I would like what opinions others may have on Mark 4:10-12. It has been regarded as possibly the most controversial passage of the NT, or at least one of the more difficult to explain passages.
My question is, does this passage indicate that non-belief is due to predestination and if yes can we conclude that Jesus may have believed in predestination? I am meaning ‘predestination’ in the sense that God has chosen whom will understand at the same time choosing who will not understand, therefore accept Jesus and his message (more in line with a Calvinist position).
The passage in question is specifically Mark 4:12:
they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven (Mark 4:12)
I’ll give a brief overview of how this passage may function in Mark without attempting any solutions to the question above.
In Mark the story begins with a description of Jesus’ ministry – “to proclaim the good news of God” (1:14), the coming of the kingdom (1:15). This message begins with success yet controversy arises (chapters 2-3). This controversy probably would have been seen as a rebellion against the coming kingdom which Jesus was proclaiming. For example, the scribes and family attitude (2:21-27) reveals their rebellious nature. Mark tells us that the scribes saw Jesus heal the paralytic (2:11) yet they shut their eyes to what was happening as is revealed in their continued opposition throughout the gospel. This leads to the quotation of Isaiah 6 in 4:12 - “they may indeed look, but not perceive...”
This may have been seen as a rebellion similar to the events which led to Judah’s fall, thus his use of Isaiah 6:9 in 4:12. As Isaiah was a prophet commissioned to go to the people (Isaiah 6:9) likewise Jesus functioned as a prophet speaking out against their unwillingness to see. The words that God gave Isaiah to tell his rebellious people are now spoken by Jesus.
In 4:11 we read “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God…” Again this may reflect back to Isaiah 6. When the cities lie in ruin, a holy seed, a stump will remain – a remnant (Isaiah 6:13). Jesus may have understood these disciples as being this seed?
I will quote what a couple of commentaries have to say about these verses. I have purposely selected 2 commentaries which surprised me a little. They are from 2 Christian traditions which one would expect to answer negatively to the question I have asked above.
A Catholic commentary on Mark (from the Sacra Pagina Series Vol. 2 by John Donahue and Daniel Harrington)…
Any explanation must consider the biblical understanding of God’s sovereignty and the predestinarian thrust of much biblical and early Jewish thought. This appears in the ‘hardening’ theology of the OT (Ex 4:21; 8:15, 32; 9:34), which, in effect, holds that God can be rejected or resisted by human beings only because God has so willed this in advance. It is present in the commissions to the prophets to announce divine judgment; for example, Is 6:10…Jeremiah (1:9)…The atmosphere of these verses is also apocalyptic; i.e. hidden revelation is given to a select group, creating a strong distinction between insiders and outsiders. Determinism is a characteristic of apocalyptic…While shocking to modern ears, a literal reading of Mark 4:10-12 as promising revelation to an elect few, along with the predetermined rejection by outsiders, would be familiar to many of Mark’s readers.
To get around the problematic/controversial nature of Mark some suggest that 4:10-12 was a later redaction arising from the dilemma of the Markan community at that time – “Why don’t some believe and are hostile to the message?” This is meant to soften the deterministic nature of the passage. Whether it does is debatable.
Ben Witherington in his commentary mentions M. Hooker.
Hooker thinks there is no doubt that these verses reflect the fact that Israel had largely rejected Jesus’ ministry, and Mark is explaining that that was within the scope of God’s knowledge and plan all along. The parables, then, were to mainly serve as stones of stumbling deliberately placed in Israel’s path.
These are great questions and possibly I am a little out of my depth (I suspect you have looked at Mark in far more detail than I) but I will offer a few thoughts:
Firstly I think it is important to read Mark as a whole with an Isaianic prism. The several quotes from Isaiah are not all we need to know – I think the gospel as a whole is founded on Isaiah’s prophecies, or at least is heavily influenced by them. Joel Marcus takes this so far as to repunctuate 1:1:
“The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ as written in Isaiah the prophet.”
