. (ii) It explains the potentially threatening factof the unbelief of the majority as being itself the result of divine

activity. Mark sought by means of the secrecy theory to increase theconfidence, cohesion and self-esteem of the group in the face of

societys hostility.This analysis is confirmed by the fact that this twofold function of

predestinarianism is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament;this may be illustrated by means of three examples.

(i) In a Q passage (Mt. 11.25ff. = Lk. 10.21), Jesus declares: Ithank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden

these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to

babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. The main

emphasis of this passage is on the privileges of the elect; it is followedin Luke by the words, Blessed are the eyes which see what you see

(Lk. 10.23). The passage serves to reinforce the communitys sense of

eliteness;divine revelation has been

givento it alone. But the second

function of predestinarianism is also in evidence. The wise and

understanding have not believed the message, and this rejection bythose with the greatest prestige in society as a whole poses a threat tothe community, in that it may unsettle the faith of membersaccustomed to respecting societys traditional sources of wisdom and

teaching. It may also prove a hindrance to mission; those who hear

the gospel preached may in effect reply, Have any of the authoritiesor of the Pharisees believed in him? (Jn 8.48).An explanation oftheir unbelief is therefore required, and it here takes a predestinarianform: the wise and understanding do not believe because God in hisinscrutable wisdom has hidden the truth from them.

(ii) In 1 Pet. 2.7-9, the Christian community is described as a



17/22

64

chosen race

(v. 9;cf

1.2)and contrasted with those who do not

believe (v. 7), who stumble because they disobey the word, as theywere destined to do (v. 8). The latter group is to be identified notwith the Jewish people but with society at large, 69 which is puttingpressure on the sect to conform to its values (cf 4.3f). The

predestinarian language assures the members of the sect that their

painful existence in tension with society is the result of Gods saving

activity, and that the unbelief of society is not a malevolent forcewhich threatens the groups very existence, but the result of Gods

mysterious activity which has the salvation of the community as its

goal. Thus, the author seeks to strengthen the groups cohesion andconfidence in the face of hostility from society.

(iii) Rom. 9.6-29 is the one place in the New Testament where the

popular belief in divine predestination becomes the object of theolo-

gical reflection. The communitys separation from society is legiti-mated through being ascribed to Gods own work: God has madeknown the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has

prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called, not fromthe Jews only but also from the Gentiles (vv. 23f). But the main

emphasis is on Jewish unbelief The fact that the Jewish people as awhole did not believe in the one who, according to Christian belief,was sent to bring them to salvation was one of the most seriousthreats to the plausibility of its message faced by the early church.Paul invokes the doctrine of predestination in order to explain this

unbelief He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens the

heart of whomever he wills (v. 19). He also argues that this isconsistent with the purposes of God revealed in the Old Testament.

Rom. 9.6ff.

clearlyindicates that it is

partof the function of

predestination belief to overcome the threat to the plausibility of the

message posed by the unbelief of the majority. If people do notbelieve the gospel, it is because God has decreed that they should notbelieve it, and not because the message is untrue.

Such passages confirm our interpretation of Marks secrecy theme.It has been argued that this theme is the expression of a belief in

predestination, according to which saving knowledge is bestowed onthe few and hidden from the majority. Marks emphasis of this thememust be seen against the background of societys hostility to the

community of which he was a member, and the danger to the

community which this entailed. By means of the secrecy theme, he

sought to restore the communitys sense of its elite and privileged



18/22

65

status, and thus to strengthen the barrier between itself and society.He also sought to account for the persistent unbelief of the majority,which was beginning to take its toll on members by causing them todoubt its beliefs. It is Gods activity which has brought into being the

community in its opposition to society; he has bestowed savingknowledge on its members. If outsiders remain blind, uncomprehend-ing and hostile, this too is the result of Gods activity.

NOTES

1. The Messianic Secret (henceforth MS), ed. C. Tuckett, Issues in

Religion and Theology I (London, 1983).2. J.D.G. Dunn, The Messianic Secret in Mark, MS, pp. 116-31; cf.

D.E.Aune, The Problem of the Messianic Secret, NovT 11 (1969), pp. 1-

31 ; R.N. Longenecker, The Messianic Secret in the Light of Recent

Discoveries, EvQ 41 (1969), pp. 207-15.3. T.A.Burkill,Mysterious Revelation (New York, 1963), pp. 69, 80,110,

excerpted in MS, pp. 44-48; cf. M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (NewYork, 1934), p. 230.

