Mark's use of messianic secret

7/28/2019 Mark's use of messianic secret

1/13

Mark's Use of the Messianic Secret

LE WI S S. H A Y

EVER since it was first recognized as such, the problem of the messiani

secret in Mark has continually engaged the attention of New Testamen

scholars The controversy on the issue has waned from time to tim

only to be raised again by some new insight into its importance for a genera

understanding of the Gospel Recently the significance of the issue has bee

recognized anew because of the bearing it has on the problem of the " Je s u

of history and the Christ of faith" and because it touches the question of th

very nature of "Gospel" literature

I

The modern discussion of the messianic secret dates from the publicatio

of William Wrede's book, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (1901

Mark's lack of a clear and consistent presentation of Jesus as Messiah le

Wrede to conclude that Jesus' ministry had not always been viewed as mes

sianic, rather, the messiahship was at first seen as beginning with the Resurrection After Easter the believers pressed the messiahship back upon Jesu

earthly life Since, however, elements of the older non-messianic unde

standing of Jesus' life persisted alongside the messianized view, Mark sough

to resolve the contradiction in these conceptions by inserting the explanatio

that Jesus had kept his messiahship a secret throughout his ministry Wred

regarded the idea of the secret as pre-Marcan in origin, but the pervasiv

scheme of secrecy that appears in the Gospel was judged to be the work o

the evangelist2

Most of Wrede's most serious critics opposed his understanding of th

messianic secret because they objected to the split that it implied between

non-messianic historical Jesus and the Christ of the Gospel3

They insiste

that Jesus' history had been indeed messianic, and many argued that th

secret itself had been a part of that history By the middle of the twentiet

LE WI S S HAY, Professor of Religion at Presbyterian College, Clinton, Sou

Carolina, holds degrees from Presbyterian College, Columbia Theological Seminar

Princeton Theological Seminary, and Emory Univer sity His article on "Th e Son of-Go

Chns tology in Ma rk " appeared in this Journal in Apri l, 19641 William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Ezangehen Zugleich ein Beitrag zu


2/13

ARK'S USE OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET 17

entury, however, the balance in the debate had shifted decidedly in favor of

Wrede's basic position, perhaps the strongest support for it coming from the

fluence of Rudolf Bultmann The form-critical work of Bultmann demonrated repeatedly that the Gospels provide evidence not of a historical Jesus,

ut only ofthe Christ ofthe church's faith, and that one cannot merely assume

he two to be identical Furthermore, the words expressing the secret that

Wrede's critics supposed to be historical were found by Bultmann to lie in

he redactional additions of Mark, not in the tradition received by him4

Ironically, just as Bultmann was about to establish the traditional view of

he messianic secret over against all its foes, the problem was transformed

om within by some of Bultmann's successors In 1957 Hans Conzelmann

njected a new factor into the debate He asserted that the material received

y Mark was already thoroughly messianic It is thus no longer a question of

econciling two traditions of Jesus, one messianic and the other non-messianic,

ather, Mark's secret is seen as a theological conception, which aims at

ridging the gap between Jesus' actual life and the church's faith Conzelmann

nds the messianic secret to be a justification for the fact that the church's

ith, which arose only after the Resurrection, can now be proclaimed in the

aditions concerning Jesus' life prior to the Resurrection. "Die Geheimnis

heorie ist die hermeneutische Voraussetzung der Gattung 'Evangelium ' "

