Given a common opinion that the Gospel of Mark displays a low Christology, it may seem a futile endeavour to take the discussion a step further in exploring whether a trinitarian understanding of God can be traced there.1 If we assume a ‘natural’ development from a binitarian (God and Jesus) to a trinitarian view of God (God, Jesus and the Spirit) in the early Christian communities,2 a view which is often taken for granted but not necessarily demonstrated,3 it would seem pointless to bring up the question of the Trinity if Jesus is less than divine. However, I will argue that the evidence for a uniquely close linking of Jesus to God in Mark is stronger than is often recognized, and, although there are relatively few references to the Holy Spirit, these have some of the characteristics that are normally taken to be evidence for the Spirit’s divine and personal status.4 At the same time, Mark offers strong evidence for the belief in the one, unique God of Israel.
Before turning to the evidence, some words must be said about terminology. From a strictly historical point of view it would be anachronistic to use terms like ‘Trinity’ and ‘trinitarian’, since these appeared and were discussed long after Mark was written and involved philosophical categories he does not appear to allude to. For this reason some scholars prefer to speak of a ‘proto-Trinitarian’ view,5 a divine triad, a threefold pattern, and so on, when discussing New Testament texts.6 The present study acknowledges the difficulty in using ‘trinitarian’ vocabulary. On the other hand, threefold patterns in the New Testament cannot be completely disconnected from the discussions and development of the doctrine of the Trinity in subsequent centuries. The early Christian theologians were in fact among other things also discussing precisely these texts.7 Thus, while being aware of the difficulties, I nevertheless feel content to ask if a trinitarian pattern can be traced in Mark.
Although some scholars have attributed the ascription of divine status of Christ to the influx of pagans in the Christian communities, who by their blurred concepts of the divine undermined and finally overthrew the solid and strict monotheism of the earliest Jewish believers,8 the evidence of the New Testament texts points in a different direction, namely that early Christians maintained a monotheistic stance.9 The Gospel of Mark is no exception in this regard. Even though, or perhaps precisely because, Mark wrote to a primarily Gentile audience,10 he includes some of the strongest assertions in the New Testament of belief in the one God of Israel.
Mark begins his Gospel by citing the Jewish Scriptures: ‘As it is written in Isaiah the prophet . . .’ (1:2).11 This is actually a conflation of three different Old Testament passages (Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1; Isa. 40:3), but Mark highlights the Isaiah quotation by explicitly ascribing the entire quotation to Isaiah.12 By doing this at the outset of his writing13 Mark connects his own writing both to the Jewish tradition (i.e. their Scriptures) as well as to their God and their monotheism.14 The very passage Mark cites, Isaiah 40:3, is also the beginning of the most explicitly monotheistic portion of the Old Testament, which combines solemn declarations about Israel’s God (‘I am YHWH, and there is no other, / besides me there is no God’ [45:5]) with hilarious ridiculing of man-made idols. Mark’s point, even if implicit, surely is that the one God of Israel, the only creator of everything and the Lord of history, who in ancient days promised to act on behalf of his people, is now about to fulfil his promises.15 Who this God is, and how he acts, is the story Mark is going to tell.
