In Ch. 8:1–30 Mark presents a sequence of events which is parallel in structural arrangement and motif to Chs. 6:31–7:37. He intends for this parallel to be recognized, for the tradition he records in Ch. 8:17–21 points back to the crucial importance of the two feeding narratives. The extent of the structural parallel is evident from the following table:
|
Ch. 6:31–44 |
Feeding of the Multitude |
Ch. 8:1–9 |
|
Ch. 6:45–56 |
Crossing of the Sea and Landing |
Ch. 8:10 |
|
Ch. 7:1–23 |
Conflict with the Pharisees |
Ch. 8:11–13 |
|
Ch. 7:24–30 |
Conversation about Bread |
Ch. 8:14–21 |
|
Ch. 7:31–36 |
Healing |
Ch. 8:22–26 |
|
Ch. 7:37 |
Confession of Faith |
Ch. 8:27–30 |
The table has been deliberately simplified to set forth the pattern that can be recognized from the material. A more careful arrangement might exhibit the degree of dissimilarity in these two cycles of tradition. The individual units in each section exhibit marked differences in vocabulary and formulation; they have been drawn from independent cycles of tradition consisting of different episodes. The evangelist, however, is responsible for the arrangement and redaction of the material in terms of the motif of understanding. After both feedings the failure of the disciples to understand the significance of the sign of the broken bread is stressed (Ch. 6:52; Ch. 8:14–21). Between these points Jesus solemnly calls the multitude and the disciples to understand (Ch. 7:14–18). By skillful arrangement of the material Mark indicates that it was necessary for the Lord to repeat the sequence of acts and teaching a second time before their significance dawned upon the disciples. Their ears remained deaf to Jesus’ teaching and their eyes blind to his glory (Ch. 8:18). In this respect the incidents which conclude the two cycles are significant. The opening of the ears of one who was deaf (Ch. 7:31–36) and of the eyes of one who was blind (Ch. 8:22–26) prefigure the unstopping of the deaf ears of the disciples and the opening of their eyes. This was the necessary prelude to the confession of the messianic dignity of Jesus (Ch. 8:27–30).
12. The Provision of Bread in the Decapolis. Ch. 8:1–10
1And in those days, when there was again a great multitude, and they had nothing to eat, he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them,
2I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat:
3and if I send them away fasting to their home, they will faint1 on the way; and some of them are come2 from far.
4And his disciples answered him, Whence shall one be able to fill these men with bread here in a desert place?
5And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven.
6And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks,3 he brake, and gave to his disciples, to set before them; and they set them before the multitude.
7And they had a few small fishes: and having blessed them,4 he commanded to set these also before them.
8And they ate, and were filled: and they took up, of broken pieces that remained over, seven baskets.5
9And they were about four thousand: and he sent them away.
10And straightway he entered into the boat with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.6
The degree of similarity in situation and language between Ch. 6:34–44 and Ch. 8:1–9 has prompted the question whether there were indeed two occasions in Jesus’ ministry when the multitudes were fed. The dominant critical opinion is that there was one event which was reported in various forms in the tradition and a highly divergent version provided the basis for the second feeding reported in Ch. 8:1–9.7 The improbability that the disciples would have forgotten the first feeding so soon is particularly important in this critical evaluation, since in Ch. 8:4 they make no reference to an earlier feeding. This argument deserves careful examination. The most striking similarities in language are inherent in the situation depicted—the feeding of a multitude with peasants’ fare in an isolated area when Jesus began the meal with the customary blessing of God’s name.8 Allowances should be made in this regard for the tendency to assimilate the language of the two narratives through repeated use in teaching and worship. There can be no doubt about striking divergences in vocabulary, detail and situation between the two accounts, most of which were already noted by Jerome in his commentary on Mt. 15:32ff.9 More significant is the fact that Jesus reminds his disciples of two feedings in Ch. 8:19f. The rejection of the historicity of Ch. 8:1–9 requires the assignment of Ch. 8:14–21 to the limbo of creative redaction or false tradition. The perplexity of the disciples in Ch. 8:4 is intelligible in context. Jesus declared his concern for the crowd but he had not said how he planned to meet their need. In this setting Ch. 8:4 is equivalent to the question: What do you intend to do? Jesus had taken the initiative to provide for the crowd and he must clarify how he will satisfy their hunger. It would have been presumptuous for the disciples to have assumed that Jesus would, as a matter of course, multiply a few loaves as he had done on an earlier occasion. There is no intrinsic improbability about Jesus feeding a vast gathering in the Decapolis with loaves and fish and the historical integrity of the account should be accepted.10 Mark clearly understood that there were two occasions when Jesus miraculously fed a multitude.
1–3 The second feeding of a multitude occurred in the vicinity of Lake Gennesaret. It may be deduced from the reference to the Decapolis in Ch. 7:31 and the general reference to time in Ch. 8:1 that Jesus remained on the eastern shore of the lake where a mixed population of Jews and pagans lived. Mark does not specify the purpose for this sojourn, but the presence of a multitude which has spent three days in Jesus’ company implies an intensive teaching ministry.11 The text emphasizes the need of the people: they have been for three days in an isolated location and their provisions have been exhausted. They have already engaged in fasting and have been weakened through hunger. While some of the people are from villages and towns nearby, others must travel a distance to reach home. This is the practical situation that calls forth Jesus’ compassion, which is an expression of the gracious disposition of God toward men. The sole purpose of the feeding is to meet the physical needs of the multitude, who chose to be nourished by Jesus’ word rather than bread.
Two details are particularly striking in the Marcan setting to the second multiplication of the loaves. (1) In Ch. 6:34 the ground of Jesus’ compassion is that the people are like sheep who possess no shepherd. Jesus provides the leadership they lack by teaching them. The relationship established in the text is between compassion and teaching, while the feeding of the multitude is a subsequent act. In Ch. 8:2f. the ground of Jesus’ compassion is that the people have been so long without food. Jesus meets their need by feeding them. The relationship emphasized by the text is between compassion and feeding. (2) In Ch. 6:35–37 the disciples ask Jesus to dismiss the crowd, which has spent the greater part of a day with him in order that they may seek provisions in neighboring towns and villages. Mark implies that they interrupted Jesus’ teaching in order to call his attention to this practical consideration. On this second occasion Jesus is thoroughly aware of the practical issues involved in dismissing the crowd without nourishment and he takes the initiative in calling the attention of the disciples to this urgent situation. These differences amount to striking divergence in situation, motivation and detail between the two accounts.
4–5 On both occasions that Jesus fed a multitude he involved his disciples in his action. It is clear from Ch. 8:17–21 that Jesus considered their understanding of his feeding of the people as the necessary prerequisite to their understanding of his person. The disciples’ question in verse 4 stresses their inadequacy to the situation and indicates that Jesus alone can act on behalf of the people. In Ch. 6:37 they had not envisioned that a multitude could be fed and they emphasized the impossibility of the situation with disrespectful irony. There is an indirectness in the response of Ch. 8:4 which is different in tone and function. It serves to refer the question of procuring bread back to Jesus and is tantamount to asking, What do you intend to do?12 Jesus’ counter-question concerning the number of loaves available to them, on the other hand, is equivalent to the affirmation, I know what I am going to do.
6–7 The feeding of the multitude with bread and small fish recalls in outline the action of Jesus with the five thousand on the (presumably) western shore of the lake. There is, however, no reference to the lush pastures or to the grouping of the people into table and field companies, and the evangelist makes no attempt to develop any of the wilderness motifs inherent in the situation as in the earlier account. Assuming that the multitude was representative of the mixed population of the region, the blessing of God’s name before the distribution of the bread would have been a new action to many of them. This may explain the unusual pronouncement of thanksgiving over fish in verse 7. The pronouncement of blessing over bread is the normal Jewish practice for beginning a meal, but the blessing of God’s Name prior to the distribution of the fish seems to have been intended to teach the people to thank God for their daily food. The offering of praise and thanksgiving acknowledges that the multiplied food is the gracious provision of God.