4. U. Luz, The Secrecy Motif and the Marcan Christology, MS, pp. 75-

96 ; H. Risnen, Das Messiasgeheimnis im Markusevangelium (Helsinki,

1976), excerpted in MS, pp. 132-40; W.C. Robinson, The Quest for Wredes

Secret Messiah, MS, pp. 97-115. Cf. also J.D. Kingsbury, The Christology ofMarks Gospel (Philadelphia, 1983), pp. 1-23 (literature survey); E. Trocm,Is there a Marcan Christology?, in Christ and Spirit (Festschrift for C.F.D.

Moule), ed. B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 3-13; H.C.

Kee, Community of the NewAge (London, 1977), pp. 95, 168.5. G. Strecker, The Theory of the Messianic Secret in Marks Gospel,

MS, pp. 49-64; E. Schweizer, The Question of the Messianic Secret in

Mark, MS, pp. 65-74;N.A. Dahl, The

Purposeof Marks Gospel, MS,

pp. 29-34, an excerpt from his Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church

(Minneapolis, 1976).6. Kee recognizes that the secrecy theme must be interpreted in the light

of the situation in Marks own community(op. cit., pp. 165ff.).7. Emphasized by Luz, MS, p. 77; W.C. Robinson, MS, pp. 106f.8. G. Theissen, Miracle Stories ofthe Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh,

1983), p. 144. This view has been widely accepted since O. Bauernfeinds Die

Worte der Damonen im Markus-Evangelium (Stuttgart, 1927); cf. R Bultmann,History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), p. 209n; Burkill, op. cit.,

pp. 118ff.).9. Strecker, MS, p. 51;Luz, MS, p. 81.

10. Op. cit., p. 149.11. Op. cit., p. 150.



19/22

66

12. Op. cit., p. 150.

13. Op. cit., p. 146.14. Op. cit., p. 148.15. This is now widely accepted on form-critical grounds; cf. Strecker,

MS, pp. 51ff.; Luz, MS, pp. 75ff.; further bibliographical details in E.J.Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 10-23. Cf. also Prykes examination of the linguistic evidence (pp. 142f.).16. Das Messiasgcheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus Evangelisten

(BZNW, 19; Berlin, 1939).17. MS, p. 80.18. MS, p. 80.

19. MS, p. 87.

20. MS, p. 86.21. Kingsbury,op. cit., pp. 80f.22. With the exception of v. 15, vv. 14-21 have probably been freely

composed by Mark (so H.Anderson,The

Gospel ofMark

[NCB; London,1976], p. 200; D.E. Nineham, The Gospel according to St. Mark [PNTC;London, 1963), pp. 214f.; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, I

[EKKNT, 2; Zurich, 1978-79], pp. 309f.).23. SoAnderson, op. cit., p. 202; Nineham, op. cit., p. 218; Gnilka, op. cit.,

1, pp. 314ff.; Kee, op. cit., pp. 57f.; E. Schweizer, The Good News according to

Mark (London, 1970), pp. 163f.24. Theissen,op. cit., pp. 161f.25. Theissen, op. cit., pp. 161-73.

26. Burkill,op. cit., pp. 188f.; Raisanen, op. cit., pp. 143ff.27. Theissen, op. cit., p. 144.

28. Cf. Nineham, op. cit., pp. 291f.;Anderson, op. cit., p. 260.

29. This interpretation is usually rejected (e.g. by Gnilka, op. cit., II,

pp. 169, 171; Kingsbury, op. cit., pp. 108ff.). Schweizer concedes that the

pericope is most naturally interpreted as a rejection of this title (op. cit.,

p. 256); cf. W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia, 1974), p. 95.30. Mt. 1.1; 9.27; 12.23; 15.22; 20.30, 31; 21.9, 15; Lk. 18.38, 39 (cf. 1.27,

32, 69;Acts 2.30; 13.34); Rom. 1.3; 2 Tim. 2.8.31. W. Wrede, The Messianic Secret (London, 1971), p. 77; against J.R.Donahue, Temple, Trial and Royal Christology (Mark 14.53-65), in ThePassion in Mark, ed. W. Kelber (Philadephia, 1976), pp. 61-79 (72-78).32. Wrede,op. cit., p. 68; Gmlka, op. cit., I, pp. 169f.; D.J. Hawkin, The

Incomprehensionof the

Disciplesin the Marcan

Redaction,JBL91

(1972),pp. 491-500 (492).33. MS,p, 61.34. MS, p. 62.

