Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
http://www.hts.org.za HTS
Original Research
Article #148
(page number not for citation purposes)
TH E P O R T R A Y A L O F T H E H A R D E N I N G O F T H E D I S C I P L E S ’ H E A R T S
I N MA R K 8:14 –21
ABSTRACT
The goal of this article is to consider the literary-theological function of the hardening of the
disciples’ hearts in Mark 8:14–21. The disciples are remarkably characterised by faithlessness, which
is associated with hardness of their hearts. Although Mark uses the same language, ‘hardness of
heart’, at different points in his Gospel to describe both Jesus’ opponents and the disciples, he
nevertheless retains a distinction between the two groups. With regard to the opponents’ unbelief,
the language means a divine judgement for their unbelieving rejection (cf. Mark 3:5–6). By contrast,
when the language is used in relation to the disciples, it warns them (or the Markan readers) to
beware of falling into the opponents’ unbelieving attitudes (6:52; 8:17–18).
Author s:
Sug-Ho Lee1
Jan G. van der Watt 2, 3
A f fi l i a t i o n s :
1New Testament
Department, Korean Bible
University, South Korea
2Radboud University,
The Netherlands
3Department of New
Testament Studies, Faculty
of Theology, University of
Pretoria, South Africa
Correspondence to:
Sug-Ho Lee
e-mail:
leesugho@yahoo.co.kr
Postal address:
Korean Bible University,
205 Sanggye-1-Dong,
Nowon-Ku, Seoul,
South Korea
Keywords:
disciples; discipleship;
Gospel of Mark; hardness
of heart; disciples’ rejection
of Jesus
Dates:
Received: 27 Oct. 2008
Accepted: 19 Mar. 2009
Published: 23 July 2009
How to cite this article:
Lee, S–H. &
Van der Watt,
J.G.,
2009, ‘The portrayal
of the hardening of the
disciples’ hearts in Mark
8 : 14 – 2 1 ’, HTS Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies
65(1), Art. #148, 5 pages.
DOI : 10.4102/ht s.v65i1.148
This article is available
at:
http://www.hts.org.za
Note:
This article is a reworked
version of a section of
Dr Sug-Ho Lee’s PhD
dissertation, written
under the supervision of
Prof. Dr Jan G. van der
Watt, Department of New
Testament Studies, Faculty
of Theology, University of
Pretoria in 2006. Dr Lee is a
lecturer at the Korean Bible
University, Seoul, South
Korea.
© 2009. The Authors.
Licensee: OpenJournals
Publishing. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
145Vol. 65 No. 1 Page 1 of 5
INTRODUCTION
In his Gospel, Mark’s portrayal of the disciples is complex. They are called by Jesus to be with Jesus in
3:13–19; they are identi ed as ‘insiders’ of the kingdom and Jesus’ true family (3:20–35); they receive
the special exhortation for understanding the kingdom (4:13–20, 33–34; 7:17–23; 8:27–13:37); and they
have the privilege of sharing in Jesus’ ministry as observers and as participants (6:7–13, 30–44; 8:1–9).
Nevertheless, the disciples are frequently shown their faithlessness. The episode in Mark 4:35–41 is the
rst in a cycle of three related boat scenes in which the basic cause of the disciples’ faithlessness reveals
itself as a continuing, even deepening malaise (6:45–52; 8:14–21). In the third and climatic scene, the
disciples who still have no faith in 4:40, still do not grasp who Jesus is (8:17, 21). Also, although Peter
confesses Jesus to be the Messiah and understands certain aspects of his teaching (8:29), the disciples
consistently misunderstand Jesus’ mission (and therefore their own as well) and his message of the
kingdom (and consequently their place in it). In 8:27 to 10:45 speci cally, the disciples are inappropriately
preoccupied with their own status within the coming kingdom, in contrast to Jesus’ teaching on the
nature of true discipleship. They do not progress in their faith and understanding in any signi cant way
as the narrative moves toward its climax. But, more interestingly from a literary point of view, is that
the disciples’ lack of understanding (1:1–8:26) seems to increase, which leads them to misunderstanding
(8:27–10:45), and then to denying Jesus (14–15).1
Mark uses the language ‘hardness of heart’ which was applied to the Jewish religious leaders with a
hostile meaning (3:5; 10:5), in order to indicate the disciples’ faithlessness (6:52; 8:17–18). In the New
Testament, the term pw,rwsij expresses obduracy when linked with the word kardi,a (‘heart’). The term
is always used guratively in the New Testament. If the kardi,a, the seat of mental discernment and
spiritual insight, is hardened, it cannot function properly to accept new insight (Robinson 1903:267–74).