8–10 The highly compressed narrative stresses the satisfaction of the people’s need, the abundance of the provision as witnessed by the seven large rope baskets of fragments that remained over, and the vastness of the crowd that had gathered. It is common to find a symbolic significance in the numbers recorded here (and in Ch. 6:43f.): the four thousand represent the Gentiles from the four corners of the world, while the seven baskets prefigure the seven leaders of the Hellenistic Church in Jerusalem. All such symbolic interpretation finds little support in the Marcan text. The numbers are carefully noted because they were important in the tradition preserved in Ch. 8:17–21. As for the composition of the multitude, it has been common since the time of Augustine to assign the first feeding to the nourishment of Israel and the second to the Gentiles.13 There can be no doubt of the Gentile associations of the Decapolis and of Mark’s interest in the apostolic mission to the Gentiles. The units of tradition brought together in Ch. 7:1–30 (and perhaps Chs. 7:1–8:9) have important implications for the Gentile mission. Moreover, there are nuances in the language and phraseology of Ch. 8:1–9 which suggest a Gentile orientation.14 In view of the mixed population of the area, however, it is probable that both Jews and Gentiles sat down together in meal fellowship on this occasion, and this prefigured Jesus’ intention for the Church. This seems to be a more realistic approach to the historical situation than the desire to find an exclusively Gentile audience in Ch. 8:1–9.15
After dismissing the crowd Jesus left the Decapolis and returned to the western side of the lake and Galilee. Within the limits of our knowledge of Palestinian geography in the first century it is impossible to identify Dalmanutha. The argument that this site was identical with Magdala is worthy of serious consideration,16 but must await confirmation from new evidence before it is accepted as definitive.
13. The Request for a Sign. Ch. 8:11–13
11And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question17 with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven,18 trying19 him.
12And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you,20 There shall no sign be given unto this generation.21
13And he left them, and again entering into the boat22 departed to the other side.
11 This brief passage is abruptly introduced without reference to time, place, or the circumstances which led to the demand for a sign. The connection with the immediate context is not explicit. The presence of the Pharisees implies the western shore of the lake, and this is confirmed by the reference to the crossing and subsequent arrival at Bethsaida in Ch. 8:13, 22. The text further implies a prior discussion, the content of which is unspecified, which was climaxed by the demand for “a sign from heaven.” It appears to be Mark’s intention that this fragment of conversation be regarded as an extension of the controversy reported in Ch. 3:22–30. This is suggested by the position of these verses, in parallel with Ch. 7:1–5 which specifically mentions the scribes from Jerusalem (cf. Ch. 3:22), and by the use of the solemn ‘Amen’ formula which points back to Ch. 3:28. Subsequent to the encounter with the Jerusalem authorities who accused Jesus of being in league with Satan, the Pharisees resumed the debate which led to the request for a sign. This reconstruction provides a definite context for Ch. 8:11–13 and indicates the direction which must be pursued for a proper understanding of the passage.
The concept of a sign is intelligible from the OT and later Jewish literature.23 It signifies a token which guarantees the truthfulness of an utterance or the legitimacy of an action. Prophetic statements which could not be verified were frequently accompanied by a sign which authenticated the prophecy. In that context a sign is a further prophecy to be fulfilled within a short period of time.24 The special characteristic of a sign is that there is a coincidence between a prior prophecy and a subsequent event. In other instances a sign is a token performed at once to verify a certain proposition.25
The recognition that a sign is primarily an evidence of trustworthiness, not of power, sheds light on this verse. It indicates that the demand for a sign is not a request for a miracle. Jesus’ miracles are never designated as signs in Mark’s Gospel, nor were they considered to be signs by the Pharisees. They regard Jesus’ miracles as ambiguous actions whose meaning must be confirmed by a sign.26 They had witnessed his mighty works but had concluded they were of demonic agency (Ch. 3:22–30). That is why the Pharisees demand a sign in spite of Jesus’ deeds. The request for a sign is a demand that he demonstrate the legitimacy of his actions. In this context “a sign from heaven” signifies a public, definitive proof that God is with him. In this light, the qualifying phrase “testing him” is important; it refers to the biblical provision for testing if a prophet has been sent by God (Deut. 13:2–6; 18:18–22). The demand for a sign is the equivalent to the question of the Jerusalem authorities in Ch. 11:30: what is the source of your authority?
12 Behind the demand for a sign was the prior, firm conviction that Jesus’ authority was demonic in origin, his works an expression of black magic (see on Ch. 3:22). Jesus was thoroughly aware of the hostility and unbelief of the Pharisees. The emotion displayed in his deep sigh was an expression of indignation and grief (cf. Ch. 3:5). There is a note of exasperation in the question, Why does this generation seek a sign? which reflects on the perverseness and unbelief of a people who oppose themselves to the revelation of God’s grace (cf. Chs. 8:38; 9:19).27 What Moses experienced from the wilderness generation (Deut. 32:5–20; Ps. 95:10), Jesus experienced in his day. His absolute rejection of the demand for a sign28 is expressed in a solemn formula of adjuration implying self-imprecation. The formula is abbreviated, as in Ps. 95:11,29 but may be filled out on the analogy of 2 Kings 6:31: “May God do so and more to me if ever a sign is given to this generation!” This form of speech is a direct reflection of Scripture rather than popular usage. It would be understood immediately to signify that no sign will be given to authenticate Jesus’ authority.
Jesus’ refusal of a sign has important historical and theological significance. Historically, the demand for a sign expressed the desire to judge Jesus according to norms defined by scribal interpretation. If Jesus had granted a sign, his adversaries would have invoked the sanctions of Deut. 13:2–5 against him. Jesus was conscious of acting under the direction and authority of the Spirit of God (Ch. 1:11f.; 3:28). He had already pronounced the scribal norms decayed and sterile (Ch. 7:1–23) and he now rejects their pretentiousness categorically. Theologically, the demand for unmistakable proof that God is at work in Jesus’ ministry is an expression of unbelief. It represents the attempt to understand the person of Jesus within categories which were wholly inadequate to contain his reality. The call for a sign is a denial of the summons to radical faith which is integral to the gospel. Jesus rejects the way of signs as fundamentally wrong because it precludes personal decision in response to the word of revelation.30
13 Jesus’ abrupt departure from the Pharisees gave visible expression to his indignation. Nothing good could be expected to result from further discussion with them, and he crossed over the lake to the eastern shore once more. The Pharisees had demonstrated that they lacked the discernment to see that the tokens of the Kingdom were visible in his words and actions. The sharp cleavage between Jesus and the Pharisees indicates that the gospel remains hidden from unbelief.
14. The Failure to Understand. Ch. 8:14–21
14And they forgot to take bread; and they had not in the boat with them more than one loaf.
15And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.31
16And they reasoned one with another, saying, We have no bread.32
17And Jesus perceiving it saith unto them, Why reason ye,33 because ye have no bread? do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened?34
18Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not?35 and do ye not remember?
19When I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
20And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls of broken pieces took ye up? And they say unto him, Seven.
21And he said unto them, Do ye not yet understand?