He supports this by pointing out that the actual quote which follows in fact conflates Exodus; Malachi, and Isaiah.
I think he might go too far with that, but his essay on the topic of Mark & Isaiah is worth reading (and I assume he promotes a similar view in his new commentary in the Anchor bible series – though I don’t own it.) The Essay is called “Mark & Isaiah”, it is in a big fat festschrift called “Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman”; Ed. Beck; Bartelt; Raabe; Franke, Eerdmans 1995. If you can’t get hold of the essay and are interested you could contact me privately – I might be able to send you a copy.
Working from this principle, I might suggest we need to retain Isaianic baggage even more broadly in the gospel. So in response to your comment:
In 4:11 we read “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God…” Again this may reflect back to Isaiah 6. When the cities lie in ruin, a holy seed, a stump will remain – a remnant (Isaiah 6:13). Jesus may have understood these disciples as being this seed?
Possibly the Isaianic preaching to the rebellious of Israel continues indefinitely after the exile – that is, there is a true remnant within the ‘remnant’ (those who returned from exile). And perhaps we then designate the ‘remnant’ or ‘seed’ or ‘stump’ as the faithful of the people of Israel who continue down to Jesus’ day (the disciples could be part of that). Then a shoot grows out of that remnant (Jesus), the stump of Jesse (Isaiah 11) who stands as a signal to the peoples, assembling the outcasts of Israel, gathering the dispersed of Judah. It’s just a theory & I’m thinking on my feet a bit. What do you think?
You refer to Morna Hookers view as quoted by Witherington (BNTC) - she does have some good ideas. She points out that Mark in fact has mostly only brief parables – so brief that they amount to
“little more than pithy sayings. Only two are of any length – those about the Sower and the Vineyard. Mark’s use of the former suggests that he sees it, not simply as a key to the teaching of Jesus, but as a key to his whole ministry. This is brought out in the explanation of the parable in v13-20: the seed represents the word proclaimed by Jesus, the crop the response of the men and women to him. The end of the story is told in the parable of the Vienyard, where the failure to respond to the messengers leads ultimately to the death (and resurrection!) of the son of the owner of the vineyard. The fact that each parable is placed immediately after a challenge by the Jerusalem religious authorities concerning the nature of Jesus’ authority (3:20-35; 11:27-33), as well as at the head of a block of teaching linked with the theme of the parable, suggests that Mark regarded both of them as allegories of Israel’s response to and rejection of Jesus. Taken together, they encapsulate the whole story fo the ministry.” P122
She later says in commentary on the verses themselves (probably what Witherington is summarizing in your post):
“These are perhaps the most difficult and the most discussed verses in the whole of Mark’s gospel. Their meaning for the evangelist is, however, clear enough. Mark shares the fundamental Jewish conviction that God is at work both in historical events and in people, whose actions are ultimately the result of his decree: for the Christian community, looking back on the ministry of Jesus, the rejection by Israel of her Messiah and the continued obduracy of the Jewish nation when confronted by the Christian gospel could be explained only as part of God’s mysterious purpose. If men and women had refused to accept Jesus, then it must be part of the will of God that this should happen. In spite of attempts to soften the harshness of Mark’s words, there can be no doubt that this was his meaning.”
It is perhaps interesting to note that Paul’s most elaborate exposition of predestinarian ideas (Romans) also has in view the Jewish rejection of Christ in particular.
I would put a caution on predestinarian discussion from this passage, though. I think we can say that Jesus was understood by the apostolic community to hold a belief in something which seems to coalesce with aspects of predestinarian ideas. But it would be important not to take this too far – that is, to assume that the rest of predestinarian theology by our favourite systematic theologian can suddenly be imported into Jesus’ mouth.
I hope this helps in some way.