35. MS, p. 32.

36. So Raisanen, MS, p. 137; Schweizer, MS, p. 72 n. 29.



20/22

67

37.

Bultmann,op.cit.,

pp.259f.;

Theissen, op. cit., pp. 96f.; T.J. Weeden,MarkTraditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 118ff.; W. Schmithals,Der Markusschluss, die Verklarungsgeschichte und dieAussendung derZwolf, ZTK69 (1972), pp. 379-411; U.B. Muller, Die christologischeAbsicht des Markusevangeliums und die Verklarungsgeschichte, ZNW 64

(1973), pp. 159-93.

38. Enumerated by Gnilka (who himself dissents from this view) asfollows: (i) the mountain (cf. Mt. 28.16); (ii) the singular in v. 6, which

suggests an earlier reference to Peter alone; (iii) Jesus as Son of God (cf.Rom. 1.4; Acts 13.33); (iv) no transformation back is mentioned; (v)apocryphal Petrine literature regards this as a resurrection appearance(op.cit., II, p. 30). On the last point, see J.M. Robinson, On the Gattung of Mark

(and John), in The Problem of History in Mark and Other Marcan Studies

(Philadelphia, 1982), pp. 11-39 (29ff.). This view of the transfiguration is

opposed by R.H. Stein, Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9.2-8) a misplaced

ResurrectionAccount?, JBL 95 (1976), pp. 79-96.39. These parallels to Lukes ascension story answer the criticisms ofC.H.

Dodd, who argues that the transfiguration story differs from resurrectionstories in certain fundamental respects. He concludes: I cannot find a singlepoint of resemblance (TheAppearances of the Risen Christ:An Essay in

Form-Criticism of the Gospels, in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D.E. Nineham

[Oxford, 1964], pp. 9-35 [25]).40. M.E. Thrall, Elijah and Moses in MarksAccount of the

Transfigur-ation, NTS 16 (1969-70), pp. 305-17 (315).41. So Weeden, op. cit., p. 122; opposed by Gnilka, op. cit., I, p. 40, and

Anderson, op. cit., p. 228.

42. J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci, Berlin21909, ad loc.; Dibelius,

op. cit., p. 190; W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, New York,

1969), pp. 76f.43. Ebeling, op. cit., p. 201, citing alsoAss. Mos. 10.11; 1.16; 11.1; Dan.

12.4, 9; Rev. 10.4; 1 En. 83.1; 104.11-13; 4 Ezr. 14.26, 46; Philo, de Cher. 48.44. Cf. Raisanen, Messiasgeheimnis, p. 154.

45. The High Priests Question and JesussAnswer (Mark 14.61-62), inThe Passion in Mark, pp. 80-95 (81). So also Donahue, op. cit., p. 71.

46. Kingsbury, op. cit., p. 14.47. For You will see ... as a threat of punishment at the parousia for

those who crucified Jesus, cf. Rev. 1.7. If 14.62a refers to Jesus crucitixion

resurrection seen as his enthronement (Perrin, op. cit., pp. 91f.), it is difficultto understand You will see ..., even if it is addressed to the reader(op. cit.,

p. 92)48. Against Theissen, op. cit., p. 214; Luz, MS, p. 85.49. Op. cit., p. 348.50. This seems to contradict the view of Weeden that in the crucifixion



21/22

68

narrative Mark is concerned with the

discreditingof divine man

Christologyand the vindication of Son of man Christology (The Cross as Power inWeakness (Mark 15.20b-41), in The Passion in Mark, pp. 115-34 [120]).51. Cf. B. Lindarss treatment of the apologetic use of OT texts in the

gospel passion narratives (New Testament Apologetic [London, 1961],pp. 75-137).52. Op. cit., p. 193; cf. Gnilka, op. cit., I, p. 218, Weeden, Mark, p. 155n;

opposed by Theissen, op. cit., pp. 220f.; Kingsbury, op. cit., pp. 33ff.

53. Theissen, op. cit., p. 294.54. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (London, 1972), pp. 13f.; Pryke, op.

cit., p. 141 (cf. 136-38).55. M.D. Hooker comments on v. 12: The purpose of the parables was to

conceal the truth and to prevent repentance. She adds: Other explanationsof v. 12 are unconvincing(The Message of Mark [London, 1980], p. 27).Burkill also insists that vv. 11f. be taken at face value(op. cit., pp. 112ff.).

