Abstract
Many analyses of Mark 1–4 sharply separate the Parables discourse (4:1–34) from the Storm pericope (4:35–41) and consider the latter to begin a new phase in Jesus’ ministry (4:35–8:26). However, even scholars who make this distinction note a close link between the Parables and the Storm. In this article I use a narrative-critical approach to identify and engage thirteen lexical connections and how they develop for the implied audience through the narrative structure of 4:1–41. Overall, I seek to demonstrate that the Parables discourse and Storm pericope complement one another and follow the instruction-demonstration pattern evident in 1:21–28; 1:35–45; 2:1–12; 2:13–3:6. In each case, a miraculous demonstration follows an episode of Jesus instruction, the two are marked by a similar setting and lexical connections, and the latter miracle story develops the teaching of the kingdom and divine Sonship of Christ that were initially explained in the adjacent instruction. I will show how Mark 4:1–41 shares this structure and that analyzing the implied audience's reception of the narrative offers new developments of the Parables discourse, explains several obscurities in the Storm pericope, and further demonstrates the theological perspective and narrative line of thought in the text of Mark 1–4.
Although Jesus speaks at length on many occasions in the other three canonical Gospels, the Gospel of Mark contains only two sustained discourses, 4:1–34 and 13:5–37. With near unanimity scholars consider these discourses central to the kingdom's manifestation in Christ's ministry in the Second Gospel (Maloney: 54–62; Telford: 52–67). One problem that has been sparsely treated, however, is the relationship of the Calming of the Storm pericope (4:35–41) to the Parables discourse that precedes it in 4:1–34. A majority of scholars separates 4:35–41 from the preceding discourse and groups it with the miracle stories that follow in 5:1–8:26 (e.g., Gundry: 237; Donahue: 160; Guelich: 270), but this accepted distinction is not without its own problems.
Aside from the term pistia/apistia, there are few significant lexical or narratival connections between 4:35–41 and 5:1–8:26. Also, the relationship of the Storm pericope to its surrounding contexts is primarily transitional: it links together the localized ministry on the Western side of the Sea of Galilee in 1:15–4:34 with the progressively wider proclamation, eastward through the tetrarchy of Philip and northward to Tyre and Sidon, in 5:1–8:26. The transitional function further underscores the pericope's setting—the sea—which is equally connected to the shores of Galilee to the West (4:34) and to Gerasa to the East (5:1). Latourelle (102) notes that the chronological ties between 4:35–41 and 4:1–34 (“that evening”) are stronger than those between 4:35–41 and the healing of the Gerasene; and the disciples who remain in the boat in 4:1–41 are strangely absent in 5:1–20. Even scholars who distinguish 4:1–34 and 4:35–41 in the Gospel's structure, such as Collins (259) and Meier (924), concede that a “close link” exists between the Storm pericope and the Parables discourse, in that the latter “miracle-working” word develops the “authority” of the “teaching word” (Meier: 924).
While I do not offer anything new or avant-garde for the Gospel's structure, or insinuate that the Storm pericope is a “parable” in any sense, I wish in this article to explore the literary coherence of 4:1–41 in greater detail. In doing so, I will utilize a narrative-critical method to consider how the implied audience of the text receives the whole of 4:1–41 as an instruction-demonstration pattern in which Jesus’ miraculous action in the storm is literarily connected to, and demonstrates the message of, the adjacent instruction in the parables. In particular, the description and distinction of three varying soils to the seed of the gospel and parallel responses to the message of the kingdom (insufficient, incomplete, ideal) in 4:1–34 are concretely illustrated in the responses of the “other” boats, the uncertain disciples, and the sea that obeys in 4:35–41. The boat from which Jesus reveals the parables to his disciples is the same from which he calms the sea and manifests his Sonship and divine authority over the natural world and chaotic elements.
This thesis will be meted out by the following observations of narrative and lexical patterns that affirm literary coherence for the implied audience in 4:1–41. First, 4:1–41 coheres in form and structure with the instruction-demonstration pattern that is seen in four other instances in Mark 1–3: 1:21–28; 1:35–45; 2:1–12; 2:13—3:6. Each of these examples includes both Jesus teaching the gospel in a public venue and an action that affirms Jesus’ teaching authority and/or demonstrates a key theme or aspect of his message. For example, in the case of 1:21–28, the crowd marvels at the new teaching that has greater authority than the scribes (1:22), and their reaction is affirmed when Jesus casts out the unclean spirit (1:23–26). Since this same pattern occurs four times in Mark 1–3 there is, structurally speaking, significant literary precedent in the narrative of 1:21–3:6 to read the entirety of 4:1–41 as a correlative set in which the respective instruction and miraculous demonstration portions interact in the same manner as the earlier examples in 1:21–28; 1:35–45; 2:1–12; and 2:13–3:6.