Your brother because of Jesus
Matt
P.S. Rowen that is very funny, I’m sure it would be even funnier if I had a clue what tedious science-fiction movie/cartoon/series you are referring to. hehehe :-)
While I was stumbling through the bible in the last week, I found a passage (from 1 Peter?) that seemed to reinforce the idea of God predestining eternal death...however I can’t seem to remember where it was...i’ll endeavour to find it and add further steam to the pot.
The reason I mention this is because I believe in an earlier thread, I challenged someone to find a single solitary verse explicitly supporting this view. I may have found it...(or I may have found it in my dreams ;))
I’ll get back to you.
For the purposes of the passage from Mark, I think I concur with Matthew:
I would put a caution on predestinarian discussion from this passage, though. I think we can say that Jesus was understood by the apostolic community to hold a belief in something which seems to coalesce with aspects of predestinarian ideas. But it would be important not to take this too far ? that is, to assume that the rest of predestinarian theology by our favourite systematic theologian can suddenly be imported into Jesus? mouth.
Thanks Manny - you are doubtless referring to 1 Peter 2:7-8:
To you then who believe, he (JC) is precious; but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the very head of the corner,”
and
“A stone that makes them stumble, and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people…
I don’t think predestination should be a steamy issue. The apostles were seeking to encourage us by this outworking of the sovereingty of God, not make us get all huffy as though we were lawyers representing the damned. An important part of understanding the bible is to understand how the writer hoped his readers would respond, and to mould our hearts, or ask God to mould our hearts, to respond accordingly.
Having said that, I also think a lot of people build too many constructs on predestinarian theology that aren’t in the texts. As I said in the thread on “Theology and Reason”, we should be careful not to use human logic to reconstruct things tied up in the omniscient sovereignty of God, and this topic falls into that category. Predestinarian theology should just stick very closely to what the texts actually say.
But my understanding is that this thread is supposed to be about Mark 4 in particular, rather than predestination as a topic. Joe?
Matthew: I was referring to that passage...thanks for that.
Joe: In reference to your initial question, that snippet from Mark sounds very similar to the Bible’s description of Pharoah (Exodus 7:3).
God hardened Pharoah’s heart...whether that supports the idea of the predestination of damnation, I’m not sure. Seems similar.
Mark 4:10-12 from my recollection, refers mainly to the reason Jesus speaks in parables to unbelievers.
Those who have received the secrets of the kingdom are now part of that kingdom, but to those outside the kingdom, Jesus offers a riddle which needs to be solved in order to be received into the kingdom of God.
He presents a parable to the non-believer, and allows that person to either try to understand the message behind the parable, or to be content to make no further investigation.
A parable is indeed a riddle. Have you ever been given a riddle, and been asked to work it out? This is what is happening between Jesus and unbelievers.
The unbeliever is required to seek answers and solutions to the parable, in order to hopefully understand God’s offer of salvation. Entry into the kingdom relies on an earnest desire to understand God. It requires some effort by the unbeliever. Entry into the kingdom is not given unless the unbeliever is searching for truth, and solutions to their fallen lives.
Once God’s merciful offer of salvation is understood, and then joyfully received by the unbeliever, he too is part of the kingdom. He then enters into fellowship with other people who place their lives into God’s service.
God is in control of all things, and those who have been chosen, even before their birth , are destined eventually to be called into service. No one could enter into the kingdom, without God willing it. And this is my understanding of predestination.
Please let me know if I am on the right track about these matters! I would like to know if my understanding is correct.
thanks for the responses, they have been helpful and I truly appreciate it.
Matt says:
Possibly the Isaianic preaching to the rebellious of Israel continues indefinitely after the exile – that is, there is a true remnant within the ‘remnant’ (those who returned from exile). And perhaps we then designate the ‘remnant’ or ‘seed’ or ‘stump’ as the faithful of the people of Israel who continue down to Jesus’ day (the disciples could be part of that). Then a shoot grows out of that remnant (Jesus), the stump of Jesse (Isaiah 11) who stands as a signal to the peoples, assembling the outcasts of Israel, gathering the dispersed of Judah. It’s just a theory & I’m thinking on my feet a bit. What do you think?