5

More recently, Conzelmann's view of the secret has been approved by

ames M Robinson and used directly in the interest of the post-Bultmannian

pproach to the relation between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith,

e , in the interest of the new quest of the historical Jesus6

Robinson sees

n Paul the use of a bare kerygma which depended on no Jesus-tradition

hatever, but proclaimed, on the contrary, only the Cross Over against this

erygmatic approach of Paul there grew up a tradition that had transformed

he non-messiamcally conceived Jesus of Nazareth into a oeos , and it

as such a tradition, as Conzelmann has said, that was received by Mark.ut Mark's familiarity with the theologia crucis of the Pauline kerygma made

he Oeos Jesus-tradition seem to him inadequately kerygmatic So,

rgues Robinson, Mark chose to kerygmatize the tradition by means of the

messianic secret Hence, "Mark' s problem, resulting in his messianic secret,

as not to impose messiahship upon a non-messianic tradition, but to super

mpose upon a deos Jesus-tradition the paradox of Christian existence,

he theology of the cross "7

The ultimate point Robinson wishes to prove by

l this is that whereas it may be possible in certain circumstances (e g , those

f Paul) to hold strictly to a kerygmatic approach, in other circumstances

4R d lf B l Th l f h N T V l I K d k G b l


3/13

18 LEWIS S. H

(e. g., those of Mark) it is necessary and legitimate to seek out and empl

a Jesus-tradition. The Conzelmann-Robinson understanding of the messia

secret, therefore, is being used specifically to give a biblical-theologijustification for the new quest of the historical Jesus as over against

exclusively kerygmatic position of Bultmann.

A comparison between the solution of Wrede and Bultmann and t

proposed by Conzelmann and Robinson reveals two basic similarities as w

as two important differences. Common to both views are (a) the assumpti

that the messianic secret is the creation of Mark;8

and (b) the assumption t

Mark was primarily concerned with what is now known as the problem

the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, the secrecy being the evangeliway of coping with that issue. It will be our purpose to demonstrate that the

assumptions are both false.

But the differences in the two solutions are equally significant. They ha

to do with (a) the nature of the pre-Marcan tradition, and (b) the function

the secret as it was imposed on the traditon by Mark two integrally relat

points. Whereas Wrede and Bultmann held that the pre-Marcan traditi

was so non-messianic that Mark had to compensate for it by means of

secrecy motif, Conzelmann and Robinson now argue that the tradition receiv

by Mark was so messianic even offensively so that he had to amelioits effect by creating the notion of the secret. These views are doubly cont

dictory. The former see the secret as making a non-messianic tradition mo

messianic; the latter see it as making a thoroughly messianic tradition l

messianic. Which is the correct evaluation?

With regard to the nature of the tradition, Conzelmann is surely rig

If it is true, as Bultmann himself has convinced us, that liberalism's attem

to retrieve a non-messianic Jesus from the Gospels leads to a cul-de-sac,

must then admit that there is no real evidence that the Jesus-tradition evere

in a non-messianic form. The classical solution to the secret has proved to

inadequate because it assumed the messianizing of the life of Jesus to ha

been a matter of altering an already existing body of material so that the resu

ing messianic tradition was opposed to the lingering bits of non-messian

tradition. It is no longer possible, however, to speak of a "non-messia

tradition" at all; for that is actually a contradictio in adjecto. It was not

Jesus was recognized as the Messiah i. e., not until the Resurrection

that there was anything to "hand on." Or again, there was no reason to "ha

on" anything unless it was "messianic." Thus, all tradition is messiatradition.

With regard to the effect of the secret on the tradition an evaluation m


4/13

ARK'S USE OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET 19

nswer becomes immediately apparent : The secretneither impairs norenhances

e messianic nature of the tradition. We must conclude that if Mark intended

use the secret as a means for accomplishing either purpose attributed tom, he was a most ridiculous failure. Of course, once it is clear that no such

sults are effected by the secret, the ground for ascribing such a purpose to

Mark disappears. So far as the messianic secret is involved, therefore, Mark

not concerned with bringing together a historical Jesus and a Christ of

ith in either of the ways in which this problem is conceived. And since the

ecret is the point at issue for the whole Gospel, we must say that the problem

at exists for the modern critic did not exist for the evangelist.