The most significant passage dealing with the question of God’s oneness is found in the theologically dense chapter 12.16 Asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus responds by citing Deuteronomy 6:4, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one’ (12:29). The scribe is no less emphatic about God’s uniqueness in his response: ‘You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other except him’ (12:32). This passage is remarkable. Other early Christian writers allude to the first part of the Shema, but this is the only citation of it in the New Testament.17 Even more surprising is that it is difficult to find any passages in biblical or early Jewish literature rivalling this one when it comes to monotheistic density:18 Jesus first cites the Shema, and then the scribe adds two monotheistic formulas: ‘he is one’ and ‘there is no other except him’.19 The monotheistic outlook of Mark’s Gospel could hardly have been stated more forcefully. Mark’s reason for including it – which is noteworthy in comparison with the omissions in Matthew and Luke – is probably related to the polytheistic environment in which his audience lived, and the Gentile background of many of them. There should be no doubt that the evangelist repudiates the polytheism of the Greco-Roman world. But Mark may have had another reason, namely to avoid misunderstandings about Jesus.20
The keyword ‘one’ in the Shema appears in two further passages. Both Mark 2:7 and 10:18 include the identical phrase ei mē heis ho theos, in both cases probably alluding to the Shema, since in neither case is the word heis (one) necessary, and pointing forward to Jesus’ quotation of it and the scribe’s response in Mark 12.21 In the first place the words are ascribed to some scribes who object to Jesus’ forgiving the sins of the paralytic: ‘Who can forgive sins except one, God?’ In the second passage Jesus questions the rich man’s reason for calling him good: ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except the one God.’ The inclusion of the keyword in the Shema, which also was frequently used to stress the uniqueness of Israel’s God in the Bible and early Jewish literature, suggests that the monotheistic belief in the one God is the concern in both passages.22
Further, God is designated as ‘the Most High God’ in 5:7. This title often appears in a Gentile context in the early Jewish literature, either when Gentiles are referring to the God of Israel, as is the case in Mark, or when Jews are addressing Gentiles.23 Although this title could imply an understanding of the divine in which Israel’s God is the most powerful among other gods, Bauckham argues that its use in the early Jewish literature rather indicates God’s sovereignty over all things, history as well as nations, and for this reason was especially fitting in a Gentile context.24
We should also note that Mark identifies God as the creator of all things and the sovereign ruler of history, such that he can shorten the days (13:19–20). Both were central in the Jewish expression of their commitment to God (cf. 3 Macc. 2.3).25 The evangelist never elaborates these themes, but appears to take them for granted.
In conclusion, Mark maintains the basic Jewish understanding and belief in one God, which is stressed in particular by the inclusion of the Shema and repeated allusions to the concept of one God. Mark thus belongs to the group of early Christian writers that provides later theologians with the idea of God’s oneness, one of the key elements in the later development of the trinitarian dogma.
The word ‘God’ appears about fifty times in Mark. More than half of these, however, are used in constructions such as the ‘kingdom of God’, the ‘commandment of God’, and so on, reducing the number of direct referents to ‘God’ to about twenty-five. This is significantly fewer than, for example, the name ‘Jesus’ (which appears about ninety-five times). Statistics can be misused, but these numbers nevertheless indicate some basic features of Mark: the chief character is Jesus, and God has a more concealed role.26 While Mark continuously relates Jesus’ actions, including a number of divine actions that are reserved for God in the Old Testament,27 God is for the most part referred to either more indirectly or with reference to his actions in the Old Testament. This is not to say that God is absent. His hidden presence is taken for granted throughout the narrative: God forgives sins (2:7; 11:25), is glorified (2:12), joins man and woman in marriage (10:9), makes the impossible possible, that is, for people to enter the kingdom of God (10:27), and has the power to raise people from the dead (12:30). The disciples should have faith that God hears their prayers (11:22); they ought to render to him what is his (12:26) and love him wholeheartedly (12:30).
In the light of this it is significant that God enters the scene at three occasions, strategically placed at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the narrative. First, God’s voice, the Bath Qol is heard at Jesus’ baptism: ‘And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased”’ (1:11). For our present purposes we note that God authorizes Jesus and identifies him as his Son, thereby implicitly identifying himself as his Father and introducing another important designation of God in Mark. The next scene, the transfiguration, is with some significant differences a replay of the first. The Bath Qol is heard again: ‘This is my beloved Son; listen to him’ (9:7). While the voice is accompanied by the visible manifestation of the Spirit in the first scene, a cloud appears this time, reminding the disciples and the audience of God’s theophany in a cloud at Mount Sinai from which God used to speak. The other difference is that the words are directed to the three disciples present, authorizing Jesus and God’s words to him and presenting, for the first time, Jesus as God’s Son to human characters in the story.28 The third scene is the resurrection. Mark never says explicitly that God raised Jesus, but it is implicit in the text. The angel tells the women at the tomb that Jesus has been raised (ēgerthē, 16:6). The passive verb almost certainly indicates that God has raised Jesus, especially in the light of the discussion in 12:19–27, which identifies God as the one who raises the dead. Thus Jesus has not been forsaken (cf. 15:34), but has finally been vindicated and authorized by God.