You make some good observations here Matt. I think you may be along the right lines here. Jesus (I’m speaking historically here) may have been with the opinion, which was common with other Jews of the period, that they were part of the ‘remnant.’ Returning from Babylonian exile, and especially later on during the Maccabean revolt, many groups emerged claiming to be the ‘true remnant’ following the Torah more purely than others. Judaism was quite a diverse religion, with a number of distinct variations (N.T. Wright’s, The New Testament and the People of God gives quite a good analysis of the diversity of Judaism during these periods, pp. 170-181). Jesus may have followed a similar way of thinking, that he and subsequently his disciples were the true ‘heirs’ of the prophets of old. Jesus after all said he came to fulfill what the history of his people were looking forward too.
Hooker’s quotes are I think valid and seriously worth considering.
Matt can you please expand a little on the following…
It is perhaps interesting to note that Paul’s most elaborate exposition of predestinarian ideas (Romans) also has in view the Jewish rejection of Christ in particular.
I would put a caution on predestinarian discussion from this passage, though. I think we can say that Jesus was understood by the apostolic community to hold a belief in something which seems to coalesce with aspects of predestinarian ideas.
What do you think some of these “aspects of predestinarian ideas” that Jesus may have held are? Is it evident in the Markan passage?
Matt says,
I don’t think predestination should be a steamy issue.
I agree. It usually becomes a steamy issue when people say more than what the scriprures say, in order to “fill” the gaps of understanding. I even doubt that Calvin went as far as some ‘Calvinists” have. Though I think there may have been some necessity to do so for the Arminians I think went too far in some of their teachings. Their teachings dictated the response which became popularly known as Calvinism.
Manny says,
Joe: In reference to your initial question, that snippet from Mark sounds very similar to the Bible’s description of Pharoah (Exodus 7:3).
God hardened Pharoah’s heart...whether that supports the idea of the predestination of damnation, I’m not sure. Seems similar.
I think it sounds similar also. In fact there are a number of OT passages which sound similar to the Markan passage. I think one of the main reasons for this is because of the strong monotheism in early Judaism. Only later on, due to Persian influence, did a more dualistic approach come into being. In this period Satan came into its own, so to speak. This period is beneficial in helping us understanding the Pharisaic and Sadducee controversy which arose. The Sadducee’s followed a strictly early Judaic history, hence their acceptance of Torah only. The Pharisees were more progressive. They accepted not only the teachings of early Judaism but also later Judaism (monotheism with a touch of dualism). It is this later ‘Pharisaic’ way of thinking which we should keep in mind when understanding passages such as Mark 4.
Ken says,
He presents a parable to the non-believer, and allows that person to either try to understand the message behind the parable, or to be content to make no further investigation.
...The unbeliever is required to seek answers and solutions to the parable, in order to hopefully understand God’s offer of salvation. Entry into the kingdom relies on an earnest desire to understand God. It requires some effort by the unbeliever.
I generally agree with what you say Ken, the problem in Mark’s passage however seems to be the opposite. Jesus says that everything comes in parables so that unbelievers themselves may not understand and not repent and be forgiven.
The passage seems to be saying that parables are used so that unbelievers remain unbelievers - “so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.”
Joe
p.s. Matt, thanks for the essay recommendation “Mark & Isaiah”, in “Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman”; Ed. Beck; Bartelt; Raabe; Franke, Eerdmans 1995. The book is apparently out of print, but I found a copy and should receive it in a few weeks time. So I look forward to reading it.
Thanks Joe for stimulating us to think about these issues – it’s always good to be stretched in thinking about a text. Thanks to Manny & Ken for your contributions also.
Manny C wrote:
Joe: In reference to your initial question, that snippet from Mark sounds very similar to the Bible’s description of Pharoah (Exodus 7:3).
