Biblical Theology Bulletin Volume 49 Number 1 Pages 41–48

© The Author(s), 2019. Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0146107919827483

The Disciples’ Lack of Comprehension in the Gospel of Mark

Unsok Hur

Abstract

This article begins with William Wrede’s (1901) suggestion that the writer of the Gospel of Mark
added the scene of Jesus predicting his crucifixion and the text indicating that even when Jesus predicts
his death his disciples remain unaware of that prediction. I agree with Wrede. Moreover, I argue that
several passages describing the disciples’ ignorance throughout Mark’s Gospel are the creation of the
Marcan gospel writer in order to make sense of the disciples’ ignorance when Jesus predicts his death.
The prime example is that when Jesus performed the second miracle of the loaves and fishes, they had
totally forgotten the first miracle of the loaves and fishes. To conclude the article, I argue that the disciples’
lack of comprehension described in Mark can be understood as fictional. That is, the description of the
disciples in Mark differs from how the disciples actually acted historically. Unlike what is described in
Mark, I argue that at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, the disciples neither ran away from Jesus nor lost faith
in Jesus, but they had unwavering trust in him.

Key words: Mark, Wrede, Jesus’ prediction of his death, Disciples’ ignorance, fictional, historical Jesus

S everal New Testament Scholars have noted the issue of

the disciples’ incomprehension described in Mark’s gospel
(4:40; 6:51–52; 8:4, 14–21; 8:33;9:2–10; 14:68–72). For
example, David E. Garland has described this portrayal of
the disciples’ poor level of understanding as “unusually harsh”
(David E. Garland 2015: 388–437). In fact, does the Mar-
can description of the disciples’ incomprehension accurately
reflect history? Wrede raises a question in regard to the his-
toricity of Mk 9:9–10 (Wrede 1901: 12–14). (“As they were
coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell
anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen
from the dead. They kept the matter to themselves, discussing
what ‘rising from the dead’ meant.”) As such, the description
of Jesus predicting his death is repeated several times—in
Mark 8:31, 9:31, and 10:32–34. Vos says:
Once and again we read that the disciples do not comprehend,
do not understand it, although they have been told in the plain-
est, most explicit terms. Therefore Wrede again concludes that
the situation is unreal in the extreme. This whole alleged self-rev-
elation of Jesus, he holds, is but a fiction of the Evangelist. In the
unfolding of the actual drama it remains inoperative, produces
no effect; it makes no history, and consequently must itself be
unhistorical [Vos: 75–76].
As we can see in this passage, Vos summarized Wrede’s
insistence that “In the unfolding of the actual drama it re-
Unsok Hur is deeply interested in the topic of the historical
­Jesus. Unaffiliated with any institution, he has done research
­independently, focusing on the ongoing discussion among  James
D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, Larry W. Hurtado, John Dominic
Crossan, and Marcus J. Borg. He can be reached at Gajwa 4-ro
29, 103-906, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of
Korea. Email: unsok1@naver.com.

41 41
 B I Unsok
B L I C AHur,
L T “The
H E O LDisciples’
O G Y B ULack
L L Eof
T IComprehension
N • V O L U M Ein4Mark”
mains inoperative, produces no effect; it makes no history, and
consequently must itself be unhistorical.” Based on that criti-
cism, it seems probable that the scene of Jesus predicting his
crucifixion is the creation of the Marcan gospel writer. That
is, Jesus, in fact, did not predict his crucifixion. If this is the
case, then the scene in which the disciples do not understand
Jesus’ prediction of crucifixion also becomes a fiction. More-
over, Wrede insists that Jesus’ prediction of his crucifixion and
the portrayal of the disciples’ lack of comprehension were both
created by Mark as part of the “messianic secret” (Wrede:
131). While explicating the reason behind this phenomenon,
he argues that Jesus was accepted as messiah only after the
resurrection and not during his life. I think Wrede’s argu-
ment is convincing and for that reason I begin this article with
Wrede’s point that in Mark Jesus’ prediction of crucifixion is
a creation of the gospel writer, and so is the portrayal of the
disciples’ lack of comprehension of Jesus’ prediction.
