Mary in the Gospel of Mark: Part I

Mary in the Gospel of Mark

M atthew and Luke who probably wrote some ten to fifteen years later than Mark, depend upon him as one of their major sources in composing their Gospels.

As inspired, Mark expresses the mind of God through the style, culture and vocabulary of a human author, As the first Gospel chronologically, it is less embellished than Matthew and Luke and much less so than John. Any insights of this first evangelist into the person of Mary are then of significant interest.

There are two references to Mary in Mark’s Gospel; 3:31-35 and 6:3. We begin our study with the shorter and less complicated reference, 6:3.

I. Mark 6:3:

A rhetorical, sarcastic question raised by Jesus’ own countrymen, contains a passing mention of Mary:

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?  And are not his sisters here with us”? And they took offense of him. 

Jesus’ compatriots are shocked and upset by his teaching and miracles for they know him as a simple “neighbor.” ‘Where did this man get all this”?  “What is the wisdom given to him”?  “What mighty works are wrought by his hands”?  (Mk 6:2).

How could this son of Mary whose brothers and sisters are living in the town possess such wisdom and power! There appears to be more than a hint of anger if not jealousy coupled with their “offense” at what this young man from the village is accomplishing.  Jesus alludes to this in his response to their skeptical attitudes. “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and among his own kin; and in his own house”.  Mark himself comments; “And he could do no mighty work there. Except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled at their unbelief”. (6:4-6)

No Where Else Is This Title Explicitly Labeled

Of primary interest in this text is the naming of Jesus as the son of Mary.  No where else in the New Testament is Jesus explicitly labeled by such a title.   True,  Paul refers to Jesus in his Letter to the Galatians as “born of a woman” (4:4) but no specific mention is made of “Mary”.  Paul’s purpose is simply to stress that Jesus is truly a member of the human family.

What adds to the intrigue surrounding the expression son of Mary is the fact that Jewish usage at the time of Jesus never referred to a child as the son of his mother. A man was always described by reference to his father, a custom all other Gospels follow; “is not this the son the carpenter? Is not his mother culled Mary”? (Mt 13:55).  “Is not this the son of Joseph”? (Lk 4:22). “Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and his mother”? (Jn 6:42). The mystery heightens when it is noted that Matthew and Luke who depend upon Mark in recounting this event, change Mark’s son of Mary into the
son of the carpenter (Matthew) or son of Joseph (Luke).

What then does Mark intend to convey when his Gospel calls Jesus son of Mary? The question comes down to this; is Mark implicitly referring to the virginal conception? By omitting any reference to Joseph and thereby going counter to Jewish customs,  is Mark’s Gospel telling us that Jesus is born of the virgin Mary? Is this the meaning Mark is conveying through the title, the son of Mary“?

Son Of Mary: What Is Mark Telling Us?

That Jesus is Mary’s son is, of course, without question. Moreover, that Jesus is virginally conceived there can be no doubt whatsoever.  The Church has consistently taught this truth from earliest times, basing itself upon the testimony of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (cf Lk 1-35; Mt 1:18-23). The point raised here does not concern the veracity of the virginal conception but whether or not Mark’s Gospel is implicitly teaching by calling Jesus the son of Mary.

And it is impossible to give a certain response one way or another.  Surely at first sight, it does appear that Mark is stating something singular, something extraordinary,  for the expression son of Mary is so contrary to Jewish custom and never employed elsewhere in the New Testament. Even if we had no knowledge of the virginal conception through the explicit  witness of Matthew and Luke, the term would attract attention.

H owever, the question remains.

Joseph Is Likely Deceased

Would we conclude that Mary is the virginal mother of Jesus? What would be presumed by the Church in the hypothesis that Mark were the only Gospel, can only be a guess. It surely appears highly doubtful that on the basis of this title alone, son of Mary, we would have come to a knowledge of the virginal conception. Another conclusion appears to be far more likely; Joseph is deceased. So the towns- people refer only to those close relatives of Jesus with whom they are actually living. The expression son of Mary, although definitely odd, would be no more than an implicit comment that Joseph was no longer among them.

True, sons of widows are, in the Jewish custom of the times, still referred to as sons of the father. Yet the context places us in a village-talk atmosphere and deliberately refers to those relatives of Jesus whom the villagers now know. It appears that this sufficiently accounts for the strange phrase, son of Mary.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus

Yet if we place Mark back in the actual context of the entire New Testament, especially with Matthew and Luke’s proclamation of the virginal conception, can we then read this truth into the villagers’ reference to Jesus as son of Mary?  Possibly, presuming that the virginal conception was generally known at the time of Jesus. Or at least a known fact by the community of Mark. Neither can be demonstrated, especially since Mark has no explicit reference to the virginal conception.

Yet even this possible conclusion – that 6:3 implies that Jesus is conceived virginally – has serious difficulties. Matthew and Luke are the best commentators on the Gospel of Mark. Since, as was mentioned above, he is one of their primary sources. Now if we say that Mark’s reference to Jesus as son of Mary points to the virginal conception because the truth in found in Luke and Matthew and therefore was widely known, we are faced with the hurdle of trying to explain why both Luke and Matthew changed – and deliberately set the title son of Mary to son of the carpenter or son of Joseph.

Apparently both evangelists found Mark’s expression so strange that they transformed it into a reference to Jesus’ legal father, Joseph. If they had seen in son of Mary a reference to the virginal conception, why would they not have retained it since they do explicitly teach that specific truth?

It does not, therefore, appear probable that Mark is making any reference to the virginal conception through the use of son of Mary in 6:3. He is doing no more than stating that Mary, who is one of the villagers, is the mother of Jesus.

(To be Continued)