Jesus’ critics are 'set in their ways' and in their insensitivity (or ‘obdurate stupidity’). The language
'hardness of heart' is almost a stock expression in the New Testament for those who cannot will or will
not perceive the truth, and is used most commonly with reference to Israel’s failure to recognise Jesus
as their Messiah (Rm 11:7, 25; 2 Cor 3:14; Jn 12:40, citing Is 6:10), but on two other occasions by Mark
to describe the disciples’ lack of understanding of the signi cance of Jesus' miracles (6:52; 8:17; France
2002:151).
In 3:5, the language identi es Pharisees and Herodians who consistently refuse to believe in Jesus as
the Son of God and in his eschatological message (repentance and faith in 1:14–15), and implies God’s
impending judgement upon their unbelief (cf. 12:1–12).2 Does then the language ‘hardness of heart’ in
8:17–18 mean the disciples’ rejection of Jesus and the same judicial implication for them? If not, what
is the function of the language in relation to the disciples’ unbelief? The purpose of this article is to
consider the literary-theological function of the disciples’ hardening in Mark 8:14–21.
LITERARY COMPOSITION OF MARK 8:14–21
The disciples have been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for the outsiders everything is
in riddles without explanation (Mk 4:10–12; France 2002:269; Tolbert 1989:235; cf. Hollenbach 1983:316;
Marcus 1984:559). Mark 4:13–34 i nforms us that, besides the privileged information that the disciples
have received about the kingdom, Jesus explains his parables to them in private, presumably because
they do not understand the parables and require explanation, despite their privileged knowledge
(Beavis 1989:107).
The disciples’ lack of understanding, introduced in Mark 4:13, is repeatedly displayed in the three sea
scenes (4:35–41; 6:45–52; 8:14–21). In 4:35–41, Jesus’ stilling of the storm leaves them wondering who he
is (4:41), and Jesus suggests that their fear of the storm while in his presence is a sign of their continuing
lack of faith (4:40). In 6:45–52 they do not recognise him when they see him walking on the sea and
1.As Theodore Weeden notes, the disciples’ hardness of heart moves through three stages: imperceptiveness in 1:1–8:26; misconception
of the nature of Jesus’ messiahship in 8:27–10:52; and betrayal, abandonment and denial of Jesus in 14:10–72 (Weeden 1968:145–58;
1971:20–51).
2.cf. Jesus’ parable about the tenant farmers in 12:1–10, in which Jesus warns of divine judgement upon the opponents. In fact, this parable
perhaps could be considered the paradigm of hard–heartedness toward God.
HTS
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
http://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
Article #148
(page number not for citation purposes)
Lee & Van der Watt
146 Vol. 65 No. 1 Page 2 of 5
are terried and when he identies himself they are ‘utterly
astonished’ (evxi,stanto; 6:51). And lest there be any doubt as to
their lack of understanding, Mark concludes the story by telling
his readers that the disciples’ unbelief, which is demonstrated in
their astonishment, is related to their failure to understand what
he has done with the loaves in the preceding episode in Mark
6:30–44 (Petersen 1980:205): their hearts are hardened (h` kardi,a
pepwrwme,nh) and therefore they do not understand Jesus’ actions
in either episode (6:52). In 8:14–21, a climax to all the boat scenes,
the disciples once again show their faithlessness and blindness,
and the ‘hardening’ language of his rebuke underscores their
lack of understanding. When Jesus warns the disciples against
the leaven of Pharisees and Herod, they worry about a lack of
provisions (Painter 1997:121).
EXEGETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ‘HARDNESS
OF HEART’
The leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of
Herod
In Mark 8:15, Jesus warns the disciples against the leaven of
the Pharisees and of Herod.3 Leaven is used metaphorically
in a number of ways. Leaven was to be maintained by
keeping a small portion of leavened dough on hand in the
household so that, when placed in a new batch of dough, it
would leaven the whole for baking (e.g. Mtt 13:33; Hurtado
1989:31–32). Its property of gradually pervading the dough
serves as a negative here (e.g. 1 Cor 5:6–8; Gl 5:9), though more
often as a positive (e.g. Mtt 13:33; Lk 13:31; Edwards 2002:238;
France 2002:316; Guelich 1993:422). Leaven was a common
metaphor in various contexts for a corrupting element (Mtt 16:6,
11, 12; Lk 12:1; 1 Cor 5:6, 7, 84; Gl 5:9; in Greco-Roman authors
such as Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae 109, and Persius, Satires,
1. 24; Donahue & Harrington 2002:252; Edwards 2002:238;
France 2002:316; Guelich 1993:422; Lane 1974:280; Witherington
III 2001:236).
Its main metaphorical force in the New Testament seems to be
in terms of powerful growth and inuence. Here Jesus seems to
be referring to the subtle corrupting inuence of the Pharisees
and Herod (Witherington III 2001:237). Jesus indicates that
the inuence of the Jewish religious leaders’ unbelief, which
is caused by their hardened hearts, penetrates the lives of the
disciples. Jesus warns his disciples against the ‘leaven’ of both
since it leads to unbelief in his deeds and a concomitant failure
to recognise who he really is (Beavis 1989:111).
The disciples’ lack of understanding
Jesus warns the disciples to avoid the negative example of the
Pharisees and Herod (8:15), and demands that they recognise the
signicance of the feeding miracles with spiritual perceptiveness
(Hawkin 1972:495). Nevertheless, the disciples do not understand
that Jesus is not really talking about literal loaves. Instead, they
continue to discuss (dielogi,zonto)5 with one another why they
have no bread (8:16; Hurtado 1989:126). In Mark’s Gospel, the
verb dialogi,zomai (‘to discuss’ or ‘argue’) is used to describe
the Jewish religious leaders’ unbelieving rejection (2:6, 8; 11:31;
Hooker 1991:195), whereas in Mark 9:33 it is used in order to
describe the disciples’ unbelieving failure to understand Jesus’
life he is going to be a suffering and rejected person, tormented
and killed but he will overcome death and rise after three days.
This demonstrates that Mark has duplicated it here deliberately to
indicate the kind of discussion that stems from unbelief (Hooker
3.An intriguing parallel to the warning against ‘the leaven of Herod’ is provided by the
late Targum 2 to Esth 3:8 ‘Just as we remove the leaven, so may the evil rule be re-
moved from us, and may we be freed from this foolish king’ (Jacobson 1983:129).
4.According to Jeremias, in the New Testament itself, 1 Corinthians 5:6–8 probably
incorporates a tradition from a Jewish Christian Passover Haggadah in which leaven
and its removal at Passover were symbols of the corruption of the last days and
of God’s nal deliverance of his people from this corruption through Jesus, the
Passover lamb (Jeremiahs 1966: 59–60).
5.This word renders the imperfect as durative action implying that the disciples simply
ignored Jesus’ warning in their concern about not having bread (Taylor 1966:366).
1991:195). The statement of the disciples in 8:16 provides a basis
for their failure to understand Jesus’ divine origin (cf. 8:17).
This description emphasises a perverse faithlessness among the
disciples.
The disciples have repeatedly shown their lack of understanding
(4:13; 6:52; 7:18), and Jesus’ stern rebuke of them is therefore
appropriate: 'Why are you talking (dialogi,zesqe) about having
no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts
hardened?' (8:17-18). This rebuke is the harshest comment on
the disciples’ hardened hearts thus far in Mark’s Gospel (cf.
4:13, 40; 6:52), and portrays them in language borrowed from
the Old Testament, where rebellious Israel is condemned for
disobedience to God’s command and unwillingness to hear his
prophetic word (e.g. Ps 95:8; Is 63:17; Marcus 2000:511).
The question, 'Are your hearts hardened?' (pepwrwme,nhn
e;cete th.n kardi,an u`mw/n), echoes 3:5–6, in which the Pharisees’
hardened hearts cause them to reject that Jesus is bringing in
the eschatological Sabbath conditions, when there will be
ongoing relief from death (Lee 2006:608). Just as heart-hardening
causes Pharaoh to refuse to believe and obey God’s message,
so hardness of heart causes the Jewish religious leaders not to
believe in Jesus as the Son of God, but rather to reject him. Just
as Pharaoh’s unbelieving rejection determines the plagues as a
great judgement (Ex 7:3) and the catastrophe at the sea (Ex 14:4,
8, 14), in a similar way the rejection by the religious leaders
would determine God’s consequent judgement (cf. 12:1–12).
