Mark 8 - My Thoughts

 One of the interesting things about Mark 8 revolves around the Revised Common Lectionary – the schedule of readings that many churches (including ours) uses to help guide congregations through the Bible over a 3 year cycle. There are a total of 6 stories in Mark 8, and the first 4 of them are completely ignored by the lectionary, as are any parallel stories offered by Matthew or Luke. So my point in beginning my discussion about the chapter is that these probably are not particularly well known stories to most United Church people, since most United Churches follow the lectionary, and these stories simply do not get read in most United Church services. So, on with these stories!

 

I find this a very strange way for this Chapter to start – and a very strange story for Mark to tell. Why do we need another feeding miracle? I’m not suggesting that it isn’t a very dramatic event – but when you consider that not that long ago Mark had shared a story about a much more dramatic miracle in which five thousand people were fed with very little food, this one seems, at best, anti-climactic; it doesn’t seem to add anything to what we already know. And yet, so soon after the last feeding miracle, Mark offers us this less dramatic (and less detailed) feeding miracle. I do find myself wondering why. Mark generally offers an action-packed narrative and this doesn’t really add to that narrative. The story opens with the words “In those days” which suggests that it should be linked with what Jesus had been doing immediately before – so it might be important to note the fact that this feeding miracle apparently takes place in Gentile territory. That’s one significant difference with the previous story, which was in Jewish territory. So one thing we do learn from three stories in a row (the Syrophoenician woman and the deaf man in Chapter 7 and now this feeding miracle) is that even though all of the Gospels seem to affirm that Jesus believed his primary ministry to be to Israel, he did not see Gentiles as unworthy of his ministry. That may be an important piece of learning, but the more I think about it the more I begin to realize that the importance of the story may not be found in what we learn from it; the importance of the story might simply be that it’s there in the first place. We already know that Jesus can do feeding miracles and we already know that Jesus does do ministry among the Gentiles, so since the story doesn’t really reveal anything new to us and since because of that there doesn’t seem to be any essential reason for Mark to have included it, maybe we just have to assume that Mark included it because it happened? Signs of authenticity in the Bible are important to me. I don’t subscribe to the idea that just because it’s in the Bible it must be true. So when I see things that suggest authenticity to me I get very interested in them. This, to me, suggests the authenticity of the feeding miracles. There’s very little reason to include them both unless both happened. One point that does get made by the feeding story, mind you, is about geography. It’s actually kind of important to follow exactly where Jesus is in Mark’s Gospel, because his location often has connections with the rest of the narrative. So at the end of the story of the feeding of the four thousand, Mark does give us the tidbit of information that Jesus travels back to “the district of Dalmanutha.” So just to orient us a little bit, Remember that Chapter 7 ended with Jesus on the east side of the Sea of Galilee in the region of Tyre, which was Gentile territory, which also seems to be where this feeding miracle occurred. I suggested that he had travelled to Gentile territory at least in part as a sign of his contempt for the Pharisees (that going there was Jesus saying he would rather be among the Gentiles than among the Pharisees.) The region of Dalmanutha is on the west side of the Sea of Galilee. So the way this story ends tells us that at some point Jesus has crossed back over the Sea of Galilee and was back in Jewish territory. Dalmanutha was about halfway between Capernaum, where Jesus had been welcomed early in his ministry, and Tiberias, which was Herod’s capital. And it’s interesting that as soon as he returns to Jewish territory he encounters the Pharisees again.

 

This is a very short account of an encounter Jesus has with the Pharisees. Mark doesn’t make clear whether these are local Pharisees or once again the Pharisees from Jerusalem, although my guess would be the latter. It’s really only important because of what it tells us about the deteriorating relationship between them, as Mark introduces a new word to describe their interaction: “The Pharisees came and began to argue with him.” This seems to be an escalation. Jesus had been harsh with the Pharisees in their last encounter, calling them hypocrites. Now, they take the lead – deliberately seeking him out upon his return and arguing with him. Their demand is for a sign of some sort – although what sort of sign they would have wanted after the miracles he’s already done is unclear. Essentially, Jesus refuses to offer a sign and once again returns to Gentile territory (this time to Bethsaida, on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee, essentially right on the boundary between Jewish and Gentile territory. This is just another interesting account of the rising tension between Jesus and the Pharisees as his ministry continues.

 

In Bethsaida, it seems unusual that the disciples were worried about the fact that they had only a single loaf of bread. Why would this be a concern to them? They’ve seen Jesus feed thousands of people with not much more than a single loaf of bread – did they really fear that he wouldn’t be able to provide for them? But I think it’s the doubts of the disciples that perhaps help us to understand what Jesus is referring to when he introduces the image of the “yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod.” (I would assume that Herod gets mentioned because the encounter with the Pharisees had taken place relatively close to Tiberias – Herod’s capital – and that while they were not mentioned, there may well have been Herodians around.)

 

What is yeast? Yeast is what you add to dough to make it rise, or expand. In a biblical sense, the yeast Jesus usually speaks about (especially in parables) represents the growth or expansion of the Kingdom of God. But the “yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod” is different. Yeast is still something that grows and expands, but in this case it seems to represent doubt, or a questioning of Jesus. The Pharisees had just demanded that Jesus give them a sign. They had seen or at least heard of all the miracles Jesus had done and they were not convinced. They doubted him at the very least; more likely they considered him a sham; a false prophet; a snake oil salesman. I find myself wondering if Jesus’ refusal to give the Pharisees a sign had made doubts rise even in the minds of his disciples. That may be hard to believe considering everything they had seen, but still they may have been shaken by his refusal to prove himself to the Pharisees. So Jesus’ warning about the “yeast of the Pharisees and Herod” may be a warning to the disciples not to let doubts overwhelm them.

 

Mark then offers another story that to me seems a bit anti-climactic. After all the healings Jesus has performed, inserting a healing story here seems to be of little purpose, and – like the feeding miracle that the Chapter opened with – it takes us back to an earlier story. Jesus had healed the deaf man in Chapter 7 by engaging in a peculiar type of ritual which included spitting and touching the man’s tongue. Confronted with a blind man in Chapter 8, Jesus again uses his saliva to effect a healing. In this case he rubs his saliva on the man’s eyes and then lays hands on him. It’s interesting to note, though, that this story is the only story in the entire Bible in which Jesus attempts to heal a person but isn’t immediately successful – in this case Jesus has to repeat the laying on of hands in order to completely restore the man’s sight, because his first “healing” only partially restored the man’s sight. There’s no easy explanation for that. Jesus has been able to heal people of far more serious ailments, so it doesn’t seem to be Jesus’ ability that’s at issue. Some have argued that this is really a rhetorical device by Mark, and that the two stage healing is actually a way to illustrate the spiritual problem of the disciples. In the previous story as Jesus talked about the yeast “of the Pharisees and Herod” he had challenged his disciples with these words: “Do you have eyes, and fail to see?” There are some scholars who believe that the partially healed blind man, who could see shapes but not details, represented the disciples, who could see Jesus and all that he was doing but weren’t able to fully understand him or who he was. Perhaps it’s a bit of commentary by Jesus on what he seemed to feel was the doubt of the disciples; sort of “you really shouldn’t need me to lay this all out for you” (in other words, the bit that you’ve seen should be enough) “but since you do … let me offer you the whole thing.”

 

So the first four stories of Chapter 7 are noteworthy for being so little noted. They’re largely ignored by the church, by the lectionary and therefore by preachers. That’s possibly because – as I noted – they’re a bit repetitive; they tend to repeat themes that have already been addressed by Mark. But what happens at this very point is interesting. We go from these four stories that are largely ignored and come to the story that perhaps aside from the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is the most important story in the New Testament. In all of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) this is what you might call the “hub story.” In each of those three Gospels this story comes at about the halfway point. (It’s exactly half way in Mark, a little later in Matthew; a little earlier in Luke – but it’s the hub of all three.)  Everything up to this point is a build up to this story; everything after this point is essentially fallout from this story. The story I’m talking about is the story of the confession of faith by Peter. And even in this ultra-important passage, there’s repetition, as Mark points us back to an earlier story – the murder of John the Baptist by Herod.

