The new note this time is the inclusion of the disciples together with Jesus in this future hope. After the damning prediction of v. 27 this is what they needed to hear. Even their ‘stumbling’ and the scattering of the flock is not to be terminal (in contrast with the fate of Judas, v. 21). There is a satisfying symmetry in vv. 27 and 28: the ‘striking’ of the shepherd results in the scattering of the flock, but his resurrection will result in their regathering.78

Against the suggestion of E. Lohmeyer that this verse looks forward not to a postresurrection meeting but to the parousia see, briefly, W. R. Telford, Theology, 147–49; more fully R. H. Stein, NTS 20 (1973/4) 445–52.

Apart from the parallel passage to come in 16:7, the only other transitive use of προάγω in Mark is in 10:32, where it conveys the striking picture of Jesus striding ahead towards Jerusalem and death while his bewildered flock follow fearfully behind. After the imagery of shepherd and flock in v. 27 the verb (which could mean simply ‘to precede’; cf. its intransitive use in 6:45) most naturally conjures up the picture of the Palestinian shepherd walking ahead of his flock into new pasture (cf. Jn. 10:3–4),79

This is so obvious an image that it hardly seems necessary, with J. Marcus, Way, 155, to derive it specifically from the shepherd imagery which recurs throughout Zc. 9–14.

and this verse taken alone would lead us to expect a later account of the risen Jesus taking his disciples with him from Jerusalem to Galilee.80

C. F. Evans, JTS 5 (1954) 9–11, shows that both classically and biblically προάγω normally means to ‘lead’ rather than to precede, though Matthew is a notable exception to this rule. See on 16:7 for Evans’s view that this saying is not concerned with a literal postresurrection journey but with the future mission to Gentiles (symbolised by ‘Galilee’).

But in fact we find in 16:7 that it is not until they get to Galilee that they will see him. If there was ever an account of a resurrection appearance in Mark (see introduction to 16:1–8), it is likely that it was similar to that of Mt. 28:16–20, where (as 16:7 suggests) the disciples went to Galilee and met Jesus.81

On the basis of the prominence of Peter in this passage and his explicit mention in 16:7 O. Cullmann, Peter, 61, suggested that Mark originally included the appearance to Peter which is mentioned but not narrated in 1 Cor. 15:5: Lk. 24:34.

So the shepherd imagery of προάγω here is probably not to be pressed into a literal postresurrection journey.82

E. Best, Following, 199–203, accepting that προάγω here more naturally means ‘go at the head of’ rather than ‘precede’, concludes that the focus is not on a literal resurrection appearance as such but on the continuing life of Jesus at the head of his community (‘Galilee’ being used in a non-literal symbolic sense). But to recognise the symbolic significance of Galilee is not to exclude a literal return there. Van Iersel, 497–500, 505–6 (taking up his argument in ETL 58 [1982] 365–70), further evaporates any literal meaning by translating εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν as ‘in Galilee’ and reading the verse as speaking not of a journey but of a continuing situation in the future when ‘Jesus will go ahead wherever it is that people are willing to follow him’. While Van Iersel is correct in saying that by NT times εἰς can mean ‘in’ rather than ‘into’, he does not demonstrate that this meaning is required here, and if it comes down to a matter of preference, the priority must surely go to what was still the nomal meaning of the preposition.

In the scheme of Mark’s gospel the specific mention of Galilee is important. The province which was the home territory of Jesus and his disciples, and in which all the stirring events and hopes of Act One have been located, remains the natural place for a future hope to be located. Jerusalem is for Jesus the place of rejection and death, and for the disciples the place of ignominious failure, but Galilee is the place of resurrection and restoration. It is perhaps not entirely by coincidence that Jerusalem is mentioned twice in Act One (3:22; 7:1), in both cases as the source of the official opposition which is ultimately to lead to Jesus’ death, while in Act Three Galilee is likewise mentioned twice (14:28; 16:7) as the place where hope is to be restored after the disaster of Jerusalem.

But it is not all gloom. Just as Jesus’ passion predictions in 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34 have all concluded with resurrection after three days, and the cup of death at the Passover meal has been balanced by the future new wine of the kingdom of God, so now there is hope beyond the disaster.76 Jesus’ own resurrection has been mentioned sufficiently already to need no further explanation, but is simply taken for granted in the phrase μετὰ τὸ ἐγερθῆναί με. The change of verb from the active ἀνίστημι of the passion predictions (the future middle in 9:31; 10:34 is active in sense) to the passive of ἐγείρω is probably not significant. Both locutions occur freely in the NT, with no clear difference in sense, ἐγείρω being the more common, both in the passive and in the active with God as subject. To interpret the uses of ἐγείρω as emphasising the initiative of God while ἀνίστημι focuses on Jesus’ own power over death is overexegesis, and there is no clear reason why Mark should at this point have wished to shift from the latter focus to the former. In connection with the resurrection of Jesus the two verbs are to all intents and purposes synonyms.

The passive form of ἐγείρω is sometimes used in an intransitive sense, as if it were a middle; see, e.g., 2:12; 13:8, 22; 14:42. In such uses it can be virtually indistinguishable from ἀνίστημι. But with reference to the raising of the dead the regular passive meaning of ἐγείρω is more probable, especially since in many cases the active is used with God as the subject.