Therefore, the concept 'hardness of heart' contains a signicant
element of judgement.
In Mark’s Gospel, the language ‘hardness of heart’ is used as a
polemic against the unbelievers (3:5; 10:5; 6:52; 8:17–18). Thus,
when the language is used to attack the Jewish religious leaders
who refuse to accept Jesus as the Son of God, it criticises their
obdurate, faithless behaviour and warns of the imminent divine
punishment (cf. Pharaoh’s hardness of heart in Ex 4–14). In
contrast, when the language is used with regard to the disciples
who have already accepted Jesus’ demands, it functions to
prevent them from mimicking the unbelieving behaviour.
In 8:17–18, the disciples not only appear hard-hearted and
faithless, like the Pharisees in 3:5–6, but they also are drawing
closer to the image of Jesus’ hard-hearted opponents, the Jewish
religious leaders. Thus, the Markan Jesus, through the language
'hardness of heart' warns them to keep away from falling into
the same rejection as the opponents and encourages their
faithfulness. For these effects, unlike the Pharisees’ hardened
hearts in 3:5, the disciples’ hardness of heart is described with
rhetorical questions in 8:17. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus sometimes
hurls the progressive double-step question revealing his
surprise and irritation at the disciples’ faithlessness (cf. 4:40;
7:18; 8:17, 21). This phraseology has a pedagogical purpose,
namely, to call the disciples to attention. In 4:13, Jesus uses the
progressive double-step question (‘Do you not understand this
parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?’) in
order to warn the disciples against falling into the same spiritual
ignorance that aficts ‘those outside’ (cf. 4:11–12; 7:18; 8:14–21;
Marcus 2000:310–11). Also, in 4:40 Jesus uses rhetorical questions
(‘Why are you so fearful? How is it that you have no faith?’) to
warn them against copying the unbelief of the Jewish religious
leaders. At this point, the hardening motif in 8:17 is used to warn
the disciples against the unbelief of the Jewish religious leaders,
rather than to identify them as Jesus’ opponents. Consequently:
[8:17] is indicative of an attempt by Jesus, by bombarding them
with a series of rhetorical questions, to shock [to warn] his disciples
and Mark’s readers into appreciating the existential seriousness of
their condition.
(Marshall 1989:212)
Allusion to Jeremiah 5:21
In 8:18, Jesus’ rhetorical questions continue by moving more
directly to the prophetic accusation. There are two main points
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
http://www.hts.org.za HTS
Original Research
Article #148
(page number not for citation purposes)
The portrayal of the hardening of the disciples’ hearts in Mark 8:14–21
147Vol. 65 No. 1 Page 3 of 5
of contact between 8:17–18 and Jeremiah 5:21,6 where rebellious
Israel is condemned for disobedience to God and reluctance to
hear his prophetic word. First, LXX Jeremiah 5:21 and 8:18 have
the same basic vocabulary: the wording ovfqalmoi. auvtoi/j kai. ouv
ble,pousin w=ta auvtoi/j kai. ouvk avkou,ousin of Jeremiah 5:21 is similar
to the expression in 8:18 ovfqalmou.j e;contej ouv ble,pete kai. w=ta
e;contej ouvk avkou,eteÈ (Schneck 1994:206). Secondly, the nal words
of 8:17, 'Are your hearts hardened?' echo the theme of ‘hardness
of heart’ of Jeremiah 5.
Jeremiah 5:21, a prophetic accusation of Israel, makes for most
insightful reading alongside the current passage; it foretells
the Lord’s punishment upon Israel for failing to understand
the Lord and mentions her wicked leaders, like the Jewish
religious leaders in Mark’s Gospel (Hurtado 1989:12). Through
the intertextual allusion in this passage, Mark may intend his
readers to recall Jeremiah 5:21–31 in order to understand what
he is trying to say about the signicance of Jesus’ ministry and
the seriousness of rejecting it.
In Jeremiah 5:21, the prophet is told to declare that blindness
and deafness have prevented Israel from understanding her
dangerous state. This kind of language is related to her rejection
(v 23) in Isaiah 6:10 and to the idols in Ps 115:4–7 (Carroll
1986:187). Here, the language points out that Israel had become
like the idols they worship, that is, senseless. Due to its hardness
of heart, Israel does not see the supervision of God’s almighty
power in nature (v 22), or hear the voice of God in his words.
