Michael Buonocore

Christology
Final Presentation
8/11/17

Mark 10:42-45 42 Jesus called them together and said, You know that those who are regarded
as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
43
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and
whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
This final project is an exegetical work on the pericope Mark 10:42-45 in partial fulfillment
of the assignment required for the Christology Survey presented by Dr. Frank D. Macchia. In it
the author will take a verse by verse approach looking at important issues that deal with historical
context, word studies, the overall theological scope of the passage, as well as a special focus on an
important theological variant with concerns to liberation as well as a more precise look at the term
Son of man which adds an interesting christological viewpoint in which to understand the
pericope as a whole.
Verse 42
Walter Wessel and Mark Straus who write the section on Mark for The Expositors Bible
Commentary write that here Jesus gives a lesson in true greatness and explain that Jesus begins by
drawing a striking contrast between the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God (875).
They add that the rulers of the ancient world were deemed great because of their ability to
conquer and dominate others, and this fact is something you know, Jesus says (875). For the
authors, the disciples did not need to look far in a Palestine ruled by Rome and the Herodian
dynasty to see that power, oppression, and coercion were the preferred means of leadership (875).
Louis Barbieri in his commentary on Mark adds to this writing that according to Mark, Jesus
described these monarchs as so-called rulers, while another possible translation would be
recognized rulers, but the better translation in harmony with Gal. 2:2, 6, 9, the rendering so-
called or those who are reputed to be or are supposed to be is probably correct (237-238). It
is very well possible according to him, therefore, that the Masters words are tinged with irony
(238).
R. Alan Cole in his commentary on Mark as part of the Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries writes concerning the phrase lord it over them saying it is a good translation of the
Greek katakyrieu, exercise lordship, but for Christians he adds, such an attitude becomes a
contradiction in terms, for our understanding of the verb is derived from the meaning to us of
Kyrios, Lord, the corresponding noun, which is uniquely a title of Christ (248). Our whole
concept of the nature of lordship has therefore changed with the stooping and self-emptying of the
Christ, who is Lord of all (248).
Craig Keener in his Bible Background Commentary contributes to this by writing that
Jewish people knew well the Gentile model of authority: ancient near Eastern kings had long
claimed to be gods and ruled tyrannically; Greek rulers had adopted the same posture through
much of the eastern Mediterranean, and with this adds that the Roman emperor and his provincial
agents would have been viewed in much the same light: brutal and tyrannical (163). For Keener
Jesus reminding the disciples that seeking power was a Gentile (i.e., pagan) practice was
tantamount to telling them they should not be doing it (163). Keener also adds that Jewish teachers
used Gentile practices as negative examples and sees Jesus using this method (163).
Verses 43-44
Wessel and Straus see that among true follower of Jesus a very different model applies
since among Jesus disciple, greatness is not achieved by asserting rank by but humble service
(875), and Keener makes the claim that this was a radical stance to define greatness in terms of
servanthood (163). With this they point out that as Jesus description of the worlds standard of
greatness was given in synonymous parallels, so also is the description of true greatness in the
kingdom of God (875). Along with this they point out that the word servant (diakonos), commonly
referred to one who waited on tables, but the word could be used to designate any kind of servant
or assistant (875). Barbieri adds to this that a servant (diakonos), was a word for a household
slave and that this word was used later for those who served in the church as deacons (238). Doulos,
state Wessel and Straus, was a stronger term that denoted a slave, one solely committed or
subjected to another, thus the meaning for them is that to be first exceeds mere greatness, and to
be a salve is even lower than a servant, so the effect is to drive home Jesus amazing paradox and
to emphasize the upside-down values of the kingdom of God (875). This goes beyond what
Barbieri writes that word to mean, an ordinary bond salve (238). Keener goes deeper explaining
that Jewish free persons, like their Gentile counterparts, considered salves socially inferior (163).
Verse 45
In the kingdom of God Wessel and Straus say that humble service is the rule, and the Son
of Man is the example par excellence, especially in his redemptive mission (875). Son of Man
is the veiled messianic title Jesus often uses of himself according to the authors, and with this they
explain that the title is sometimes contrasted with Son of God and assumed to refer to Jesus
humble human nature, yet they add, its primary background is the exalted messianic figure of
Daniel 7 (875). This exalted background explains for them why Jesus says, Even (kai) the Son of
Man even the glorious Messiah, who will receive all glory, power, and dominion did not
come to be served, but to serve, and with this they see this statement as summarizing Jesus
incarnate life (876). They further explain that his coming means giving his life as a ransom for
many, and that this world translated ransom is lytron, which means the price of release (876).