14–15 The reference to the one loaf within the boat ties these verses to the preceding account where Jesus returned to the lake, leaving the Pharisees standing on the shore. The sequence of developments seems to be clear. In the abrupt departure the disciples had forgotten to take bread with them. Jesus chose this opportunity to caution his disciples about “the leaven of the Pharisees” because he wanted them to hear his warning while the impact of the encounter reported in Ch. 8:11f. was fresh. When the disciples interpreted Jesus’ words as an indirect reproach for their failure to bring provisions and began quarreling concerning whose responsibility it was to procure bread, he reproached them for their failure to understand. The intimate connection between Ch. 8:14–21 and the preceding verses determines the context for the interpretation of verse 15.36
The metaphor of leaven turns on the ability of a minute amount of yeast to impregnate the material with which it is mixed with its own fermentation. In both Jewish and Hellenistic circles leaven was a common metaphor for corruption.37 In this context the reference draws upon the Jewish understanding of leaven as the evil will and its expression. The disciples are warned against the evil disposition of the Pharisees who ask for a sign when their judgment has already been passed. The reference to Herod is intelligible if Dalmanutha (Magdala?) was in the neighborhood of Tiberias where Antipas had his capital. In Ch. 6:14–16 Herod had betrayed a hostile interest in Jesus, and a tradition not recorded by Mark indicates his own desire to see a sign (Lk. 23:8). The figure of leaven thus describes the disposition to believe only if signs which compel faith are produced.38 In contrast, Jesus’ warning constitutes a fresh call to faith and understanding apart from signs.
16 The disciples heard only a reference to bread.39 They discovered their lack of provisions and began quarreling about whose irresponsibility accounted for this situation. The overt reference to the Pharisees and to Herod was simply ignored. The dispute among the disciples, which indicated how completely they were absorbed in their temporal preoccupations, was the immediate occasion for Jesus’ sharp condemnation of the lack of understanding in men whose privileged position should have led them to perceive the truth of his person and the importance of hearing his word.
17–18 Jesus’ rebuke is expressed in a series of sober questions which focus on the persistent blindness displayed by the Twelve (cf. Chs. 4:13, 40; 6:52; 7:18). Repeated exposure to Jesus’ teaching and mighty works had not led to reflection on their significance but to a basic insensitivity and dullness. Mark does not attribute the severity of the rebuke to the failure of the disciples to grasp the allusion to a sign-oriented disposition in verse 15, but to their failure to perceive the meaning of Jesus’ presence with them. The indignant questions concerning hardness of heart and blindness of disposition echo the description of Israel in prophetic literature (Jer. 5:21; Ezek. 12:2; Isa. 6:9 f.) and are related to the distinction between the crowd and the Twelve in Ch. 4:11 f. There those who are “outside” were contrasted with the disciples who listen to Jesus’ word. Here the Twelve appear to be no better than the crowds who profit from Jesus’ miracles without reflection and who seek his teaching without applying it to themselves.
19–20 By question and answer Jesus leads the disciples back to the two feedings of a multitude. The numbers are precisely given and the types of baskets used on each occasion to collect the fragments are carefully distinguished. The disciples remembered the facts perfectly and responded to Jesus’ questions without hesitation. Nevertheless, they failed to understand the significance of what had taken place before their eyes. They were no different from the unseeing crowd! It is this harsh reality of their existence that Jesus calls to their attention with his reference to the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand.
The two multiplications of the loaves were recalled by the quarrel concerning bread. At the same time they indicate that Jesus’ mighty works (as well as his teaching) were parabolic in the sense that they pointed beyond themselves to the secret of his own person. The feedings are thus not mentioned in compensation for the refusal to provide a sign, as if they were a kind of sign themselves. The concept of signs presupposes the existence of categories according to which a judgment may be passed, but there are no traditional categories which can grasp the feedings. The reference to the loaves thus calls into question the desire to think in terms of signs and reinforces the teaching of verse 15. The broken fragments of bread force attention upon the presence of Jesus as that which has meaning for men. It is this fact which the contrast between the demand for a sign and the miracles of the loaves seeks to make precise.40
21 The pointed climax indicates that the disciples have not yet understood the secret to which Jesus’ works pointed. The introductory words, “and he was saying to them” are an indication of paraphrase or sharp reduction of what Jesus said in order to focus on the most salient point.41 The word which follows is addressed to the Christian audience of the Gospel as well as to the disciples. What they should understand from the miracles of the loaves is the secret that Jesus is none other than the Messiah and Lord. It is tempting to find a veiled reference to this in the language of verse 14b: Jesus is the one true loaf that is with the disciples in the boat. The repeated question concerning understanding (verses 18, 21) indicates that the didactic goal of Jesus’ ministry to the disciples has not been attained and points forward to the miracle of understanding which leads to the confession of Ch. 8:27–30.
15. The Opening of Blind Eyes. Ch. 8:22–26
22And they came unto Bethsaida.42 And they bring to him a blind man, and beseech him to touch him.
23And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught?43
24And he looked up,44 and said, I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking.45
25Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked steadfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly.46
26And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village.47
22 The crossing reported in Ch. 8:13 brought Jesus and the Twelve to the capital of the district of Gaulanitis, Bethsaida Julias, situated on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee in the territory of Herod Philip (cf. Ch. 6:45). This was one of the large sites on the lake which had the size of a city but the organization of a village, and Mark’s designation of it as such in verse 23 is precise. There a number of persons brought a blind man48 to Jesus and begged him to touch the man in healing.
23–25 It is difficult to be certain why Jesus led the blind man out of the town. It was not his usual procedure to isolate himself from a congregation of people when healing or exorcising unclean spirits (Chs. 1:23–28; 3:1–5; 9:14–27), and he does not do so on a later occasion when he restored the sight of Bar-Timaeus (Ch. 10:46–52). Moreover, in all of the redactional summaries where Mark speaks of healing and exorcism he indicates the presence of crowds around Jesus (Chs. 1:32–34; 3:7–12; 6:53–56). If it is proper to speak of a tendency in Mark, the sphere of miracle is public rather than secret.49 The three exceptions to this general observation derive, apparently, from a set of circumstances inherent in the situation itself. This is certainly true in Ch. 5:35–43 where Jesus excludes the scornful, unbelieving group of professional mourners from the revelation of his life-giving power. In Ch. 7:33 the removal of the man from the crowd was an important action in establishing communication with an individual who had learned to be passive in society. This may provide the key to Ch. 8:23 as well. When Jesus took the blind man’s hand and led him outside the city he established a personal relationship to him that was an important element in the man’s confidence that his cure could be expected from Jesus. Beyond this, the restoring of sight to a blind person among the mixed population of Bethsaida would have led to the type of false veneration that Jesus constantly avoided (Ch. 1:35–39, 45; 3:7–9; 6:45).
The application of spittle to the eyes and the laying on of hands in healing have significant parallels in Jewish practice and in the Gospel (see on Chs. 6:5; 7:33). By these actions Jesus entered into the thought-world of the man and established significant contact with him. The report of the healing, however, contains three elements which are without parallel in the evangelical tradition: (1) Jesus’ question if his action has been effective (“Do you see anything?”); (2) the explicit reference to only partial healing (“I can actually see people, but they look to me like trees—only they’re walking!”); (3) the laying on of hands a second time, resulting in complete restoration of sight (“I see everything clearly—even at a distance”). These features distinguish this incident of healing from all of the others and suggest that the man’s sight was restored only gradually and with difficulty. It is impossible to recover the larger context of the situation which would shed light on many questions prompted by these unique features.
The reference to men like trees walking indicates that the man had not been born blind. Persons blind from birth do not have an exact idea of objects and cannot properly visualize a tree. On the other hand, optical images become modified as blindness continues, and the visualization of men under the form of trees indicates that the man had been blind for a long period of time.50 The vivid progression from verse 24 to verse 25 expresses something of the man’s excitement and intense involvement in the dynamics of his recovery of sight,51 and stresses the completeness of the restoration.