And Israel has turned aside and gone astray, that is to say, Israel
has rejected God’s dominion (v 23).
In Jeremiah 5:25–28, the prophet describes what happens to
the Israel who rejects God’s authority because of the hardness
of hearts (Buber 1952:34). The result is God’s judgement.
The cessation of rain is attributed to their sinfulness (v 25;
Rendsburg 1983:357). Thus, the experience of drought (v 30)
can be understood as the coming of divine judgement, but also
as a heaven-sent warning (Craigie, Kelley & Drinkard 1991:96).
The divine judgement is developed in verse 29. Echoing verse
5:9, this verse afrms God’s wrath and the inevitability of
judgement: ‘Should I not punish them for this?’ Consequently,
through this hardening language, the prophet declares the
Lord’s judgement upon the Israelites who have stubborn and
rebellious hearts (Brueggemann 1988:64).
As Myers indicates, Jesus’ questions in 8:17–18 echo not only the
passage in Jeremiah (and Isaiah and Ezekiel), but also Moses’
words to Israel in Dt 29:2–4 LXX.
You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land
of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the
great testing (peirasmou.j) that your eyes saw, the signs, and those
great signs (shmei/a). But to this day the LORD has not given you
a mind to understand (kardi,an eivde,nai), or eyes to see (ovfqalmou.j
ble,pein), or ears to hear (w=ta avkou,ein) – NRSV.
(Myers 1988:225)
Here, we see the themes of the hardened heart, the blind eyes
and deaf ear all in the same order in which they appear in 8:17–
18, as well as the themes of testing and signs, which appear in
the previous Markan passage (8:11–13). A bit later, in Dt 32:7,
the word ‘remember’ in 8:18 also comes to the fore (Marcus
2000:513). If Mark is making a thoughtful allusion to these
passages in Deuteronomy, then the prospect for the disciples is
more hopeful than for the exegetes: ‘to this day’ they have not
been granted perceptive hearts, eyes and ears, but they will in
the end receive them (cf. Dt 30:1–8; Marcus 2000:513; cf. Guelich
1993:425).
The Markan Jesus is not saying that the disciples are equivalent
to the Israelites, who rejected God’s authority because of their
hardened hearts. Rather, Mark’s language indicates that the
disciples were in danger of missing the vital point about Jesus
6.It appears closer to Jr 5:21 and also to Ezk 12:2, but as a question it is closest in
context to Is 42:18–20.
as the Son of God. As he may have reminded the disciples of
the hardened Israelites in the past history, he also warns them
against Israel’s unbelieving attitude and he tries to encourage
them to perceive more fully Jesus’ divine identity (Hurtado
1989:126–27).
Implication of Ou;pw
The adverb ‘not yet’ (ou;pw; 8:17; 8:21) implies that they eventually
will see and understand, though it will not come easily (cf.
Gibson 1986:32). Unlike the religious leaders, their problem
is not that they refuse to see and believe, but rather that they
cannot see and believe until after Jesus’ death and resurrection
(Garland 1996:312). Geddert correctly describes the disciples’
situation in Mark’s gospel:
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.
(Geddert 1989:69)
If they continue to follow him along the way, Jesus will remove
their hardened hearts so that they will believe in Jesus. However,
if the disciples succumb to the unbelieving leaven of the Pharisees
and Herod, they will never understand and believe in Jesus.
In the following section of the Gospel (8:22–10:52), Jesus will
struggle to remove the hardening from the disciples, to cure
them of their blindness and to pull them out of misunderstanding
toward perceptiveness (Guelich 1993:426; Marcus 2000:515).
‘This section, appropriately enough, will be inaugurated by a
story of the healing of a blind man (8:22–26), and that narrative
will underline both the distorted human vision and the sense
of divine promise that are implicit in the concluding words of
our passage, “Do you not yet understand?”’ (v 8:21; Marcus
2000:515).
Jesus wants to eliminate unbelieving attitudes from the disciples.
But, like Judas, if they persist in unbelief, they will be rejected
from God (14:21). Judas acts of his own volition to betray Jesus.
He stands with the Jewish religious leaders to arrest and kill
Jesus (14:43–47). About him, Jesus says ‘Woe to that man who
betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him it he had not
been born’ (14:21). In the Old Testament, the word ‘woe’ (ouvai.)
was the prophets’ message to announce impending judgement
(Is 3:11; Mic 2:11). In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ pronouncement of
woe upon the betrayer is one of two appearances of ouvai, (13:7;
cf. Mt 11:21; 23:13, 15–16, 23, 25, 27, 29; Lk 10:13; 11:42–44, 46–47,
52). And the second part of Jesus’ pronouncement, 'it would be
better if he had not never been born', is used in other Jewish
texts to express the Messiah’s judgement of the betrayer, e.g.
'when the Righteous One shall appear … it would have been
better for them [i.e. those who denied the name of the Lord] not
to have been born' (1 Enoch 38:2; cf. 2 Enoch 41:2; m Hag 2:1;
Evans 2001:378). God’s judgement is coming upon the rebellion
of Judas (cf. Mt 27:3–10).
Similarly, throughout Mark’s Gospel, Peter shows his
misunderstanding, which is associated with ‘hardness of
heart’, in spite of Jesus’ continual warning (8:17). When Jesus
predicts his death, Peter rejects the idea of Jesus’ suffering
(8:32). He also thinks human thoughts rather than the thoughts
of God (8:33), and falls into the temptation of Satan (14:32–38).
This misunderstanding becomes acute in his denial of Jesus in
the passion narrative (14:30; 66–72). However, he is not hostile
to Jesus like Judas, but he is afraid and lacks understandi ng. As
soon as the rooster crows, he remembers Jesus’ prediction that
‘Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three times’,
and he repents of his sin (14:72). Although he denies Jesus, it
is because of his fear, not because of rebellion. Thus Jesus will
forgive him and heal his hardness in the new commission at
Galilee (14:28; 16:7).7
7.cf. 8:38: ‘Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in
the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’
HTS
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
http://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
Article #148
(page number not for citation purposes)
Lee & Van der Watt
148 Vol. 65 No. 1 Page 4 of 5
LITERARY-THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
ON THE HARDENING OF THE DISCIPLES’
HEARTS
Warning against faithlessness
In the larger Jewish context in the rst century, the Jewish
authors who disputed with each other used the conventional
hardening language of their day. The concept ‘hardness of heart’
is used in early Judaism to distinguish one particular community
from another and to separate, within the same community, the
faithful from the unfaithful. The language of hardening robustly
attacks opponents and thoroughly defends the community’s
faithfulness. When the concept is used to attack the wicked, it
contains the threat of divine punishment for their disobedience
(Ex 4–14; Cairo-Damascus Document [A] 3:5–9; Sirach 16:15–
16). In contrast, when the concept is used for the godly, it has
the function of warning and exhortation to prevent them from
copying the unbelieving attitude, which characterises the wicked
(1QIsaiaha 6:9–10; Damascus Document [B] 2:9–10; 1QS 7:26).
Its conventional usage in early Judaism provides the appropriate
context for properly assessing the usage of ‘hardness of heart’ in
Mark’s gospel. When the language is used for Jesus’ opponents, it
means a divine judgement on their unbelieving rejection (3:5–6).
On the other hand, when the language is used for the Twelve
and the believers, it functions as a warning and exhortation to
prevent them from falling into the unbelieving condition of the
opponents (8:17–18; cf. 6:52).