Second, thirteen terms or phrases, which are literarily and theologically prominent, bind together both the setting and message of 4:1–34 and 4:35–41. These terms or phrases include: “he said to them” (kai legei autous, 4:14, 35, 40), “go out” ([ex]erchomai, 4:3, 35), “boat” (ploion, 4:1,), “crowd” (ochlos, 4:1, 36), “great” (megale, 4:32, 37, 39, 41), “sleeping” (katheudein, 4:38), “rising” (egerein, 4:38), “teaching/teacher” (didaskalein, 4:1, 2, 38), “other” (alla, 4:7, 8, 12, 18, 36), “sea” (thalassa, 4:1, 39), a double-question, “hearing” (akouein) and “having” (echein).
Based on these points, I will argue that the implied audience receives 4:1–41 as an instruction-demonstration pattern in which the Storm pericope in 4:35–41 develops and illustrates for the implied audience the core message of the Parables discourse in 4:1–34. The “other” boats (4:36) recall the “other” seed that was thrown by the sower (4:5, 7–8, 12, 18), just as Jesus’ double question in 4:40 that challenges the disciples’ understanding of his parables recalls his double question about their ability to recognize the kingdom in the parables in 4:12–13. Jesus, who taught from a boat about the kingdom that grows while a farmer sleeps, now sleeps on a boat and awakes to teach by demonstrating the power of the kingdom in the calming of the storm and the sea. While the disciples remain unclear of Jesus’ identity as Christ and Son of God, the sea, like the unclean spirit (1:25–27) and the ideal seed (4:12), recognizes the power of the kingdom in the person of Jesus and responds with obeisance.
Method
To set forward this argument, I will use a narrative-critical method to engage how textual units develop within the story's progression. This approach will utilize the narrative-critical methods of Vernon Robbins and John Paul Heil in their attention to the reception of the implied reader or audience. Robbins, who has addressed the influence of lexical repetition in Gospel literature, argues that items placed in circuits in Mark's Gospel are not independent but “are characterized by a rhetorical progression that draws the previous action of the narrative to a conclusion in the same context in which it inaugurates the action [in the following section]” (98). He remarks, for example, that the repetition of “suffering-dying-rising” sayings in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33–34 do not merely repeat a phrase but, together, “provide a dramatic progression to the third saying in the series” (102). Robbins's work illustrates how a close reading of lexical repetitions and the development in adjacent stories underscores an overall narratival progression, as well as observations on the text's theology.
John Heil's narrative-critical approach considers how the author's “rhetorical strategy of communication … engages the [implied] audience in an intensely contrasting interplay between the characters and actions” (1995: xi) and how this construction of events within the plot conditions the implied audience “to respond to the total progression of events” as the story unfolds (1995: 3). This close reading, or “hearing,” of the text is intended to exhume how the implied audience receives a given term or phrase within the literary context of lexical, grammatical, and setting repetitions as an intentionally constructed narratival progression that develops key theological ideas, such as when, in his article on Mark 4, Heil (1992: 275) deciphers that the implied audience of Mark's Gospel receives the parables as a narrative-imbedded assurance of the future success of Jesus’ ministry, despite the growing opposition and opaqueness of the disciples. The parables encourage the implied audience “to have the assured hope of a continuous and abundant success” and clarify the seed to refer to both “the Word” and the “people” of God (1992: 276).
In the methodologies of Robbins and Heil the implied audience recognizes all words as correlative to all preceding examples of the same term in the text. Since the implied audience's reception or understanding of each term is built on the sequential effect, or echo, of their earlier uses, a method that is sensitive to narrative patterns allows one to adequately observe how the implied audience responds to the development of each of these terms within the progression of the narrative.
Audience Reception of the Instruction-Demonstration Patterns in 1:21–3:6
Moule (15–16, 22) considers the miracles in Mark's Gospel to be deliberate illustrations of Jesus’ authority that is stated to exist in his instruction of the kingdom. What is heard in Jesus’ words is made visible in the healings and other miracles (Matera: 12). Not only is there a healing, but there is also literary complementarity and theological development within the instruction-demonstration units. Four distinct units that demonstrate this instruction-demonstration pattern immediately precede the passage of our focus and so we will first address the patterns observed in them and consider how the implied audience is oriented to recognize the same pattern in 4:1–41 (see the table at top of the next page).
1:21–28
In the first set (1:21–28), Jesus exorcises an unclean spirit (1:23–28) immediately after teaching in a synagogue (1:22). There is little debate among scholars that the implied audience recognizes the interaction of the instruction and miraculous activity in the two-part story, in that, as Hurtado (27) writes, the exorcism in 1:23–28 illustrates the power of his teaching that had astonished the synagogue crowd (1:22). Donahue (83) also contends that the healing story was deliberately reworked by the author and placed in the synagogue specifically to correlate to the teaching in 1:21–22. The miraculous action affirms that Jesus is unique and has authority because he is the “Holy One of God” (1:24), and the crowd marvels at this new and authoritative teaching of God's Holy One that compels believers, astonishes crowds, and silences unclean spirits. The implied audience understands the instruction and demonstration not as distinct stories but as a singular expression of the authority of God's Son and the imminence of his kingdom.