God hardened Pharoah’s heart...whether that supports the idea of the predestination of damnation, I’m not sure. Seems similar.
Good idea Manny, though sorry, it’s not original! Paul already thought of it: Romans 9:16-18
So it (our status with God) depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharoah, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
Ken Austin wrote:
Those who have received the secrets of the kingdom are now part of that kingdom, but to those outside the kingdom, Jesus offers a riddle which needs to be solved in order to be received into the kingdom of God.
Hi Ken, I would just differ with your understanding in so far as you speak of transition from being out of the kingdom to in the kingdom, which I don’t think is the demarcation in view in Mark 4.
The text does not indicate that if you solve the riddle you move in, so that they are the key to entry. It is more that the parables actually maintain a pre-existing division. To those who understand, the secret has been “given”, not solved. For those who are outside, the parable is delivered for the purpose of maintaining their ignorance: “so that they may not turn again and be forgiven” (as Joe pointed out in his response.)
I don’t think actually moving from one category to the other is in view in this text (i.e. the distinction is not between pre-converted and converted, it is between those who are in the kingdom and those out of the kingdom, with a more holistic, life-in-one-frame view of a person in mind). What do you think?
Joe Capuana wrote:
Returning from Babylonian exile, and especially later on during the Maccabean revolt, many groups emerged claiming to be the ‘true remnant’ following the Torah more purely than others…Jesus may have followed a similar way of thinking, that he and subsequently his disciples were the true ‘heirs’ of the prophets of old. Jesus after all said he came to fulfill what the history of his people were looking forward too.
That’s very interesting Joe – I didn’t know that – it makes me more interested in my own theory about the ‘remnant within a remnant’ which was more just a vague idea before! Thanks.
Joe Capuana wrote:
What do you think some of these “aspects of predestinarian ideas” that Jesus may have held are? Is it evident in the Markan passage?
I think that the aspects of predestinarian ideas actually within the Markan passage are:
1. The secret of the kingdom of God is ‘given’, not something earned or discovered or even taken hold of;
2. There has been selection regarding who will get that gift (disciples) and there is a category of persons designated ‘those outside’ (other Jews?); and
3. The category of person designated ‘those outside’ are being told the truth in parables in order to keep them from understanding, turning and being forgiven.
But I think we shouldn’t jump to suck too general a concept of predestination out of Mark 4. There are two major complicating factors: 1) That the people Jesus has in view are all Jews, and the Isaianic prophecy he quotes relates to Jews; and 2) That at this point of the Markan narrative Jesus is still in the early stages of his ministry - if those who were outside understood immediately then the goal of his ministry may not eventuate, so that you could argue this situation was time-bound in Jesus’ ministry period, like the commands to healed people not to tell anyone what Jesus had done for them.
So, I don’t think you can establish a doctrine of predestination for all people from Mark 4. You would need more information from other texts. The hardening could be limited to the Israelite context. As I think about it now, it could be possible to mount the same argument for the other texts (like Romans 9-11 and 1 Peter 2). I need to think about that angle some more. Another aspect I am thinking through with those texts is the validity of petrifying exhortative/encouraging rhetoric into doctrine in the first place. That’s another can of worms. And it would be an off-topic can of worms, so I will resist doing it here.
Incidentally, it is interesting to compare Mark 4 with the expanded version in Matthew 13:10-17, especially the rearranged grammar of the (longer) quote from Isaiah (at least in the NRSV) which puts the responsibility back on the Jews themselves - the clauses indicate that they have shut their own eyes & ears to prevent themselves from seeing and hearing. Yet Jesus still uses the language of being ‘given’ to know the secrets of heaven. And the Markan Jesus seems disappointed that in fact those to whom the secret has been given don’t understand his parable either. The Matthean Jesus says no such thing, in fact Matthew may want us to assume that the disciples receiving the explanation from Jesus was the way in which they were given understanding. Hmm. I don’t want to think about it now. I want to sleep (HUGE weekend!)