Despite this agreement, however, I am taking a different
route to develop my argument and conclusion. Wrede insists
that the Marcan gospel writer’s creation of Jesus’ prediction
and the scenes showing the disciples’ lack of comprehension
are related to Jesus’ messianic identity; however, I don’t think
these scenes were created by the Gospel writer because of
“the messianic secret.” I argue differently, as follows. That
is, Jesus didn’t predict his crucifixion but was described in
the Gospel of Mark by the early Christians as doing so in
order to express Jesus’ foretelling insight, as Bond asserts
(Bond: 134–51). Bond also agrees with Brown about Jesus’
ambiguity in regard to his destiny (Brown: 1468–91). Bond
agrees with Brown that because of the dreadful fate of other
prophets in the past, Jesus had an ambiguous sense of his
possible destiny. However, Jesus’ actual arrest and death on
the cross must have been unexpected both by Jesus and his
disciples. There is an obvious difference between foreseeing
the possibility of one’s destiny in light of past prophets’ fate
and clearly proclaiming one’s crucifixion in detail. Also, if
what Bond and Brown pointed out is true, that Jesus knew
his destiny only broadly and roughly, then it becomes clear
that Jesus did not predict his crucifixion as the Marcan gos-
pel writer claims.
Thinking from this perspective, it is logical to see that
when the crucifixion happened, it was unexpected by both
Jesus and the disciples. However, when it comes to scenes
portraying the disciples’ lack of comprehension there is more
to consider. This is written as a literary device and does not
42
9 • 2 0“ 1 9
portray historical fact. Thus, I will examine in what follows
the portrayal of the disciples’ lack of comprehension in several
other scenes as a literary device and will argue that the device
is used repeatedly in Mark to prepare for the disciples’ lack of
comprehension when Jesus predicts his death. In other words,
the disciples’ failure does not reflect the historical truth but,
on the contrary, is added to make sense of their words and
actions at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and death. In order to
explain that the disciples couldn’t understand Jesus’ message
when Jesus was predicting his death, the gospel writer added
passages that indicate their lack of comprehension at other
times, as in Mark 4:40; 6:51–52; 8:4, 14–21; 8:33; 9:2–10;
and 14:68–72. Showing the disciples’ incomprehension sev-
eral times during Jesus’ ministry acts like a preview, by which
the gospel writer guides the readers to, finally, come to under-
stand and accept the disciples’ incomprehension shown when
Jesus predicts his death. This leads us to infer a different pic-
ture of the disciples at the time of the crucifixion. Let us now
look at what might be the real portrayal of the disciples.
Literature Review
Since Wrede noted the “unrealness” of Mark 9:9–10,
many different opinions (Schweitzer; Taylor 1948; Cullmann;
Dibelius; Burkill; Watson; Weeden; Kelber; Kee; Tannehill;
Kingsbury; Tolbert; Dunn 1970; Tuckett) have have attempted to
explain how to make sense of that “unrealness.” R. T. France
said the most dominant prospect so far is that the disciples,
just as the people who followed Jesus, misunderstood Jesus,
believing him to be the political messiah. However, I think
this argument, although influential, is less satisfactory because
it assumes that the differences of understanding between Jesus
and his disciples were evident and this gap had not been filled
while Jesus was carrying out his ministry. Would the disciples
also misunderstand Jesus, by thinking of him as a political
messiah? Was it that difficult for Jesus to convince his disci-
ples that he was not a political messiah? Was it that difficult
to understand Jesus’ repetitive prophecy predicting his death
(Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34)? I think it is less persuasive and
most likely impossible that the disciples who “left everything
(Mark 10:28) to follow Jesus,“ couldn’t understand Jesus’
­repeated prediction of his death, especially when the writer of
the Gospel of Mark describes Jesus as someone who “had au-
thority, not as the teachers of the law” (Mark 10:22). More-
over, as Mark 6:7 (“Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them
42
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N • VO LU M E 4 9 • 2 0 1 9
out two by two”) shows, when Jesus sent his disciples out, he
showed that he had great trust in his disciples. For this ­reason,
I believe the suggestion that Jesus couldn’t convince his dis-
ciples that he wasn’t a political messiah and that he couldn’t
resolve the gap between his own understanding and his dis-
ciples’ understanding is less than satisfactory when looking at
it from the perspective of the entire scripture narrative. In the
remainder of this article will demonstrate why this portrayal
of ignorance must have been added.