1:35–45
The second instruction-demonstration is marked by a consistent wilderness setting. Several scholars find problematic the present placement of the leper's healing in 1:40–45 (Cranfield: 90; Dinehan: 83), with Donahue (91) even referring to it as “forced.” Hendrickx (91) follows others’ suspicion of the lack of setting in 1:40 as an indication of the stories’ independence. These observations regarding the difficulty of 1:40–45, however, all the more underscore the editorial intent of placing 1:40–45 after 1:35–39. The lack of setting is uncharacteristic of Mark's style within his geographically-driven plot (Capernaum → Galilee → Tetrarchy of Philip and Tyre → Judea), and so the lack of specific setting here likely implies the continuation of the preceding episode's environment. This would make the wilderness the setting of 1:40–45, which is culturally consistent with the practice of casting out lepers from population-dense areas (Derrett: 5). The implied audience expects Jesus to find a leper in the wilderness, more so than in the bustling cities of Capernaum and Gerasa.
In addition to context, scholars have made other observations that link 1:35–39 and 1:40–45. Guelich (77–79), Gould (27–29), and Gundry (95) see in 1:40–45 the continuation of the stated purpose in 1:38 that Jesus’ ministry must expand outward; in this case, “outward” refers to the wilderness that separates Capernaum from the rest of Galilee. Harrington (22) sees a social, as well as geographical expansion, in that renewing the leper in 1:40–45 illustrates Jesus’ proclamation that God's kingdom has come to all people, even the outcasts of society (see 2:17).
Additional observations strengthen the coherence of 1:35–45. In the first portion, where Jesus states that he must proclaim the gospel to the neighboring villages of Galilee, the terms proclaim (kerussein) and arrive (erchomai) recall for the audience the initial announcement of the gospel (1:14–15), as well as the opening citations from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 about God's messenger who cries out in the wilderness (eremos) and makes paths straight (Mark 1:3). The implied audience then recognizes Jesus to demonstrate this authority when he renews the leper in the wilderness (eremos) and proscribes for him to fulfill the appropriate Mosaic tenets (Gundry: 95–96). Since the wilderness setting conjoins the teaching of 1:35–39 with the action in 1:40–45, the implied audience perceives the healing of an estranged Israelite in the desert to coincide with, and manifest more clearly, the meaning of Jesus’ ministry and his identity as God's messenger.
2:1–12
The scene in 2:1–12 is universally accepted as a coherent unit (Collins: 184), and the failed attempts to prove any original connection between the current teaching and healing portions (Hendrickx: 118) further underscore the author's literary success in the pericope's present form. In this case, a healing episode is woven together with a controversy story in which, after viewing the faith of the paralytic's friends who open a hole in the roof and lower the man down to him, Jesus declares the paralytic's sins forgiven (2:1–5). Jesus then recognizes the internal disgruntlement among the scribes that his forgiveness has evoked and, after a series of rhetorical questions, the phrase “so that you might know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins” in 2:10 explicitly ties his teaching activity in 2:1–5(8–9) to the paralytic's demonstrable standing and walking from the house in 2:10–12 (Moule: 22). The man's ability to stand and walk manifests the veracity of Jesus’ verbal forgiveness and vividly affirms his power to both speak and act with divine authority.
2:13–3:6
Following the chiastic structure proposed by Dewey (398), several scholars view the whole of 2:1—3:6 as a progression of controversy stories, but many still maintain that that 3:1–6 functions as the literary climax to the preceding arguments with religious authorities about the Law in 2:13–28 (Cranfield: 119; Hurtado: 49; Harrington: 36). The healing in 3:1–6 shows Jesus’ interpretation of the Law is valid and so retroactively justifies his comments in the previous controversies regarding eating with sinners (2:13–17), selectively fasting (2:18–22), and collecting grain from the fields (2:23–28). As with proving his authority in healing the paralytic in 2:1–12, the renewal of the withered hand in 3:1–6, which can happen only by divine power, illustrates Jesus’ authority to properly interpret the Torah in the preceding controversies (Guelich: 133).
In summary, in each of these instruction-demonstration units, the miraculous action illustrates for the audience the authority and content of the corresponding instruction. The two portions interrelate, and the latter develops the former. The exorcism of the unclean spirit (1:23–28) identifies Jesus’ teaching as the authoritative proclamation of God's Son (1:21–22). Healing the leper in the wilderness (1:40–45) confirms the expanding reach of his ministry (conveyed as a new Exodus) to encompass the whole terrain of Israel in its proclamation of God's imminent kingdom and renewal of humanity (1:35–39). Likewise, the healings of the paralytic (2:6–12) and the withered hand (3:1–6) overtly affirm Jesus’ controversial comments and legal arguments in 2:1–5 and 2:13–28, respectively.
The sequence of these narrative patterns impacts the implied audience considerably. They identify Jesus as God's Son, whose authority and proclamation of the kingdom's arrival are verified with each corresponding action. The implied audience can anticipate subsequent episodes of instruction to be accompanied by a corresponding action that will verify Jesus’ authority as Son of God and develop the content of his message by illustrating theologically rich elements through connective terms and cohesive settings.
