The classic image of the messiah is a wise man who was known and loved by all. He was expected to be and earthly king from the line of David (White 282).  Mark’s story of the messiah challenges this widespread view of the assumed messiah by evaluating Jesus’s other titles: “Son of God” and “Son of Man”.  The first aspect of Jesus that sets him apart from the other messiah’s is the name “Son of Man” which, according to White, is not a messianic title.  In fact, the term “Son of Man” is just another way of referring to a human being (283).  This term was in fact a new term that Jews were not familiar with.  The name “Son of Man” itself brings on the connotations that Jesus would not bring an earthly messianic kingdom (284). The term “Son of God” refers to Jesus’s adoption into heaven as the messiah. 

             The new age seemed to be something that people of the time, especially the disciples, did not understand. The people of the new kingdom are those that you wouldn’t typically expect to be included in the new kingdom.  Jesus even says “whoever is not against us, is for us” (Mark 9:40) which leads the reader to believe that those who aren’t Christ followers are invited to the kingdom of heaven; anyone is welcome.  This idea was very foreign to the disciples as they were brought up with the idea that the criteria of being a God fearing person was that they should have an exceptional faith, devote his/her life to God, and even experience persecution and death. 

           The story of the blind man at Bethsaida, at face value, appears that Jesus was unable to successfully perform the miracle the first time. However, this account is actually an allegory of how the disciples did not truly understand Jesus as the suffering savior.  This story is in parallel with how Peter’s understanding of Jesus was “blurry” and only partial, much like the blind mans sight on Jesus “first attempt” to heal him (White 278).