DURING THOSE DAYS another large crowd gathered. Since they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, 2“I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. 3If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance.”
4His disciples answered, “But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?”
5“How many loaves do you have?” Jesus asked.
“Seven,” they replied.
6He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. 7They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. 8The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 9About four thousand men were present. And having sent them away, 10he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha.
11The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.” 13Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.
14The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15“Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”
16They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.”
17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
20“And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”
They answered, “Seven.”
21He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”
22They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”
24He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.”
25Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26Jesus sent him home, saying, “Don’t go into the village.”
Original Meaning
THE PHRASE “DURING those days” loosely connects the miracle of the feeding of the four thousand with the preceding events (7:24–37) and places it in the same Gentile setting (7:31). Jesus is once again in a teaching situation, though, as is typical in Mark, no record of the content of Jesus’ words is given.
The Feeding of Four Thousand (8:1–10)
JESUS’ COMPASSION FOR the crowd prompts him a second time to feed a large crowd (8:2; see 6:34), which has been with him for three days without anything to eat. The “three days” emphasizes their great need, which is compounded by their traveling a long distance to hear Jesus. They are in a desolate area far from home, and Jesus fears that they might faint if he sends them away without some nourishment. This detail underscores the great attraction of Jesus. People flock to him to a desert place and are willing to go hungry for three days without a single complaint.1
This second feeding miracle invites comparison with the first. Both occur in a desert place (6:35; 8:4), and Mark notes that the plight of each crowd spurs Jesus’ compassion. Both feedings feature an exchange between Jesus and the disciples about the logistics of feeding such a large crowd. In the first incident, the disciples worry over the great expense of buying bread for such a huge throng (6:37); in the second, they fret that there is no place nearby for the crowd to buy bread for themselves (8:4). These remarks emphasize both the extent of the miracle that Jesus works and the extent of their misgivings that he can do anything to solve the problem. Jesus asks the disciples how much they have (6:38; 8:5), and their meager supplies only convince the disciples that the task is impossible. In both incidents, Jesus blesses what they scrounge together and has them distribute it to the crowds (6:41; 8:6). Miraculously the crowd eats its fill, and the disciples collect an abundance of leftovers (6:42; 8:8). In the second feeding, the number fed drops from five thousand to four thousand, while the loaves and fishes increase from five loaves and two fish (6:41) to seven loaves and a few small fish (8:5, 7). The number of baskets of fragments leftover diminishes from twelve (6:43) to seven (8:8).
Many have read some allegorical significance into the numbers in the two feedings2 or press the significance of the different terms for the baskets used to collect the fragments to support the argument that Jesus offers himself to Jews in the first feeding and to Gentiles in the second.3 The allegorical explanations for the numbers are unconvincing, but setting the second feeding in Gentile territory suggests that Mark understands the recipients to be Gentiles.4 Note how this feeding occurs immediately after Mark has recorded how Jesus crossed purity boundaries and social barriers. Jewish purificatory customs comprised the chief hindrance to associations between Jews and Gentiles, and Jesus has dismissed these concerns as peripheral (7:1–23). The healing of a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter opened the door to the possibility that Gentiles might also be fed without filching bread from the children (7:24–30).
The context, therefore, suggests that Jesus is now offering a predominantly Gentile crowd the same opportunity to be fed by his teaching and by his miraculous power that he offered to the Jewish crowd. We may think that it is only fair that Gentiles get a share in Christ’s benefits, but from Mark’s Jewish perspective the inclusion of Gentiles is a token of the end-time reign of God. The miracle signifies that Jesus is not simply “a redeemer, a messiah like Moses and David”;5 he is the Redeemer, offering redemption to more than just the people of Israel.
In 6:34, Jesus characterizes the crowd as sheep without a shepherd, a classic description of a woeful Israel (Num. 21:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Ezek. 34:5). The disciples are the ones who raise a concern about the needs of the crowd when they ask Jesus what is to be done with them (6:35). In the second feeding, Jesus raises the concern about the hunger of the crowd, noting that many have come from a great distance (8:2–3). If Mark intends for Gentile readers to see themselves represented in this feeding, they may take comfort that Jesus recognizes their great need and prods the disciples to feed them.