II

To understand Mark's use of the messianic secret we must begin with a

areful reappraisal of the relevant texts. It is already a step forward if, as is

oped, we have succeeded in freeing the problem from the burden of another

nd quite different issue, that of the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith,

burden that the secret itself cannot bear.

A clearer view of the texts involved may be gained by examining them

ccording to the following classes: (a) the silencing of the demons; (b) com

ands not to tell of a miracle; and (c) prohibitions concerning Jesus' predic

on of his suffering and death. These are the principal sources. In addition,

e following have traditionally been associated closely with the secret, or

ade a part of it : (d) the blindness of the disciples; and (e) the blindness of

e people.

(a) The silencing of the demons. The relevant texts are Mark 1:23-25

cf. Luke 4:33-35); Mark 1:34 (cf. Luke 4:41); and Mark 3:11-12.

We must note first that in 1:23-25 we have to do with a specific incident

the synagogue at Capernaum; Mark, however, understands this incidentbe typical. In 1:34 and 3:11-12 we have quite clearly cases where the

vangelist is generalizing.

In the first of these texts, the demon immediately recognizes Jesus, ad

essing him as "Jesus of Nazareth," "the Holy One of God." Jesus then

ommands the demon to be silent and come out of the man. Wrede argued

at the demon's recognition of Jesus is understandable in the narrative only

hen it is contrasted with the lack of recognition by others, which is to say,

presupposes the messianic secret.9

But this assertion springs from a complete

isunderstanding of the demon's words. In ancient times the calling of theame of a spiritual being deity, angel, demon, or sometimes a human


5/13

20 LEWIS S. H

me." Hence, in their original sense the demon's words had nothing to do w

the disclosure of Jesus' identity, rather, they constituted a solemn utteran

understood to have a magical potency.10

The comment in 1 34, "and he would not permit the demons to spe

because they knew him," is so ambiguous as to add nothing to our und

standing of the tradition or of Mark's use of the tradition, except to say th

such an incident as the one at Capernaum was often repeated. The rema

in 3 12, however, "And he strictly ordered them not to make him know

introduces something entirely new that Mark sees the command to silen

as a prohibition against revealing Jesus' identity. That the statement occ

within a generalizing remark of the evangelist, together with the representat

function that Mark assigns to the first pencope, implies that Mark view s

such prohibitions in the same way. Hence, Mark does in fact present us w

a "messianic secret." But once the original sense of the command to silen

has been perceived, it becomes obvious that Mark has completely missed

original sense of the saying.11

Indeed, when there is a crowd present, as

true in the first pencope, Jesus' command could not succeed in keeping

secret once the demon had spoken. Any attempt to silence him for that reas

would merely have invoked more attention to what he had said. The conclus

is inescapable that in the original form of the tradition the shouting of Jesname and title constituted an attempt on the part of the demon to overcome

power of Jesus and prevent the exorcism. When this original sense of

pencope was lost, the cry of the demon was transformed into an action

clairvoyance whereby the evil spirit recognized and declared Jesus as

Messiah, and so the prohibition of Jesus became an attempt to hide his identi

The very fact that the command to silence is misunderstood and tra

formed into the messianic secret proves beyond doubt that the evange

did not invent the saying to suit his own purpose. Rather, he handed on

tradition the original significance of which he did not perceive.(b) Commands notto tell ofa miracle The relevant texts are Mark 1 43

(cf. Matthew 8 4 and Luke 5 14), Mark 5 43 (cf. Luke 8 56), Mark 7 3

and Mark 7 24.