Added Scenes of Disciples with
Lack of Comprehension
In Mark, the disciples are described with an unbelievable
lack of comprehension when it comes to understanding Jesus’
miracles and teachings. The prime example is portrayed in
Jesus’s second miracle of the loaves and fishes, Let’s look at
Mark 8:14–21:
The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf
they had with them in the boat. “Be careful,” Jesus warned them.
“Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”
They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because
we have no bread.” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them:
“Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see
or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but
fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?
When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many bas-
ketfuls of pieces did you pick up? “Twelve,” they replied. “And
when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many
basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.”
He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”
Jesus asks his disciples about their understanding of his
miracle of the loaves and fishes: “Do you have eyes but fail
to see, and ears but fail to hear?” and “Do you still not un-
derstand?” How is this scene possible? Is it possible that the
disciples who recently experienced Jesus’ miracle of the loaves
and fishes can respond in this ignorant way? It is impossible
to make sense of the disciples’ lack of comprehension after
all they learned and witnessed, including the first miracle of
the loaves and fishes. Because the disciples’ response is sur-
prisingly unrealistic, I believe it to be one addition to the the
Gospel by the writer of Mark. A similar pattern is found in
the transfiguration narrative (Mark 9:2–10):
After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led
them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he
was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white,
whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there
appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with
Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let
us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for
Elijah.” (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)
Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came
from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”
Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone
with them except Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain,
Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until
the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They kept the matter to
themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.
After the disciples saw Jesus’ transfiguration, they still
couldn’t understand Jesus’ prediction of his death, which was
stated in “the plainest, most explicit terms” (Vos: 75). Mark
(9:9–10) tells us that “As they were coming down the moun-
tain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had
seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They
kept the matter to themselves, discussing what ‘rising from
the dead’ meant.”
France points out that Jesus’ transfiguration happened
in front of the disciples to show that Jesus is beyond be-
ing a human teacher, but is something much more (France:
326–59). The Second Epistle of Peter (1:16–18) describes
Jesus’ status after the transfiguration as one of “honor and
glory” (Marcus 2000: 1108–18). Is it possible to believe
that the disciples were not able to accept Jesus’ teaching
when they had already experienced such a remarkable
event? How is it possible to think that disciples who left ev-
erything in order to follow ­Jesus (Mark 1:16–20; 3:13–19)
could not understand what their teacher was saying? The
disciples’ lack of comprehension ­appears in a similar pat-
tern in the second miracle of the loaves and fishes (Mark
8:14–21). It comes, surprisingly, right after they experience
Jesus’ miracles. For this reason, I suggest that the disciples’
incomprehension at the time of the second miracle of the
loaves and fishes (Mark 8:14–21) and at Jesus’ transfig-
uration was invented by the gospel writer to make it more
convincing for them not to understand when Jesus predicts
his death. The gospel writer is deliberately creating a larger
picture of the disciples’ ignorance.
43
 Unsok Hur, “The Disciples’ Lack of Comprehension in Mark” “
Other evidential scenes which support the disciples’ lack of
comprehension are found in Mark’s Gospel:
He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quite! Be
still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm. He
said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have
no faith?” They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is
this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” [Mark 4:39–41].
When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and
he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars,
because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of
the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was
about to pass by them. But when they saw him walking on the
lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they
all saw him and were terrified. Immediately he spoke to them
and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” Then he
climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They
were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the
loaves; their hearts were hardened [Mark 6:47–52].
Additional stories must have been added for the same
purpose:
“We are going up to Jerusalem,“ he said, “and the Son of Man
will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They
will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gen-
tiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him.