I don’t think you can establish a doctrine of predestination for all people from Mark 4. You would need more information from other texts. The hardening could be limited to the Israelite context.
I would agree with you Matt. In fact the more I think about the text and its relationship to the doctrine of predestination the more it seems that it could say more than what even a Calvinist may intend to say about it. Hyper-Calvinists would say that God does not desire some people to be saved, the more orthodox Calvinists I doubt would go so far. If we say that this passage is a “proof” for the predestination doctrine too much is said.
The hardening could be limited to the Israelite context. As I think about it now, it could be possible to mount the same argument for the other texts (like Romans 9-11 and 1 Peter 2).
That’s a good thought there Matt. In fact, maybe the “hardening” passages are hard to make sense of sometimes because we don’t think of them within a covenantal framework. This would be the Israelite context in which you refer to. I think that possibly one of the reasons why Calvinists fall into trouble with the doctrine of election is because they don’t associate it strongly enough with the Israelite covenantal worldview. Maybe the Romans 9-11 and 1 Peter 2 passages need need to be associated within a covenantal paradigm? I would have to think about this more carefully.
thanks Joe and Matthew for bringing to my attention that Jesus may be stating in this text that there are those inside the kingdom, and those outside, whom He confuses with parables. I may have misunderstood.
Looking at Isiah 6: 9,10 where Isiah states that he has preached to
people who:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10. ‘ Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.
Isiah here is definitely speaking God’s message to unbelievers who are to remain outside the kingdom, and will always remain so.
But when I read the New Testament, I look carefully to see how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament. He often quotes old testament passages to draw attention to a new interpretation of them.
Prior to Mark 4:10-12, Jesus has been teaching a large crowd beside the sea, and in verse 9, following the Parable of the Sower, he says “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”. This verse seems to urge listeners to understand his message and to be part of the kingdom of God.
eg. “But those (seeds) that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and “bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”
Jesus says to the twelve (after giving the Parable of the Sower to the multitude) after being asked, by them, about the parables. He says:
11 “And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,”
But then in verse 13 - “And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?”
Obviously the twelve did not understand parables well, similar to the unbeliever.
So Jesus continues with three other parables following this: The parable of the Lamp under the Basket, The Parable of the Growing Seed, and the Parable of the Mustard Seed. This is to teach them more about the secrets of the kingdom, by getting them to decipher his parables. They obviously needed more information at this time.
But it took the resurrection to finally show them the whole story, and get their whole understanding.
Now, Jesus’ ministry was to proclaim God’s message of salvation through himself. And to save people, and to fulfil God’s promises and prophecies, He preached the kingdom message to all who could believe. Of course he recognised that many would reject him, and fulfill the Isiah prophecy.
But, does Jesus quote Isiah at this time, to teach the twelve, that he is trying to bring all people to their senses and turn them away from the prophecy of Isiah? (Whilst at the same time, recognising that the chosen twelve, and others were already part of the kingdom by predestination - if you like?)
Does being a christian involve hearing the message and with the help of God accepting it? What is the verse that goes something like this -
“how can they understand , if they do not hear the message”. ?
Recently I’ve been re-reading Mark. I was inspired to it by the discussion about homosexual people and the church. The discussion was relying on Paul, and on old testament sources, so I thought I’d read a gospel through and see what the focus was / is.
And of course the focus is on repentance, following Jesus, the kingdom of God, healing ...
What Jesus says, and what he does is very interesting. He preaches to the collected crowds, he explains things to his disciples, and he heals people that come to him. There is very little or no dialogue between Jesus and the people that he heals. He does not check with them that they have the concept “right”. He doesn’t make it difficult at all to come to him - for people that have faith. The people that are healed have very clear things wrong with them: the woman who has bled for many years, the man full of evil spirits (the legion).
