Thomas R. Hatina, «Who Will See "The Kingdom of God Coming with Power" in Mark 9,1 — Protagonists or Antagonists?», Vol. 86 (2005) 20-34
In conventional readings of Mark 9,1, the meaning of the
"kingdom of God coming with power" determines the identity of the bystanders who
will supposedly experience ("see") it. Since the prediction of the kingdom is
usually regarded as a blessing, it is assumed that the bystanders are
protagonists. In contrast to this conventional approach, the reading proposed in
this essay begins with the group(s) which will experience ("see") "the kingdom
of God coming with power", first in 9,1 and then in 13,26 and 14,62. When prior
attention is given to these groups in the context of the narrative, Jesus’
prediction in Mark 9,1 emerges not as a blessing promised to the protagonists,
but as a threat of judgment aimed at antagonists.
Who Will See “The Kingdom of God Coming with Power†21
is to offer such a reading by drawing prior attention to the group(s)
which will experience (“seeâ€) “the kingdom of God coming with
powerâ€, first in 9,1 and then in 13,26 and 14,62. When the apocalyptic
language in Mark 9,1 — which can certainly in and of itself convey
both judgment and vindication — is subjected to this perspective in
reading, the bystanders emerge as antagonists, with which the
audience would not have identified, and the prediction of “the
kingdom coming with power†emerges as a threat of divine judgment.
In support of this reading it is argued that (1) the bystanders in 9,1 are
in a synonymous relationship with those who are threatened by Jesus
in 8,38, (2) the only other similar apocalyptic events of the
manifestation of divine power (duvnami") in 13,26 and 14,62 are
likewise expected to be “seen†by the story’s antagonists, and (3)
similar apocalyptic events in early Judaism were expected to be “seenâ€
by antagonists.
1. The Ashamed and the Bystanders: A Synonymous Parallelism
Between Mark 8,38 and 9,1
One of the questions which necessarily arises in any narrative
reading of Mark 9,1 concerns its relationship to the immediate context.
Should Mark 9,1 be read as the conclusion of a pericope or as the
beginning of the Transfiguration account (3)? In addressing this
question, redaction critics have rightly focused much of their attention
on the editorial formula kai; e[legen aujtoi'". While 9,1 may have at one
time been an isolated unit, I follow the lead of those critics who argue
that the formula is more closely connected to 8,38 than to 9,2 on the
basis that kai; e[legen aujtoi'" is used elsewhere in Mark to conclude and
to preserve the salient point of a larger discourse (4). In addition, J.D.
Crossan has convincingly argued that 8,34-9,1 must be regarded as a
(3) Very few argue that 9,1 stands alone as a sole vignette in the final
redaction. E.g. L. OBERLINNER, “Die Stellung der ‘Terminworte’ in der
eschatologischen Verkündigung des Neuen Testamentsâ€, Gegenwart und
kommendes Reich. Festschrift S. Anton Vögtle (ed. P. FIEDLER – D. ZELLER)
(SBB; Stuttgart 1975) 63.
(4) Of the eleven other occurrences, kai; e[legen aujtoi'" functions as a link
which connects the preceding material. See 2,27a; 4,2b.11.21.24; 6,4.10; 7,9;
8,21; 9,31; 11,17. See, for example, E. TROCMÉ, ‘Marc 9,1: prédiction ou
réprimande?’ SE 2 (1964) 260-264. This connection is also found in modern
Greek New Testament editions (e.g. WESTCOTT – HORT, UBSGNT 1-4, NESTLE-
ALAND 26th and 27th).