Skip to main content

A Preexistent Christ in Mark?

Just been reading a fun little article with an approach to Jesus' preexistence in Mark's Gospel that I haven't come across before. I think there are some holes in it, but on the other hand it is quite refreshing to see the usual arguments and texts turned on their heads!

The fact that Mark begins his Gospel with the baptism scene has often been taken to indicate his espousal of adoptionist christology which excludes any attribution of intrinsic divinity. On the whole, this proves to be untenable. Mark specifically identifies John’s baptism as the beginning of the gospel, not of Jesus; there is no denial of Jesus’ personal preexistence, a necessary corollary of divinity. On the contrary, even though the ascription of sonship in 1.11 is phrased in terms of Ps. 2.7, the specifically adoptionist element of that verse is omitted. Instead of ‘this day I have begotten you’, we read, ’with you I am well pleased.' The aorist probably indicates that God’s pleasure in Jesus is already established and does not arise as a sudden whim; Mark began his Gospel with one of his rare biblical citations in order to show that the events he narrates are part of God’s longstanding plan (1.2-3). This leaves us with twological alternatives for the origin of God’s pleasure: Jesus’ preexistence; or his uniquely pleasing earthly life before his baptism.

Clearly, the former is to be preferred. If Jesus’ adoption at the baptism was the reward for his previous deportment, how could Mark refrain from describing that meritorious early life? More importantly, Mark’s divine-human dichotomy is too radical to allow for the implication which arises from adoptionism, which is that the gulf could be bridged from the human side (8.37f.). Finally, given the wide attestation of divine-human christology in Christian sources earlier than and contemporary with Mark, any espousal of adoptionism would need to be quite pointed; but this we do not find.

We do, however, find that Mark’s references to Jesus’ relationship to God lend themselves to the suggestion of intrinsic divinity. They issue largely from supernatural beings, either God (1.11; 9.7) or demons (1.24; 3.11; 5.7), implying that these are supernatural revelations about a supernatural person. Mark’s handling of the transfiguration as a whole raises Jesus above Elijah and Moses, emphasizing that he alone is the Son of God, to whom human beings must listen; he alone overcomes the dichotomy. Further, the parable of the vineyard (12.1-11) contains enough evidence of allegorization that the sending of the (already existing) beloved son in 12.6 is most plausibly understood as implying Jesus’ personal preexistence, much like Gal. 4.4.

Philip Davis, "Mark's Christological Paradox," JSNT 35, 1989, 3-18, 12-13. 

Let me know what you think :-)


  1. Why would "preexistence" be the best conclusion to draw based on this narrative logic, rather than "unmerited election"?

    But arguably the still more natural option to consider is that Jesus' exaltation to the status of "son of God with power" is granted based on his obedience unto death. It has been argued that adoptionism based on the baptism is already part of the process of shifting Jesus' exalted status earlier than his exaltation to sit at the right hand of God. Then again, it would be wrong to drive a wedge between "chosen king" and "enthroned and crowned king."

  2. Hi James, thanks. I must admit I enjoyed the quote because it was so surprising and unexpected! I don't think it is convincing, but it does point out some pertinent textual features that are worth a second look.

    "Son of God with power" isn't a Markan term though is it? In Mark Jesus is the son of God at least from the baptism, if not before. His exaltation to power and glory is as the son of man 13:26, 14:62. Would be an interesting study to juxtapose that with Rom 1 and Acts 7:56, etc.

    Does anyone advocate for "Unmerited election" in print? I'd love to follow that one up. :-)

  3. Son of God is an important term in Mark, but I was of course using what seems to be a pre-Pauline phrase embedded in Romans, which is definitely earlier than Mark.

    I think that "son of God," especially if understood royally, can have the same multi-staged aspect that kingship has. At what point did David become king? When God chose him? When Samuel anointed him? When he actually took the throne and ruled over all Israel after the death of Saul?

    It would indeed be interesting to explore a radical Protestant "Jesus was elected by grace and not because of works" Christology and see what happens to our understanding of Jesus in the Gospels, and then also in turn of Paul's letters! :-)

  4. Thanks James, interesting thoughts! You're certainly right that if son-of-God is meant purely as a royal term that could comfortably have a multi-staged aspect to it.

    However, Mark's narrative would seem to contradict that as Jesus' coronation is also the place of his desertion by God, he is least "son" (why have you forsaken me?) when he is most "king of the Jews". If only we had Mark's last chapter to see where he was going with it all! ;-)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .