MARK 8:10-21

Matthew has a parallel account in 15:39-16:12, and it is partially present in Luke 11-12 also.

v. 10 The location is unknown; Matthew has the hills of Magdala. This was somewhere on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee. There were both Jewish and Gentile settlements there.

vv. 11-13 Matthew and Luke add except the sign of Jonah. Another difference is that Matthew includes the Sadducees. This is cited by C. S. Mann (Anchor Bible commentary on Matthew) as prime evidence that Mark's Gospel is later than Matthew and Luke, a controversial contention.

Sign does not mean a miracle necessarily. Demand for a sign is equivalent to 11:28 -- “What is the source of your authority?” A sign is evidence of trustworthiness, not of power. It could be any thing such as a saying or short term fulfillment of prophecy that guaranteed that a longer term prophecy (i.e. the coming of the kingdom) would be fulfilled. Usually there is a correspondence between the sign and a subsequent event. It is a token which guarantees the truthfulness of what is spoken or the legitimacy of an action.

Test = tempt; it is the same word used in the account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness.

It was probably a demand for an apocalyptic type of sign from God. Their reasoning may have been that Satan can perform miracles on earth but only God could perform signs from heaven. However, Matthew Henry points out that if he had produced a sign from heaven, the Pharisees could then have claimed that Jesus was in league with the Prince of the Air.

Also, see Deuteronomy 18:20-22. After seeing the exorcism, they want to know his affiliation. If he had granted a sign, the Pharisees would have invoked Deuteronomy 13:1, 3-5 against him. Jesus refuses since his message is self-authenticating.

v. 12: The Amen formula points back to the earlier controversy of 3:28. The Greek of verse 12 implies an emphatic negative. Literally in Greek, “(May I be cursed) if a sign is given to this generation.”

“The essence of unfaith is to put God to the proof, to lay down prior human and worldly conditions for believing in the God who himself offers His Word freely and imposes no prior conditions on man.” (Hugh Anderson )

Demand for unmistakable proof is a sign of unbelief, “denial of the summons for 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.” “While the (healing) miracles did serve as signs of the Kingdom of God to those who had eyes to see, they did not compel belief in those who were prejudiced in the opposite direction. The Pharisees...may have wanted a sign that would compel belief...While the miracles served as signs, they were not performed in order to be signs” – F. F. Bruce

v. 13 Abrupt departure to Bethsaida gave visible expression to Jesus' indignation with the Pharisees. Nothing good could be expected from any further discussion with them.

vv. 14-15 Because of the abrupt departure, they had no time to stock up on provisions.

There is a parallel saying in Luke 12:1: “be on your guard against the leaven, that is the legalisms (hypocrisy) of the Pharisees.”

Leaven is not interpreted in Mark. It usually occurs in a negative sense (Matthew 13:33 is exception: The kingdom of heaven is like leaven); rabbis used leaven to refer to evil tendencies of mankind, the evil will and its expression. Leaven was also a symbol for corruption in the Greek world.

Leaven was possibly used as symbol because people could slowly and subconsciously become followers of these two camps; its influence is pervasive and hard to escape.

There is some confusion in comparing the various Gospel accounts:

a) Matthew has the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and explains it to mean teachings.

b) Minority texts have Herodians in place of Herod. The reference may have been made because Dalmanutha was near Tiberias in the vicinity of Herod Antipas' capital.

c) One commentator says that Herodians were a nickname for the Essenes, who seem to have been protected by Herod.

The family relationships within the Herod family were rather complicated and sordid. Witness the story in Mark 6. It was unheard of for a member of the royal family to dance in front of an audience, especially since it was probably an erotic dance. Salome married her uncle, who was also her great-uncle. That made her her own aunt and grand-aunt. Her step-father was also her uncle and great-uncle. Her mother was her step-aunt and sister-in-law. And her father was at the same time her brother-in-law, great-uncle and step-uncle.

vv. 16-21. There is some textual confusion at this point and little connection with what precedes it. It may mean. “They discussed (or argued) with one another why they had no bread.” They may have thought that Jesus was indirectly criticizing them for not bringing bread [Leaven can be understood as leavened bread.] This is yet another example of the Apostles going for a literal rather than spiritual interpretation. It is interesting to consider that Christians today who do the same thinking that they have a higher view of Scripture than others may really be living in the material world more than the spiritual one. It was especially dense of the Apostles in this case since the Aramaic for leaven and word/teaching were pronounced the same in the first century. So they should have realized Jesus' words were a metaphor.

v. 17 Part or all of the rebuke may have been for their thinking that Jesus could not provide bread himself if it were really needed. They could not generalize the possibility of a small miracle after witnessing two larger miracles of the same sort.

v. 18 The wording here is very close to the Septuagint versions of passages in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah. Also read 4:11-12. The same words that Jesus had earlier applied to those outside.

vv. 19-20 This definitely points to two separate events. not a doublet as some scholars assume. The different types of basket are distinguished in the Greek. They knew the facts but not their significance.

v. 21 Jesus criticized them harshly because they were in responsible positions and should have been carefully attending to the spoken word and the Word in action. They should have understood that Jesus was the messiah, the bread of life (possible hidden implication of verse 14b).

The words not yet prepare the way for the next section in which Jesus will clearly reveal who he is.

“We cannot understand this dimness of mind which prevented their insight into the spiritual truth which God declared...until we look into our own hearts.” (Interpreter's Bible)

Discussion

Possible common leaven of both = (1) demand for a sign (Luke 23:8), (2) attempt to accomplish things using human power, (3) inclination to impress God and others with outward show, (4) false religion and irreligion, (5) common opposition to Jesus' ministry.

Herod stood for worldly policy, secularism, sensuality, expediency, worshipping mammon, and supremacy of the state.

Pharisees represented religious strictness, worship of tradition over God, externalism, pride, love of respect from others, absence of love toward others, outward conformity to a uniform standard.

Discuss in three stages: historical setting, today but in the world around us, finally to our local church and finally apply to ourselves.