The Literary Coherence of Instruction and Demonstration in 4:1–41
The Parables Discourse, 4:1–34
To assess better the audience reception to the whole of 4:1–41, I will now discuss how the implied audience receives the Parables discourse. For practical purposes, I will forego a line-by-line treatment of the parables and instead provide an overview of key observations.
The instruction in 4:1–34 consists of three parables about seeds (4:3–8, 26–29, 30–32), three explicit exhortations to listen (akouein, 4:3, 9, 24), two wisdom sayings (4:21–25), and one explication of a parable (4:10–20 // 4:3–8). In 4:2, the text explicitly identifies “parable” as the medium of Jesus’ teaching in 4:1–34. Since the use of parables in 3:23 produced various intense responses (including outright rejection), the implied audience recognizes that intense positive and negative responses will likely occur here (Tolbert: 153; Scott: 346). The implied audience infers from this difficult saying that, while Jesus might speak all things in parables, the respective audiences’ response will correspond to their understanding and acceptance of Jesus’ identity as Christ and Son of God. In 4:30–33 the text reiterates that the instruction was in parables for pedagogical purposes (Cranfield: 171).
With uncommon unanimity scholars view the seed parables, in which scenarios of seeming failure dramatically exceed expectations with remarkable success, as reflecting Jesus’ ministry (Boucher 1977: 50; Donahue: 34). One would not expect the ministry of an itinerant Galilean teacher and his followers under Roman occupation to reveal God's direct intervention and salvation for humanity, but the parables communicate that the kingdom, revealed in Christ's ministry, is explosively contrary to expectations (Getty: 25; Dodd: 154; Crossan: 51).
The kingdom, God's eschatological activity in the world, is the constant of Jesus’ message and the animating force behind his ministry. As with the seeds in the parable of the sower (4:3–10), Jesus’ ministry encounters opposition, and its message is revealed with varying degrees of success. Yet, despite failures, its future eschatological glory is guaranteed and will surpass all expectations (Guelich: 197; Heil 1992: 358). The sower, like the other seed parables, is Christological in focus. Jesus, the sower, appears at times to have an insufficient yield of followers, but the parables anticipate his death on the cross and resurrection as the culmination and glorious result of his current teaching (Lambrecht: 101; Getty: 37). The paradox of the parables establishes a precedent for understanding the paradox of the cross (Donahue & Harrington: 146).
Due to the flexibility of the parable genre, at times the hearers are associated with the seed, and at other times with the varying types of land (Boucher 1977: 52). In either case, the parables challenge the audience to recognize Christ's identity as Son of God, the salvific effect of the cross, and the necessary commitment to faith within an eschatological context. The wisdom sayings regarding the lamp and measures in 4:21–25 explain that the kingdom is communicated indirectly by parables in order that the faith of the audience can grow with incremental progress that parallels the unfolding revelation of the parables themselves (Boucher 1977: 53). This growth concerns, in particular, understanding the mission and identity of Christ, who is the lamp that God has set for all to see (Cranfield: 164). According to Boucher (1977: 51), this allows the author to “balance determinism and freewill” in the Gospel's theology: the hearer chooses whether or not to listen, and God confirms the individual's decision (Perkins: 9). Hultgren (460) adds that accurately listening to the parables is directly tied to having faith because their purpose is to connect the kingdom with the identity of Jesus and the paradox of the cross that will save humanity.
In fact, the verbs “to hear” and “to have” appear together in three separate instances in 4:9–34. First, the command for those who “have (echein) ears to hear (akouein)” to “listen (akouein)” in 4:9 is integrated with those who “hear” the parables but do not fully understand (4:12). Next, the parables in 4:15–18 clarify that those who “hear” and too quickly receive the word do not “have” (echein) deep roots, and so cannot endure challenges to their faith (Heil 1992: 340; Tolbert: 153). And, in 4:23–25, the text combines the earlier command that those who have ears should hear (4:9) with the directive to also watch (blepete) how one listens (akouein) because that which one has (echein) will be given to him and, inversely, that which one does not have (ouk echein) will be taken away. The audience infers from the repetition of echein (“to have”) that the implied object refers to one's desire to pursue the meaning of the parable and the ability to hear that is given to him or her (Lambrecht: 104).
Furthermore, when in 4:33 Jesus speaks in parables to the disciples so that they are able to hear the word, the implied audience, due to the development of the terms akouein (“to hear”) and echein (“to have”) in previous passages (4:9–12, 15–18, 20–24), infers that the disciples also “have ears” to listen and are, at a minimum, pursuing the meaning of the kingdom in the parables (Harrington: 60). There is, however, no perfect correlation between the disciples and the crowd in terms of the insider/outsider paradigm. Those closest to Jesus still do not demonstrate an understanding of Jesus’ identity, even with insider tips for interpretation (Guelich: 215), and may still become “outsiders” by their own decision (Donahue & Harrington: 146).