26 The instruction to go home (cf. Chs. 2:11; 5:19) was reinforced with the admonition, “Do not (first) go into the town.” It is common to find here a further instance of an injunction to silence (cf. Chs. 1:44; 5:43; 7:36), and this is made explicit in certain strands of the textual tradition which report the instruction, “Say nothing to anyone in the town.” If this represents a valid interpretation of the intention behind the instruction, it is appropriate to find here a precaution Jesus found necessary because on other occasions spectacular healings had actually led to an interruption of his planned ministry (Ch. 1:44 f.). The statement occurs, however, without qualification in a narrative which displays unique traits and it is perilous to insist that the purpose behind Jesus’ final instruction must conform to his apparent intention on other occasions.52
Like making the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak, the restoring of sight to the blind was the promised action of God (Ps. 146:8; Isa. 29:18; 35:5). In this regard Ch. 8:22–26 invites comparison with Ch. 7:31–37 where the theological point that the promised intervention of God has taken place in the ministry of Jesus is established by an allusion to Isa. 35:5f. and a confession of faith (Ch. 7:32, 37). Both of these accounts are preserved only by Mark and it is almost certain that he regarded them as forming a pair. He has placed them in parallel positions in relation to the two feeding miracles and both concern healings promised in Isa. 35:5–6. The relationship between these distinct episodes is underlined by striking linguistic agreements in the opening two verses of each account where the situation is described.53 After that the accounts diverge and display equally striking differences which arise not only out of the situation but from the language and structure of the units themselves. To cite only two examples, there are no biblical allusions in Ch. 8:22–26, and there is no counterpart to the confession of faith in Ch. 7:37. These “omissions” are apparently deliberate to force the recognition that the healing of Ch. 8:22–26 comes under the rubric of Isa. 35:5 provided in Ch. 7:31–37, and finds its appropriate conclusion only in the confession of faith recorded in Ch. 8:27–30.54 This supposition finds confirmation from the conversation with the disciples which immediately precedes the healing of the blind man. In Ch. 8:18 Jesus speaks of the blindness and deafness of the Twelve who continue to show themselves insensitive to his person and word. An action as radical as the literal unstopping of deaf ears and loosening of a bound tongue and the opening of blind eyes was required to lead them to understanding and confession. That action was precipitated by Jesus’ extension of grace to a deaf man with defective speech in the Decapolis and to a blind man outside of Bethsaida, and Mark has underscored this fact by linguistic and structural arrangement. In this context the confessions of Ch. 7:37 and Ch. 8:29 acquire a deeper significance for the Christian community for which Mark prepared the Gospel: in both passages they recognize their Lord. In Ch. 7:37 they sing a hymn to Christ who has done all things well, making the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak; in Ch. 8:29 they recognize the Messiah who has just opened the eyes of the blind.55
16. The Recognition of the Messiah. Ch. 8:27–30
27And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi:56 and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?
28And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets.
29And he asked them, But who say ye57 that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.58
30And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
Mark has placed at the center of his narrative the recognition that Jesus is the Messiah. The pivotal importance of this moment is indicated by the fact that already in the first line of the Gospel the evangelist designates Jesus as the Messiah. Yet between Ch. 1:1 and Ch. 8:29 there is no recognition of this fact in spite of a remarkable sequence of events which demanded a decision concerning Jesus’ identity. By arrangement and emphasis Mark indicates the crucial significance which he finds in the events which clustered around the sojourn in the territory of Herod Philip.59 Jesus’ display of extraordinary power astonished his countrymen and provoked the question of the source of his authority and wisdom, but his true dignity remained unrecognized (Chs. 1:27; 2:7; 6:2). His association with sinners and disregard for accepted conventions of piety so scandalized the guardians of an inherited tradition that they could think only in terms of the demonic (Chs. 2:15–20; 3:22–30; 7:1–5). The recognition of the demons communicated nothing to the bystanders but frenzied opposition to Jesus (Chs. 1:24 f.; 3:10 f.; 5:7 f.). The disciples raised the question of Jesus’ identity but found no categories by which they could understand him (Ch. 4:41; 6:51 f.), and failed to penetrate the veiledness which characterized his words and works (Ch. 8:17–21). By weaving these several strands of the tradition together in the first half of the Gospel, Mark creates a climate of tension which can be resolved only by the recognition of Jesus’ dignity. The pointed question of Ch. 8:21, “Do you not understand?” cries for the answer provided in Ch. 8:29, “You are the Messiah.”
The central importance of Peter’s confession in the Marcan structure is confirmed by the sharp change of tone and orientation which it introduces. If there had been earlier indication that Jesus would be taken away from the disciples (Ch. 2:20) or that his adversaries determined to destroy him (Ch. 3:6), they remained veiled allusions to what appeared to be a distant event. In direct response to Peter’s declaration, however, Jesus spoke of the necessity of his passion with a directness which scandalized the disciples (Ch. 8:31–33). The distinctive theology of the cross and resurrection implied by this announcement dominates the remainder of the Gospel. The recognition that Jesus is the Messiah is thus the point of intersection toward which all of the theological currents of the first half of the Gospel converge and from which the dynamic of the second half of the Gospel derives. In no other way could Mark more sharply indicate the historical and theological significance of the conversation in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi.60
27 Jesus led his disciples some 25 miles north from Bethsaida (Ch. 8:22) to the district of Iturea dominated by Caesarea Philippi, the residence of Herod Philip. The capital was located at the source of the Jordan River on the slopes of Mount Hermon in a region famed for its beauty and fertility. When the area was first given to Herod the Great by Augustus he built a temple in honor of the emperor near a grotto consecrated to the Greek god Pan. In 3 B.C. Philip rebuilt the neighboring village of Paneas as his residence and named the new city in honor of Caesar. The area was thus dominated by strong Roman associations, and it may be theologically significant that Jesus’ dignity was first recognized in a region devoted to the affirmation that Caesar is lord. Here Jesus questioned his disciples concerning what was popularly being said concerning him. In Mark the questions of Jesus frequently lead to a new teaching (cf. Chs. 9:33; 12:24, 35). The purpose of this question was to prepare for the more personal question of verse 29 and the radically new teaching of verses 31ff. Moreover, in the Gospel the term “men” is usually shaded to mean those from whom revelation remains veiled (Chs. 1:17; 7:7f.; 9:31; 10:27; 11:30) as opposed to the disciples who have been extended special grace.61 The double question of verses 27 and 29 thus permits a sharp differentiation between the inadequate opinions of “men” and the affirmation of faith uttered by Peter.
28 The response to Jesus’ question indicates that the truth concerning his dignity and function remains veiled from the people. In Ch. 6:14 f. the same popular opinions were presented in the same order.62 While it is important to distinguish between these points of view, they are equally inadequate. The conviction that Jesus is John or Elijah indicates that he is nothing in himself but only the eschatological realization of a more recent or more distant past event. The affirmation that he is an ordinary prophet fails to distinguish between Jesus and the messengers of God who had appeared so many times throughout Israel’s history. All three opinions assign to Jesus only a preparatory role and deny to him the definitive role associated with consummation and the achievement of salvation.
29 By question and response the contrast between those who perceive and acknowledge Jesus’ messianic dignity and those who know him only in an inadequate way is clearly presented. The fact that Jesus led the disciples to this affirmation of faith is significant. He elicited the open avowal of his messiahship at this time because it was imperative to define the dimensions of his messianic ministry and to set forth what this would require of his followers.