Mark shows a particular interest in the hardening of the
disciples, but Matthew and Luke omit references to it (cf. Mt
14:25–33 with Mk 6:48–52; Mt 16:5–12 with Mk 8:17–21; Lk
24:25, 45–47). Mark actually interrupts a speech (on hardness
of heart) being given by Jesus to the disciples to speak directly
to the reader (Powell 1993:343). Mark uses the theme of the
disciples’ hardening to shock his readers into appreciating the
existential seriousness of their condition, and to challenge them
with the full demands and reality of discipleship. Through the
portrayal of the disciples’ faithlessness which is associated with
the hardness of their hearts (8:17), Mark forces the readers to
distance themselves from the disciples’ unbelieving actions (fear,
lack of understanding, and misunderstanding) and calls on them
to respond differently through the appropriate understanding of
Jesus and by following him with persistent faith. In this way,
the disciples’ negative portrayal works as a foil in the Gospel,
challenging the reader to follow Jesus more faithfully than did
the disciples. One way to think of the faithless disciples’ , then, is
as an incentive to the readers to become true disciples who follow
Jesus consistently with faith.8
Spiritual perceptiveness as a prerequisite for
discipleship
The language of ‘hardness of heart’ described by Jesus’ rhetorical
questions in 8:17 warns the disciples against the danger of falling
into the same spiritual ignorance that aficts the Jewish religious
leaders, and encourages them to respond through an appropriate
understanding of Jesus with spiritual perceptiveness. To stress
the importance of spiritual perceptiveness, in 8:14–21 Mark
repeatedly uses the key words ble,pw (‘to see’), avkou,w ('to hear'),
and noe,w ('to understand'), as they appeared in 4:12 (Boobyer
1961:63).9 According to Geddert, every usage of these terms in
Mark’s Gospel appears intended by the author to contribute to a
carefully devised call for discernment concerning realities that lie
beyond the observations of physical sense data (Geddert 1989:60).
Mark uses these words to push for an understanding
8.Here I draw upon the distinction between ‘true disciples’ (as described in Jesus’
teaching) and ‘actual disciples’ (the twelve as they are actually described in the
narrative).
9.Mark 8:17 differs from 4:12, which is a quotation from Isaiah 6:9–10, in one verb. The
verb for understanding that is related to seeing in 4:12 is a form of the verb to see, mh.
i;dwsin, which is parallel to mh. suniw/sin( the understanding associated with hear-
ing. In 8:17, suni,hmi (‘understanding’) is accompanied by noe,w (‘perceiving’).
of the allusive meaning of miracles beyond visible things. The
healing of the deaf-mute (7:31–37) and the healing of the blind
man (8:22–26), bracket 8:14–21 with its emphasis on seeing,
hearing, perceiving and understanding (8:18, 21). Not only are
the characters physically blind, deaf, and mute in Mark’s Gospel,
but Jesus takes up blindness, deafness, and hardness of heart as
metaphors for intellectual and spiritual ignorance, mainly of the
disciples and the Markan readers (Fowler 1991:212).
Similarly, the healing of a blind man (8:22–26) and of Bartimaeus
(10:46–52) sandwich Jesus’ instruction of discipleship (8:27–
10:45) in order to emphasises the importance of spiritual
perceptiveness (insight) as a prerequisite for discipleship. At this
point, the two-stage healing of the blind man of Bethsaida (8:22–
26) denotes the gradual healing of spiritual blindness, i.e. the
disciples’ progress toward spiritual perceptiveness. The healing
of Bartimaeus (10:46–52) not only typies the fruitfulness of
faith, but also the faithfulness of the ideal follower of Jesus. In
the example of the healing of two blind men, Mark demands that
the readers keep away from the spiritual ignorance caused by
spiritual blindness (or hardness of heart), and follow him with
spiritual perceptiveness and faith, like Bartimaeus.
CONCLUSION
Although the language, ‘hardness of heart’, which is associated
with Jesus’ opponents, is also attributed to the disciples, the
use of this term is not meant to suggest that the disciples have
sided with the opponents of Jesus. Rather, it is indicative of an
attempt to shock his disciples (and the Markan readers), who
are in mortal danger of succumbing to the same unbelief that
has aficted the opponents. In Mark’s Gospel, despite the
continuous manifestation of Jesus’ messiahship in the presence
of the disciples, as in countless healings,10 exorcisms,11 and nature
miracles,12 the disciples remain amazingly obtuse and obdurate
in spite of their involvement in the messianic drama (Weeden
1971:26–27). The negative characterisation of the disciples does
not support their function as the criterion for Markan discipleship
either. Rather, the disciples function to illuminate aspects of the
Markan discipleship by providing, at times, a negative example
of (a foil to) discipleship for the reader. The portrayal of the
disciples in a negative light functions as just one part of the
larger composite of Markan discipleship, which includes Mark’s
use of other characters as examples of discipleship,13 and Jesus
himself as a model for it.
REFERENCES
Beavis, M.A., 1989, Ma rk ’s audience: The literary and social setting
of Mark 4:11–12, Shefeld Academic, Shefeld.
Boobyer, G.H., 1961, ‘The redaction of Mark IV. 1–34’, New
Testament Studies 8, 59–70.