It follows then that, although God at first glance seems to take the back seat in Mark, he enters the story and acts in a profound way in three crucial and strategically placed scenes. In this way God’s essential function becomes ‘to identify and endorse Jesus’, but thereby God also shows himself to be ‘the origin and ultimate meaning for Jesus’ activities’.29
But it also follows that the title ‘Father’, which plays an important, even if implicit, role in two of these scenes, is significant in Mark’s presentation of God. The Bath Qol is identified not as ‘God’ but in relation to Jesus (‘my Son’), that is, the one who speaks stands in a familial relationship to the one spoken to or about. In terms of the sheer number of occurrences ‘Father’ is not particularly prominent.30 The title appears only four times. In three of these cases ‘Father’ is related to Jesus (8:38; 13:32; 14:36), and in one case God is the Father of the disciples (11:25). To these we could add those instances where Jesus is presented as Son of God, which implicitly makes God the Father of Jesus (1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:61; 15:39). Thus God is primarily ‘Father’ in relation to Jesus.31
This brings us to the third important designation of God in Mark: kyrios (Lord). God is the one Lord and God of the Shema (12:29). This title appears sixteen times in Mark. It is, however, a designation also shared by Jesus and it is often very difficult to determine whether God or Jesus is the referent. God is clearly one of the kyrioi in 12:36 and also the referent in the Scripture citation in 12:11. But in the remaining cases the title seems to create an overlap between God and Jesus. Before we look at this in some detail, however, we turn our attention to Jesus and the Spirit.
The protagonist of Mark’s Gospel is presented with several different titles, among these Messiah/Christ and Son of God, which appear in the opening line.32 For a long time research of Mark’s Christology focused solely on the study of Christological titles.33 Although such studies can be helpful in delineating Mark’s presentation of Jesus, a full understanding of Jesus can by no means be restricted to such a study. The designation ‘Son of God’ is a good example of this. It is without doubt important, since it appears in three pivotal passages, at the beginning, in the middle and towards the end of the Gospel (1:11; 9:7; 15:39).34 Nevertheless, the title as such can evoke various meanings. For non-Jewish Hellenistic readers it would certainly imply that Jesus is a divine figure, but in the biblical literature it is variously used of angelic beings (Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6), Israel (Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1), the king (Ps. 2:7) and the righteous individual (Wis. 2.16–20), and in Qumran it had possibly become a messianic title (4QFlor [4Q174]).35 Which of these did Mark intend? Or, did he intend a new meaning, perhaps even one that is close to the meaning most readers informed by the doctrine of the Trinity would believe it has? Only a careful study of the overall presentation of Jesus can help us in this regard.
In the following I restrict myself to the question of the divinity of Jesus and look particularly at three individual passages and the phenomenon that all, in their particular ways, present Jesus as if he in some mysterious way is the God of Israel.36
As already noted, Mark opens his Gospel by quoting three Scripture passages: Exodus 23:20; Malachi 3:1; and Isaiah 40:3. In the first of these God addresses Israel and promises to send his angel before them. This text is conflated with Malachi 3:1, where YHWH promises to send a messenger or an angel before himself: ‘Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me.’ In Mark, however, ‘the way before me’ becomes ‘your way’ (1:2). The next verse is a verbatim citation of the lxx, except that ‘paths of our God’ in the lxx is changed to ‘his paths’. In its original context the text refers to a manifestation of YHWH, resulting in salvation for God’s people. Mark’s identification of Isaiah as the source of the citation makes it clear that he sees the Isaiah text as the most important one. As for the conflation in 1:2, Malachi 3:1 takes precedence over Exodus 23:20.37 Accordingly, the original contexts of the primary Old Testament texts Mark cites both refer to the preparation of a way before the God of Israel. In Malachi a promised messenger prepares the way of YHWH; in Isaiah a voice cries out to prepare the way of YHWH.