Three days later he will rise.” Then James and John, the sons
of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you
to do for us whatever we ask.” “What do you want me to do for
you?” he asked. They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right
and the other at your left in your glory.” “You don’t know what
you are asking,” Jesus said, “Can you drink the cup I drink or be
baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” “We can,” they
answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink
and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit
at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to
those for whom they have been prepared.” When the ten heard
about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus
called them together and said, “You know that those who are re-
garded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high
officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead,
whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the
44
Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give
his life as a ransom for many” [Mark 10:33–45].
Again, when James and John, the sons of Zebedee, ask
Jesus, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your
left in your glory,” the rest of the disciples react in a way that
shows they all have different understandings of what Jesus is
telling them. Wrede’s point is still valid in this situation. Jesus’
disclosure of his future death is powerless because it “produc-
es no effect; it makes no history, and consequently must itself
be unhistorical” (Vos: 75). The gospel writer creates this
portrayal of the disciples’ ignorance, in the same way he uses
other teachings of Jesus, such as Mark 9:35. (Sitting down,
Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first,
he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”) Furthermore,
the scene where Peter denies Jesus could also be a creation of
the writer of Mark because this scene can be understood in a
vein similar to when the writer sets up the characteristic of the
disciples’ lack of apprehension. The final message is that the
disciples’ couldn’t understand when Jesus predicts his death,
not even when Jesus is actually put to death.
But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re
talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway. When
the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing
around, “This fellow is one of them.” Again he denied it. After
a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are
one of them, for you are a Galilean.” He began to call down
curses on himself, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man
you’re talking about.” Immediately the rooster crowed the sec-
ond time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to
him: “Before the rooster crows twice you will disown me three
times.” And he broke down and wept [Mark 14: 68–72].
Several scholars have argued over the historicity of the
scene of Peter denying Jesus. One of the most supportive
argu­ments against the historicity of the scene of Peter denying
Jesus is that there is no reason to add a scene that undermines
the status of Peter, who became such an important leader to
Christians. However, one of the arguments to support its in-
clusion is that Peter later repents. Adding the scene of Peter’s
denial is then seen as less problematic. Peter’s denial can give
courage and hope to readers when they face tests of their faith
and experience failure (Brown: 587–626). I agree with this
last point because ultimately Peter recovered his position of
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N • VO LU M E 4 9 • 2 0 1 9
honor. Furthermore, the disciples come to take the honorable
responsibility of spreading the gospel after Jesus is resurrect-
ed. For this reason, Peter’s denial and repentance cannot be
seen as absolutely negative.
Another reason why we could think that the passage of Pe-
ter’s denial was created is to show that Jesus is the only person
who can be described with the highest dignity. There was no
reason for early Christians to describe the disciples in a negative
way. When it comes to the disciples’ relationship with Jesus, it
seems that there is no reason for the disciples to be portrayed
negatively unless there was an ulterior motive. We can identify
such a motive because, at the end, Jesus is ultimately the main
character of the Gospels. Jesus is therefore depicted as the most
honorable figure, and the disciples are depicted with compara-
tively low status. With this understanding in mind, it is plausible
that writer of the gospel of Mark intended to create or transform
elements of the Gospel that describe the disciples’ ignorance
in order to emphasize the most important story in the Gospel,
Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
Why did the writer add the scene of
disciples’ lack of comprehension
on Jesus predicting his death?
In this article I have examined the scenes of the disciples’
lack of comprehension and have argued that there are points
that are difficult to follow. I have also argued that the disci-
ples’ lack of comprehension when Jesus predicts his death is
a writer’s creation and the reason behind these pervasive ex-
amples at Mark 8:14–21;9:2–10;4: 39–41;6:47–52;10:33–
45;14:68–72 is that they were included with the intention to,
ultimately and convincingly, confirm the disciples’ lack of com-
prehension in regard to Jesus predicting his death.
Then, the remaining question is, why did the writer do this?