But the original intended audience of the author's composition of the parables instruction is not Jesus’ own disciples but the Markan community in Rome. Marcus (326) reads in the seed parables an equivocation of the present hiddenness and future inevitability of the success of Jesus’ ministry and the crucifixion at the time of the author and original audience. For instance, in the parable in 4:26–29, in which the kingdom grows in an indecipherable manner without human participation or oversight, the shoot, ear, and grain stages represent Jesus’ ministry, the post-resurrection community, and the coming eschaton. So, while the original audience cannot comprehend the plan of the kingdom in their own time, they can recognize that they represent an already existing unexpected and abundant growth of Jesus’ Galilean ministry within this interim stage, and then can be assured of an even more glorious success at the eschaton (Marcus: 329).
Hultgren (458) adds that, since the kingdom “is breaking into the world through Jesus’ words and deeds,” the post-resurrection community in Rome understands that the interim stage of 4:11 has already achieved an unexpected yield in that they—more than thirty years later in Rome—have heard and faithfully received the gospel (458). The Markan community itself is proof that the paradox of the cross, proclaimed like seed scattered in varying types of soil with many cases of failure, has already grown abundantly, and the parables assure the audience that the explosive nature of success described in 4:10, 29, 31 still cannot compare to the glory they will receive if they maintain or continue to grow in their faith and understanding until Christ's return (317).
The purpose of the parables in Mark 4:1–34 is to express in narrative form the paradox of Christ's Sonship and death on the cross as a saving activity for humanity. The parables communicate the kingdom of God insofar as they illustrate how it is manifest in Christ and his ministry (Lambrecht: 104). It is the person of Christ, God's Son, by whom God is present with his people, and through whom God effects his plan for salvation. The ministry of Christ already reveals this paradox for those who are willing to hear and see with faith and understanding.
The Relationship of the Storm Pericope (4:35–41) to the Parables Discourse (4:1–34)
We now turn to the calming of the storm to deduce the audience's response and the narratival coherence between this story and the parables that preceded. The literary connection between 4:35–41 and 4:1–34 rests along three lines of argumentation already reflected in the corresponding units in the previous section (above):
the two sections maintain the existing instruction-demonstration pattern seen at least five times in Mark 1—3;
the story in 4:35–41 is linked to 4:1–34 lexically by no fewer than thirteen terms or phrases; and
the action in 4:35–41 develops and manifests to the audience the message of the parables in 4:1–34 (as with the previous examples).
The pericope of 4:35–41 may be divided into four parts:
Introduction …………. 4:35–36
Storm frightens disciples …. 4:37–38
Jesus calms the sea and storm …. 4:39
Conclusion. …………‥4:40–41
4:35–36
Several scholars have observed how the continued use of the boat and the change to evening in 4:35 connect the Storm pericope temporally and physically to the preceding Parables discourse. Jesus is in the boat with the disciples for both (4:1, 10, 35–36; Peterson: 197; Gould: 84), and the adverbial description of evening implies that, since teaching the parables took the entire day, now Jesus wishes to depart from the large crowd who were the audience for his parables (Gundry: 258; Collins: 257). A similar day-evening change concludes the first day of his ministry in 1:32 (Donahue & Harrington: 157).
The introductory portion (4:35–36) of the Storm pericope immediately recalls Jesus’ decision to expand his ministry (1:35–39) and the Parables discourse (4:3, 13) when Jesus says his disciples (legei autous), “let us go (erchomai)” to the other side. Heil (1992: 274) notes that the author regularly uses erchomai to denote Jesus’ mission activity. The first example is in 1:35–38 when Jesus tells his disciples he should “go” (erchomai) to the surrounding villages and, particularly, in defining the sower's actions in 4:3 as “going out” (exerchomai) to scatter seed. The implied referent for “them” in 4:35 is the disciples who are with Jesus in the boat in 4:34 (Collins: 358). These echoes orient the implied audience to see the new journey across the sea as connected to his ministry and the parable of the sower. The implied audience recognizes that the mission activity that began to expand in 1:35–45 and is promised to go even further in the parables in 4:3, 13 is now continuing to develop with Jesus’ departure from the crowds in 4:35–36. Since the phrase kai legei autous (“and he [Jesus] said to them”) is a common Markan connector (it occurs sixteen times in the Gospel; see Guelich: 263) its presence here may imply that the author deliberately redacted the Storm story to fit with, and follow, the Parables discourse.
Next, Jesus and the disciples leave behind (aphentes) the crowd on the shore, which recalls the disciples’ initial response to the gospel when they left behind (aphentes) their fishing nets to follow Jesus and become fishers of people (1:18–20). Leaving the crowds directly aligns with the preaching of the parables in 4:1–2 and echoes when Jesus leaves behind the crowds he taught in 1:35–36, 45 (Guelich: 265). The pairing of the boat (ploion) and the crowd (ochlos) recalls previous instances when Jesus taught crowds along the sea (2:13; 3:9), and particularly the parables (4:1). The crowds began to follow Jesus (2:4) after the leper's public announcements of his work in 1:40–45, and they continue to exemplify both the growth of his ministry and the confounding hiddenness of his identity.