In Mark, however, these texts are applied to John the Baptist and Jesus. John the Baptist wears clothes like Elijah’s (1:6; cf. 2 Kgs 1:8); he prepares the people for the coming Lord by ‘proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins’ (1:4; cf. Mal. 3:2–4; 4:5–6); he proclaims the one who will come after him (1:7–8). If we were to isolate 1:2–8 from what follows, we would expect a great theophany in which YHWH appeared! But that is not the case. Instead, Jesus appears on the banks of Jordan, and becomes the object of John’s expectation and Mark’s Old Testament texts (1:9).38
By introducing Jesus in this way Mark applies to him two Old Testament texts that have YHWH as their subject. Isaiah 40:3 is particularly significant since this also includes the divine name, YHWH. This verse belongs to a group of similar passages in the New Testament where Jesus is made the subject of an Old Testament text that has YHWH as its subject.39 In the case of Mark this means not only that another important title alongside ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ is given to Jesus, namely ‘Lord’; it also means that Jesus and God by means of this citation are linked in the closest possible way to each other.40 That Mark’s citation appears as part of the opening sentence makes it programmatic for the whole Gospel, and the reader is provided with a hermeneutical key to the Christology of Mark. This is confirmed in the following passages.
In Mark 2:1–12 Jesus forgives the sins of a man who is brought to him: ‘Child, your sins are forgiven’ (teknon aphientai sou hai hamartiai, 2:5b). Mark narrates the response of some scribes: ‘Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?’ (tis dynatai aphienai hamartias ei mē heis ho theos, 2:7). The response is significant in two ways. First, it clarifies that Jesus himself forgives the sins of the paralytic,41 and second, that Jesus acts in a role that belongs exclusively to God and thereby, in the eyes of his audience, commits the worst sin possible against God – blasphemy. Nothing seems to suggest that Jesus or Mark disagree with the scribes’ interpretation, apart from the blasphemy accusation. Jesus confirms in 2:10 (exousian echei aphienai hamartias) that he has this right in words that in both form and content correspond to the pronouncement of the scribes in 2:7 (dynatai aphienai amartias). Thus what is said of God in 2:7 is said of the Son of Man (Jesus) in 2:10. The evangelist maintains both that God alone has the authority to forgive sins and that Jesus has authority to forgive sins. Mark thereby, so it seems, places Jesus on the divine side.42
If Mark helps the reader to understand the significance of Jesus’ forgiving the paralytic’s sins, he offers more of a challenge in the next significant episode. Having seen Jesus’ stilling of wind and water (4:36–41), the terrified disciples43 ask each other, ‘Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey?’ (4:41). The audience must supply the answer. So what would this be if we look at the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultural background of Mark’s audience?
The Old Testament is unambiguous. There is only one whom sea and wind obey: the God of Israel. Numerous passages attest to the sovereign lordship of YHWH over water and storms.44 The same is true of the early Jewish literature.45 In fact, God’s sovereignty over the sea is sometimes used to demonstrate that the God of Israel is the one true God.46 A passage of particular relevance for Mark 4 is 2 Maccabees 9.8, where Antiochus Epiphanes is described in this way: ‘Thus he who had just been thinking that he could command the waves of the sea, in his superhuman arrogance, [. . .], was brought down to earth and carried in a litter, making the power of God manifest to all’ (rsv). Accordingly, shortly afterwards Antiochus is called a blasphemer (9.28). 2 Maccabees thus provides evidence that the Jews regarded the claim to have ability to command the waves of the sea as a claim to divinity, which in their view was to make oneself equal to God.
The Greco-Roman thinking about power over sea and wind does not differ from the Jewish view to any significant degree. Authority over wind and water was of course attributed to those gods of the Olympic pantheon particularly associated with the sea (Poseidon/Neptune and Aphrodite/Venus), but also a number of other divine (e.g. the Dioscuri; cf. Acts 28:11) or semi-divine beings.47 When human beings, such as Apollonius of Tyana, were associated with this power, the motif was used to demonstrate that they were divine. The difference from Judaism is thus merely a less strict concept of the divine and the number of deities.