I am suggesting one possibility: I believe the writer of Mark
thought that describing the disciples’ with a lack of compre-
hension could be one of the best ways to most smoothly make
sense of the situation of Jesus’ crucifixion. And that is because
it makes better sense to say Jesus’ disciples were lacking com-
prehension than to think they couldn’t and didn’t do anything
to prevent Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus was alone in ­enduring the
crucifixion, and none of the disciples were able to take any
action to prevent it. In the situation of the crucifixion, the dis-
ciples were distanced from Jesus not only physically but also
psychologically. I believe this is one possible reason why, as
part of the background of the crucifixion, the disciples could
be portrayed, by means of a literary device, as “not knowing”
and “incapable.” If the disciples were not able to do anything
as followers of Jesus, especially at the most critical moment in
the crucifixion, it is possible for the gospel writer’s portrayal
of the disciples as those who run away to be understood as
a literary expression not based on historical fact. Then the
writer could describe the disciples’ lack of comprehension as a
literary device, and the phrases “didn’t understand” and “in-
competent” become part of the background of the crucifixion
that is not historically true.
I think it is possible that the writer decided to use the met-
aphor of “running away” instead of showing the true inability
of the historical disciples to help Jesus in any way. Another
possible reason why the writer of Mark created a scene that
contradicts the actual history is that, within the literary dimen-
sion of the gospel writer, the disciples were held responsible
for letting Jesus suffer and die. The crucifixion itself is an
undeniably horrifying event, although the gospel writer looks
at it in the broader light of the glory of the resurrection. In
fact, to depict the disciples as people who couldn’t understand
­Jesus’ teaching and who eventually ran away is dishonorable
in the context of the gospel, especially when it is not historical-
ly true. If the gospel writer decided to use these descriptions
regardless, I maintain that a reasonable argument to support
the decision could be made that the writer intended to hold the
disciples partially responsible for Jesus’ suffering and death.
For this reason, because the gospel writer felt it was rea-
sonable to hold the disciples’ responsible for their failure to
protect Jesus and to use a literary rather than a historical ra-
tionale, it is possible that the writer of Mark chose to describe
the disciples as “lacking comprehension” and as “incompe-
tent.” That is, the writer of Mark deliberately created and
exaggerated the “disciples’ lack of comprehension.”
To offer another explanation, there is a possibility that
the disciples didn’t run away at the crucifixion as the gospel
describes in Mk 14: 50 (“Then everyone deserted him and
fled”). The disciples trusted and were loyal to Jesus, but were
unable to prevent Jesus being held and crucified. Just as or-
dinary people couldn’t help, the disciples were truly helpless
when Jesus was arrested.
Furthermore, because Jesus’ disciples were not armed and
Jesus’ teaching was also strongly opposed to using physical
power (“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have
come out with swords and clubs to capture me?”—Mark 14:
45
 Unsok Hur, “The Disciples’ Lack of Comprehension in Mark” “
48), the disciples were in a situation where they had no way to
resist. Most importantly, it is highly probable that the disciples
were not lacking comprehension as the gospel writer wrote. It
is logical to assume that the disciples were, in fact, holding
faithfully to their unvarying trust in Jesus even when Jesus was
arrested. It is a more satisfactory explanation to understand
Jesus’ disciples as retaining their firm trust in Jesus, because
they not only became disciples by leaving behind their former
lives (Mark 10:28), but also experienced Jesus’ authoritative
teachings (Mark 1: 22) and a number of miracles (Mark 4:
35–41;5: 21–43;6: 30–44). For this reason, it is possible to
understand the narratives that suggested the disciples couldn’t
understand Jesus prediction of his death as, in fact, a fiction,
as is the narrative in which the disciples left Jesus while he
suffered the crucifixion.
Then, what must have been the historically accurate pic-
ture? As I observed at the beginning of this article, Jesus’
prediction of crucifixion must have been created by the gospel
writer to manifest Jesus’ authority and his power to foresee
the future. It is reasonable to see Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion
as incidents that were not expected by Jesus or his disciples.
The gospel writer created the picture of Jesus predicting his
crucifixion. Jesus’ disciples did not misunderstand Jesus as po-
litical messiah. The disciples must have had unwavering trust
but could not prevent Jesus from being arrested and crucified.