The uniqueness and complexity of the “other boats” in 4:35 requires that the term be treated independently. Scholars are at a loss to explain these “other boats” that are not mentioned for the rest of the story. Some go so far as to say the phrase belongs to an earlier source and the Markan author simply neglected to omit them (see Collins: 258; Guelich: 265; Meier: 947). Gundry (238) and Donahue & Harrington (158) read “other boats” as a positive affirmation of the sower parable that Jesus’ ministry and harvest of disciples already exceeds the capacity of one boat. It is possible that the calming of the sea implies that these boats also survive the storm (and may reemerge in 5:16).
While it is common in Greek literature, since the term “other” (alla) occurs only in these two instances in the first five chapters of Mark, its repetition in 4:5, 7–8, 18, 36 should not be viewed as a coincidence. In the Parables, all instances of alla in 4:5–8, 18 refer to the types of seed that were thrown by the sower. The four types of seed designatged as “other” (alla) summarize the crowd's responses to the gospel: the unreceptive, the sporadic, those too attached to worldly success, and those who grow abundantly. Their success or failure is based on whether or not their preoccupations with the world prohibit them from recognizing the mystery of God's kingdom in the parables. The “other” boats and the disciples now continue in parallel to the “other” seed examples in 4:5–18. They attempt to follow Jesus across the sea but, as with the “other” seed in 4:5–18, the implied audience is left to wonder whether or not they can weather the storm that is on the horizon.
4:37–38
There is substantial agreement that the unfolding drama on the sea in 4:37–38 closely follows the plot and dialogue of Jonah 1:4–6 in which Jonah sleeps and is awoken by the captain and asked to help (Collins: 259; Guelich: 266), and echoes calls for God to awake and help petitioners in distress in the Hebrew Bible (Pss 44:21; 89:8–18; 107:23; Brower: 295). There is also direct proximate connection to the parables. As Marcus (335) notes, just as the parables “show God's action as imperceptible to human eyes” and is hidden in weakness, in the Storm pericope Jesus “appears exhausted and disinterested in the disciples’ safety, but is actually their savior.”
The great (megale) storm that arises in 4:37 recalls the unclean spirit who cried out in a great (megale) voice (1:26) and the mustard seed that grows into a great (megale) shrub (4:32). The double echo leads the audience to associate the storm with the corrupt forces that have required God to intervene and reclaim the cosmos through Christ's ministry, as well as to anticipate that, regardless of the storm's strength, the kingdom manifest in Christ's authoritative miracles can overcome the seemingly insurmountable and chaotic power of the sea (Gundry: 240).
The paradox of the cross that was revealed through the parables is also recalled by the pairing of awake (egerein) and asleep (katheudon) in 4:37–38. Jesus, who has already been associated with the sower who goes out (4:3, 35) is now dually identified with the sower who sleeps and wakes in 4:26–29 in that the disciples wake him to calm the storm. Since katheudon (“asleep”) is a metaphor elsewhere for death (see 5:36), and egerein (“to rise”) consistently images the power of the resurrection (1:31; 2:9, 11, 12; 3:3), the pairing of these two terms
affirms for the implied audience that Jesus is again acting as sower and spreading the seed in this scene,
recalls previous miracle scenes associated with proclaiming the Word (2:1–12; 3:1–6),
joins the present story to the parables in anticipating the death and resurrection of Jesus, and thus
also shares in revealing the powerful truth and paradoxical nature of Jesus’ seemingly ineffective ministry that was presented in the parables (4:3–8, 26–29, 30–32).
The disciples’ awakening of Jesus is accompanied by a pointed question about his level of concern for their safety. The grammatical structure of the question implies a negative response: the disciples presume that Jesus does not care about their survival (Meier: 926), which casts a dubious light on their level of understanding Jesus’ identity and mission. The vocative, “Teacher” (didaskale, 4:38) links the present scene in the Storm pericope to the initial teaching (edidasken) of the parables from the boat (4:1–2; Gundry: 239) and to the authoritative teaching (edidasken) in the synagogue prior to his exorcism of the unclean spirit (1:21–28; Cranfield: 174). Likewise, the disciples’ question in 4:38 (“Do you [soi] not care that we are being destroyed [apolumetha]?”) mirrors the question of the unclean spirit to Jesus in 1:25 (“What is it to you [soi]? Have you come here to destroy [apolesai] me?”). In fact, every instance in Mark 1—4 in which a character addresses Jesus in the direct second person involves an explicit revelation of his divine authority and Sonship (e.g., 1:11; 1:24). The disciples’ question both strengthens the connection of the Storm pericope with an earlier miraculous demonstration that accompanied an instruction (1:21–28) and alerts the audience to anticipate a Christological revelation as the story continues to unfold. Just as the rebuke of the unclean spirit demonstrated the authority of Jesus’ teaching in 1:21–22, so too can the audience expect that Jesus’ action with the storm will manifest the teaching of the Parables and his authority as Son of God.
