The obvious truth about Mark and the Christmas Story?

Mark doesn't mention it. Nothing about the birth narrative. No angels, no shepherds, no baby, no manger, no wise men - no mention of Jesus' birth or childhood.

Why? Before we get to that, let's take a look at Mark himself.

Who is Mark? (Full name John Mark)

From Acts, we know that Mark is the son of another Mary. This Mary is a resident of Jerusalem. She's the sister of Barnabas. She has a house large enough to house portions, at least, of the early church in her upper room. This might even be the upper room where Jesus gave the last supper, and it is likely to be the place where the church gathered when the Holy Spirit landed with power (Acts 2).

So Mark was in the game right from the tip-off. Christianity is finding form in his own living room.

When Paul and Barnabas head out on the first big missionary journey, John Mark goes with them. In Acts 13 and 15, we find out that Mark is at the center of a storm. He leaves early from a missionary trip and goes back to Jerusalem. Barnabas, Mark's uncle, isn't that bothered, and wants Mark on the next journey. Paul (Type A) considers Mark a deserter and a mama's boy. So Barnabas takes Make and Paul takes Silas, and now we have two missionary teams in the field.

Later, Paul comes around. In 2 Timothy, he actually asks for Mark to come because "he's helpful." In Colossians, Mark attends to Paul's needs while Paul is in prison. In Philemon, he's called Paul's fellow worker.

Though the reference is brief, the most formative association of Mark is with Peter. When Peter is in Rome, Mark is there as a "hermeneutus." He's Peter's interpreter or transmitter or translator or personal secretary. There's debate over whether Peter spoke Greek, and obviously Mark did. Son of a wealthy family, Mark would have been well-schooled and useful to Peter, the old fisherman turned preacher.

We might know a little bit more about Mark from his own gospel: [Mark 14:12-15, 14:48-52].

So what is Mark trying to do in his gospel?

1. String together Peter's pearl. What? Statements by Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, also cited by Eusebius in later decades, indicate a common sense that Mark assembled the loose anecdotes about Jesus' life that Peter has recorded and collected. By the way, Mark includes details that only the 3 inner circle members would know. James has been martyred. John writes his own gospel. He is the logical source and most of history's scholars agree.

2. Mark interprets, compiles, organizes with a loose sense of chronology (more according to themes than chronology), AND

3. Paints a verbal portrait of the life of Jesus and the corresponding affect on the disciples of Jesus. As Matthew did this for a Jewish readership, Mark does it for a gentile readership. Scholars know this because the text includes elements familiar to a Jewish person but translated into Latin or Greek terms for the reader.

4. And his primary purpose? To establish the identity of Jesus (as it turns out for all people of all times).

What Mark actually does?

1. All that he tries to do. He strings together Peter's pearls into an elegant necklace of stories and teachings. He makes a bold statement for the divinity of Christ - Son of God, Son of Man. Fourteen times in Mark, Jesus refers to himself as Son of Man (a reference to a prophetic image from Daniel), while the narrative refers to Jesus as Son of God. These two names in concert sing their own Christmas carols. Son of God, fully divine; Son of Man, fully human. "Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel."

2. Even more, Mark establishes a whole new literary form. Hardly any scholars deny that Mark's gospel is the first one written, and his own use of the word gospel in 1:1 virtually names the literary genre that would emerge. Many gospels would be written over the ensuing century, but only four survived the exacting demands of truth, genuine authorship and mutual consistency when the early church set out to corral false teachings and discredit fake gospels.

3. In the end, Mark's gospel, according to Papias, tells a story that is without order (according to more Western demands on facts and chronologies) but with accuracy, completeness, and honesty.

Other gospels would eclipse Mark in specificity, sophistication and overall information. But Mark is the first. Mark is obviously used as a source by Matthew and Luke (since 90% of Mark appears in those books. And it's still a shorter, simpler, and very useful story of Jesus and His disciples).

Okay, so why no Christmas story?

This is my own string of pearls.

1. First, the Peter factor. Mark is Peter's story. He hasn't interviewed Mary Mother of Jesus, or every other source, the way Luke has. He isn't justifying Jesus as the Messiah to Jews the way Matthew is, with genealogies and Old Testament prophecies fulfilled. And he's certainly no philosopher, like John is, drawing all kinds of sweeping implications from the whole pool of Jesus' teachings. Peter, then to Mark, is going to talk about who Jesus is and what Jesus did, and the story is going to reflect his own sense of puzzlement and wonder that gradually found resolution. It just isn't like Peter to give the birth narrative, especially to a Roman crowd. He's not a historian like Luke. He's not a contemplative like John. He's not a refined teacher like Matthew. He's a fisherman.