The disciples were neither armed nor prepared to resist, and
thus were unable to prevent Jesus being arrested, any more
than could any ordinary person. The Marcan gospel writer
revised this picture of the disciples not being able to prevent
Jesus from being arrested and crucified, changing it instead
to disciples who failed to understand what was happening.
Then, in order to support this portrayal of the disciples’ lack
of comprehension in regard to Jesus’ prediction of his crucifix-
ion and their inability to prevent it, the Marcan author added
several more passages to demonstrate throughout the Gospel
the disciples’ lack of comprehension.
In this vein, the passages in Mark concerning the disciples
must have been formed in something like the following se-
quence. The gospel writer created the picture of Jesus predict-
ing his crucifixion in order to manifest Jesus’ authority and his
power to foresee the future. Then the writer added the scene
of the disciples’ lack of comprehension of Jesus’ prediction of
his crucifixion. As Wrede pointed out, Jesus’ prediction of
his crucifixion served no function, and thus could not help
being ahistorical. If so, it follows that the disciples’ lack of
46
comprehension about Jesus’ prediction is also ahistorical. For
this reason, it is reasonable to conclude that the gospel writer
added the scenes of Jesus’ prediction of crucifixion and disci-
ples’ lack of comprehension of it. The disciples were described
as lacking comprehension because they were not able to pre-
vent Jesus being arrested and crucified. This must have been
one of the strong reasons why the author thought the disciples
had to be described as lacking comprehension. In order to
support the portrayal of the disciples as ignorant and unable
to understand and being unable to prevent the crucifixion, the
other scenes of the disciples lacking comprehension must also
have been added throughout the Gospel of Mark.
Conclusion
Because the idea that the disciples were unable to under-
stand Jesus’ prediction of his death is, as Wrede puts it, “un-
real in the extreme” (Vos: 75), it requires some explanation.
I believe the portrayal of Jesus’ prediction of the crucifixion
itself and the disciples as lacking comprehension in regard to
Jesus’ prediction of his death, can be a point at which there
is a crack in the gospel narrative, and at the same time, a
clue—a clue that allows us to infer the intention of the gospel
writer. Thus, I have inferred the following: the gospel writ-
er created a scene of Jesus’ predicting his death and of the
disciples’ response that lacks comprehension of what Jesus is
saying. To convincingly portray this scene, the writer added
the passages portraying the disciples’ lack of comprehension
in Mk 4:40; 6:51–52; 8:4,14–21; 8:33; 9:2–10; 14:68–72.
Moreover, I believe the disciples who could not prevent Jesus
being arrested, were intentionally described by Mark’s gospel
writer as “running away” when Jesus was arrested. I argue
that the reality could be quite different; Jesus may not have
predicted his crucifixion. That prediction may well have been
created and added in order to manifest Jesus’ power to foresee
the future. Unlike the account in the Gospel, the disciples
did not mistake Jesus as a political messiah, nor were they
ignorant, but they held to an unwavering trust in Jesus. Jesus’
arrest took place unexpectedly and the disciples were simply
unable to prevent his arrest, nor could they resist the soldiers
because, as ordinary people, they were not armed. This was
portrayed by the Marcan gospel writer as “The disciples were
not able to prevent Jesus’ crucifixion because of their lack of
comprehension.” The author strengthened that image with
other examples portraying the disciples’ lack of apprehension
 B I B L I C A L T H E O LO GY B U L L E T I N • VO LU M E 4 9 • 2 0 1 9
in other sections of Mark. I have challenged that portrayal
of the disciples for the reasons set down in this essay. Based
on my in-depth study of this Gospel, I infer that, even at the
moment of his crucifixion, the disciples of Jesus understood his
teachings and held to their strong faith in him.
Works Cited
Bermejo-Rubio, F. 2013. “(Why) was Jesus the Galilean Crucified
Alone? Solving a False Conundrum.” Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 36: 127–54.
Best E. 1986. Disciples and Discipleship. Edinburgh, UK: T&T
Clark. Gospel. Philadelphia PA: Westminster Press.
1983. Mark: The Gospel as Story: Studies of the New Testament
and Its World. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark. New Time. Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press.