4:39
Jesus responds to the disciples’ accusatory request not with dialogue or prayer but by directly rebuking the storm and the sea. The seeming ease with which Jesus neutralizes the threat with just two words (“quiet” [siopa] to the wind, and “be still” [pephimoso] to the sea) exemplifies a power over nature that exceeds all wonders performed by the Hebrew prophets (McInerny: 259). In fact, the theological viewpoints of the Hebrew Bible consistently acclaim that only God can control the chaotic powers of the personified sea (Gen 1:6–7; Isa 27:1; 51:9–10; Pss 65:17; 74:13; 89:8–9; Job 7:12; 38:16; Harrington: 64). Since Jesus does not appeal to God (compare to Jonah 1:7), but himself subdues the wind and sea (Brower: 296), the implied audience understands that Jesus here acts not like a human but like God, with full divine authority (Collins: 260).
Jesus rebukes (epitimesen) the sea to silence (phimoso) just as he did the unclean spirit (1:25, Cranfield: 74; Brower: 296; Collins: 262; also Isa 50:2; Nah 1:4). The sea, now identified explicitly in this story for the first time, was also the setting of Jesus’ proclamation (1:16), later instruction (2:13; 3:7) and, most notably, the teaching of the parables (4:1). The sea—a personified entity in this context—has been in audience to much of Jesus’ instruction in Mark 1–4, alongside the disciples and the crowds. Now, by its obeisance, the sea represents a foil to the uncomprehending disciples who have received insider explanations: the seed of the gospel is powerful enough to be effective in water, but struggles to grow within those who are expected to be good land.
The great (megale) calm that nullifies the danger of the great (megale) storm (4:37) reflects the greatness of the kingdom (mustard shrub) in 4:32 (Gundry: 240; Donahue: 159). As in 1 Kings 19:12–13, it is the in-breaking of stillness amidst chaos that reveals God's presence. The sea's obedience affirms Christ's rebuke and underscores his identity as Son of God: “he has divine identity because he acts as God acts” (Brower: 296).
4:40–41
The status of the sea's discipleship is affirmed by the ensuing dialogue between Jesus and his disciples and the aural connections to the explication of the importance of faith in the Parables discourse. The double rhetorical question in 4:40 (“Why are you scared? Do you not yet have faith?”) recalls Jesus’ same construction and tone from 4:13 (“Do you not yet understand this parable? How then will you understand other parables?”) and creates a parallelismus memborum (“verbal parallelism”) between 4:35–41 and 4:1–34 (Petersen: 206). In each case, the questions refer to the same object and situation: the disciples’ inability to perceive the totality of the kingdom that Jesus has revealed to them. In the first context (4:13), they are unaware that they are the good land who are listening openly. They also show themselves to be works in progress in the Storm story. They believe enough to get in the boat and wake up Jesus when the storm frightened them, yet they are not able to recognize fully just how safe they are during the storm. As Meier (927) notes, the “not yet” of Jesus’ question directs the audience to “look both backward and forward” to consider the disciples’ growth to this point and contemplate which of the seeds they represent now and what it will take for them to become associated with the ideal seed of 4:12.
The term “faith,” which is implied throughout the text of Mark 1–4, is found explicitly at the inception of the ministry as the ideal response to the proclamation of the gospel (1:15) and the preliminary acknowledgement of Jesus’ authority as Son of God (2:5). Its mention here impugns the disciples for not having yet achieved the same understanding of Jesus’ identity as the storm and sea just demonstrated right in front of them, despite their privileged position to receive his teachings (Gould: 85; Brower: 295; Harrington: 65). Their unsuccessful grasp of the kingdom alerts the implied audience that “proximity to Jesus does not absolve” them from inquiry and reflecting further into the mystery that is revealed in the ministry and person of Christ (Donahue: 161). To “have faith” recalls the importance of “having ears [faith]” to correctly listen to the parables and recognize their revelation of Christ's Sonship, the paradox of the cross, and the future glory of the harvest. It also affirms for the audience that faith is the necessary key one must have in 4:5–6, 9, 17, 23–25 by which one can properly receive the paradoxical teaching of the kingdom and Christ's true identity and mission.
The disciples’ question to one another (4:41) continues to strengthen the connection with the healing in 1:24, 27 and the “hearing” required to understand the parables. The question mirrors the crowds’ response in 1:24, 27: “who is this … that even … obey?” (Hurtado: 81; McInerny: 258; Cranfield: 175). Here it is appropriate to follow Marcus (335) who reads the sea's obedience (hupakouein) as related to how one is asked to hear (akouein) the parables (4:3, 9, 10, 18, 21–23). The audience recalls that proper understanding of the parables requires listening correctly with (i.e., “having”) faith.