The present account brings into bold relief the arrested development of the disciples. They were in on the first miracle feeding of five thousand in a deserted place, but this does not stop them from asking Jesus, “But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?” (8:4). The answer to their question is obvious: from Jesus. The disciples are slow on the uptake and grope for answers in the dark, expecting nothing miraculous from Jesus. Again, Jesus patiently has the disciples go through their inventory of provisions. They do not yet realize that even with their scanty supplies, they have in Jesus enough to feed the entire world.
Seeking a Sign (8:10–12)
AFTER THE FEEDING, Jesus sets sail with his disciples to Dalmanutha, a destination never mentioned by anybody in extant ancient literature. The best guess is that it refers to the anchorage of the district of Magdala.6 What appears to be an ad hoc committee of Pharisees immediately accosts him when he disembarks and presses him to give them some sign from heaven. The phrase “he sighed deeply” (see 7:34) reflects Jesus’ dismay at being tempted again. The Pharisees challenge his faithfulness and provoke his irritation.7
The English translation of the second part of Jesus’ response misses his sharp denial. The text reads literally, “If a sign will be given to this generation.” This comment is part of an oath formula, though it omits the threat of evil on oneself that normally accompanies such a comment: “May God strike me down,” or, “May I be accursed of God,” if a sign is to be given to this generation. This oath fragment does more than say that no sign will be given this generation; it conveys with some vehemence that he will prevent it from happening at all costs.
Why does Jesus oppose giving the Pharisees a sign from heaven? In the Old Testament a sign was a public event that certified or confirmed a distrusted prophecy or a disputed claim. One sought a sign when a claimant did or said something that was strange, surprising, unconventional, or contrary to the Mosaic law.8 The sign did not happen by chance but had been predicted and thereby proved the legitimacy of a suspected utterance or claim. It did not have to comprise anything spectacular or miraculous but had to correspond to the prediction of what would occur.9 Some incorrectly argue that Jesus resolutely refuses to give any signs in Mark’s Gospel. For example, when the teachers of the law muttered under their breath that Jesus verged on blasphemy by announcing that the sins of the paralytic were forgiven, he proved his claim by making something happen (2:1–10). The reason Jesus balks at giving a sign here in 8:11–12 revolves around two issues: the meaning of the expression “a sign from heaven,” and the defiant disposition of these opponents.
(1) “A sign from heaven” does not refer to the author of the sign—a sign from God. Signs by their very nature came from God, so that the phrase “a sign from God” is redundant. The Pharisees specifically ask for a sign “from heaven.” They have in mind a peculiar type of sign distinct from another sign they may have requested. Gibson argues that “a sign from heaven” refers to “apocalyptic phenomena which embody or signal the onset of aid and comfort for God’s elect and/or the wrath that God was expected to let loose against his enemies and those who threaten his people.”10 This generation, represented by the Pharisees, asks Jesus to do something that will signal Israel’s deliverance from her enemies and their crushing defeat. A sign from heaven is something that “is apocalyptic in tone, triumphalistic in character, and the embodiment of one of the ‘mighty deeds of deliverance’ that God had worked on Israel’s behalf in rescuing it from slavery.”11
Ironically, this request comes after the miraculous feeding, a miracle that pointed to the blessing, not the destruction, of Gentiles. Jesus refuses to give the Pharisees a sign from heaven because God has sent him to give his life on the cross for all humanity, not to smash the enemies of Israel or to give the nation political mastery of the world. He will not give in to pressure to take a course of action different from God’s purposes.
(2) The Pharisees have already received plenty of proof in Mark 1–2 of the source of Jesus’ power, and they come now only as detractors who wish to tempt him. When Jesus addresses them as “this generation,” this phrase recalls the stubborn, disobedient generation of the desert (Deut. 32:5, 20; Ps. 95:10–11). Those who claim to know God and to teach God’s law to others do not recognize the signs that God has already displayed through Jesus because they are spiritually blind.
