Disciplinary understanding in Mark 8:14-21 versus Matthew 16:5-12

¶ … Mark 8:14-21 as having a different view of the disciples than Matthew 16:5-12? Is Biblical literalism a mistake? Is revelation wider in scope than the Bible?

The profoundly different views expressed by Jesus in Mark 8:14-21 and Matthew 16:5-12 of the disciples reflect the different time periods and attitudes of the authors of these Gospels, as well as their different purposes in writing the documents. The angry, alienated Mark depicts a portrait of Jesus rejected and denied by His own followers and illustrates the apocalyptic sentiment of the period. The shorter, earlier Gospel shows a Jesus who is profoundly misunderstood by almost everyone. In contrast, Matthew's Gospel manifests a more conciliatory Jesus, and shows a Jesus connected to the Jewish community, because of his roots stretching back to the Davidic line. Mark's Jesus asks the disciples why they do not understand and their hearts are hardened when they fail to bring enough bread, implying that they must work to take care of themselves as a group, and be mindful of his instruction. In contrast, Matthew's more gentle rebuke of "men of little faith," who do not know about Jesus' ability to provide and give of his bounty when they are alarmed by their forgetfulness suggests a more generous Messiah, and also a time of more confidence and abundance in terms of when the Gospel of Matthew was written, in contrast to the Gospel of Mark.

Whether Biblical literalism is valid seems unanswerable, however, from this type of historical analysis, which a literalist would reject. A person who sees the Gospels solely as documents of faith, written by Jesus' actual disciples at relatively the same time period despite their different perspectives, versions of events, and literary motifs, would naturally try to reconcile the two different versions of Jesus of Matthew and Mark and suggest that they made up the 'same' person of the same whole. One Jesus demands care on the part of His followers, the other demands trust, but both are important values for a Christian. A literalist would be reading for spiritual sustenance, a Biblical historian would be reading to try to get a sense of how the teacher Jesus was viewed and constructed by later authors -- perhaps Mark wrote in a time of need, while Matthew was trying to preach about the abundance promised by Jesus. Neither perspective of this example found in both Gospels is inherently correct; rather the historian and the literalist's interpretations both validly reflect the different ways the Bible can be used. Additionally, it should be noted that in both passages, Jesus himself is using a metaphor to illustrate a truth to his followers, thus the notion of literal truth itself would be viewed differently, very likely, by the author of the document as well as by a historian vs. A modern, literal interpreter.