Brueggemann, W., 1988, Jeremiah 1–25: To pluck up, to tear down,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Buber, M., 1952, Right and wrong, SCM, London.
Carroll, R.P., 1986, Jeremiah, Westminster, Philadelphia.
Craigie, P.C., Kelley, P. H. & Drinkard, J.H., 1991, Jeremiah 1–25,
Word Book, Dallas.
Donahue, J.R. & Harrington, D.J., 2002, The Gospel of Mark, The
Liturgical Press, Collegeville.
Edwards, J.R., 2002, The Gospel according to Mark, Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids.
Evans, C.A., 2001, Mark 8:27–16:20, Thomas Nelson Publishers,
Nashville.
Fowler, R.M., 1991, Let the reader understand: Reader-response
criticism and the Gospel of Mark, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
10.cf.1:29–32, 32–34, 40–45; 2:1–12; 3:1–5, 9–10; 5:21–43; 6:1–6, 53–56; 7:31–37:
8:22–26.
11.cf. 1:21–28, 32–34, 39; 3:11; 5:1–20; 7:24–30.
12.cf. 4:35–41; 6:35–44, 45–52; 8:1–10.
13.Jairus (5:21–24, 35–43), haemorrhaging woman (5:25–34), Syrophoenician
woman (7:7:24–30), Bartimaeus (10:46–52), etc.
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
http://www.hts.org.za HTS
Original Research
Article #148
(page number not for citation purposes)
The portrayal of the hardening of the disciples’ hearts in Mark 8:14–21
149Vol. 65 No. 1 Page 5 of 5
France, R.T., 2002, The Gospel of Mark: A commentary on the Greek
text, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Garland, D.E., 1996, Mark, Zondervan Publishing, Grand
Rapids.
Geddert, T.J., 1989, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan eschatology,
Shefeld Academic, Shefeld.
Gibson, J.B., 1986, ‘The rebuke of the disciples’, Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 27, 31–47.
Guelich, R.A., 1993, Mark 1:1–8:26, Word Books, Dallas.
Hawkin, D.J., 1972, ‘The incomprehension of the disciples in the
Marcan redaction’, Journal of Biblical Literature 91, 491–500.
Hollenbach, B., 1983, ‘Lest they should turn and be forgiven:
Irony’, The Bible Translator 34, 313–321.
Hooker, M.D., 1991, The Gospel according to St Mark, A & C Black,
London.
Hurtado, L .W., 1989, Mark, Hendrickson, Peabody.
Jacobson, H., 1983, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Jeremias, J., 1966, The eucharistic words of Jesus, Fortress Press,
Philadelphia.
Lane, W.L., 1974, The Gospel of Mark, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Lee, S.H., 2006, ‘An exegetical-theological consideration of the
hardening of the Jewish religious leader’s hearts in Mark
3:10–6’, Verbum et Ecclesia 27(2), 596–613.
Marcus, J., 1984, ‘Mark 4:10-12 and Marcan epistemology’,
Journal of Biblical Literature 103, 557–574.
Marcus, J., 2000, Mark 1–8, The Anchor Bible, Doubleday.
Marshall, C.D., 1989, Faith as a theme in Mark’s narrative,
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Myers, C., 1988, Binding the strong man: A political reading of
Mark’s story of Jesus, Orbis, New York.
Painter, J., 1997, Mark’s Gospel, Routledge, London.
Petersen, N.R., 1980, ‘The composition of Mark 4:1–8:26’, Harvard
Theological Review 73, 185–217.
Powell, M.A., 1993, ‘Toward a narrative-critical understanding
of Mark’, Interpretation 47, 341–346.
Rendsburg, G., 1983, ‘Hebrew RHM—“rain”’, Vetus Testamentum
33, 357–362.
Robinson, J.A., 1903, St Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, Macmillan,
London.
Schneck, R., 1994, Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I-VIIIV, Bibal Press,
Villejo.
Taylor, V., 1966, The Gospel According to St Mark, Macmillan,
London.
Tolbert, M.A., 1989, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s world in literary-
historical perspective, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
Weeden, T.J., 1968, ‘The heresy that necessitated Mark’s gospel’,
Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59, 145–168.
Weeden, T.J., 1971, Mark-traditions in conict, Fortress Press,
Philadelphia.
Witherington III, B., 2001, The Gospel of Mark: A social-rhetorical
commentary, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