Thus whether a reader or hearer of Mark’s Gospel was a Jew or a pagan, the same conclusion would be drawn. Jesus acts as a divine being when he calms the storm, and appears to share another divine prerogative, indeed an attribute that demonstrates YHWH’s absolute sovereignty over all creation. To ascribe such powers to Jesus is to equate him with God himself.48
Finally, I would like to draw attention to what kind of a relation Jesus expects the believer to have with him, namely readiness both to live and die for him. We therefore again turn to the Shema, but this time to its second part: ‘And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart [kardia] and with all your soul [psychē] and with all your mind [dianoia] and with all your strength [ischys]’ (12:30). In the later rabbinic exposition of Deuteronomy 6:5 each element of the love command was assigned specific meaning: ‘with all your heart’ referred both to the good and the evil inclinations of a human being, that is, an undivided heart; ‘with all your soul’ meant ‘even if he takes your soul’, that is, even at the cost of one’s life; ‘with all your strength’ referred to one’s whole property.49
What is striking about the Gospel of Mark, however, is Jesus’ requirement of such loyalty to his own person: Jesus demands undivided attention to his word (4:1–20; 7:1–23) and the kingdom of God (9:43–48); the disciples should be ready to suffer and die for the sake of him and the gospel (8:34–35); the disciples have left everything to follow Jesus (10:28–30).50 Mark apparently includes Jesus in the devotion that, according to the Shema, should be offered to God alone. Or, to put it differently, the Christian reader of Mark’s Gospel must, in order to fulfil the Shema, include Jesus in the devotion directed to God.
Whether or not this rabbinic interpretation of the love command goes back to the first century,51 there is nonetheless abundant evidence that the Marcan Jesus in more than one way expected or was given the loyalty by his followers that God alone could demand.
Persecution even unto death for the sake of Jesus is one important example.52 The biblical and, to a greater extent, the early Jewish literature attest to many examples where the Jews are expected to die for God and the law.53 Josephus, for example, mentions that Jewish captives after the war, adults and children alike, accepted torture rather than confess that ‘Caesar was lord’ (J. W. 7.417–19), for God alone was their Lord (J. W. 7.410). However, in Mark the absolute commitment shown to YHWH and the law in the Jewish tradition has become complete loyalty to Jesus and the gospel (8:35, 38; 10:29). Furthermore, the warning against denial of Jesus and his words (8:38) seems to have a parallel in 3 Maccabees 7.10, where transgression against ‘the holy God and his Law’ is denounced. Loyalty to Jesus is thus a presupposition for faithful devotion to Israel’s God. In this context the relationship to Jesus appears to be motivated by his sharing the very glory of his Father (8:38). The reason why Jesus can be the object of ultimate devotion is, thus, his close association with the one God of Israel.
These and several other passages or features in Mark portray Jesus as a divine being.54 Were it not for the firm stance on monotheism and consistent linking of Jesus to God, Jesus could easily be conceived as a second deity alongside God. Instead, Jesus is somehow closely identified with God himself, in a unique way placed with God on the God–creation divide.
The Greek word pneuma (spirit) appears twenty-three times in Mark, but only six of these are references to the Holy Spirit.55 Of the remaining seventeen, fourteen refer to unclean spirits,56 and three appear to refer to the spirit of a human being.57 In comparison with the large number of references to God and Jesus, these are few and, with the exception of 1:8–12, appear only to be mentioned more or less in passing. Such evidence should not be disregarded, though, since this may give us hints of what the author believed and took for granted.
I will not discuss these passages in detail, but instead focus on two issues: the question whether the Spirit is presented as a person or an impersonal power, and the Spirit’s relation to God and Jesus.
We begin with the three references to the Spirit in the prologue.58 In a crucial statement John the Baptist states that the one who will come after him will baptize ‘with holy Spirit’ (en pneumati hagiō, Mark 1:8). The comparison to and contrast with water (John’s baptism) and the lack of the definite article suggest that the Spirit is here primarily conceived of as an impersonal power rather than a person.59 In the next reference (1:10) the Spirit has a more personal character when in the form of a dove60 he descends upon or into61 Jesus. In the final reference in the prologue the Spirit is the subject of an action. Jesus is driven out into the wilderness by the Spirit (1:12). The latter could be either the action of a person or an impersonal power. However, the next reference can be taken only personally.