What is it that blinds them? Is it Jesus’ unconventional behavior? Their concern to preserve their own power and status? Their constipated faith? Their skepticism that God would work in such an enigmatic fashion? Their desire that God destroy Gentiles and not feed them? Their wish to embarrass Jesus when he fails to produce such a sign? Plenty of others will come pandering to the desires of the people to see concrete signs of the nation’s military triumph. Jesus says that false prophets and false christs will give signs and wonders to deceive (13:6, 22). But Jesus will offer this generation no noisy sign from heaven, only the wind whistling through an empty tomb after his crucifixion.
The Disciples’ Incomprehension (8:13–21)
THE DISCIPLES HAVE also failed to discern the signs Jesus has shown them. Mark records a third sea incident, where the disciples’ failure to grasp the significance of what Jesus has done in their midst becomes disturbingly obvious. Their dim-sightedness shows how much they still have to learn about their Master.
In the first boat scene (4:35–41), Jesus calmed the sea and rebuked his disciples for their lack of faith. Their terror over the storm shifted to wonderment about Jesus: Who is this one who can still storms? In the second boat scene, they are again terrified, this time when Jesus comes to them walking on the waves. Mark explains their fear with the notice that “they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened” (6:52). Now in this third boat scene, Jesus rebukes them for their quarrel over not having any bread and accuses them of having hardened hearts, blind eyes, and dull hearing (8:17–18). The feedings of the multitudes and the sea adventures have given the disciples a unique opportunity “to learn who Jesus is, to understand the nature and source of the power that comes through him.”12 But the disciples have moved no closer to comprehension and remain bamboozled by it all.
This last scene in the boat opens with an awkwardly phrased notice that the disciples forgot to bring loaves, “except for one loaf they had with them in the boat” (8:14). Why the contradiction between no loaves and one loaf? Have they forgotten that they have the one loaf (for they immediately begin to argue that they do not have loaves, 8:16)? Do they not even know that they have one loaf? Or do they think that one loaf is insufficient for their needs? Most likely, Mark teases the reader by allusively referring to Jesus as that one loaf. Without any clear antecedent, the next verse continues, “Jesus warned them, ‘Watch our for the yeast of the Pharisees’” (8:15). Mark wants the reader to recognize Jesus as that one loaf who can multiply one into an abundance of loaves to feed thousands (see John 6:48–51; 1 Cor. 10:16–17).
Jesus’ sudden warning about “leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod” (RSV) seems to intrude on the context. Some argue that 8:16 makes more sense if it followed 8:14. But the warning clarifies the danger of the disciples’ worry about a bread shortage. In the Old Testament, leaven symbolized corruption and the infectious power of evil. The translation of the word zyme as “yeast” assumes that “yeast” and “leaven” are the same thing and obscures the negative connotation that leaven had for the first-century Jew. Yeast connotes to us that fresh and wholesome ingredient that makes dough rise and gives bread a pleasing, light texture. The ancient world used the more dangerous leaven. It was produced by keeping back a piece of the previous week’s dough, storing it in suitable conditions, and adding juices to promote the process of fermentation. But this homemade rising agent was fraught with health hazards because it could easily become tainted; it would then spread poison when baked with the rest of the dough. It, in turn, would infect the next batch.13 That is the idea Jesus uses to refer to his enemies.
The Pharisees and Herod seem to have little in common—the one steeped in religious duties, the other sunk in iniquity. But they do share one poisonous fault that can infect others. Jesus does not explicitly identify what that toxic flaw is, but the context points to their obstinate refusal to believe in spite of the evidence. They will not admit the truth, let alone embrace it, even when it stares them in the face. Herod and his confidants failed to believe when they heard of Jesus’ mighty works (6:14–16). The Pharisees are insisting that Jesus provide a sign conforming to their own goals and aspirations before they will commit themselves to believe.
Jesus thus warns the disciples not to fall victim to this same insidious unbelief. Their worry about where their next meal is coming from makes them deaf to the warning about not hearing and blind to the warning against blindness. Mundane concerns distract them too much, and they do not catch the subtle connection. They consistently fret about insufficient resources—it will take too much money to feed the crowd; there is no way the crowd can get bread in a deserted place; they have no bread. Their anxiety over such things keeps them from looking up and seeing what Jesus has done in their midst. It is as if they have tuned into Jesus with a primitive crystal radio set, and all they hear is a faint scratchy voice overwhelmed by background hiss.