The declaration that Jesus is the Messiah was made by Peter, whom Jesus had set apart for a decisive future role in building up the people of God when he bestowed upon him his new name (Ch. 3:16).63 Here, as later, he functioned as the spokesman for the Twelve (cf. Chs. 9:5; 10:28; 11:21; 14:29). In Mark Peter’s confession is given in its simplest, most direct and moving form.64 The basic meaning of “Messiah” is passive, “the one anointed by God.” It implies divine election and appointment to a particular task and a special endowment of power for its performance. In the OT the royal, priestly and prophetic offices are associated with an anointing with oil which symbolized consecration to God’s service and enjoyment of the divine protection (e.g. Ex. 29:7, 21; 1 Sam. 10:1, 6; 16:13; 1 Kings 19:16; Ps. 105:15; Isa. 61:1 ff.). The expectation of a future anointed leader was grounded in the promise of a faithful ruler from David’s line (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14–16; Isa. 55:3–5; Jer. 23:5; 4 Q Patriarchal Blessings i. 3–4, “the righteous Messiah, the Branch of David”). In later Judaism the term “Messiah” became increasingly fluid in the emergence of a variety of messianic projections; the concept of a Davidic Messiah was only one strand of expectation among many.65 The thought of a special relationship to God and to the people of God, however, remained dominant. In the first century the crucial question concerned the function of messiahship, and it was precisely at this point that Jesus’ teaching concerning his own function stood in radical opposition to contemporary expectations.66 Peter’s confession recognized that Jesus was the appointed agent of God whose coming marks the fulfilment of the divine promise and the realization of Israel’s hopes. Of the deeper and more costly dimensions of messiahship, however, he had no intimation.
30 False and narrow hopes clustered about the designation “Messiah” in the first century, and Jesus showed a marked reluctance to use this title himself (cf. Ch. 12:35–37; 14:61f.). He clearly knew himself to be “the anointed of the Lord” but his destiny was to be fulfilled along lines other than those projected for the royal figure of popular expectations. Peter’s affirmation was an exultant expression of faith. The subsequent narrative, however, indicates that it was also a reflection of a profound misunderstanding (Ch. 8:31–33; 10:35ff.). The disciples as yet had no way of knowing what conception Jesus had of his messianic vocation and it was imperative that they should not be allowed to fill the content of the term with their own dreams. Peter’s words were correct in themselves, but his conception was wrong, and Jesus sternly charged them to tell no one about him, precisely as he had done earlier when the demons identified him (Ch. 1:25; 3:12).67 The explanation for this injunction is provided immediately in verse 31, where Jesus begins to define what it means for him to be the Messiah.
V. The Journey to Jerusalem. Chs. 8:31–10:52
With verse 31 an entirely new orientation is given to the Gospel.68 This change is defined by the explicit and new teaching concerning the necessity of Jesus’ passion and by a sharp change in tone. In the Marcan structure, Jesus’ prophecy of his rejection and suffering is his response to Peter’s confession of faith. The following section is entirely dominated and structured by this solemn pronouncement, which is repeated twice more (Chs. 9:31; 10:33f.). In no other Gospel do the three cardinal announcements of forthcoming humiliation have as structured a function as they do in Mark. They furnish the framework, the tone and the subject of Chs. 8:31–10:52.69 The primary purpose of this section is to explain what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah and what it requires to be identified with him. In the movement of the Gospel it serves to bring Jesus near Jerusalem where his suffering will be accomplished. Throughout this section there is sustained emphasis upon the journey to Jerusalem. Already in Ch. 8:27 Jesus and the Twelve were “on the way” among the villages of Caesarea Philippi; in Ch. 9:30 they make their way through Galilee, stopping briefly in Capernaum (Ch. 9:33); by Ch. 10:1 they have entered Judea near the lower Jordan; when interrupted by a wealthy man they are again “on the way” (Ch. 10:17), but not until Ch. 10:32f. is the destination of the journey announced: “we are going to Jerusalem.” The meaning of the journey to Jerusalem is defined by the repeated announcements of Jesus’ passion: he goes to Jerusalem to fulfill his messianic destiny. He leads his disciples in the way of the cross by instructing them concerning the necessity of his sufferings and of the requirement this imposes upon them.70
The fact that Jesus’ solemn declaration is repeated three times within a section entirely devoted to the mystery of the sufferings of the Messiah and his people indicates its crucial importance for the theology of Mark. The three cardinal pronouncements constitute the first of three movements in a programmatic pattern. The confession of Ch. 8:29 was a moment of revelation and insight. Nevertheless, the disciples failed to understand the significance of Jesus’ messiahship, and Mark underscores this failure after each of Jesus’ affirmations of his rejection and humiliation: Peter rebuked him (Ch. 8:32); the disciples did not understand, and were afraid to ask, and reasoned who was greater (Ch. 9:32ff.); they were amazed and afraid, James and John asked for the places of honor in his glory, and the others were indignant (Ch. 10:35–37, 41). On each of these occasions Jesus called the Twelve to authentic discipleship involving humility, service and suffering (Chs. 8:34–38; 9:33–37; 10:38–45). The parallel themes of Jesus’ suffering in fulfilment of the will of God, misunderstanding, and the call to true discipleship exhibit emphases which Mark regarded as so essential for his community to understand that he made them the heart of his Gospel.
The change of tone is stressed by the evangelist as well as by the tradition he incorporates. In Ch. 4:33f. Mark stressed that parabolic, veiled speech characterized Jesus’ ministry before the people (“And with many such parables he was speaking the word to them, to the degree that they were able to hear it”). The veiled reference to Jesus’ death in Ch. 2:20 offers an example of his parabolic speech. In Ch. 8:32, however, Mark states “and he was speaking the word openly (and with frankness),” in reference to the unmistakable note of rejection and violent death in Ch. 8:31. Moreover, in Ch. 8:34 Jesus calls the crowd and speaks to them in the same forceful, open terms he addresses to the disciples (in contrast to Ch. 7:14–15, 17–23). This openness is theologically significant within the larger context of Jesus’ messianic self-revelation in the Gospel of Mark. It points beyond Jesus’ hiddenness, which reaches its climax on the cross, to his revealed glory. In the cross and resurrection of Jesus the secret of the Kingdom is thoroughly veiled as well as gloriously revealed. Mark exposes this tension, which is inherent in the gospel, through the reaction of the disciples to Jesus’ sober teaching throughout Chs. 8:31–10:52.
1. The Sufferings of the Messiah: The First Major Prophecy of the Passion. Ch. 8:31–33
31And he began71 to teach them, that the Son of man must72 suffer many things,73 and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests,74 and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32And he spake the saying openly.75 And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.76
33But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me,77 Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.
It was imperative for Jesus to teach the disciples what it means to acknowledge that he is the Messiah. That teaching is provided in verse 31. Jesus’ statement regarding his impending death and resurrection is a prophetic utterance. Its intention, like that of most of the OT prophecies, was not to record history in advance but to provide certainty that when these events took place they represented what God had planned and fulfilled. The full import of prophecy cannot be grasped until after the event. That solemn pronouncement, however, has a function beyond the information it conveys concerning Jesus’ passion. It follows immediately on verse 30 as the explanation of the stern command not to speak to anyone concerning Jesus’ identity. It was not necessary that the people recognize that he is the Messiah until after he had fulfilled his messianic vocation through death and resurrection (Ch. 9:9; 13:9f.; 14:9; cf. Ch. 4:21–23). This is the only time in Mark that an injunction to silence is explained and it provides the key to all of the previous injunctions to silence. The necessity of the passion in obedience to the will of God accounts for the so-called secrecy phenomena in the Gospel. The “messianic secret” is God’s intention to provide salvation through a suffering Savior who is identified with the people by his free decision to bear the burden of judgment upon human rebellion.78 The repeated injunctions to silence throughout the Gospel of Mark are an expression of Jesus’ fidelity to the divine plan of salvation. That plan, though announced in Scripture, was unrecognized in Israel. The function of Jesus’ prophetic declaration in verse 31 is to make clear what the disciples could have known had they possessed the thought of God as expressed in Scripture (verse 33). The close association of Ch. 8:31–33 with the declaration of Ch. 8:29 indicates that confession in itself is insufficient to establish Christian faith. Jesus had to lead the disciples beyond messianic confession to an awareness of the dimensions of messiahship as defined by the revealed will of God.
