I disagree with Joe Wallack that Mark is separationist. I think it is adoptionist. However, a separationist interpretation is not illogical under a reading of canonical Mark. Unfortunately, the original Gospel of Mark has been heavily redacted to obscure the clear adoptionist christology of the author. In my book "Unlocking the Puzzle" I used literary tools such as chiastic structures, Markan triplets and analysis of literary style to discover interpolations into Original Mark and to discover that some pericopae had been relocated. Those redactions changed the message of the original gospel as written by the author. The original gospel as I have reconstructed it is a much better work of literature, makes more sense, and has a clear structure, unlike canonical Mark. In my book I identify this as "The Original Gospel of Mark."
In the Original Gospel of Mark Jesus is an ordinary man infused with the Spirit at baptism which leaves him at the moment of death after he has suffered. At the outset Jesus is confused about his mission. He apparently believes God has made him the Messiah, wants him to over throw the Roman Empire, and rule the Kingdom of God. However, at the transfiguration which in the Original Gospel came immediately after the death of John the Baptist and return of the 12 at Mark 6:31, Moses and Elijah apparently tell Jesus he has it wrong and that he is to be crucified. They tell him after his death he will be resurrected as the Messiah and come back to rule the Kingdom of God. Jesus then has a moral dilemma with regard to whether to follow God's plan or use the infused spirit to start a revolution and over throw the Roman Empire. He finally decides at Gethsemane to submit to God's will, with his cry "Abba, Father" which is from Gal 4:6 and Rom 8:15 when Paul talks about Christians being adopted by God.
The main clues to this interpretation of the Original Gospel of Mark are in Jesus's use of the term "Son of Man" to refer to himself. Early in the gospel (Mark 2:10 & 2:28) Jesus says that he as Son of Man has the "authority to forgive sins" and is "lord of the sabbath." After he talks with Moses and Elijah on the transfiguration mountain, whenever he mentions the Son of Man it is that he will be delivered up, suffer, be killed, rise after 3 days, and come again in glory. He never again claims "authority" or "lordship." A fundamental change in Jesus occurs at the transfiguration.
Therefore, since Jesus was confused about his mission until Moses and Elijah put him straight, and he didn't completely decide to go through with it until right before his arrest, he could not have had a divine nature. He was an ordinary man that was infused with the spirit that allowed him to predict the future, read men's minds, heal miraculously, and multiply food, but he wasn't yet the Christ until after he had been resurrected. That's why Jesus rebukes Peter and calls him Satan at Mark 8:33 because Peter has apparently tempted him to use his spiritual powers to start a revolution. That's why James, Peter and John are confused by the words "rise from the dead" at the transfiguration. They thought Jesus was the "one like the son of man" of Daniel 7:13 who would never die. Jesus is telling them he just learned from Moses and Elijah that he is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. That's why James and John embarrass themselves at Mark 10:35-41 by asking Jesus if they can sit on his right and left hand. They assume this will be Earthly glory when Jesus rules the Kingdom of God after the revolution.
The Original Gospel of Mark is clearly adoptionistic, but the later redaction into canonical Mark purposefully confused the adoptionistic message and a reasonable reader might come to the conclusion that Mark was separationist. But that is not what the author intended.
David Oliver Smith