Jesus asks his disciples why all the squabbling about the loaves and then gives a quick recap of recent events to jog their memories (and the reader’s). He prods them to recall how much was left over when he fed the five thousand and the four thousand. They can recall the numbers easily enough, but they cannot see past them to recognize that they have a bread maker with them in the boat. The scene is almost comical. Jesus has fed nine thousand people with next to nothing. The disciples themselves helped distribute the food and helped gather up the leftovers, twelve mat basketfuls and seven large basketfuls. Though they had a ringside seat at both events, it has apparently slipped their minds, and they come off as dunderheads worrying about not having enough to fix lunch for thirteen. Even when Jesus refreshes their memories, they still do not fully comprehend because they have hardened hearts.
Jesus apparently believes that the feedings in the desert are the key events that should explain everything for the disciples. They did not generate the rush of excitement that his other miracles did, however. Mark does not report that anybody marveled. The disciples were only amazed before the miracle—that Jesus would even entertain notions of feeding such a huge mass of people. When they collected the leftovers, they appear to take it all in stride and do not ask, “Who is this who can feed thousands on such a small amount?” The meaning of the event clearly escapes them, but Jesus implies that it should point them on the way to recognizing Jesus as the Messiah, who works by the power of God. They are mired in their own little world, with its petty alarms, and cannot see God’s reign breaking into their midst.
Jesus never gives up on the disciples and still holds out hope for them even when he expresses his exasperation: “Do you still not understand?” Jesus defines outsiders in 4:12 as those who see but do not perceive and those who hear but do not understand. The disciples therefore react to his miracles like outsiders (8:17–18). They are not going to forfeit their position as insiders, however, as some interpreters maintain. The “not yet” implies that eventually they will see and understand, though it will not come easily. Unlike the Pharisees, their problem is not that they refuse to see but that they cannot see until after the Jesus’ death and resurrection. Geddert correctly describes the disciples’ situation in Mark:
Followers, however dull and unfaithful, are patiently instructed. If they follow all along the way Jesus leads, they will eventually be transformed from mere ‘data-collectors’ into ‘meaning-discerners.’ It all hinges on the decision for or against Jesus.”14
If they succumb to the unbelieving leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod, however, they will never see. If they continue to follow him along the way, Jesus will multiply the meager resources of their understanding.
Healing a Blind Man (8:22–26)
THE NEXT INCIDENT records unidentified persons in Bethsaida bringing Jesus a blind man for him to touch. With vivid detail Mark describes Jesus’ whisking the blind man away from the village, spitting into his eyes to heal them, and meeting with only partial success. For the first time Jesus asks an afflicted person about the success of his healing attempt, the way a physician would do.
Mark describes the initial moment when the blind man receives rudimentary sight but things are out of focus.15 He can see people, but they look like walking trees. Jesus then repeats the procedure by placing his hands on the man’s eyes, which brings complete healing. Three verbs describe the man’s progressive restoration of sight. He opens his eyes wide (diablepo), his sight is restored (apokathistemi), and he can see all things clearly (emblepo). Jesus then sends him to his house and orders him not to go into the village. He continues to shy away from unnecessary publicity for his healing and steers clear of the towns and villages until he enters Jerusalem. His contact with crowds tapers off as he focuses his attention on instructing the disciples.
Since the man does not recover his sight immediately, the reader gets the impression that his blindness is stubborn and hard to cure. The miracle shows Jesus’ power to heal even the most difficult cases. The Markan context, which portrays Jesus’ struggle to get his disciples to see anything, gives this unusual two-stage healing added significance. The blind man’s healing occurs between two examples of the disciples’ blindness (8:14–21; 8:31–33). This physical healing of blindness serves as a paradigm for the spiritual healing of the disciples’ sight, which also comes gradually and with difficulty.16
As we near the midway point of this Gospel, the first half has drawn attention to the disciples’ inability to recognize that Jesus is the Messiah empowered by God. When it finally dawns on Peter, the spokesman for the group, that Jesus is the Christ, the disciples encounter a new hurdle to their understanding. The second half of the book will reveal their inability to understand that this Messiah must suffer and die and be vindicated in his resurrection.
