So here’s the plan: each week that the gospels are covered in Sunday School, I will post one question from my book along with a brief discussion of the issues that it raises.
There are many similarities between the feeding miracles in Mark 6:33-44 and Mark 8:1-9. In Mark 8:19–21, it becomes apparent that Jesus wants the disciples to compare the feeding miracles—and that the numbers in these stories are significant. You will find it helpful to make a chart that compares the two miracles and includes the following information (along with anything else you think might be significant): reason Jesus gave for having compassion on the multitude, number of loaves, number of fishes, amount of “leftovers,” number and gender of eaters, and response of the disciples on the ship. Note in the chart that the first miracle probably takes place in a Jewish area (see 6:1) but the second among Gentiles (see 7:31).
(adapted from Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels)
What I take from the conversation in Mark 819-21 is this: the two feeding miracles are to be compared–with special attention given to details of their differences, particularly the numbers in them–and the disciples (and, by extension, the readers) are supposed to learn something from this comparison.
The first thing we notice in comparing the miracles is that the first takes place on Jewish turf and the second in Gentile land. This sets the pattern for the comparison: I think it makes sense to see the first as a thoroughly Jewish event and the second as a miracle for the Gentiles. In the first story, Jesus has compassion on the crowd because they are as sheep without a shepherd, which is an allusion to the well-established Old Testament motif of shepherd as symbols for Israel’s religious leadership. The people are sitting by ranks of 50s and 100s, or according to the pattern for the organization of Israel (cf. Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:15, and 1 Kings 18:4). The number twelve–which symbolizes Israel in general or its priesthood in particular–is repeated and a very Jewish word for ‘basket’ is used. In the second story, the number seven (a symbol for universality) is repeated, the typical Greek word for ‘basket’ is used, and the people are not organized according to the pattern of Israel.
Note also the the number and gender of the diners is different. There is an important Old Testament background here; it comes from 1 Samuel 21–a story perhaps not exactly at the forefront of thought to a modern reader, but one not only familiar to the ancient audience but referred to specifically by Jesus only a few chapters ago (which, for Mark’s original audience[s] who would almost certainly would have been listening to the gospel read aloud in its entirety, means only a few minutes ago) in Mark 2:25-26. In this passage, David is travelling with a group and has asked the priest for some bread:
Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.(1 Samuel 21:3-6).
(Note the reference to five loaves again.) So the priest maintains that if David and his men have not had intercourse for three days (Lev 15:16 states that intercourse–even for married people–renders the male unclean), they can be considered pure enough to eat the consecrated bread that is normally restricted to the priests. Remember that in our first feeding miracle, the Jewish audience consists only of Jewish males–symbolically pure in that they have not associated with women. Hence they are worthy to partake of the miraculous bread. In the second story, the diners are of both genders. But they, too, are symbolically worthy to partake of the miraculous bread because they have been doing something else purifying for the last three days: fasting. So there is a lovely hidden feminist message in this story: when the kingdom of God spreads throughout the world, it will be gender inclusive and purity will not be measured by the absence of women.
Also note that Jesus has compassion on both groups–but for different reasons. To me, this is a reminder that although our circumstances vary, Jesus responds with compassion to all of us in whatever our need is.
Also note which story occurs in the middle of these two miracles:
For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. Mark 7:25-29
I believe there is a relationship between her crumbs and the multiplied loaves. In this story, the woman expresses her belief that while, yes, the children have first right at the table, the Gentiles can claim the ‘leftovers.’ And as we know from the first feeding story, there are plenty of leftovers! This story serves as a bridge–and a theological justification–from a ministry limited to Jews to one that re-creates that same ministry in the Gentile realm. It would also be useful to consider those stories in Mark that are paired: Jesus has one trial in front of Jews (14:53-64) and one before Gentiles (15:1-14) and there is an exorcism in a synagogue (1:21-29) and one in a heavily Gentile setting (5:2-21).
To me, Mark is a consummate storyteller, shaping the stories of Jesus so that they not only convey historical truths but also, via the very relationship of one story to another, conveys symbolic truth. In this case, the symbolic truths conveyed by the story speak of the good news of Jesus Christ being extended to all people.
(Recycled from this post.)