10 The meaning of the verbal exchanges m the exorcism stones is correctly seen

O Bauernfeind, Die Worte der Dmonen ? Markusevangehum, Stuttgart Kohlham

Verlag, 1927, pp 3-73 Others have made similar observations, but except for Bauernfe

no one has seen that this insight raises difficulties for Wrede's theory of the secret

S Vernon McCasland, By the Finger of God, New York The Macmillan Compan), 1

pp 83-95, Vincent Taylor, The GospelAccording to St Marl, London The Macmi

Company, 1952, 281, and Sherman E Johnson, A Commentary on the GospelAccord


6/13

ARK'S USE OF TH E MESSIANIC SECRET 21

The last text of the series requires special attention because it is usually

nderstood as a general request for privacy, unrelated to any miracle. Taken

itself it is completely unintelligible "And he entered a house, and wouldt have anyone know it, yet he could not be hid." We can only assume that

ark intended its meaning to be revealed by the context. When we see that

serves to introduce the episode of Jesus' healing of the daughter of the

rophoenecian woman, it becomes clear that the desire for secrecy is a

sire that the miracle to follow should not be publicized. That is the function

the topological reference to "a house."12

There is no ground for the assump

on that here Jesus expresses a desire to travel about incognito. The pencope

actually parallel to the ensuing story of the healing of the deaf mute of the

ecapohs, a story brought to a close with the charge to keep the incident a

cret We must conclude, then, that in spite of the ambiguous wording of

e request itself, we are to see it as a command not to tell of a miracle.

The texts of this class tell us only that Mark's Jesus did not wish word of

s deeds to be spread abroad. The matter of Jesus' identity is not overtly

ised This fact suggests that in their original form these pencopes had

othing to do with a hiding of the messiahship Nevertheless, Mark under

ands the miracles as acts of the Messiah-Son of God and therefore as

gns of the messiahship, regardless of how they may have been interpretediginally13

so that he may now employ the commands to keep the miracles

cret as commands to keep the messiahship secret Here again we are faced

th a situation where it is impossible for Mark to have created the sayings,

the contrary, he has recorded sayings that had lost their original sense,

d he has understood them in a new way.

(c) Prohibitions concerningJesus'predictions of his suffering and death The

levant texts are Mark 8 30-31 (cf Matthew 16 20-21 and Luke 9 21-22),

ark 9 9 (cf. Matthew 17 9 and Luke 9 36), and Mark 9 30-31.

With the exception of the New English Bible, the modern texts (bothnglish and Greek) do not give the impression that the first of these commands

governed by the following reference to Jesus' disclosure of his imminent

ffering and death. The common editions present it rather as a briefer form

what Matthew expresses more fully and clearly "Then he strictly charged

e disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ." Luke's version, on the

her hand, specifically relates the prohibition to the following statement

out the passion "But he charged and commanded them to tell this to no

e, saying, 'The Son of man must suffer many things. . . .' " The nature of

ark's text allows either interpretation It must be remembered that the most

cient manuscripts have no paragraph, sentence, or even word divisions,


7/13

22 LEWIS S. HA

paragraph relating to Jesus' identity as the Messiah, or the first sentence

the paragraph relating to the passion prediction. Matthew took it in the form

sense, Luke in the latter. That Luke has preserved the original intention the tradition is proved conclusively by the fact that Mark repeats the identic

idea in 9 30-31, and there in an unambiguous manner. We must insist, ther

fore, that this text, which has usually been regarded as a specific comman

of Jesus to keep his identity secret, was originally not so intended. Instea

it means that Jesus did not wish the confidential disclosure of his fate to b

recklessly spread about14

Jesus' charge to the three on their descent from the Mount of Tran

figuration (Mark 9 9) is, even in its present form, directly related to a d

closure of the passion by reason of the final clause, "until the Son of m

should have risen from the dead." This saying makes sense only if an announc

ment of his suffering and death had just been made. Luke makes expli

what is implicit in Mark, for he says (931) that in the ecstatic vision on t

mountain Moses and Elijah "spoke of his departure, which he was to acco

plish at Jerusalem." Jesus' command that the disciples tell no one what th

had seen on the mountain must therefore be understood as determined by h

prophetic disclosure of his passion15

The pencope of Mark 9 30-31 is the clearest of the whole class Here tevangelist states unambiguously that the privacy Jesus seeks is no mysterio

desire to travel about incognito, but an opportunity to instruct the discipl

privately about the tragic events immediately ahead.