31 In his response to Peter’s confession Jesus neither accepted nor refused the designation “Messiah.” He spoke of “the Son of Man” who could anticipate suffering and rejection issuing in violent death and resurrection, and this disclosure, which is described as new teaching, dominates the remainder of the Gospel. It is generally recognized that “the son of man” is not a genuine Greek idiom, but a literal translation of the Aramaic bar-nash/bar nasha’. This expression was in common use, both as a noun (= man) and as a substitute for the indefinite pronoun (= someone, anyone, a certain one) in early as well as in later stages of the development of the Galilean dialect. In a recent fresh examination of the total corpus of early Palestinian Aramaic, G. Vermès has offered conclusive evidence that the idiom sometimes functioned as a circumlocution for “I.”79 It occurs with this meaning primarily in sentences containing an allusion to humiliation, danger or death, although use of the idiom in reference to one’s self was sometimes dictated by humility or modesty.80 Geographically, the idiom is Palestinian-Galilean, and it is well attested in the earliest strata of Galilean Aramaic (represented by the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, the Jerusalem Talmud and Genesis Rabba). This has important bearing on Ch. 8:31. It indicates that it was not necessary that the disciples should have recognized in Jesus’ usage of “the son of man” any more than the circumlocution for “I.” The explicit reference to humiliation would account for the indirect idiom. Only in the light of Jesus’ subsequent teaching concerning the enthronement and judging function of the Son of Man (Chs. 8:38; 13:26; 14:62) was it possible to recognize an allusion to the mysterious figure of Dan. 7:13f. to whom God appointed celestial glory, dominion over all nations and an everlasting kingdom. Peter’s strong protest was not because he recognized a reference to Dan. 7 or realized the unspeakable incongruity between the transcendent majesty of the Son of Man and Jesus’ prophecy of suffering. It was rather the incongruity between “Messiah” (Ch. 8:29) and Jesus’ affirmation which accounts for his reaction. This illustrates the ambiguity of the idiom which made it singularly appropriate to express the tension between concealment and revelation in Jesus’ ministry.
Mark clearly understands and intends the old biblical context of Son of Man as defined in the vision of Daniel 7.81 Even in this first prophetic announcement of his coming suffering Jesus made a veiled allusion to his own identity as the transcendent Son of Man. But in this context Son of Man receives a deep paradoxical meaning; the man of transcendent glory goes the way of suffering and his hidden majesty will be revealed only after his rejection by the leaders of Israel and his violent death. The designation is thus appropriate to a comprehensive theology of history extending from glory (Dan. 7:13f.) through humiliation (Mk. 8:31) to glory (Mk. 8:38). “Son of Man” occurs fourteen times in the Gospel of Mark. Its significance to the evangelist, as Jesus’ own self-designation, deserves special attention. It is useful to distinguish four categories of text:
|
A |
Ch. 2:10 |
The authority to forgive sins |
|
Ch. 2:28 |
The Lord of the Sabbath |
|
|
B |
Ch. 8:31 |
Prophecy of the Passion |
|
Ch. 9:31 |
Prophecy of the Passion |
|
|
Ch. 10:33f. |
Prophecy of the Passion |
|
|
Ch. 9:9 |
Resurrection |
|
|
Ch. 9:12 |
Sufferings |
|
|
Ch. 10:45 |
His life is a ransom for the many |
|
|
Ch. 14:21 |
Goes (to death) |
|
|
Ch. 14:21 |
Betrayed |
|
|
Ch. 14:41 |
Betrayed |
|
|
D |
Ch. 8:38 |
Will come in glory |
|
Ch. 13:26 |
Will come on the clouds |
|
|
Ch. 14:62 |
Will come on the clouds |
The two texts of Group A represent the sole use of Son of Man in the first half of the Gospel and have been shown to represent Mark’s use of this designation to indicate the theological significance of an incident for his Christian reader.83 The six texts of Group C are allusions to the three prophetic announcements of the passion in Group B. The remaining passages (Groups B and D) consist of three cardinal texts announcing Jesus’ suffering balanced by three texts promising his parousia in glory. The close formulation between the three texts in each series indicates the importance of this teaching, both historically, at the level of Jesus’ ministry to the disciples, and existentially, at the level of the evangelist and his community. There can be no understanding of the gospel (or of the Gospel of Mark) apart from an appropriation of these separate, but related, phases of Jesus’ ministry on behalf of the people of God. In the Gospel of Mark there exists a reciprocal relationship between these two series of texts. The open announcement of coming suffering which is made possible by the recognition that Jesus is the Messiah liberates the messianic glory which had remained veiled even in the presence of Jesus’ extraordinary works (Ch. 9:1–9). The tension between concealment and openness in the self-revelation of God’s Son is thus exhibited in the texts of Groups B and D. Only the eye of faith can perceive the identity between the broken figure upon the cross and the transcendent majesty of the enthroned Son of Man whose coming consummates history and initiates universal judgment.
This paradox indicates how intimately these six cardinal texts are related to “the messianic secret.” The nerve-center of the secret is the necessity of the passion in the plan of God. But the manifestation of the glory of the Son of Man is also an integral part of the design for redemption. The incisive promise, “you will see,” repeated three times (Chs. 8:38–9:1; 13:26; 14:62), can only refer to an open and definitive unveiling of what God has kept concealed. Only then will it be recognized by all men that the glorious Son of Man entered into his triumph only through rejection and abject humiliation. This is central to Mark’s theology, and to the structure of his Gospel. The texts of Groups B and D are complementary: on three occasions Jesus solemnly announces the necessity of his passion, and on three occasions he affirms in awesome fashion the glorious manifestation of the Son of Man.
Reflection upon Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13f. exercised profound influence upon the formulation of the texts referring to Jesus’ enthronement and coming in majesty. It is more difficult to detect the influence of Dan. 7 on the prophecies referring to the sufferings of the Son of Man. In connection with these texts, however, there is an insistence that the key is provided by Scripture (Chs. 9:12; 14:21 “as it is written”; Ch. 8:31 “must,” because it is God’s announced will). There can be no proper grasp of Mark’s theology apart from a recovery of the texts of Scripture to which reference is made. The extent of the biblical nuances can be shown only in a careful examination of the individual passages themselves. It is clear, however, that the prophecies of the passion reflect an identification of the Son of Man with the suffering Servant of the Lord as set forth in Isa. 52:13–53:12.84 A rich range of texts informed Jesus’ understanding of his messianic vocation, but the suffering and atoning work of the Servant appears to have provided the matrix for his reflection upon his mission. Mark does not have to develop this tradition; it already existed in the churches85 and he presupposes it when he builds the traditional sayings about the destiny of the Son of Man into the heart of his Gospel.