Our authors continue writing that in Koine Greek lytron was often used of payment for the release
of slave or captives, and that LXX uses the term for various payments, including compensation for
crimes or the redemption of those who, because of poverty, had sold their tribal land or themselves
into slavery (876). The verb lytro could mean to set free by paying a ransom but commonly
meant simply to set free, deliver, or rescue, so for them the sense in the present passage is that
Jesus death pays the price to set his people free (876).
The prepositional phrase for many translates anti polln according to Wessel and Straus,
and with this they explain that the ordinary meaning of the preposition anti is in the place of or
instead of a clear indication of substitution (876). The expression the many they say is not
to be understood as a limiting adjective, meaning some but not all, but rather in contrast to the
one: the one died for the many, thus a sign that a single life is given for the ransom of other (876).
Thus, for the authors the entire phrase to give his life as a ransom for many therefore emphasizes
the substitutionary and atoning element in Jesus death (876).
Barbieri makes it known that the ransom was not paid to Satan, as Origen maintained; the
one who held the price over the head of the sinner was God the Father, and clearly the price was
paid for the for the many (239). He now presents a question, does that imply that the death of
Christ was sufficient only for those who would be the recipients of salvation, or was His death for
all mankind (239)? The fact for him that his passage seems to limit the effect of His death does not
negate other passage that imply that the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient for the sins of the entire
world (239).
Keener writes that by calling himself a servant and defining his mission as giving his
life as ransom for the many, Jesus identifies himself with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:10-
12, and although the servants mission had been given to Israel as a whole, Israel through
disobedience could not fulfill it, so that the one who would fulfill it had to restore Israel as well as
bring light to the Gentiles (163-164). With this he states that because hardly anyone else had yet
applied this passage to the Messiah, Jesus is trying to redefine their expectation about his messianic
mission (164).
With this in mind Barbieri asks, was it unreasonable of the Savior to demand this of His
followers (239)? He answers, writing that the Lord made clear that this was the position He
Himself had assumed in coming into this earth (239). He declared, according to Barbieri, that the
Son of Many, who came with His absolute deity veiled, did not come in His first advent to be a
ruler (239).
According to Wessel and Straus significant debate has focused on two key issues related
to the ransom saying: its background and its authenticity (876). While it was once widely assumed
that the conceptual background to the ransom saying was to be found in Isaiahs fourth Servant
Son (Isa 52:13-53:12), this conclusion was seriously challenged by C.K. Barrett and M.D. Hooker,
states our authors, and to this they add that both scholars argue against Isaianic Servant imagery
and instead find the background in Daniel 7 and in the experience of the Maccabean martyrs, who
suffered and died so that the nation might live (876). They continue, writing that while scholars
continue to debate this issue, there is good evidence that Jesus indeed has Isaiahs fourth Servant
Son in view, their reasoning being that the phrase give his life in Mark 10:45 is very close to
Isaiah 53:12, where the Servant poured out his life unto death, and that in Isaiah 53:10 the Lord
makes the Servants life a sin offering, i.e., a sacrifice covering the sins of others (876). Perhaps
most significantly, they write that the striking image of the one suffering for the many appears both
in Isaiah 53:11-13 and Mark 10:45, and though individually none of these allusions are conclusive,
together they make a convincing case that behind Jesus words lies Isaiahs image of the Suffering
Servant, who offers himself as a sacrifice for others (877).
The second key issued related to Mark 10:45 writes Wessel and Straus is its authenticity
and whether Jesus attributed atoning significance to his own death (877). A strong case may be
made they say for the authenticity of the saying: (1) The claim that the saying was created under
the influence of Pauline theology of the atonement is unlikely, given the fact that Paul never uses
lytron to refer to the redemption Jesus has accomplished. (2) The saying has a strong Semitic flavor
and is easily translatable back into Aramaic (877). (3) The idea of the suffering death of one
persons providing atonement or benefit for others was not alien to Jesus world (877). (4) The
authors look to Evan who points out that the Semitic phrase son of man (which is natural Hebrew
and Aramaic but very awkward in Greek or Latin) certainly has its origin in the ministry of Jesus
rather than in the later Hellenistic church, and similarly, the description of Jesus as servant
would be open to serious misunderstanding, even ridicule in the Greco-Roman world (877). So,
to conclude the authors state that both the Son of Man traditions arising from Daniel 7 and the
Servant tradition of Isaiah are better explained as originating in the teaching of Jesus, rather than
in the early church (877).