The disciples’ question now becomes an ironic and multivalent development of the series of instruction-demonstration circuits in Mark 1–4. First, the question concedes that the disciples are not yet the hundredfold growth of the gospel (which Jesus first acknowledged in 4:13), and the seed of faith must continue to grow with them or risk being lost. Second, the question equates the disciples’ understanding with that of the crowds, despite their insider opportunity to hear and see more. Third, it implicitly affirms the sea's successful understanding of Christ as demonstrated in its obedient acquiescence to his rebuke. The sea, which as been present for much of Jesus’ teaching, but has not seen as much as the disciples, has still achieved greater understanding of the kingdom and Jesus’ authority than they have. The audience now recognizes that the sea, like the unclean spirit in 1:25–28, testifies to, and reveals, Jesus’ Sonship though its obedience and, in doing so, also develops the interpretive key of “having” faith and “listening” that was paradoxically explained in the parables.
In sum, the great calm at the pericope's closing equals or surpasses the immense threat posed by the great storm that initiated the miraculous demonstration, and again recalls the great mustard shrub of the parables (4:29–32) that anticipates the paradoxical but assured future greatness of Jesus’ ministry. Despite the growing opposition to him (3:6), and the evident opaqueness of the disciples (4:41), the demonstrable obeisance of the sea in the Storm pericope validates the parables’ revelation of a paradoxically great kingdom, as well as the means for understanding their message. To understand the future glory of the kingdom in Christ's ministry, one must first hear in the parables the anticipation of the cross and the glorious salvation it brings for humanity. The authoritative teaching and divine Sonship of Christ are manifest by his miraculous demonstrations of God's direct intervention.
Conclusion
In this article I have demonstrated several lexical connections between the Storm pericope (4:35–41) and the Parables discourse (4:1–34) that are consistent with the instruction-demonstration pattern already evident in the Gospel's narrative structure (1:21–28; 1:35–45; 2:1–12; 2:13—3:6). The implied audience recognizes a cohesive literary relationship in which the Storm pericope develops major theological ideas found in the Parables discourse and earlier instruction-demonstration patterns, particularly the exorcism in the synagogue (1:21–28) and the healing of the leper (1:35–45).
It is notable that instruction-demonstration units like 1:21–28 and 2:1–12, which scholars commonly recognize as instruction-demonstration patterns, have only three or four lexical connections, while the Parables discourse and the Storm pericope share thirteen lexical connections. In each case, the latter repetition in 4:35–41 recalls and develops for the implied audience the theological meaning of the term from its use in 4:1–34. Jesus challenges the disciples (kai legei autous) to go (erchomai) to the other side of the sea (4:35–36), just as the sower went out (exerchomai) to spread and reveal the Word (4:3–8). The boat in which they disembark (4:1) is the same from which he taught the parables to the crowd (4:1, 36) along the sea (4:1, 39). The connective flow of setting orients the implied audience to recognize additional lexical connections between the Parables and the Storm that follows.
The other boats (4:36) align with the varying (‘other’) types of seed and divergent responses to the gospel (4:5, 7–8, 18), just as Jesus’ slumber and rising (4:38) align with the sower and automatic seed of the kingdom (4:26–29) and anticipate his death and resurrection and the future glory of his ministry. The disciples’ address to Jesus as “teacher” matches the harsh tone of their question, but it ironically anticipates for the implied audience that, just as Jesus effectively revealed the Word in the parables, so too will he again teach and demonstrably reveal the kingdom's power against the storm.
In contrast to the disciples’ opaqueness, the sea obeys (hupakouein, 4:41) Jesus in a manner that recalls the proper hearing (akouein, 4:3, 9–10, 18, 21–23) that is required to understand the meaning of the parables and Christ's divine identity. That they do not yet have this understanding is reflected in Christ's double question in 4:40 that impugns them for not having faith, just as the same construction of inquiry challenged them in 4:13 for their lack of understanding the parables. The disciples still do not have the faith (4:40) to trust that Christ can negotiate the storm because they still cannot understand the who and what revealed in the parables that can foster their small but present faith to continue to grow (4:5–6, 9, 17, 23–25). The sea obeys Jesus because he is demonstrably God's Son and acts with divine authority in a way that affirms the paradoxical power of the kingdom, his ministry, and his upcoming death that are revealed or anticipated in the Parables discourse.
The great calm (4:39) that neutralizes the great storm (4:37) that so frightened the disciples (4:41) aligns with the great mustard shrub that illuminates their future community of faith (4:32) and affirms for the implied audience in the author's own time that the immense and paradoxical power that calmed the storm and saved the disciples is the same power that can affirm their communal life and living faith in the midst of local but significant persecution.
While I do not propose, in this article, an overhaul of standard delimitations of the Gospel's structure, or imply that the Storm pericope is a parable in a generic sense, I do wish to offer a counter-balance to the prevailing presumptive distinction that exists in the study of Mark 4:1–41, and to provide a basis for further discussion on the lexical patterns that reflect not only a great literary mind at work, but an able theologian who can express remarkable ideas about Christ's divinity and the obligation of the Christian community to pursue understanding within a sleek and powerful narrative.