Since none of these prohibitions, when rightly understood, refers direc

to the hiding of Jesus' identity, it may be questioned whether they proper

form part of Mark's messianic secret. Two facts demand an affirmati

answer. First, the close conjunction of the prohibition and passion predicti

to the confession of Peter seems to indicate that Mark saw the prohibitio

as related to the secret of Jesus' identity. Second, and more important, Maunderstands the predicted passion precisely as the passion of the Messiah-S

of God, hence, as in the case of the commands to silence respecting t

miracles, and regardless of how such pencopes may have been understo

earlier, Mark sees the secret of the passion as the same as the secret of t

messiahship. Here again we discover that it is impossible for Mark to ha

invented the sayings, since he has given these words an interpretation th

originally did not have.

(d) The blindness of the disciples. The relevant texts are Mark 4 1-

(cf Matthew 13 1-15 and Luke 8 4-15), Mark 6 51-52 (cf Matthew 14 2

14


8/13

MARK'S USE OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET 23

3); Mark 7:14-18 (cf. Matthew 15:10-20); Mark 8:14-21 (a doublet of

:51-52); Mark 8:31-33 (cf. Matthew 16:20-23); Mark 9:10; Mark 9:32

cf. Luke 9:45); and Mark 10:26.These eight passages fall easily into three groups: (1) failure to under

tand a parable or saying (4:1-34; 7 :1418; 10:26); (2) failure to understand

he meal in the wilderness (6:51-52; 8:14-21); and (3) failure to understand

he passion (8:31-33; 9:10; 9:32).

For Mark the parable of the soils (4:1-34) is representative of all Jesus'

arabolic teaching, a fact that is evident because of the pericope's representative

osition in the Gospel, because of the catechetical interpretation given to it,

nd, above all, because Mark says so in so many words (4:13). What the

vangelist does with this parable, therefore, has implications for all the otherarables, and even for some of Jesus' teaching that we would not, strictly

peaking, consider parabolic.

It is well established that the intent to veil the meaning of his teaching,

which is here ascribed to Jesus' use of parables, is not historically authentic

material, but first arose when the church was opposed by unbelieving Jews.

Such unbelief was viewed as a result of God's action in fulfillment of the

rophecy of Isaiah 6:9-10.16 The allegorical explanation of the parable

4:14-20) represents a still later stage in the development of the tradition

when the original sense of the parable was lost and the church supplied another

hat met the needs of a new situation.17 Since the dullness of the disciples

hroughout the chapter on parables is of no consequence except as a foil

gainst which the private explanation is introduced, the motif must have

ppeared in the tradition at the same point at which the explanation was intro

duced obviously prior to Mark. But for Mark the disciples' dullness and

he esoteric meaning of the parables together constitute the basis for the fact

hat in his day the church was actually the only group that knew the secret

meaning i. e., the allegorical meaning of the parable.The case is similar respecting Jesus' saying about what defiles a man

7:1418). The later understanding of the saying is given in 7:19: "Thus he

declared all foods clean." The same is true in regard to the third saying

10:26) about the camel's going through the needle's eye, a "hard saying"

or which the explication is given in the following verse: "With men it is

mpossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."

The doublet of Mark 6:51-52 and 8:14-21 is part of a larger doubled

radition that includes the feeding of the multitude, followed by a pericope of

a crossing of the sea, on which occasion Jesus rebukes his disciples for theirack of understanding. The doubling of the whole series of events reveals


9/13

24 LEWIS S. HA

been lost. The meal in the wilderness was no doubt a sacramental meal wi

an eschatological meaning, but before the tradition reached Mark, besid

being doubled, it was transformed by its association with the Elisha story Second Kings 4 42^-4 into a miracle story about Jesus' multiplication o

food, and used over against the Jews' tradition of Moses' miraculous provisio

of bread (manna) in the wilderness (cf. John 6) . The rebuke for the disciple

obtuseness entered the tradition at the stage where this change was mad

By the time of Mark, however, all this had become obscure, so that apparent

he uses the dullness idea in 6 51-52 as a rebuke of the disciples' failure

trust the miracle-working power of Jesus, and in 8 14-21 as a means to intr

duce an explanation for Jesus' warning about the "leaven of the Pharisees an

the leaven of Herod" (vs. 15, cf. Matthew 16 12).