1981. Following Jesus. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press.
1976–77. The Role of the Disciples in Mark. New Testament
Studies 23: 377–401.
Bond, H. K. 2012. The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed.
London, UK: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark.
Boring, M. E. 2006. Mark: A Commentary. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press.
Brown, R. E. 1994. The Death of the Messiah: From Geth-
semane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Nar-
ratives in the Four Gospels. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Burkill, T. A. 1963. Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of
the Philosophy of St. Mark’s Gospel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press.
Camery-Hoggatt, J. 1992. Irony in Mark’s Gospel. Cambridge
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Crossan, J. D. 1973”Mark and the Relatives of Jesus.” Novum Tes-
tamentum 15: 81–113.
Cullmann, O. 1957. Die christologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübin-
gen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr.
Dibelius, M. 1971. From Tradition to Gospel, translated by B. L.
Woolf. Cambridge UK: James Clarke & Co. Ltd.
Donahue, J. R. 1983. The Theology and Setting of Discipleship
in the Gospel of Mark. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University
Press.
Dunn, J. D. G. 2003. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids,
MI: WB Eerdmans Publishing Co.
1970. “The Messianic Secret in Mark.” Tyndale Bulletin 21:
92–117.
France, R. T. 2002. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on
the Greek Text. Grand Rapids MI: WB Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Co.
Garland, D. E. 2015. A Theology of Mark’s Gospel. Grand
Rapids MI : Zondervan.
Harrington, W. J. 2002. Mark: Realistic Theologian: The
Jesus of Mark. Dublin, Ireland: Columba Press.
Hawkin, D. J. 1972. “The Incomprehension of the Disciples in the
Marcan Redaction.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91: 491–500.
Hengel M. 1985. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London,
UK: SCM.
Juel, D. H. 1990. Mark. Minneapolis MN: Augsburg For-
tress.
Kee, H. C. 1977. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s
Kelber, W. H. 1974. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and A
Kingsbury, J. D. 1983. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel. Philadel-
phia PA: Fortress Press.
Marcus, J. 2009. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with In-
troduction and Commentary. New York, NY: Doubleday.
2000. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. New York, NY: Doubleday.
1986. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. Atlanta GA: Schol-
ars Press.
Marshall, C. D. 1989. Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative.
Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Meggitt, J. J. 2007. “The Madness of King Jesus. Why Was Jesus
Put to Death, but His Followers Were not? Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 29: 379–413.
Meier, J. P. 1991. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus.
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Moloney, F. J. 1981. “The Vocation of the Disciples in the Gospel
of Mark. Salesianum 43: 487–516.
Raisanen, H, 1990, The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark’s Gospel. Ed-
inburgh, UK: T&T Clark.
Schweitzer, A. 1914. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: The Se-
cret of Jesus Messiahship and Passion, translated by W. Lowrie.
Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Tannehill, R. C. 1977. “The Disciples in Mark: The Function of a
Narrative Role.” Journal of Religion 57: 386–405.
Taylor, V. 1981. The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek
Text with Introduction. Notes, and Indexes. Grand Rapids MI:
Baker Book House.
1948. “Unsolved New Testament Problems. The Messianic Se-
cret in Mark.” The Expository Times 59: 146–151.
Tolbert, M. A. 1989. Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Liter-
47
 Unsok Hur, “The Disciples’ Lack of Comprehension in Mark” “

ary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Watson F. 1985. “The Social Function of Mark’s Secrecy Theme.”
Tuckett, C. M. 1983. The Messianic Secret. Philadelphia PA: For- Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24: 49–69.
tress Press. Weeden, T. J. 1971. Mark: Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia PA:
Tyson, J. B. 1961. “The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark.” Jour- Fortress Press.
nal of Biblical Literature 80: 261–68. Wrede, W. 1971. The Messianic Secret. London, UK: James
Vos, G. 1954. The Self-Disclosure of Jesus; The Modern Debate Clarke & Co. Ltd.
about the Messianic Consciousness. Grand Rapids MI: W. B. Wright, N. T. 1996. Jesus and the Victory of God. London, UK:
Eerdmans Publishing Co. SPCK.

48