 

In that story, in Chapter 6, you might remember that we were told that Herod had been hearing stories about Jesus. What he was told was that “Some were saying, ‘John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.’ Others said, ‘He is Elijah.’ And still others claimed, ‘He is a prophet. like one of the prophets of long ago.’” So we already know what the popular scuttlebutt about Jesus has been. Now it’s time for the disciples to address the question of Jesus’ identity, and Jesus begins by asking them “Who do people say I am?” Their response was almost identical to what Herod had been told: “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” So popular opinion about Jesus hasn’t changed. But Jesus challenges the disciples to go farther. “Who do you say I am?” And, when all else is said and done, isn’t that the question around which Christian faith revolves? Who is Jesus? WHO IS HE? This is the hub question of the three Synoptic Gospels; it is the hub question of Christian faith. Who is Jesus? And just like two thousand years ago you’ll get a whole variety of responses if you ask the question today. He’s a myth. He was a good man. He was a great teacher. He was a prophet. He was as close to the divine as a human being can possibly be was the answer offered by one former Moderator of the United Church. Who is he? It’s the question that confronts every person who has ever claimed to be a follower of Jesus: WHO IS HE? It’s clear that the answer given by Peter was the one Jesus wanted and it’s the one that pushes the story forward. In Mark’s Gospel, it’s simple. It’s four words. “You are the Messiah.” And then the re-appearance of the messianic secret. Jesus ordered them not to tell anyone.

 

Once Jesus is recognized as the Messiah there’s no going back. Jesus could have backed down from his disputes and arguments with the Pharisees and scribes and Herodians. Jesus could have been a travelling healer and preacher and not made many waves. Healers and preachers weren’t uncommon. Jesus could have been a prophet who stirred things up and simply been looked on as a bit of an oddball. But – “you are the Messiah.” That meant something very specific in Jewish thought. He would restore Israel. Exactly how he would do that may still have not been understood – but he would. Because he was the Messiah; the one anointed by God to restore Israel. It’s Matthew’s version of Peter’s confession that we’re most familiar with. Matthew expands it: “You are the Messiah, the son of the Living God.” That’s even more dramatic. Matthew also includes Jesus’ response to Peter – the declaration that Peter was blessed and that this was the rock upon which the church would be built. Matthew’s version is the passage upon which the Roman Catholic Church constructed the papacy as the successors to Peter. But Mark’s account is no less dramatic. “You are the Messiah.” This was bold. This was Peter setting aside all doubt and all fear. “You are the Messiah.” And everything that happens from this point on is basically a response to those words. “You are the Messiah.”

 

And Jesus didn’t hide the consequences from his disciples. He immediately explained that he would suffer and be killed and be raised. And when Peter objected to this – Peter actually rebuked this Jesus whom he had just announced as the Messiah – Jesus’ response was “Get behind me, Satan.” It seems a little harsh. But what did Jesus mean? We think of Satan in mythological terms as a red devil with a pointy tail and a pitchfork. But the Hebrew word meant “the accuser” or “the adversary.” By telling Jesus that he would prevent what Jesus had just said was going to happen, Peter was essentially now standing in the way. He wasn’t following Jesus; he was trying to prevent Jesus from fulfilling his destiny. “Get behind me, Satan” doesn’t really mean that Jesus is calling Peter a literal devil from hell. He’s telling Peter not to oppose him (not to be his adversary) but to follow him to wherever it might lead. And he sums it up: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?” Following Jesus will be hard, not easy. There will be sacrifice more than reward; condemnation more than commendation.

 

Jesus finishes with words of encouragement that are confusing: “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” It’s hard to know what to make of that. Those disciples are long dead. None of us have yet seen “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” What Jesus meant by that will have to remain a mystery.