As Jesus asked the blind man, “Do you see anything?” so he will ask the disciples, “Who do you say I am?” Peter does see something. After all of Jesus’ mighty works and deeds, he has a flash of insight: “You are the Christ” (8:29). The first stage of healing is complete. But he only has partial sight, as Jesus’ stern rebuke in the next sentence makes clear (8:33). Peter sees, but he sees the equivalent of walking trees. Both Peter and the disciples require a second touch before they will see all things clearly—that the Messiah must suffer and die.17
The next major section, 8:27–10:52, shows Jesus concentrating his efforts on curing the disciples’ deafness and blindness, which need more than one course of treatment.18 Only after the crucifixion and resurrection will anyone begin to unravel the baffling mystery that the reign of God comes in the person of Jesus, who suffers and dies a humiliating death. The resurrection will reveal God’s power to restore both sight and life.
Bridging Contexts
PROBING THE REASONS for Jesus’ refusal to give a sign from heaven to the Pharisees will help build a bridge to our present situation. Geddert’s discussion on this passage is valuable.19 He first points out that the clamor for the sign from heaven came from the wrong people. They represent “this generation” (8:12), which continually defies Jesus, tempts disciples to be ashamed of him (8:38), and is faithless (9:19). These people only want to engage in disputes and to test others so that they can embarrass them. They think that they can dictate to God the conditions under which they will or will not believe. They will not accept any ambiguity or paradox. These opponents want an irrefutable, unequivocal, visible proof that removes any doubt from the decision of faith. What they want from Jesus, therefore, eliminates the need for faith. As Geddert puts it, “They imagined that they could demand whatever sort of signs they wanted, and then maintain critical distance and draw whatever conclusions from the data that happened to suit their inclinations.”20 Jesus recognizes that he has little chance of convincing these hard-core opponents no matter what he does.
Second, the request for a sign comes too late. Jesus had dealt with his skeptical opponents patiently until they began to plot his death (3:6). Before this, Jesus “carefully defends his actions when they accuse him and he demonstrates his authority when they challenge it.”21 He sent the healed leper as a witness to them (1:44). He confirmed his authority to announce the forgiveness of sins by commanding the paralytic to walk, something that everyone there could witness (2:10). When challenged, he explained why he ate with sinners (2:17) and why his disciples did not fast (2:19–22). He justified the so-called breaking of the Sabbath by appealing to an Old Testament precedent (2:25–28). But they rejected this evidence and his explanations, then plotted his death, and attempted to discredit him. As a result, Jesus now shifts his approach to them. He refuses to give them any more evidence since they refuse to believe no matter what he says or does. Hence, the brusque response when they have the temerity to demand a sign from heaven.
Third, Jesus refuses to submit to their demand because they are trying to tempt him, just as Satan had. Temptation presents one with the choice of obedience or disobedience to God. They try to preempt the Spirit by lobbying for a sign that conforms to their own longing and aims, not to God’s. According to Gibson, “the sign from heaven” has to do with the deliverance of Israel coupled with the destruction of Israel’s enemies. They want him “to advocate, initiate, and engage in triumphalism—a type of activity that according to Mark, was forbidden to Jesus if he wished to remain faithful to the exigencies of his divine commission.”22
Bilezikian clearly pinpoints the problem: “The kind of messiah they want will never come. They are determined to find a compliant superman who is endowed with heavenly powers and will fulfill their own earthly program. The messiah of their dreams.…”23 Theirs is a messiah of empty dreams, who will throw out the tyrants of the world and install them as the new tyrants. They want Jesus to give them proof of what they want to be true. Jesus refuses to yield to their false hopes, knowing that they will reject him as a fake and worse. Outsiders and insiders can exert enormous pressure on ministers and churches to conform to their false expectations and to coddle their self-indulgent fantasies. To resist this pressure and remain obedient to God requires a clear vision of God’s will, unwavering dedication, and constant prayer.
