Misunderstood Messiah
Mark's Tale of Unrecognized Divinity
In modern New Testament scholarship, the Gospel of Mark has long been considered the earliest of the four Gospels, a view known as Marcan Priority. Scholars estimate its composition around 70 CE, and it is widely believed to have been a source for the remaining Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke. This foundational position makes Mark particularly valuable in understanding the criterion of embarrassment—the inclusion of the disciples' confusion and lack of understanding, a theme we will explore momentarily. The authorship of Mark has been the subject of debate, but early Church fathers and theologians traditionally attributed it to John Mark, a companion of the Apostle Peter.
Early Christian tradition holds that the content of Mark’s Gospel is based on Peter’s teachings and eyewitness accounts. Church fathers such as Papias described John Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” compiling his recollections into a narrative. As a result, Mark provides unique insights into early Christian traditions, particularly the disciples’ evolving understanding of Jesus’ divinity.
Mark presents Jesus as an enigmatic and often esoteric teacher, misunderstood not only by the crowds but also by his closest followers and even his own family. This portrayal suggests a Messiah whose identity and mission were frequently misinterpreted, raising the question: Did the disciples ever fully grasp Jesus’ divine nature during his ministry?
Obfuscation or Willful Ignorance?
Chapter 4 of Mark begins with the Parable of the Sower, a lesson emphasizing how people receive and respond to the Word. More significantly, however, this passage reveals Jesus’ rationale for teaching in parables:
“He began to teach them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them:” (Mark 4:2, NRSVUE).
Later, in verses 10–12, Jesus privately explains his teaching approach to the disciples:
“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables, in order that:
They may indeed look but not perceive,
And may indeed hear but not understand,
So that they may not turn again and be forgiven.” (Mark 4:11–12, NRSVUE)
This passage suggests that Jesus deliberately spoke in parables to obscure his message from the broader audience while reserving deeper explanations for his disciples. Yet, in verse 13, Jesus rebukes them: “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?” This lack of comprehension becomes a recurring theme.
Mark reinforces this idea in verse 34, stating that Jesus only spoke to the crowds in parables but explained everything privately to his disciples. Despite this, the disciples continue to struggle with understanding.
The pattern continues later in the chapter when Jesus calms a storm while crossing the water with his disciples. As they panic, Jesus remains asleep at the stern. When they wake him, he rebukes the wind and commands the sea to be still. He then asks them, “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” (Mark 4:40). Mark notes that the disciples were “filled with great fear” and asked one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”
This reaction suggests that even after witnessing miracles, the disciples still did not fully recognize Jesus' divine nature. Scholar Bart D. Ehrman has proposed that Mark may have had a critical stance toward the disciples, a theory discussed in an episode of The Misquoting Jesus Podcast with Megan Lewis. This perspective raises an intriguing possibility: Were the disciples simply unable to grasp Jesus’ true identity, or was their misunderstanding deliberately emphasized in Mark’s Gospel?
The Disciples’ Confusion and the Nature of the Messiah
Assuming that the disciples initially perceived Jesus as merely the Messiah (Moshiach) rather than divine, their confusion becomes understandable. In Jewish tradition, the Messiah was expected to be a political or military leader, not a suffering servant. Jesus' ministry, emphasizing humility, suffering, and spiritual redemption, stood in stark contrast to these expectations.
Unlike Matthew and Luke, who depict the disciples in a more faithful light, Mark presents them as consistently struggling to understand Jesus’ identity and mission. Given Marcan Priority and the criterion of embarrassment, this portrayal likely reflects an authentic tradition—one that later Gospel writers sought to smooth over.
Even Jesus’ own words in Mark raise questions about his divinity. When standing before Pilate, he responds to the accusation that he is the “King of the Jews” with the ambiguous phrase, “You say so” (Mark 15:2). Furthermore, his final cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34), seems peculiar if Jesus were consciously identifying as God, it almost seems to clearly delineate the distinction between the two.
Yet Mark’s Gospel emphasizes the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The tearing of the temple curtain at the moment of Jesus’ death symbolizes a new form of atonement—one that no longer requires the high priest’s intercession but is now accessible through faith in Jesus. This act signifies that Jesus’ sacrifice bridges the gap between humanity and God.
The Mysterious Ending
Mark’s Gospel ends on an unsettling note. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visit the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body, suggesting that they did not expect a resurrection. They even wonder, “Who will roll away the stone for us?”—raising the question of why they embarked on this mission without a clear plan.
Upon finding the tomb empty, they encounter a young man dressed in white, who tells them that Jesus has risen and instructs them to inform Peter and the disciples. Yet, instead of rejoicing, the women flee in fear and say nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). This abrupt ending, found in the earliest manuscripts, leaves the resurrection narrative unresolved—perhaps reinforcing Mark’s theme of misunderstanding and fear.
Mark’s Gospel challenges traditional assumptions about Jesus' ministry. The persistent confusion of the disciples, the secrecy of Jesus’ teachings, and the ambiguous ending all contribute to an image of a Messiah whose identity remained elusive, even to his closest followers.
Rather than presenting Jesus as overtly claiming divinity, Mark emphasizes faith in his atoning death and resurrection. This portrayal invites a crucial question: oes Mark challenge modern readers to reconsider the nature of Jesus' mission and identity?