56. Against Jeremias, who regards 4.21-25 as a double parable(op. cit.,p. 91).57. 4.21f. should not be understood in the light of 9.9 (against Wrede, op.

cit., p. 70; Strecker, MS, p. 60), but as an assurance that the promise of 4.11will be fulfilled.

58. S. Brown argues that the parable secret is incompatible with themessianic secret because of the contradiction between the promise of

knowledge in 4.11 and theignorance

of 8.17-21

("TheSecret of the

Kingdom of God" (Mark 4.11), JBL 92 [1973], pp. 60-74 [62]). The

problem is solved if 4.11 is understood in the light of 4.21-25 to refer to a

continuing process.59. It is therefore wrong to regard 4.21-25 as contradicting 4.10-12

(Anderson, op. cit., p. 130; Schweizer, Good News, pp. 92ff., MS, pp. 68f.;S.E. Johnson,ACommentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark [BNTC;London, 1960], p. 90).60. It is thus misleading to say that Mark thinks of the parables asintended for all the people (Anderson, op. cit., p. 131), and to speak of the

amazing extent to which God desires to unveil the mystery of his kingdomthrough the parabolic teaching of Jesus(op. cit., p. 136).61. Mk 4.12, which loosely quotes Isa. 6.9f., is not concerned merely with

Jewish unbelief (against Burkill, op. cit., p. 110; Gnilka, op. cit., I, p. 172). Itis true that Isa. 6.9f. originally belonged to the Christian anti-Jewish polemic

(cf. Jn 12.39f.;Acts 28.26f.). But a comparison between Rom. 9.33 and 1 Pet.2.6-8 shows how OT texts which originally functioned in an anti-Jewishcontext can later take on a more general meaning. Kee rightly recognizesthat 4.11f. presupposes an esotericism within Marks community (op. cit.,p. 94).62. Predestination as used here refers to the belief that God determines



22/22

69

whetherpeople

are to be

grantedsalvation or whether

theyare to be

condemned: He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart

of whomever he wills (Rom. 9.18). The term predestination is preferred toelection because it implies not only that God is active in saving some peoplebut also that he is active in rejecting the rest (a belieftraditionally referred toas double predestination); the significance of this will appear later in the

argument. To attribute to Mark a doctrine of predestination is of course notto attribute to him a fully-fledgedAugustinian or Calvinistic world-view.

63. In this section, Discipleship is viewed from the perspective of thecross (E. Best, Following Jesus. Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark [JSNTS,4; Sheffield, 1981], p. 74; cf.Anderson, op. cit., p. 205; P.J.Achtemeier,Mark [Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia, 1975], pp. 97f.).64. This link is noted by Weeden, Mark, p. 113.65. Weeden, Mark, p. 159.According to E. Best, the redactional en te hodo

(8.27; 9.33f.; 10.32) shows that the disciples journey to Jerusalem with Jesus

is not to be understood only in a literal manner(op. cit., p. 15).66. Cf. J.H. Elliott,AHome for the Homeless.A Sociological Exegesis of 1

Peter, its Situation and Strategy (London, 1982), pp. 73-84, 101-18.67. Cf. Elliotts comments on the situation underlying 1 Peter: The

severity of the polarization with outsiders was endangering the sects social

cohesion, the self-esteem of its members, their conviction that they possesseda new status conferred by God, their common commitment to the unique

religious values,social

values,ideals and

goalsof the

group,and their vision

of a common salvation to which even current anti-Christian opponentswould one day be won(op. cit., p. 101). But Elliott also stresses the positivesignificance of suffering: Conflict has a group-binding effect... The

response to suffering need not be conformity; it could also be intensifiedcommitment to being different(op. cit., p. 114).68. Election by God implies or confers status, and a shared sense of status

is vital to a sect or other minority group especially when its existence is

threatened (Elliott, op. cit., pp. 122f.).69. Cf. the general useofhoi apeithountes (2.8) in 4.17 (cf. 3.1, 20).70. Such an interpretation of NT predestinarian language seems preferable

to the purely theological view advocated by E. Dinkler (Pradestination bei

Paulus, in Signum Crucis [Tbingen, 1967], pp. 241-69).According to this,its purpose is to proclaim that man has no claim on God, and that faith is the

gift of God; such knowledge is not to be objectified, for predestination is

inseparable from the event of faith(op. cit., pp. 257f.).

1985 - francis watson - the social function of mark's secrecy theme

Documents