Cole adds to the discussion writing that this is an argument of the how much more type,
often used by Jesus in the gospels (248). He expounds writing that even Jesus came not to enjoy
the service of others, but to accept a lowly servants place: how much more his servants, he says,
but also, he came to give his life as a ransom for many, and it is this saying that is rich in meaning:
the Son of man concept, found in the Psalms, Ezekiel and Daniel, has been already linked with the
servant concept of Isaiah, and both are here linked with the great ransom theme of Old Testament
days (248). With this he adds that Jesus gathers into one, as it were, all these different strands of
Old Testament through, and uses them in combination to explain the full meaning of his
Messiahship (248). This ransom-price metaphor according to him was one greatly beloved by the
early church, and it is one of the great biblical statements of the purpose and efficacy of the
atonement, and of its cost in the death of Christ (248).
An Alternative View
Sharyn Dowd and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon present a very different take on the pericope
as presented in their article for the Journal of Biblical Literature entitled The Significance of Jesus
Death in Mark: Narrative Context and Authorial Audience. In their article, they write that the
Gospel of Mark makes no explicit connection between the death of Jesus and the forgiveness of
sins, since they see the ransom saying in 10:45 as best translated a ransom in substitution for
many, implying that the problem overcome by Jesus giving his life was captivity or slavery
rather than guilt (271). With this they explain that a first-century Greek-speaking audience would
probably have understood that, although the service of the Markan Jesus does involve forgiving
sins, the narrative taken as a whole suggests that the death of the Markan Jesus performs for
many the service of liberation from bondage to oppression for membership in the covenant
community that constitutes a house of prayer for all nations (271).
Dowd and Malbon see Mark 8:22-10:52, the area in which our pericope falls, as being
about discipleship and with this say that the blindness of the disciples as the Markan Jesus attempts
to prepare them for his death is striking, and in chs. 8-10 they only half see the type of messiah
the Markan Jesus understands himself to be (277-278). They further their argument writing that
first and foremost, Jesus death is not to be understood as beyond the knowledge and purpose of
God, since at work here is a passion apologetic more than a soteriology of the cross: even Jesus
death does not negate his role as Gods Messiah or his proclamation of the in-breaking reign of
God (278). Second for them, Jesus suffering and death show what may also happen to any who
take up his proclamation; the teachers life (and death) manifest the pattern for his followers. Third
they write that it is not suffering or death for its own sake that is being advocated for Jesus or for
his followers but rather the strength to serve others, especially those lowest in the evaluation of
conventional society, even if such service may result in suffering or death at the hands of the
powerful of that society (278).
Concerning the third passion prediction unit (10:32-45), Dowd and Malbon write that it
opens with the most detailed passion prediction, a virtual preview of the Markan passion narrative,
but it closes with a relatively short yet dramatically powerful discipleship instruction section
stressing service and thereby contrasting the community of Jesus followers with conventional
society (279-280).
In narrative context, according to Dowd and Malbon what the many need and, in fact,
what the Markan Jesus urges his followers to provide is ransoming from their great ones who
are tyrants over them and those whom they recognize as their rulers [who] lord it over them
(281). With this they add that Jesus promises that the way of servanthood has been transformed
by the Human One into the way of liberation (281). It is true they write that 10:45 is a crucial
statement in a climactic position, but it is an encapsulation of the teaching of 8:22-10:52: Service
to others, especially those undervalued and lorded over by the powerful, is central to the ministry
of Jesus and thus to his followers, even if such service provokes a response from the powerful that
leads to suffering and/or death (281-282). In serving others, Down and Malbon say that God is
present, and God remains present in whatever result from such service life, suffering, even death
(282).
Many attempts have been made to interpret Mark 10:45 according to the authors as an
allusion to the sin-canceling death of the servant of Isa 52:13-53:12 (283). Yet Dowd and Malbon
see these arguments depending on one of two presuppositions: (1) The saying goes back to the
historical Jesus, who had in mind the Hebrew text; or (2) the author of the Gospel was interpreting
the Hebrew text (283). For the authors presupposition 1 can be neither proved nor disproved, but
it speaks to a meaning in the mind of Jesus that would have been unavailable to the Markan
audience, who were hearing the Gospel read in Greek, and concerning presupposition 2, they state
that it is not likely, since many studies have argued Marks reliance on the LXX, but again not
only the author but the audience as well would have to make a connection to the Hebrew text of
Isaiah 52-53 for this meaning to be communicated (283).
