Mark Chapter 8

Starts with feeding the 4,000, and is worded this way, confirming that this is a second miracle, similar, but distinct from feeding the 5,000:

1 In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, [Mar 8:1 ESV]

This is very similar to the Matthew 15 account.  After the crowd ate, Jesus gets in a boat headed for "Dalmanutha".  Other places (manuscripts) say Magadan, or Magdala.  Not sure why they would all say something different, unless the boat made several stops along the way.

2022 - Note the phrase "when again", implying that this was the second time that a hungry crowd was gathered.  Very obviously Jesus did this miracle on two separate occasions.   Even so, how in the world could the disciples ask "4 And his disciples answered him, "How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?"" [Mar 8:4 ESV].  They are so like the Israelites who wondered how they would find water in the desert, even though God had already provided it once before.  Truly the disciples are Jewish also!

The Pharisees seek a sign.  Mark abbreviates this quite a bit from Matthew's account.

2022 - The way this is worded makes it seem like the Pharisees were waiting at the first stop the boat made - perhaps in Dalmanutha, and Mark gives us an abbreviated version of that stop.  And then Jesus gets back in the boat and they continue to Magdala.  This seems possible and explains the differences in the destination that are in different manuscripts.  Some give that first stop, others give the final destination.  Note also that there is nothing here about the sign of Jonah.  So it may be that when he denies this generation a sign elsewhere, it was a completely different sign.  ...but no...that is in Matthew 16, just above.  These two chapters roughly correspond to the same period of time.  So we read Mark's account as brief, and since Matthew's account is written later, and because Matthew was there, he includes more detail about this than Mark.  Luke 11:29 also corresponds to this, and includes the phrase "sign of Jonah". 

The disciples get worried about bread.  Mark says they only had one loaf in the boat.  So they had some, just not enough for everyone.  This is why Jesus was exasperated with them.  He'd just fed 4000 people with 7 loaves, and they are worried about going hungry when there is only one loaf for what, 13 of them?  But again, they are very literal when Jesus speaks of the leaven of the Pharisees.  There is also the lesson on how to interpret what Jesus says.  It should be apparent when he is literal as opposed to when he is speaking spiritually, and using the physical as a metaphor.  See notes on Matt 19 for a more complete explanation.

2022 - Jesus is chastising them pretty severely here.  They know that Jesus speaks in parables so that those not chosen will not understand.  They are too thick to understand.  And Jesus is asking the chosen 12 if they too are like those who hear parables yet don't understand and so go to hell.  They should have felt about 3" tall after this rebuke.  A severe rebuke, from Jesus himself. 

Mark also adds the leaven of Herod to the leaven they need to watch out for.  This equates the heart of the P's and C's to the heart of Herod.  That surely got their attention.

These verses, confirming what I think the Parable of the Sower is about, with red letter words:

17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? [Mar 8:17-18 ESV]

Jesus is asking them if they are among those he speaks to in parables.  Is it that they are already marked for hell because of God's wrath towards Israel?  He is asking if they are like those Isaiah talked about.  Very same concept here.  Is there no way to make them hear, because they are among those with hardened hearts?

A blind man is healed - in two stages - and is then sent home, after Jesus tells him not to even go back to his village.  This is another that I think needs more explanation.  Why is this story here?  Why two stages of healing, and why not go back to the village?  The MSB note says this isn't even the same "Bethsaida" as in 6:45.  A second MSB note on vs 23 says that this person, unlike the others, obeyed Jesus instruction to keep quiet about the miracle.

2024 - Here is a thought...Mark tells about this taking two stages.  Now, if you were "making up" a story about some fake miracle healing of a blind man, would you include that Jesus had to do it twice before it was entirely successful?  Or, if it was just a fake, wouldn't it be better to make it all happen perfectly the first time, so as not to risk anyone doubting the truth of your story and claiming that a real Messiah would not have had to do it twice?  This is yet another example of how a true eye witness - or in this case a hearsay witness most likely - would tell the story.  This reads like a true story.

Peter confesses Christ as Messiah.  Mark also says that Jesus told them to keep this quiet.

This verse:

32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. [Mar 8:32 ESV]

Jesus told them word for word, so that even their literal interpretation of his words, would make no mistakes.  He was going to die - to be killed - by the elders and chief priests, and he was going to rise again after three days.  They were told this in so many words, and STILL were surprised when it happened.  STILL didn't connect the dots. 

27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.  [Matt 16:27 ESV]

38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." [Mar 8:38 ESV]

These two verses are equivalent in place in the two gospels. 

2024 - In vs 38, the key may be "in this adulterous and sinful generation".  In Mark, I think we can be pretty sure that Jesus is speaking exclusively  of the judgment of those who were alive and witnesses of his ministry as God's own Son.  Perhaps these are people who, when persecution comes later, deny Jesus even though they SAW him and they SAW the miracles first hand.  Yet to avoid persecution, to avoid being associated with him, they keep quiet.  They deny.  They don't help those who DO confess him when they are in need.  We can make this sound like the Sheep and Goat judgment...but if it is ONLY about this generation that saw Jesus firsthand, then the Sheep and Goat judgment becomes a subset of a larger judgement where many others are perhaps judged also.  I guess this is another one of those places where just because the Bible describes one thing that happens doesn't mean that it the ONLY thing that happens.  This is worth a follow up, but remember that it is pretty clear that the Pre-Millennial judgment is a judgment of the living.  How do you get these specific people of this specific generation to show up at the Pre-Millennial judgment without a resurrection of the dead that is NOT the rapture - where only the saved are resurrected?  Interesting...but still difficult to assimilate with other events and descriptions.

2022 - Or is Jesus talking about the sheep and goat judgment, the pre-millennial judgment.  He's told them in Matthew that "this generation shall not pass", and now he says the generation there when he comes will be judged for whether they fed and closed the least of these or not.  And just to add one more confirmation that this is what he means, he says this will happen when he comes in glory and with his angels.  We can surely tie that to the second advent when he comes to defeat Satan and the Antichrist.  It seems very clear.  If this is what he means here.  And look at that first verse!  To repay EACH PERSON.  Surely this is all about the sheep and goat.

2022 - Another way to read it is to say that those assembled, those who see and hear Jesus with their own eyes and ears, yet reject him, will be judged at a later judgment for being ashamed.  If this is what is meant, then that would mean that "dead" people are going to be judged at the sheep and goat.  That is hard to reconcile with the pre-millennial judgment, which is only of the living as I read it.  In the Harmony, Mark 8, Matt 16, and Lk 9 ALL have this discourse.  Here are the verses that cause me such difficulty still:

MARK

"38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."" [Mar 8:38 ESV]  "1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."" [Mar 9:1 ESV].  Jesus has called the crowd to him.  He is addressing more than just the 12.  He concludes what he is saying to the crowd with 8:38.  I see no way to make the time Jesus is referencing anything other than his second advent, after which he will judge those alive at that time based on whether or not they have been ashamed of the gospel. 

I think the most important clue is that Jesus will come back, according to ESV at least "with the holy angels".  That is important because of this verse: 

"14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses." [Rev 19:14 ESV].  And this verse:

14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him." [Jde 1:14-15 ESV].  I am assuming - without research - that holy ones are angels.  Then this verse:

"14 And he said, "No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?"" [Jos 5:14 ESV]. This army was back in Joshua's time, so it was there before the rapture.  If the argument is made that the army that accompanies Christ is only those raptured, then this verse disputes that.  Here is one more along that same line:

"15 When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. And the servant said, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?" ... 17 Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see." So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha." [2Ki 6:15, 17 ESV].  Vs 15 is an earthly army.  Vs 17 is the army of God, present to oppose them.  Well before the rapture.  Has to be angels.

So.  My position is that the armies of heaven are angels.  The picture is of the second advent, and at that time, Jesus is accompanied by the angels.  There are NO angels mentioned in any account of the transfiguration, so this verse addressed to the crowd is not about the transfiguration.  Let me "stick with that story" and see how I can then interpret the rest of the passage.  The next verse is Mk 9:1.  Even so, we connect this verse back to Mark 8 as if it is a continuation of what Jesus was saying there.  But maybe we ought not do that.  Even though the original texts don't have chapter headings, perhaps the phrase "And he said to them..." is a marker for these words being later, at a different time, and perhaps spoken only to his disciples.  No angels are mentioned in 9:1.  No judgment is in view.  This is about the coming of the kingdom - or MSB's royal splendor perhaps.   So it may be that the introductory phrase is there in 9:1 specifically to show that what Jesus was talking about was the transfiguration, the details of which come beginning in Mark 9:2.  As if to show that 9:1 was indeed fulfilled in that generation.  Doe the other accounts fit with this way of looking at it?