Jesus’ interpretation of “Messiah” in terms of a theology of suffering is an index to his realism as well as his awareness of the Father’s will. The scribes regarded him as blasphemous (Ch. 2:7) and demonic (Ch. 3:22–30); the legal provisions against men deemed “heretics” or “seducing prophets” were explicit; the murder of John the Baptist indicated the destiny of God’s appointed messengers (Ch. 6:17–29; cf. Ch. 12:2–8). The Scriptures were explicit that the Servant of the Lord experiences rejection, stark humiliation and death on behalf of the people of God. These several strands of prophecy and experience are drawn together in the solemn declaration that the Son of Man must suffer many things.86
The necessity, under which Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection stand, belongs to the mysterious divine work of judgment and salvation in the last time. The statement that the Son of Man must suffer many things points to the overruling purpose of God and reflects Jesus’ conviction that the intention revealed in Scripture attains its fulfilment in the shame of the crucifixion as well as in the triumph of the resurrection. The disciples may behold in Jesus’ submission to the divine will the perfect human response to the regal claims of God. If the formula “suffer many things” stands under the influence of Isa. 53:4, 11 it is equivalent to “bear (the sins of) many” (cf. Ch. 10:45). In the light of Isa. 53, Jesus’ humiliation is an obedient suffering in execution of a divine commission.87 The extent of this humiliation is defined in terms of rejection and violent death. Jesus asserts that he will be made the object of the testing wisdom and insight of the Jewish authorities, and will be rejected. An allusion to Ps. 118:22 is confirmed by Ch. 12:10, where Jesus quotes the passage about the rejected stone precisely before the high priests, scribes and elders (cf. Ch. 11:27; Acts 4:11).88 The reference to these three prominent classes of men who together constituted the Sanhedrin indicates the totality of the failure to recognize Jesus and stresses that all of the leaders of Israel must equally assume responsibility for the rejection of the Son (cf. Ch. 14:64). The general term “and be killed” implies a violent death (cf. 1 Thess. 2:14) but provides no hint of crucifixion. The form that Jesus’ death would assume was not apparent until the crisis of the conflict with authority in Ch. 15.89 The precise nature of the humiliation and its inscrutable paradox were only very gradually revealed to the disciples.
Jesus’ prophecy announced not only suffering and death, but victory and vindication expressed through resurrection (cf. Ch. 9:9, 31; 10:34; 14:28). In Isaiah the final triumph of the Servant is presented as a triumph over death itself (Isa. 52:13; 53:10–12), and this assurance is reflected in Jesus’ reference to his own resurrection after three days. The fundamental OT passage on resurrection in the first century, however, was Hos. 6:1 f. Hosea spoke about the national revival by God of a contrite and repentant Israel: “Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heal us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up—after two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.” By the first century the passage had come to be interpreted eschatologically of the consolation of Israel in the last days, sealed by resurrection. This interpretation is reflected in the Targum read in the synagogue in connection with the call to repentance in preparation for the Day of Atonement:
“They will say: Come, and let us return to the service of the Lord; for he who has smitten us will heal us; and he who has brought ruin upon us will give us rest.
He will revive us on the days of consolation which are about to come;
On the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up and we shall be revived before him.”
Reflection upon this interpretation of Hos. 6:2 also may have informed Jesus’ conviction concerning his resurrection “after three days.”90 While there is some evidence that “after three days” can be regarded in a Semitic context as equivalent to “on the third day” (Gen. 42:17f.; 2 Chron. 10:5, 12), it is probable that Jesus’ reference to three days was an indefinite expression for a short period of time. A conviction, grounded upon Scripture, was that “the Holy One, blessed be he, does not leave his own in distress for more than three days.”91 The reference to resurrection already points forward to Ch. 8:38 where Jesus warns the people of the Son of Man’s enthronement as eschatological judge. The opposition and rejection experienced at the hands of Israel’s leaders will be overturned in startling fashion.
32–33 When the disciples looked back upon Jesus’ statement they were amazed at the openness with which he had spoken to them. Even in private discourse he had never spoken as clearly concerning his mission and destiny as he did on this occasion. Mark’s term for open speech denotes an outspokenness that conceals nothing. The comment that Jesus was speaking the word openly indicates the decisive character of this incident in the context of Jesus’ persistent use of veiled, parabolic speech (Ch. 4:33f.). Peter’s reaction shows that it was impossible to miss what Jesus intended to say, even though the divine necessity for his suffering appeared inconceivable.
Mark describes Peter’s impetuous action in sharp terms, employing the same strong vocable used throughout the Gospel in connection with the silencing of the demons: he rebuked Jesus (cf. 1:25; 3:12). How difficult it was to reconcile the designation “Messiah” and suffering is well illustrated by the Targum to Isa. 53, where the positive statements are interpreted to refer to King Messiah but the sufferings to the people.92 The rebuke indicates that Jesus’ declaration was radically new and that the disciples were totally unprepared to receive it: a rejected Messiah was incompatible with Jewish convictions and hopes. Peter’s reaction was therefore understandable but presumptuous, and it is not allowed to stand.
The presence of the other disciples, who undoubtedly shared Peter’s conviction that Jesus was wrong, necessitated a sharp and open rebuke. Jesus called them to witness that he resolutely refused the temptation represented in Peter’s words. It had been appointed by God that the Messiah was to achieve victory over the forces of evil in the world through the shame of the cross. The suggestion that he should refuse the passion may be construed as a temptation coming from Satan himself who desires to thwart the divine plan of salvation (cf. Chs. 1:12 f.; 3:23ff.).93 The sharpness of the rebuke stems from the suggestion of disobedience to God’s will and the frustration of a course of events which will lead to the enthronement of the Son of Man, the achievement of the salvation of his elect, and the judgment of the world (Ch. 8:38). Jesus, therefore, unmasks the source of Peter’s thought and commands him to return to his rank as a true disciple. His response to Jesus’ solemn prophecy betrayed no higher level than that characteristic of unregenerate human nature. An inability to accept a suffering Savior involves the refusal of the will of God, whose sovereign disposition of the problem of sin and human rebellion fails to conform to the niceties of human expectations (cf. Isa. 55:8f.). Jesus shows no inclination to justify the ways of God to men. He simply affirms that the way of the cross is the will of God.
2. The Requirements for Following Jesus. Chs. 8:34–9:1
34And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come94 after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35For whosoever would save his life95 shall lose it;96 and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and97 the gospel’s shall save it.
36For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?
37For what should a man give in exchange for his life?
38For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words98 in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
9:1And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death,99 till they see the kingdom of God come with power.
This section consists of a group of short, pungent sayings which concern personal commitment to Jesus in circumstances which require courage and sacrifice. They appear to have been brought together in the tradition or by the evangelist through catchword association. They reflect similar formulation and vocabulary.100 Mark includes this unit, which concerns essential requirements for being a follower of Jesus, because of a strong pastoral concern for his own people. Here he speaks beyond the historical situation in Jesus’ ministry to a church harassed by persecution, their ranks decimated by the subtle as well as more overt pressures exerted against Christians in imperial Rome. Mark shows that this situation is quite normal. Jesus had called his own disciples to the realization that suffering is not only his destiny but theirs. The humiliation of the Messiah, announced in Ch. 8:31, is the mysterious prototype of that of the Christian. But even as Jesus spoke of death followed by resurrection, his followers may look beyond a pagan tribunal to the tribunal of the Son of Man where loyalty to Jesus will be honored with vindication. This unit amounts to a call for complete and confident identification with Christ.