Dowd and Malbon do not deny that the forgiveness of sins was an early and influential
interpretation of the meaning of the death of Jesus, nor that Isa 52:13-53:12 was appealed to in
support of this interpretation (294). What they do argue is that the case for this being the
interpretation that would have been apparent to Marks audience has not been made and cannot be
made because it relies on unsupportable presuppositions, and further, they argue that the Markan
narrative pulls interpretation of Jesus death in the direction of liberation from both demonic
powers and human tyrants, seeming to regard the forgiveness of sins as part of the good news, but
not necessarily connected with the death of Jesus (294).
Son of man in the Gospel of Mark
Marius Nel provides a fascinating look into the term Son of man in his article entitled Son
of man in the Gospel of Mark written for the journal In die Skriflig, in which he writes that the
term, Son of man, is used by Jesus 80 times a way to refer to himself, and 14 of those times appear
in Mark, and with this he adds that in all these texts Jesus is the speaker; no one ever address him
as Son of man (1). Nel asks, where does Jesus get the term Son of man from, and what is the
implications of his intertextual reference (1)? He answers stating that there are two arguments
presented by scholars, and with this states that earlier scholars like Bousset, Mowinckel, and Tdt
pose that Jesus does not refer to himself but to an apocalyptic figure, a divine nonterrestrial being
such as an angel, who would appear at the end of time to judge all people and complete final
salvation for the people of God (1). He also presents Teeple who argues that the Son of man is
clearly conceived of as the Messiah as he will perform the vital messianic functions: He will
terminate the gentile rule over the earth; introduce the new age or new kingdom; be king over all
nations, and a light to the Gentiles (1-2). Nel also states that it seems that the phrase, Son of man
was not well known or used in any titular way in early Judaism to indicate a heavenly redeemer
figure (2).
Most scholars agree according to Nel that the background of the term, Son of Man, used
by Jesus is to be found in the Hebrew Bible (2). He expounds writing that Ezekiel is an important
source where the prophet uses son of man 93 times as a cryptic, indirect reference to himself and
as a means of God addressing the prophet, thus when Jesus uses the phrase, Son of man, to refer
to himself he expressed the desire to identify himself as the eschatological prophet who, like
Ezekiel speaks about the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and the restoration of the
kingdom of Israel, but he also emphasizes with the term that he is born from a woman and shares
the traits of human beings, a fact that he contrasts in the different situation where he uses the term
to show what he is doing and will be doing (2). To this Nel writes that poetic parallelisms in the
Old Testament also use son of man to refer to peoples humanity, always in the second half of
od the parallelism (2).
Another source of the term according to Nel is found in Daniel 7:13-14 where One like a
son of man come with the clouds of heaven (2). He writes that Daniel 2:4b-7 is written in
Aramaic while the rest of the book is in Hebrew (2). With this he states that some scholars like
Casey, Lindars and Vermes limit the meaning of the interpretation to the general reference to a
human being; a term that denotes what is true of all human beings, and with this it is not used to
refer to a specific human being (2). Nel also says that it later, argues Casey, becomes an official
title in the Gospels although the Aramaic was notoriously difficult to translate into Greek, so for
these scholars according to Nel One like a son of man then indicates a class of people to which
the speaker belongs, implying this is true of all people, but especially me (2). Vermes argues
according to Nel that from his investigation of Jewish rabbinic literature that the term son of man
always refers back to and include the speaker, however, Owen and Shepherd found in their
investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than the rabbinic tradition, that the term,
son of man, is never used there as a self-reference of an idiom for a human being in Middle
Aramaic nor any other phase of Aramaic predating the time of Jesus (2). This concurs he says with
the conclusion reached above that son of man was not a well-known phrase used in any titular
way in early Judaism for a heavenly redeemer figure (2).
Nel also points out that not all scholars agree that there is a relation between the Son of
man pronouncements in the Gospel of Mark and Daniel 7:12-13 (2). Vermes he says found in his
study of Aramaic sources that to the conclusion that the term, son of man, is synonymous with
the word man, a substitute for somebody (2). Hurtado argues according to Nel that if Jesus used
the term, so would have the church, and if Jesus use of the Son of man originated in his
pondering of Daniel 7:13-14 and served in particular as his device to affirm his identity as the
human-like figure of that passage, it is very curious that this expression was not taken up in early
Christian proclamation and confession (2). Hurtado then asks says Nel why the Early Church did
drop the expression and connection if Jesus used it in this way (2). Bock responds according to
Nel saying that the Gospel texts tied to Daniel 7 are traditional texts, passed on orally long before
they were recorded, so in other words they were well known and likely wisely circulated (2).
The most important argument writes Nel is that the contexts of suffering and exaltation that
form that background for both books agree to such an extent that Marks dependence upon Daniel
7 can be presupposed, this being so since Daniel is a theological response to the persecution of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and it addresses the difficult situation in the Israel of 170-164 BCE (2).
