at work—Jesus’ identity. He performs deeds that put him on the side of the one God of Israel. The use of the Son of Man designation exhibits this phenomenon. Introduced for the first time in the first controversy story, and repeated again in the fourth, it resonates with prerogatives that are uniquely God’s. In this light, all the controversies boil down to the question of who Jesus is, and what he claims to be doing in relation to Israel’s covenantal story.
Summary of Jesus’ Deeds (3:7–12)
This Markan summary presents Jesus’ typical activities (teaching and miraculous deeds), the typical venue (by the lake, often on a boat), and the typical responses (of crowds and demons). While performing a transitional function,111 it also carries the plot forward. Verse 7 speaks of a withdrawal of Jesus and his disciples to the lake, and this is appropriate as a response to the controversial atmosphere of the previous cycle of stories (2:1—3:6). Not only this, a large crowd follows Jesus, indicating his rising popularity, and perhaps serving as a contrasting picture to the response of the religious authorities. Some in the crowd come from faraway places such as Tyre and Sidon, perhaps preparing the reader for the story of 7:24–30. So great is this crowd that Jesus has to use a boat to prevent the people from crowding him. With this description, Mark introduces a new vehicle of Jesus’ ministry (v. 9). He would frequently be in a boat, teaching large crowds gathered at the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and moving across that lake with the same boat. Indeed, Mark will later narrate interesting incidents involving this boat (4:35–39; 6:45–52).
Jesus’ encounters with unclean spirits continue, with a recurrent pattern: these spirits know the true identity of Jesus but they are commanded to be silent. But this time round, the confession made by the unclean spirits is that Jesus is the Son of God (v. 11). Up to this stage, we see that apart from God’s declaration of Jesus’ divine sonship, no other being on earth has acclaimed Jesus to be such, except those possessed by unclean spirits.
The New People of God and Jesus’ True Family (3:13–45)
The material here covers three stories. The first is the appointment of the twelve apostles (3:13–19). The second and third stories strike a different note, as they feature opposition to Jesus. These two stories are integral to each other because one is sandwiched by the other—a story is told partially (3:20–21) before moving on to the next (3:22–30), and then back again to complete it (3:31–35). The opposition depicted comes from Jesus’ family and the scribes. Both groups regard Jesus as “beyond the pale” (mad or demon-possessed). Together the three stories clarify the true members of Jesus’ family.
Making of the Twelve (3:13–19)
The Greek phrase apēlthon pros auton (v. 13) means literally “they departed to him” (i.e., the disciples left a larger parent group to join Jesus). Henceforth, they form a group of specially chosen people, differentiated from the crowds.
To say that Jesus appointed the Twelve does not quite capture the Markan idea (vv. 14–15). The Greek verb used is epoiēsen, and it is best translated as “made,”112 with a possible allusion to the story of creation. Jesus’ action in calling the Twelve is like a new creational act.113 Furthermore, the number Twelve alludes to the twelve tribes of Israel: their formation and promised reconstitution (Isa 49:6; Ezek 45:8; cf. Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30), made urgent by the two deportations from the land in 721 BC (Northern Kingdom) and 586 BC (Southern Kingdom). In this light, the use of such a term to designate his disciples speaks volumes about Jesus’ intention.
The term “apostles” should most probably be understood in the light of the rabbinic concept of the šālîah. This refers to a legal agent who is sent out with the full authority of the sender, to act on his behalf. A memorable sentence captures this concept: “The one sent by a man is as the man himself” (m. Ber. 5:5). The main functions of the apostles are also described (vv. 13–15). First of all, they are to be with him. This defines succinctly what discipleship means. By being with Jesus they can know him intimately and understand his teaching. It also implies that they will be taught things not available to the crowds. From this point onwards, Mark will recount stories where Jesus’ disciples ask questions of Jesus privately, or relate teaching situations involving only the Twelve. Only by being with Jesus can they perform the next two functions: preaching and casting out demons. These are principal features of Jesus’ ministry (1:21–27, 35–39), but they are now inherited by his apostles.
The names of the Twelve are given, with the occasional nicknaming by Jesus. Mark does not explain why this is done. One theory suggests that it has to do with either their character (cf. 9:38; Luke 9:54)114 or the role they would henceforth play (Matt 16:18).115 Simon is nicknamed Peter (v. 16), indicating his foundational role in the early Church. James and John are given the name Boanerges (v. 17). This word is usually explained as a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew benê regeš or benê rōgez. They mean respectively “sons of commotion” or “sons of agitation.” However, “sons of thunder” is not an impossible rendering.116
Three other names deserve some discussion. The passage mentions a certain James, who is the son of Alphaeus (v. 18), but no Levi, who was also called the son of Alphaeus in 2:14. Even if Levi is Matthew, as the parallel in Matt 9:9 tells us, it is still puzzling why this is not clarified. Furthermore, how is Levi related to James the son of Alphaeus? Were they brothers, or did they happen to have fathers with an identical name? Mark does not answer these questions. Perhaps his focus was on the concept and role of the Twelve, rather than their identity, apart from the prominent ones.
Another Simon is mentioned, who is nicknamed kananaios (v. 18). This is certainly not a Greek word, and most scholars think it is a transliteration of the Aramaic qan’ānā’, which means an enthusiast or a patriot.117 If this suggested derivation is correct (cf. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), Simon was remembered either as someone who was patriotic to his nation, or perhaps someone who had affinity with the Zealots, a Jewish party that came into prominence during the Jewish war with Rome (AD 66–70). If we are right about the identity of Matthew and this Simon, we then have an interesting coming together of two people who once subscribed to diametrically opposed agendas. One once worked for the Empire, and the other once worked against the Empire. The significant thing is that Jesus brings together people with opposing agendas, and remakes them into the restored people of God.
Completing the list is Judas Iscariot (v. 19). The term “Iscariot” has been explained differently in the scholarly literature. By far the most popular is to split it up into ’îš + qĕriyyôt, which means in Hebrew “the man from Kerioth,” thus indicating Judas’s place of origin.118 We do not know where Kerioth is exactly because there are many places with such a name (cf. Josh 15:25; Jer 41:24). Perhaps this geographical reference is added to differentiate him from another Judas (cf. John 14:22). The other serious possibility is to construe the Greek as being derived from a semitized form of the Latin sicarius, which means a bandit or a freedom fighter.119 If this is correct, Judas may then be regarded as joining the movement of Jesus because he thought he would be overthrowing the Romans to give Israel political freedom. When this idea was finally disabused, he betrayed him. This is a clever hypothesis but the derivation appears too complicated to carry conviction.
Jesus’ True Family (3:20–35)
Two stories are combined here—the visit of Jesus’ family (vv. 20–21, 31–35) and the Beelzeboul accusation by the scribes (vv. 23–30)—the latter being intercalated by the former. This ancient rhetorical technique is designed to bring episodes of similar meaning together, so that they may be mutually illuminating.120 That which intercalates completes the meaning of that which is intercalated by explicating the deeper issue. In this case it is about the true members of Jesus’ family, or God’s family (v. 35). The intercalation is not artificial because in both incidents, Jesus was labelled. The family labels him mad while the scribes from Jerusalem label him demon-possessed. Demon-possessed people were also regarded as mad in antiquity (John 10:20).
The