34 The reference to the crowd is sudden and unexpected (cf. Ch. 7:15; 8:1), but serves a vital function in the narrative. By calling the crowd Jesus indicates that the conditions for following him are relevant for all believers, and not for the disciples alone. This had important implications for the Christians in Rome and elsewhere. It indicated that the stringent demand for self-renunciation and cross-bearing extends not only to Church leaders but to all who confess that Jesus is the Messiah. It was the Lord’s intention that those who follow him should not be detached observers of his passion, but men who grow in faith and understanding through participation in his sufferings. Only in following on the way to the cross is it possible to understand either the necessity of Jesus’ humiliation or Jesus himself. The common address of these sober words to the crowd and the disciples recognizes that there is no essential difference between them when confronted with the sufferings of Christ: both alike have very human thoughts uninformed by the will of God (Ch. 8:33), and it was imperative for them to know what it means to follow Jesus. Precisely in following on the way to the cross the distinction between a privileged group and those outside (Ch. 4:11) disappears.101 “Following” in this context does not possess the technical meaning of “discipleship,” but refers to that common commitment to Jesus which distinguishes all Christians from those who fail to recognize him as God’s appointed Savior.102
Jesus stipulated that those who wish to follow him must be prepared to shift the center of gravity in their lives from a concern for self to reckless abandon to the will of God. The central thought in self-denial is a disowning of any claim that may be urged by the self, a sustained willingness to say ‘No’ to oneself in order to be able to say ‘Yes’ to God. This involves a radical denunciation of all self-idolatry and of every attempt to establish one’s own life in accordance with the dictates of the self.103 This demand is reinforced and intensified by the horrifying image of a death march. Bearing the cross was not a Jewish metaphor, and Jesus’ statement must have sounded repugnant to the crowd and the disciples alike. The saying evokes the picture of a condemned man going out to die who is forced to carry on his back the cross-beam upon which he is to be nailed at the place of execution.104 By the time Mark prepared his Gospel this had become cruel reality, both for Jesus and the Church. Jesus’ words were a sober caution that the commitment for which he asked permitted no turning back, and if necessary, a willingness to submit to the cross in pursuance of the will of God. His followers must be prepared to die, for they share in the same veiledness that permits his own humiliation. The call to follow Jesus, which recapitulates the action in which self-denial and cross-bearing are to be manifested, provides a vivid reminder that suffering with the Messiah is the condition of glorification with him (Rom. 8:17).
35 This statement, which exposes the ambivalent concept of life, follows meaningfully the call to disown self and to be prepared to sacrifice life itself in verse 34. The irreplaceability of life, which is considered elemental for earthly existence, is shown to be the crucial issue in reference to eternal existence. Jesus’ words envision men before a court where denial of association with him will bring release while affirmation of “Jesus and the gospel” issues in martyrdom. He thoroughly appreciates the frailty of human life threatened by death, but warns that the man who seeks to secure his own existence by denial of his Lord brings about his own destruction. Paradoxically, the man who yields his life in loyalty to Jesus safeguards it in a deeper sense. The contrast between ordinary human life and life as the expression of the eschatological salvation which Jesus provides in verse 35b indicates the irony in the alternation between “save” and “suffer loss” in verse 35a. It defines an opposition corresponding in sharpness to the distinction between eternal loss and salvation. Jesus’ pregnant statement deals realistically with the concrete, existential character of the dynamism of life. The theology of life affirmed is grounded in the paradox that a man can guarantee that dynamism only by sacrificing it.105
The context in which denial or confession is determinative of life is “Jesus and the gospel.” The absoluteness of Jesus’ claim upon the allegiance of man to his own person was affirmed unequivocally here for the first time. Prior to this it was possible to hear a call for commitment to his message, but now the locus of commitment is Jesus himself. The identity between Jesus and the message is underlined by the reference to suffering for the gospel, which is found only in Mark, and may have been added by the evangelist as an explanatory comment with particular relevance to the Christians in Rome.106 In the second half of Mark “the gospel” always denotes the message announced by the Church, of which Jesus is the content (Chs. 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9), precisely as in Ch. 1:1. Mark knew experientially that for the gospel men abandoned their goods (Ch. 10:29) and gave their lives (Ch. 8:35). It is possible that he has preserved an early Christian slogan, “for Christ and the gospel,” for which believers suffered and overcame.107
36–37 In developing the thought of the supreme value of life in its deepest sense, Jesus employed language drawn from commercial life: profit, gain, loss, give in exchange. A comparison of values is the proper setting for a consideration of profit and loss. Corresponding to the advantage gained—the whole world—is the payment which must be forfeited—authentic life.108 But the ledger involves values which cannot really be compared. The loss even of ordinary human life is in no way compensated by winning the world; how much more is this true of eternal life! The pointed rhetorical questions of verses 36–37 suggest reflection on Ps. 49:7–9, where the Psalmist is speaking of men “who trust in their wealth and boast of the abundance of their riches”: “Truly no man can ransom himself, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of his life is costly and can never suffice that he should continue to live on forever, and never see the Pit.” The absurdity of the man who secures his own life (verse 35a) in preference to participation in the salvation provided by God (verse 35b) emphasizes the fateful consequences of denying Jesus, even when human life is at stake. When a man has forfeited eternal life, he experiences absolute loss, even though he may have won the approval of the whole world with his denial of Jesus and the gospel.
38 Each of Jesus’ successive statements reinforced the irony of verse 35a, that the man who gains his life through denial of Jesus and the gospel suffers infinite loss. The character of the loss is now defined with reference to the final judgment which has been committed to the Son of Man. Verse 38 is parallel in structure to verse 35 and complementary in intention. It returns to the situation envisioned in verse 35 and carries it to its final consequences. The motive for denial of Jesus and his words is shame born out of an anxiety for one’s life and a basic unwillingness to be made an object of contempt in the world.109 Ashamed of past association with the Lord, the decision to seek approval from the world rather than from him exposes the Lord himself to contempt. This defines the seriousness of denial in terms of its immediate consequences for the world before whom Jesus and the gospel must be confessed. The world is defined qualitatively as “an adulterous and sinful generation,” an expression colored by the strictures of the prophets against idolatry (cf. Isa. 1:4, 21; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 2:4). Denial confirms the world in its idolatrous character and approves the unfaithfulness to God expressed in its rejection of Jesus and of those who display uncompromising loyalty to him.
Denial, however, entails ultimate consequences for the man who is ashamed of Jesus, for the Son of Man will expose him to contempt when he comes to execute the final judgment. Jesus’ veiled reference to his future role is appropriate because of the presence of the crowd. This is the only occasion when Jesus used the designation “Son of Man” publicly prior to his arraignment before the High Priest, where he spoke in circumstances of the utmost veiledness (Ch. 14:62), and his reserve is consistent with the messianic veiledness throughout his ministry. The critical opinion that Jesus spoke of the Son of Man as a person distinct from himself reflects a failure to perceive the eschatological and literary parallelism in this statement, in which an element of the first clause is introduced in a different manner in the second clause. In verse 38a Jesus refers to himself in the first person; in verse 38b he refers to himself by the designation most appropriate to the glory of the parousia when he will come for judgment. The statement receives its pregnant significance precisely because Jesus and the Son of Man are the same person, and the denial of Jesus entails the denial of the final Judge himself.110 For this startling reason the criterion for a man’s acceptance or rejection before the Son of Man is his loyalty or disloyalty to Jesus now. The judgment of those who range themselves against Jesus is the corollary of the vindication and salvation of those who have faithfully followed him. The underlying irony in the situation depicted derives from the veiledness which characterized Jesus’ earthly ministry: he is one of whom men may be ashamed, but he will be openly revealed as the one who possesses the glory of his Father.
The reference to the Father’s glory and to the accompanying train of angels (cf. Ch. 13:26f.) serves to set Jesus’ entire ministry in a doxological perspective. Jesus was sent to reveal the glory of God in a world whose intoxication with its own glory is well expressed in the thought of gaining the world (Ch. 8:36). He can accomplish his mission only if his own glory means nothing to him and the Father’s glory means everything. For Jesus this required submission to the contempt and shame of the cross. But God does not fail to recognize his self-renunciation and cross-bearing, and the hour comes when the Son of Man is exhibited glorified by the Father for whose sole glory he lived and died.111 This had immediate relevance for the persecuted and justly frightened Christians in Mark’s congregation. In Jesus’ own commitment to the Father they possessed a paradigm for their commitment to him and to the gospel. The sober words of Ch. 8:34–38 represented not theoretical reflections but the law of life by which Jesus gauged his own conduct in a world hostile to God. His vindication and coming triumph provided assurance that they would share in his glory if they held fast their commitment to him (cf. Ch. 13:9–13).