Like most apocalyptic literature it addresses a situation of seeming hopelessness according to Nel,
so the Markan context is the so-called Caligula crisis (3). With this Nel adds that Josephus already
stated that Daniel was popular among 1st-century Jews, implying the probability that Daniels
enigmatic, One like a son of man provides a plausible source for Jesus Son of man sayings (3).
The conclusion for Nel is that Jesus finds in Daniel a paradigm of suffering, enthronement,
and authority that he utilizes to describe his own journey and interpret himself, and in the Danielic
figure of the Son of man he sees himself as the enthroned figure in the heavenly vision as the
representative of the saints of the Most high (4).
From here Nel shows that Bultmann suggests that these sayings about the Son of man
can be arranged into three groups or three categories: Those that refer to Jesus earthly activity
(Mk 2:10, 28); those that refer to his passion, that being where our pericope falls (Mk 8:31; 9:9,
12, 31; 10:33, 45; 14:21a, 21b, 41); and those that refer to his second coming (Mk 8:38; 13:26, 34;
14:62) (4). With this he notes that according to Hurtado, the Son of man sayings form part of
Jesus idiolect, his unique way of assessing and interpreting his ministry and life (4).
After this Nel writes that eight of Marks 14 Son of man sayings contain references to
Jesus suffering, death, and resurrection as a mode of self-reference, this meaning that Jesus will
suffer as a human being but through his death he will be vindicated as the One returning to sit at
Gods right hand; again, demonstrating the clear agreement with the context of Daniel, of suffering
and exaltation (4). Moloney argues according to Nel that Jesus used the term, the Son of man to
speak of himself at all stages of his life, based on Daniel 7:13-14 to point toward God as the
ultimate actor in the vindication of faithful yet suffering Israel, thus when Jesus uses the expression
he makes sense of his life, death, and vindication, as anticipating his cruel end, he submitted to it,
trusting that his unhappy fate was somehow for the good (4-5).
In focusing more precisely on our pericope Nel writes that in Mark 10, James and John,
Zebedees sons, request permission from Jesus to sit at his right and left side in his glory, and Jesus
responds by promising them that even though they will drink from the same cup that he has to
drink, notwithstanding he cannot grant them to sit at his right or left hand (5). The rest of the
disciples he says react with vexation, anger and irritation to the request of the two brothers and
Jesus pleas for understanding because the brothers are products of a culture characterized by rulers
and tyrants who lord it over their nationals, in contrast to the conditions in the kingdom that Jesus
proclaims (5). Nel writes here that although Jesus is a human being, his coming changes the
tonality of being human since he has not come to be served as human beings expect in their
selfishness but to serve, to die as a servant in order to ensure salvation for people by becoming the
means or instruments by which release or deliverance is made possible when he pays the price or
ransom money (5).
By way of conclusion, Nel states that the connection between Ezekiels son of man,
Daniels usage of the term, one like a son of man, and Marks Son of man should be recognized
(8). He also notes that Mark utilizes the term in a non-titular way to refer to the Son of man in
three ways, namely to Jesus earthly activity, to his passion, and to his second coming (8). With
this Nel writes that Jesus suffering that underlines his humanity and vulnerability stands in
contrast to his vindication through the resurrection, so for him in an allusion to Daniel 7:13-14, the
Markan Jesus assumes the identity of the One who is given dominion and glory and kingship that
all peoples, nations and languages should serve him (8). For Nel Mark and Daniel share the same
context, that is of suffering and vindication, allowing the modern reader to link the Markan Son
of man with the Danielic one like a son of man (8).
 Work Cited

Barbieri, Louis. Mark. Chicago: Moody Press, 2000. Print. Moody Gospel Commentary.

Cole, R. Alan. Mark An Introduction and Commentary. Reprinted ed. Vol. 2. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic, 2008. Print. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.

Dowd, Sharyn, and Struthers M. Elizabeth. "The Significance of Jesus' Death in Mark: Narrative
Context and Authorial Audience." Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 125, no. 2, 2006,
pp. 271-297, ProQuest Central; Religion Database; Research Library,
https://vanguard.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.vanguard.idm.oclc.org/docview/214613082?accountid=25359

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993. Print.

Nel, M., 2017, Son of man in the Gospel of Mark, In die Skriflig 51(3), a2096.
http://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v51i3.2096

Wessel, Walter W., and Mark L. Strauss. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew - Mark.
Ed. Tremper Longman and David E. Garland. Revised ed. Vol. 9. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2010. Print.