The third group of texts manifests the disciples' dullness in the face o

Jesus' prediction of his passion and Resurrection. As they now stand, th

texts differ as to whether the object of misunderstanding is the passio

(8 31-3 3 ) or the Resurrection (9 10, 32). Certainly, the passion was origina

the point at issue, and this was later changed, in the two places where such

change was possible, to the Resurrection. In the primary stage of the traditio

the center of concern indeed, the center of the kerygmatic message w

the paradoxical idea of the messiahship of a man who would suffer and diThis immediately became a live issue in the Palestinian milieu where th

concept of the Messiah was well known, and it was doubtless a point

contention between Jew and Christian. Moreover, in that context the idea

a resurrection would not have raised any bewilderment. But when the trad

tion passed over to Hellenistic soil, the idea of the Messiah was not general

known and the notion of a suffering Messiah would have raised no problem

Any reference to the Resurrection, however, may well have raised question

(cf Acts 17 32). We conclude, then, that at the earliest stage of the traditio

the dullness motif centered in the passion, and had a distinct meaning for thchurch's position over against Judaism. With the spread of the gospel to th

Hellenistic world the dullness was shifted over to the Resurrection After th

shift had been accomplished, the one remaining text, where the original sen

of dullness to the passion persisted because of the context (8 32-33), lost i

meaning. Mark therefore uses that text to introduce the sayings of Jesus

regard to the disciples'(no longer Jesus') self-denial, cross-bearing, and losi

of one's life (8 34-37), a theme which then had immediate relevance for th

church of his time18

18Eduard Schweizer distorts the idea of the disciples' blindness by covering it ov


10/13

MARK'S USE OF THE MESSIANIC SECRET 25

We have seen that in each of these groups of pencopes the theme of the

disciples' blindness serves as a means for introducing a new interpretation for

a pericope that had lost its original meaning The evangelist attempts at eachpoint to employ the idea in a way that will reveal its significance for believers

of his own day

We must also see that the texts referring to the lack of understanding of

he passion (and Resurrection) overlap those cited above respecting the com

mand to silence on the same matter Obviously, both motifs the dullness

of the disciples and Jesus' command to silence would not be needed were

Mark seeking through them to harmonize disparate views of Jesus' ministry,

on that level, they are even contradictory But precisely because they do not

dovetail smoothly we must conclude that Mark did not invent the motifs atall, but was passing on the tradition he had received and was trying to make

the most relevant use of it

(e) The blindness of the people The relevant texts are Mark 2 7, 2 16,

3 6, etc (all stories of conflict), Mark 4 1-33, Mark 6 1-6, and the entire

passion narrative

In Mark, the blind and disbelieving are, generally speaking, the people

who reject Jesus and eventually bring about his crucifixion The conflict stories,

the rejection at Nazareth, and the passion narrative constitute a unity in this

respect The blind who appear in the chapter on parables (4 1-33) are, for

Mark, part of the same general group, but in that case the motif performs the

same function as the dullness of the disciples For the crowd is merely that

group excluded from the private explanation, otherwise, as in 12 12, the

people understand Jesus clearly yet resent him But just this fact gives us an

nsight into Mark's understanding of the whole conception For just as the

secret revelation to the disciples is connected in Mark's thought with the

church's exclusive possession of the secret meaning of the parables in Mark's

own day, so the blindness of the people has its meaning in the blindness ofthe unbelieving world in that same day