2. Closely associated is the eustus factor. The word eustus appears 42 times in Mark. That's more than all the rest of the New Testament combined. Eustus means "immediately," or "forthwith," or "right after that," or "straightaway." Peter is a somewhat impetuous, robust man of action, and the Roman culture (so much like our own) is concerned with action, power, accomplishments. One author writes, "The Roman mind would be so much more impressed with what Jesus did than with a genealogical record or a birth story." Mark, informed by Peter, is going to argue Christ's deity from His actions and miracles, not His virgin birth. "This guy gets it done!" you can almost hear Mark/Peter saying. No dilly dallying with baby stuff.

The mystery factor

3. Mark introduces the identity of Christ in an unfolding way. Not for the reader. For us, it's declared in 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Mark's explicit right from the start. The voice of God supports it in 1:11. The demons confirm it in three places. The voice of God reconfirms it in 9:7. Jesus admits it to the High Priest in 14:61-62. Then, at the culmination of the story, a Roman centurion declares for all the ages, at the foot of the cross, "Surely, this man was the Son of God."

So for the reader, there's no mystery. We have the omniscient point of view with author.

But for the characters in the story, Mark makes a lot of the unfolding mystery (the "messianic secret;" "the mystery motif;" the "conflict motif").
1:24, a demon cries out, "I know who you are. The Holy One of God."

"Be quiet!" says Jesus sternly.

1:33-34 "He also drove out many demons, but He would not let them speak because they knew who He was."

1:44, Jesus heals a man with leprosy. "See that you don't tell this to anyone," says Jesus.

3:12 "He gave them strict orders not to tell anyone."

4:12 "They may be ever seeing but not perceiving, hearing by never understanding." To those on the outside, my parables are an enigma.

5:43, Jesus has raised a little girl from the dead. "See that you tell no one," says Jesus.

And it goes on and on like that.

All the while, the disciples are blundering along, totally befuddled. They even get special after sessions where Jesus explains his parables and interprets His teachings. Still, Mark/Peter seems to be saying, "But we were such numbskulls!"

Religious authorities reject Jesus. His hometown rejects Him. The disciples waffle and wane even though (4:11) "the secret of the Kingdom of God" was being given to them.

One author gives this synopsis of Mark's narrative: "A divine being passes incognito through the realm of time and space." Of course, Peter would never put it that way. He's a fisherman.

Mark 4:26, "The kingdom of God is like a seed planted in the ground. Night and day, whether the man sleeps or gets up, that seed spouts and grows, though he does not know how." That's the one parable of Jesus that made it into Mark, but not into Luke or Matthew or John. This seed of mystery.

Finally, finally, it's Peter who gets it. "Who do people say I am?" asks Jesus in Mark 8. "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, or one of the prophets." "But who do you say that I am?" Peter, "You are the Christ [Messiah]."

Jesus warns them not to tell anyone.

Why? I think his whole earthly journey was on a timeline. Too much consternation over his identity and Jesus might be murdered prematurely, or else worshiped instead of crucified. The exception is in 5:19. After healing the crazy man of Gergera in the Transjordan area, Jesus says, "Go tell everyone." Why? Cross cultural. Might as well get the seed sown - might as well get the ball rolling - in foreign lands. As for Israel, I have to die. And not even the disciples get this well or quickly.

The disciples have been given the secrets to the mystery. They've witnessed the miracles. They've enjoyed special instruction and even participated in the ministry. Still, they are afraid and confused and argumentative.

So, in Mark (at Peter's revelation) they finally get that Jesus is the Son of God, so what do they do? They argue about who gets to sit next to Jesus in heaven! They chase the children away. 9:32 "They did not understand and were afraid to ask Him about it."

So my point? Mark's gospel creates this tension about the identity of Christ, and characters in the story only get it gradually, if at all, until the resurrection.

In essence, Luke's gospel is more Western, more deductive. Here's the proposition. He's born to be Savior and King and it was evident right from his birth.

Mark's gospel is more inductive. He is piecing it all together in the minds of the characters and even Peter barely gets it.

So what are you going to do about this mystery, Mark challenges the Romans, us, all the earth in every generation. What are you going to do about this enigmatic teacher and miracle worker and sacrificial lamb who is so obviously unlike anyone before or since?