MATTHEW

"27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."" [Mat 16:27-28 ESV]

Again, we see the angels mentioned.  This is a reference to the second advent.  In Matthew's version, there is no introductory insertion to show that the subject has changed, but Jesus does segue' in that he says "I tell you truly..."  As in he is saying the Son will come with his angels to judge, BUT you don't have to wait until then for the Kingdom.  Because there are some "standing here" who will see the kingdom - at the transfiguration!  This part is worded in a way that seems purposeful as to there being no mistake that Jesus was talking about the Kingdom appearing during his own time on earth.  He is no longer talking about the second coming, but the transfiguration.  And last of all...

LUKE

"26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."" [Luk 9:26-27 ESV].  In 26, three "markers" as to the time Jesus means.  1, in his glory, 2, in the glory of the father, and 3, the glory of the holy angels.  So for the third time, the presence of angels means that Jesus is referring to the second coming in vs 26.  Then, in an even more pronounced way than we saw in Matthew, Jesus segue's with the phrase "BUT I tell you truly..."  Luke adds this conjunction for us to make sure we understand that Jesus is NOT talking about the same time in vss 26 and 27.  Jesus is making it clear that the Kingdom of God is now, it is about to appear, and some standing there will get a brief glimpse of it on the mount of transfiguration.  In the first verses, Jesus is referring to the physical kingdom, on earth, that begins with the second advent.  In the next part, he is making it clear that a spiritual kingdom will be in place, beginning very shortly, that some there will have opportunity to witness.  I think the idea of a spiritual kingdom in the interim before the second advent is confirmed by Jesus when he answers Pilate this way:

"36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."" [Jhn 18:36 ESV].  Not physical, spiritual.

So...maybe I finally do have a good grasp of what I myself believe this passage is about.  It is quite "finely" divided, but I think this gives the most consistent interpretation, fitting right in with things Jesus says elsewhere.

MSB note is pretty literal about what this means.  Rejecting the demands of discipleship is tantamount to being ashamed of Jesus.  This indicates that the one ashamed was not redeemed at all, wasn't saved in the first place. 

Do the references to "this generation" and the Son coming in glory refer again to the transfiguration about to take place?  Or are we to interpret Mt 16:28 one way, and the very similar clues of Mk 8:38 so differently?  Were there angels at the transfiguration, or were Moses and Elijah the only ones?

I can sure see this as applicable to then and to now, but I can also see it as just about that generation that rejected what they had seen with their own eyes.

2020- In Mark as in Matthew, you have to get all the verses together.  This time, we have to go over into Mark 9 to pick up the last verse.  Here is each section altogether, for easier comparison:

First, the part about judgement:

26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. [Mat 16:26-27 ESV]

38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." [Mar 8:38 ESV]

When you put them together like this, those who are to be judged are those "of this generation" who reject Christ.  He has just gotten done, in both Matthew and Mark, saying this about those who ask for a sign:  12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation." [Mar 8:12 ESV]

If he was specific about the generation in which he was living in reference to the Jewish religious leaders, why not in referenced to those who would be judged.  And maybe those WERE judged during the lifetimes of some of those there assembled?  Judas was judged during their time, perhaps many of the leading conspirators in the plot to crucify Jesus also met with "judgement" in their own premature and possibly suffering deaths.  But...we still need to see how angels would fit in here? 

And for the second part, they read like this:

28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:28 ESV]

1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." [Mar 9:1 ESV]

2022 - You have to read this as the spiritual kingdom of God in which we now live.  NOT the physical Millennial Reign of Christ on earth.

Matthew emphasizes the Son of Man coming, Mark the kingdom of God with power.  In both Matthew and Mark, the word used for kingdom Strong's G932.

βασιλείαbasileía, bas-il-i'-ah; from G935; properly, royalty, i.e. (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively):—kingdom, + reign.  Note that it can be an abstract kingdom, and so from that MSB gets royal splendor, which can apply to the transfiguration.  Does that work in Mark if we translate it the same way?  No...because Mark is about the Kingdom.  The Son is not mentioned.  And yet...if we don't do it the same, then we have a big problem with Mark's version.  Only way to even get close is to say that the transfiguration is representative not only of Jesus' glorification, but of the kingdom itself, which he will rule from the right hand of God following his resurrection.  But...if he's only talking to his own generation, then what would it mean?

(It means I have a headache from puzzling about it, and while I made peace with Matthew's version, Mark's still gives me problems, and resolving the two gives me even more problems!)  Moving on....