III

By examination of the individual pencopes we have shown (1) that the

various traditions associated with the messianic secret antedate Mark,

(2) that the presence or absence of these ideas in the text neither impairs nor

enhances the picture of Jesus as the Messiah, and (3) that whereas not all

he pencopes are explicitly concerned with Jesus' identity as the Messiah,

he overall impression remains that Mark has made connections among themn his presentation of the Gospel


11/13

26 LEWIS S. HAY

Wherein does the unity of the pericopes consist for the evangelist? With

the silencing of the demons, the idea of Jesus' identity is overtly expressed

With the secrecy of the miracles, it is still a matter ofJesus' identity, sincecertainly for Mark, the miracles are signs of the messiahship. With the

secrecy of the foretold passion, the connection with the messianic secret is

guaranteed by the fact that in the first instance (8:30) Mark follows the

confession of Peter immediately with the command to secrecy about the

passion, and also by the fact that Mark views the passion precisely as the

passion of the Messiah. And so, the command to silence about the passion

becomes for Mark a command to hide the true identity ofJesus. With regard

to the blindness of the disciples and the blindness of the people, however, the

question of Jesus' identity is not raised; rather, the evangelist sees the text

as giving a basis for understanding the situation of the church in his own day

a situation in which the believers are the exclusive bearers of the inner meanin

of the Jesus-tradition.

It is important to note, then, that the blindness motif (with respect to the

disciples as well as the people) betrays no reference to the messianic secre

as such.19

We have seen that in the earlier stage of the tradition they were

definitely unrelated. Nevertheless, in that stage represented by Mark, the

connection he makes between the blindness and the secret is precisely whareveals to us Mark's understanding of the latter. The notion of the secre

and that of the disciples' blindness converge at one point: the prediction of the

passion and the Resurrection. For Mark ascribes both ideas to that prediction

Since these two ideas produce the same result, i. e., a lack of understanding o

who Jesus is, Mark cannot have been responsible for bringing them into the

tradition. But in view of this common result, it is quite possible for him to

have conceived them both in the same way. Since we already know that the

blindness motif was employed as a basis for understanding the church'

position over against the unbelieving world, it is only logical to assume thaMark understood the messianic secret in the same sense. This means thatfo

Mark the secretprovides a ground in the ministry ofJesus for comprehending

fact that the church alone understands the true meaning ofJesus'person wh

is to say, his history while the outside worldsees butdoes notperceive, hear

does not understand. The secret, therefore, is not at all a device for bringin

together two disparate views of Jesus. Mark knows only one Jesus: the

Messiah-Son of God. Rather, the secret points to the simple fact that the

church alone knows who Jesus really is which is to say, only the church

has faith.

Although both of their interpretations of the secret have proved erroneous


12/13

MARK'S USE OF TH E MESSIANIC SECRET 27

Conzelmann and Robinson have rightly perceived that the secret provides the

constitutive principle for the rise of the Gattung "Gospel."21 But the latters'

misconception of the secret's meaning for Mark led them to a consequentmisconception ofthe origin ofthe Gattung. A Gospel did not appear in order

o provide a link between opposing views ofJesus ; we have no evidence that

he evangelist knew ofsuch a problem. Nevertheless, it is true that the mes

sianic secret reveals the purpose for which a Gospel came into being

namely, to tell who Jesus was. To the question of Jesus' identity, Mark

answers : Jesus is the Messiah-Son of God, the man who lived and died and

rose in just the way this Gospel relates. Mark does not understand the Jesus-

radition to be one thing and the Christ-kerygma another. Jesus' identity as

the Messiah, i. e., Jesus' messianic history, is itself the kerygmatic newsMark wishes to proclaim.


13/13

^ 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 permissionfrom 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 specificwork 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

Mark's use of messianic secret

Documents

Transcript of Mark's use of messianic secret