In 3:29 Jesus states that his opponents’ accusation of his being possessed and doing the works of Satan is sin against the Holy Spirit (to pneuma to hagion), and as such an unforgivable sin. In this case the Spirit is clearly described as a personal being. One does not commit sins against an impersonal power or force.62 The same must be said about 13:11, where Jesus promises that his disciples need not worry beforehand about what they are to say when they face trials, ‘but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit [to pneuma to hagion]’. The Spirit is more than a mere power here, a personal being speaking and putting the right words in the mouths of the disciples.63 A similar line of thought is probably behind the brief observation in 12:36 that David spoke the words of Psalm 110 ‘by the Holy Spirit’ (en tō pneumati tō hagiō). Though this could refer to divine inspiration, it should probably be understood that the Spirit gave the words to David just as the Spirit is going to give words to persecuted followers of Jesus.64
Mark offers references to the Holy Spirit, which, if interpreted in the light of their immediate contexts, in some cases seem to describe the Spirit as an impersonal power and in other places as a personal being.65 In this Mark reflects a general tendency in the New Testament.66 Personal and seemingly impersonal descriptions could stand side by side.67
The Spirit is never called God in Mark,68 and no passages are used from the Scriptures that, in their Old Testament contexts, with God as their subject are applied to the Spirit (cf. 1:2–3). There is on the whole little direct evidence for the Spirit’s taking on divine prerogatives. But there is plenty of evidence for a close association of the Spirit with both God and Jesus.
The promise of a baptism with the Holy Spirit is generally agreed to allude to the Old Testament promise of an eschatological outpouring of the Spirit of God,69 an event that is not fulfilled within the narrative of Mark.70 For our purposes it is significant that the gift is God’s Spirit and that God is the dispenser: ‘I will pour out my Spirit’ (Isa. 44:3). Thus even if not made explicit in the narrative, it is implied that John is referring to the Spirit of God. However, the Spirit is not only linked to God but also to the coming one, Jesus, who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.71
In 1:10–11 God, Jesus and the Spirit are linked by the narrative. Jesus, coming out of the water, sees the Spirit descending upon him and hears a voice from heaven (God’s voice) saying, ‘You are my beloved Son.’
In the next passage the Spirit acts on Jesus, driving him into the wilderness (1:12). This is perhaps less significant for the relationship between the Spirit and Jesus in terms of a uniquely divine relation, since similar activities by the Spirit on other human beings are recounted in Scripture (1 Kgs 18:12; Ezek. 8:3; Acts 8:39).
More important in this regard is Mark 3:29. Sin against the Holy Spirit is deemed unforgivable by Jesus. Important to note about this passage is not only that Jesus can define what is forgivable, but that sin or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the accusation that Jesus is demon possessed and his activities are of Satan. That is, total opposition to Jesus is also at the same time committing of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.72 If anything, this demonstrates a close linking of the Holy Spirit to Jesus.
Jesus’ statement that David spoke through the Holy Spirit (12:36) when composing Psalm 110 also brings together the Spirit, Jesus and God. The Spirit appears as a witness to a dialogue in heaven in which the one kyrios, God, addresses the other kyrios, Jesus:
Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet.73
We will presently look more closely at the significance of this passage. For now it is sufficient to observe that the Holy Spirit also in this connection is associated with both God and Jesus.
The final reference to the Spirit has more to say about relationship between the Spirit and Jesus’ disciples (13:11). The disciples must not worry even when they face trials, as the Holy Spirit will be speaking. Nevertheless, it is significant that Jesus has the most intimate knowledge of the Spirit’s future activities so that he can make a promise on the part of the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ promise is similar to the one given by God to Moses (Exod. 4:10–17) and Jeremiah (Jer. 1:6–10),74 with the one difference that God himself promises to put his own words in their mouths.75
Isolated from the overall context of Mark, the close relationship between the Spirit and Jesus may not need to indicate more than that Jesus is a human prophet led by God’s Spirit. However, once the extent to which Jesus acts in uniquely divine roles, unprecedented in the Old Testament and early Judaism, becomes clear, it is evident that there is more to this relationship than merely the authorization of a prophet. Indeed, Jesus himself stands ‘above’ the Spirit in one of these passages, as he is portrayed as the dispenser of the promised Spirit of God (1:8). This leads us to consider the overall relationship between God, Jesus and the Spirit.