A fourth reason why Jesus refuses to give the Pharisees the sign of their choosing has to do with the nature of the kingdom of God and faith. The kingdom of God requires individuals to exercise faith and discernment. The sign the Pharisees request removes any need to risk faith or to discern what God is doing in the present when the evidence is ambiguous. Jesus’ warning about sign prophets in Mark 13 identifies those who provide convincing signs (which may deceive even the elect) as frauds (13:21–22).
That is what people want—convincing signs (see 1 Cor. 1:22). Their foolish hopes make them all the more gullible to the cries, “Look here!” “Look there!” The bystanders gathered around Jesus’ cross demand that he come down in a dramatic show of force so that they might believe that he is indeed the Christ (15:28–32). Jesus refuses to do anything to get scoffers to believe. They must discern the truth from the way he gives his life on this cross and from the reports of his resurrection. No angelic host will descend from heaven with trumpets blaring to herald the news that Jesus is king until it is too late, when they arrive at the end of the age to gather the elect who have risked trusting in Jesus (13:27).
Sign seekers and scoffers appear in every generation. They continue to make their demands, ask for proofs, and ridicule a faith that trusts God’s faithfulness against all evidence. William Blake wrote against the mockers:
Mock on Mock on, Voltaire Rousseau
Mock on Mock on! ‘tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a Gem
Reflected in the beams divine
Blown back they blind the mocking Eye
But still in Israel’s paths they shine.24
Each era can fill in new names for Voltaire and Rousseau. Every generation of Christians must resist the temptation to satisfy their demands and to try to provide confirmation that fits the world’s standards of evidence. The world wants visible, temporal, triumphant realities. According to Mark’s Gospel, spiritual truth does not lend itself to such demands. One should learn from Jesus’ example. He rebuffed all antagonistic demands to provide evidence to convince others. Rather than entangle ourselves in fruitless debates with agnostics, whose taunts usually reflect their personal fury with God, we should follow Jesus’ example and turn away. Jesus proved his faith by his commitment to obey God and by giving his life as a sacrifice for others.
The disciples do not do well in this scene, and things will only get worse. In Mark’s Gospel, they seem to have wool in their ears. Jesus’ hints, warnings, and even his miraculous deeds do not get through. It is like winking at the blind or whispering to the deaf. The disciples function like the clever detective’s dull-witted associate in crime novels—Holmes’s Watson or Poirot’s Hastings. They never catch on to the truth immediately and go off chasing red herrings.
The failure of the disciples, however, does not mean that they are incorrigibly ignorant. They do not represent the heretical positions of Mark’s opponents (as some scholars have insisted). Mark presents the disciples as those who understand (4:11–12) and as those who do not understand (6:51–52; 7:19; 8:17–21). Their failure to grasp everything reflects the condition of those governed by the spirit of human wisdom before the resurrection, who have not received God’s Spirit to reveal God’s ways. As Paul writes: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor. 2:9). “No one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (2:11). As the Corinthian situation reveals, however, even those who have received the Spirit can be badly mistaken and self-willed. The disciples, therefore, are the mirror images of disciples in Mark’s church and of modern-day disciples, who are no less obtuse or subject to confusion, but gifted with occasional insight. The disciples’ major problem is not simply their blindness, but the failure to recognize that they are blind.
The text does its work when readers can see their own blindness in the disciples’ blindness. If we ask, “How could the disciples be so dense?” we need immediately ask the same question of ourselves. The disciples saw dimly in a glass coated with the dust of traditional ways of viewing things and warped by the curvature of their own dreams and ambitions. The glass we look through is no different. We are no less in need of healing before we can see what God is doing, and it may not take on the first try. Many get frustrated with others in their own church or denomination who seem to suffer from a terminal case of spiritual insensibility. We can learn from the example of Jesus’ patience with his own dull disciples. He does not give up on them, even after their disastrous failures during his trial and death. The same one who could transform a few loaves into a banquet for thousands can transform the stony hearts and hardened minds of palsied disciples, who will then go into the world preaching the gospel.
Jesus admits that disciples are susceptible to the decay of unbelief. Mark 8:14–21 reveals that unbelief begins to rise like leaven when one becomes preoccupied with mundane matters—cares for the things of this world. When the disciples become consumed with worry that they do not have enough bread, the reader rightly asks, Why should they feel so insecure? They travel with one who already has shown his care for them and his power to satisfy all their needs as well as others. They worry about all the wrong things. In bridging the contexts, one needs to show that the petty worries of modern disciples look just as silly and unnecessary.
