(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
185
denying oneself, faith and trust, living in community, humble service, and watchfulness and
prayer. Chapter 11 explores “Mission in Mark,” especially the mission to Gentiles. Chapter
12 scrutinizes Mark’s soteriology while chapter 13 considers Mark’s eschatology. Chapters 13
(Olivet Discourse) and 14 (Mark’s Ending) augment what Garland analyzes earlier in chapter
2.
Throughout his study, Garland allows Mark “to speak.” The Gospel’s distinct message is
his primary focus. Garland assumes that what the evangelist mentions or omits is purposeful.
Therefore, he does not use Matthew, Luke, or John to supplement Mark. A Theology of Mark’s
Gospel is not a harmony or Gospel parallel. Two examples will suffice. First, Garland does
not regard Levi as one of the Twelve because that name does not appear on the list of Jesus’s
disciples (3:13–19). Jesus had met Levi at his tax booth, an event Matthew also records. In
that Gospel (see 9:9), the tax-collector is not Levi but Matthew, a name that does appear
on the list of Jesus’s disciples. Second, Garland does not add the slicing of Malchus’s ear
to Peter’s profile because Mark does not finger Peter as the culprit. Luke adds that Jesus
“touched the ear and healed him” (22:51). Because Mark omits the healing, Garland describes
Jesus’s cursing of the fig tree as his last miracle.
Proficient with text-centered, literary-critical methodology, Garland reveals Mark’s skills
as a writer, what historically has been doubted. Two examples will suffice. First, Mark uses
the adverb “immediately” forty times, but, according to Garland, its overuse does not indicate
a clumsy style. Mark’s deliberate wording actually conveys the pace of God’s apocalyptic
invasion through Jesus. Second, Mark concludes his Gospel abruptly, but, according to
Garland, its ending (16:8) recalls its beginning, a sentence with no verb (1:1). “The gospel
becomes an endless loop. It must be reread and reheard” (558).
David E. Garland has synthesized extensive research to produce an excellent resource.
He is a wordsmith who writes with an authority seasoned by grace, sharing his viewpoint
only after fairly representing other scholars. Even so, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel could be
improved if it would give more attention to Jesus’s humanity, more than just four pages (313–
16); it devotes one chapter to Jesus’s divinity (chapter 5). In contrast, the New Testament
paints a balanced Christological portrait.
- Ivan Parke, Mississippi College, Clinton, Mississippi