The Gospel of Mark does not include any threefold formulas such as the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, the benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:13 or the greeting in Revelation (1:4–5). Nor do we find passages with dense triadic patterns in which the author frequently and in varying ways refers to God, Jesus and the Spirit (e.g. Rom. 5:1–8; 8; Gal. 4:4–6; Eph. 1:3–14). In this way the triadic pattern in Mark is far less intensive. Nevertheless, we have found that while Mark maintains monotheism, he presents Jesus as belonging to the divine side of the God–creation divide and furthermore portrays the Holy Spirit in personal terms, linking the Spirit both to God and Jesus. Before finally considering the Marcan passages where the three appear together (1:9–11; 12:36), I would like to draw attention to two larger patterns in Mark and the transfiguration scene.
First, we should look more closely at the overlap between God and Jesus created by the kyrios title, mentioned above. I have developed this argument elsewhere and will here briefly summarize only the most important points.76 The designation kyrios appears sixteen times rather uniformly spread throughout the Gospel.77 Upon a closer examination of the referent of each of these, it appears that it is extremely difficult to decide whether God or Jesus is the referent. For example, when the Gerasene demoniac has been healed, Jesus sends him away with the words
‘Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you [hosa ho kyrios soi pepoiken] . . .’ And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him [hosa epoiēsen autō ho Iēsous]. (5:19–20)
Is Jesus speaking of himself or God? The best solution is probably to distinguish between what the characters in the story would perceive and what the audience is supposed to understand. Regarding the former, Jesus may be understood as speaking of the work of the Lord God, in which case Jesus, who has healed the man, identifies his own work with that of God. But Mark’s audience hears not only that there is a unity of act between God and Jesus (i.e. what Jesus does, God does), but also that Jesus is linked to the title kyrios (i.e. what the kyrios did, Jesus did). God and Jesus thus become united under the designation kyrios. Now, this could be a coincidence were it not for the observation that this pattern is found elsewhere, particularly when kyrios appears for the first time in 1:3. Mark cites Isaiah 40:3, where in the original context the Lord God is the referent. However, as Mark moves the reader from 1:3 to 1:9 the referent of kyrios moves from God to Jesus. Therefore to ask whether kyrios refers to Jesus or God in 1:3 is simply wrong. It refers to both and, consequently, links Jesus to God. The question becomes how the relationship between God and Jesus should be understood if they share the designation kyrios. This question becomes particularly pressing in 12:28–37, where two Old Testament kyrios passages are juxtaposed: the Shema and Psalm 110:1. How can the insistence that there is only one kyrios be reconciled with the statement about the presence of two kyrioi on the divine throne? I suggest that Psalm 110:1 defines the correct understanding of the Shema and reinterprets monotheism so that there is one kyrios, and yet two figures – God and Jesus – share this name and title. The one designation kyrios guarantees the oneness of the kyrios. It follows then that God and Jesus are united and inseparable by means of this shared title. At the same time, Mark maintains a clear distinction in that two figures are linked to kyrios, and Jesus is never called God and/or Father.