Several dangers arise when we become, like the disciples, focused on concerns for material well-being. (1) We begin to doubt the power of Jesus to provide enough and may be tempted to look to other sources. (2) We begin to vent anxiety by quarreling with others, which undermines community. (3) The never-ending pursuit for daily bread distracts us from obeying God’s will. If the disciples lift their eyes from their searching for bread, they will see that God provides them with all the food they need in Jesus.
Jesus analyzes the disciples’ condition and diagnoses it as hardness of heart, blind eyes, and stopped-up ears. They are little different from the outsiders who cannot understand anything (4:11–12) and from Jesus’ bitter opponents (3:5). Hengel helpfully comments: “It is this universal disobedience which necessitates Jesus’ course towards a representative expiatory death.”25 The disciples’ failure illustrates Paul’s affirmation, “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:22b–23).
Contemporary Significance
THESE INCIDENTS DEPICT opponents and disciples as blind to what God is working through Jesus. The blindness stems from many causes. Being able to see what God is doing and where it will all lead is like being able to visualize the building of a church. The architect goes over the landscape and has a vision of what the building will look like. This spot is where the sanctuary will be; this is where the pulpit will be; this is where the choir loft will be; and so on. The one tagging along beside the architect may see nothing but bushes, knolls, and rocks.
Jesus has a vision of what the kingdom of God looks like. The disciples see nothing, no matter how hard they strain their eyes. Everything looks to them like a barren landscape. They may remain in the dark, but Jesus calls them to trust his vision. They may doubt because the resources seem so pitiful, and they do not remember God’s bounteous provision they enjoyed in the past even when they can count their blessings. They may hold back their commitment until they get more proof. They may faint along the way, give out, and lose heart because they think they have no bread. They may try to fill empty pews with eye-popping programs inspired by the latest cultural craze. They wind up distributing spiritual junk food that can never satisfy.
Marshall outlines the differences between rational belief and trust. He points out that rational belief is “involuntary” because the evidence compels belief. Trust, on the other hand, is a voluntary act of the will. One trusts even when there is no objective evidence. Schweizer compares it to the trust that a spouse has that his or her mate is faithful. One can hire a private investigator to gather indisputable proof that the spouse is faithful. Doing anything like this would shatter a relationship that is supposed to be based on love and trust.26
Belief can exist and not affect one’s conduct. One can believe statistical evidence that flying in an airplane is far safer than traveling the highways in a car, but fear of flying may prevent one from ever booking a trip on a plane. Trust, on the other hand, results in certain actions. Both belief and trust intertwine. As Marshall states it:
All belief involves at least a modicum of trust (e.g., trust in one’s cognitive powers), while an act of trust would be absurd without some minimum convictions about the character of the one being trusted or the benefits inherent in the act of trusting itself. Every human judgment, in other words, has a complex character involving both rational and non-rational elements, in varying proportions depending on the circumstances.27
It is both belief that and belief in. Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, that he is sufficient for all their needs, and then they live their belief. Schoonhoven offers the following illustration.
A certain tight rope walker publicized that he was going to walk across Niagara Falls. A large crowd gathered. He dusted his hands and feet with powdered chalk, grasped with both hands the pole he used for balance, and proceeded confidently across the rope. He not only went across but also made a return trip. The crowd stood amazed and responded with cheers. The man proclaimed he would do it again without his pole. Again he successfully went over and back. As he stepped off the rope, he turned to the crowd and asked how many thought he could make a third trip, this time with a wheelbarrow. Some responded with confidence while others with skepticism. He set off on his task and completed it with the greatest of ease. He then inquired of the crowd as to whether they believed he could do the same thing with the wheelbarrow full of cement. This time the crowd responded with great confidence. Again, he performed his feat with unbelievable ease. Having completed these four trips successfully, he asked the spectators if they believed that he could wheel a human being across the dangerous expanse. The response was unanimous. He could do it. Upon their reply he turned to a gentleman and said, “All right, my friend, let’s go.”28