It’s us, the people who are not really sure what is wrong, are we alright or not, that the parables are directed at.
Do we understand what is being said? Do we understand what Jesus is doing when he eats with the tax collectors? Do we understand it as something for ourselves, or are we dull, with heavy ears and numb hearts? Over and over I read these passages and think where am I in this? how do I follow Jesus, when all he says is “follow me.” And I look at the people that are healed, and I think, okay so it is about identifying what is wrong within myself and asking for release from that.
It is about living like a bird within the mustard bush of the kingdom of God.
Thanks for your further thoughts to stimulate us as we wrestle with these texts together. I will jump straight to speak to areas of your post I would want to adjust, but that is no reflection of my views on your post as a whole, which is very helpful.
Ken Austin wrote:
Isaiah here is definitely speaking God’s message to unbelievers who are to remain outside the kingdom, and will always remain so.
Hmm…can I suggest you use language appropriate to the covenant for the sake of clarity? Isaiah is in fact speaking God’s message to those who should by nationality be in the covenant, heirs of the promises of God, but who are living as those outside the covenant. Perhaps God’s patience with their rejection has run out, so he is preserving their state of rejection until he executes his judgment.
Ken Austin wrote:
Prior to Mark 4:10-12, Jesus has been teaching a large crowd beside the sea, and in verse 9, following the Parable of the Sower, he says “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”. This verse seems to urge listeners to understand his message and to be part of the kingdom of God.
I suspect that this verse may also refer to the concept of hearing in the Isaiah quote, so that it is only an urge to understanding for those listeners whose ears are not ‘heavy’ so that they can still hear.
Ken Austin wrote:
Obviously the twelve did not understand parables well, similar to the unbeliever.
Yes – this is an interesting issue. Mark seems to thematically develop the disciples as a bit ‘thick’. The first 8 chapters lead up to Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the Christ. In Mark Jesus makes no comments except to tell them to keep it a secret (unlike Matthew 16 where he makes a big fuss about Peter’s privilege to know this). But Mark immediately shows through the use of the passion prediction that although Peter has understood Jesus’ identity, he has not properly understood his mission, nor what he requires of his followers. This is reinforced in Mark 9 & 10, where the passion prediction each time is followed by a story to show the disciples do not understand how Jesus will fulfil the scriptures, though they believe him to be the fulfilment of the scriptures.
So despite Jesus’ crystal clear declarations of his mission, the disciples’ focus and expectation is still clouded by their expectation of a worldly kingdom. Mark doesn’t really resolve this in his narrative, like Luke does, to portray that the disciples now understand having seen the risen Christ. He may assume that to be obvious to his readers.
A lot more thinking to be done, but first I have to do a lot more working!
Your brother because of Jesus
Matt
PS “Please forgive my mis-spelling of Isaiah in previous post” – You know, brother, you can go back and Edit your posts (click the link on the bottom right of the post when viewing it in the thread) – no-one minds if you want to adjust a few spelling/grammatical mistakes.
The situation in Isaiah 6 seems to be that the people have failed to listen and respond to the word of God and thus God’s judgement on them is that will not ‘hear’ - they are hardened in their sin. The word of God is proclaimed, but the sinful people fail to respond. It is a sign of immanent judgement.
Jesus use of the verse in Mk 4 with regards to his parables suggest that it is the teaching of Jesus that is the Word of God being proclaimed. It acts like a sword that divides the unrepentant from the people of God, depending on how the people respond to the teaching. Do you notice that even though the disciple did not understand the parable they are told that they have the ‘secret’ to the kingdom. How is this?
They have Jesus.
They have responded to the parables by coming to Jesus.
The explicit contrast is to the leadership of Israel (pharasees, herodians etc) who have responded to Jesus in ‘deafness’ (see for example Mark 3:6 & 22-30).
I don’t think that this is a verse regarding ‘double predestination’.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