A somewhat similar pattern also appears in the transfiguration narrative. There is general agreement that the most important background of this passage is found in Exodus 24 and 34, where Moses encounters God on Mount Sinai.78 Furthermore, Mark seems to present us with two divine manifestations, one of Jesus (9:2–3) and one of God (9:7).79 Prior to the transfiguration Jesus claimed that he one day would come back ‘in the glory of his Father’ (8:38). A preview of this glory Jesus shares with the father is now given to Moses, Elijah and the three disciples present with Jesus on the mountain. God, on the other hand, is manifested in the cloud in a manner similar to the Exodus account. The crucial difference between this and the Exodus account is that the glory earlier present in the cloud (cf. Exod. 24:16–17; 40:34–35) is now separated from the cloud and present in Jesus prior to the arrival of the cloud. The divine manifestations of the transfiguration narrative, I suggest, in significant ways repeat the Sinai theophany, but with the fundamental difference that what is said of the God of Israel alone in the Exodus account is split between Jesus and God in the present narrative: God appears in the cloud and speaks from the cloud (Exod. 24:16–17); Jesus manifests the glory of YHWH, and Moses and Elijah see and speak to him (cf. Exod. 33 – 34 and 1 Kgs 19:8–18). In the light of this, God’s declaration that Jesus is his Son takes on a new meaning. The two divine manifestations, so to speak, relate to each other as a father to a son. This use of language from familial relationships is rooted in the Old Testament; the king (Ps. 2:7) and the people (Exod. 4:22) can be designated ‘sons’ of Israel’s God. While this language is used of Jesus, Mark here seems to go beyond Old Testament usage, for Jesus is not only fully human, but is also found on the divine side of the God–creation divide to be participating in his father’s divine reality.80
While the previous two patterns could be termed ‘binitarian’, we turn to one that also includes the Spirit. Four times in Mark a blasphemy accusation is raised. This has led some scholars to speak of a ‘battle of blasphemies’ in Mark.81 Jesus is twice accused of blasphemy (2:7; 14:64). Shortly afterwards a description of how his opponents blaspheme or risk blaspheming follows (3:28–29; 15:29). In the first battle Jesus is accused of blasphemy for violating the prerogatives of God, that is, by putting himself in the place of God (2:7). In the next passages the tables are turned. Jesus accuses his opponents of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, on the ground that they do not receive him, and accuse him of being in alliance with Satan (3:28–29). The third blasphemy accusation reflects the first in that Jesus is again accused of blasphemy against God by claiming the place at the right hand of God on his throne (14:62–64). In the view of Jesus’ opponents he again blasphemes God. In the fourth passage Jesus himself becomes the object of blasphemy when Mark describes his opponents as committing blasphemy against Jesus (15:29).82 The ‘battle of blasphemies’ thus involves God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus. In two cases it is clear that the blasphemy is related to the first commandment: it is a threat to the oneness of YHWH, the unique status of the God of Israel (2:7; 14:62–64). Is it then mere coincidence that the opponents of Jesus are accused of blasphemy for not responding properly to the Spirit and Jesus, particularly as this is related to eternal salvation?83 Is it merely coincidence that this looks like a trinitarian pattern?
We finally turn to two direct references to ‘the divine triad’: 1:9–11 and 12:36.84 Jesus’ baptism has been considered as one of the chief texts for trinitarianism.85 In a canonical reading of the Old and New Testaments this status seems well founded, but the question is whether this is the case if we limit the context to Mark or the passage itself. Wainwright questions that this is ‘trinitarianism’, on the grounds that ‘nothing is said about the divinity of Son and Spirit, and there is no question of interaction between Father and Spirit or even between Son and Spirit’.86 But, he goes on, ‘the event itself is one which has the threefold pattern’. The baptismal account is, as can be seen by a survey of the commentaries, open to different interpretations. Nevertheless, in the light of Mark’s overall presentation of God, Jesus and the Spirit, we must say that a threefold divine pattern is present in this strategically placed passage. The same can be said about 12:36, where Jesus cites Psalm 110:1. In Mark’s version the words of Scripture are revealed by the Holy Spirit and refer to the Lord Jesus and the Lord God. The Spirit is thus the one who guarantees and explains how Jesus and God as kyrioi relate to each other.
Mark’s primary focus is on Jesus. Therefore Jesus’ relationship to God stands in the foreground. This relationship is such that we can speak of a binitarian pattern, a Christological monotheism that includes Jesus in the divine identity of God.87 But the question remains whether Mark is also conscious of the Holy Spirit’s inclusion in this identity. My survey of the passages that deal with the Spirit demonstrates that the Gospel of Mark follows the same pattern we find elsewhere in the New Testament. There are passages where the Spirit seems to be described more as an impersonal power than a person, but also passages where the Spirit undoubtedly appears as a personal being. Furthermore, there are a number of passages in which the Spirit is implicitly or explicitly juxtaposed with both God and Jesus (e.g. 1:8, 10–11; 12:36) and ‘the battle of blasphemies’ could very well be another instance where the triad is intentionally linked. Thus, although the evidence is slim in comparison to many other New Testament writings, it seems that the author of the Gospel of Mark nevertheless was aware of and to some extent communicated what may be described as a proto-trinitarian view, even to the extent that he placed the most important trinitarian passage (1:9–11) at the beginning of the Gospel.88
© Daniel Johansson, 2016