Divine conspiracy

[Giuseppe]

The clear sense of Mark 4:11-12 is that Jesus deliberately is hiding the meaning of his parable in order that the audience cannot receive his forgiveness.

Mark 4:11-12

11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

The scriptural source Mark has in mind here is probably Isaiah 6.

6 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”

4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

9 He said, “Go and tell this people:

“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
10
Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

11 Then I said, “For how long, Lord?”

And he answered:

“Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
12
until the Lord has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
13
And though a tenth remains in the land,
it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”

But note the crucial difference: in Isaiah 6 the people are made blind by God until Jerusalem is destroyed. After that the destruction of Jerusalem is fulfilled, it is expected by Isaiah 6 that the people can see again with their eyes. While in Mark 4:11-12 Jesus wants that the outsider will be blind forever.

Rightly prof Avalos notes that there is no scholar who criticizes Jesus because of this (moral) difference (and deliberate misintrepretation of Isaiah 6, in all worthy of a Mel Gibson's artistic license).

Then I wonder: did 'Mark' expect that his readers didn't understand never his esoterical meaning ?

Was he serious at all?

[neilgodfrey]

Then I wonder: did 'Mark' expect that his readers didn't understand never his esoterical meaning ?

Was he serious at all?

If we read Mark as a story or parable then no problem. The characters on the outside are all said to die. But they are only story characters. If we go with Mary Ann Tolbert's interpretation that the entire gospel was an elaboration of the parable of the sower, then those outsiders are the barren soil that failed to produce fruit.

The rocky soil are the twelve led by Rocky/Peter. They fail when faced with persecution.

It's a parable for the readers not to be like the characters they just read/heard about.

In real life, who knows? That's a mystery and up to God. The end of Mark is ambiguous. No answer is given to what happened to any of them. Readers are left with the fear they may have all faced the final judgment. But there was some hope, yes, for Peter? We don't know. That's Mark. Keep the readers in doubt, in fear for their own salvation.

[Giuseppe]

Usually, a hope is left for redemption when the author of the warning (''Isaiah'', for example) already knows the end of the real history. For example, Isaiah 6 could forgive Israel because he writes to the survivors of the destruction (who - the readers assume - have realized already their alleged errors that caused their destruction). Isaiah writes knowing to be on the side of the winners.

Perhaps 'Mark' leaves no hope for the ''outsiders'' because, despite knowing that the destruction had come on them (in 70 CE), he is not yet sure whether his opponents in real life are completely destroyed or they still survive after the destruction, so his radical call for conversion betrays the doubt of 'Mark' himself (author of the warning) about the fate of his enemies.

Are they survived?

And if survived, are they converted?

The first who doesn't know their real fate is just 'Mark'!

Differently from Isaiah, 'Mark' would write knowing that he has yet to win over his real opponents. This ignorance about the fate of his opponents may be explained because of the distance of 'Mark' (in Rome?) from the seat of his opponents (in Jerusalem?).

[rakovsky]

The clear sense of Mark 4:11-12 is that Jesus deliberately is hiding the meaning of his parable in order that the audience cannot receive his forgiveness.

Mark 4:11-12

11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

The scriptural source Mark has in mind here is probably Isaiah 6.

6 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”

4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

9 He said, “Go and tell this people:

“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
10
Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

11 Then I said, “For how long, Lord?”

And he answered:

“Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
12
until the Lord has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
13
And though a tenth remains in the land,
it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”

But note the crucial difference: in Isaiah 6 the people are made blind by God until Jerusalem is destroyed. After that the destruction of Jerusalem is fulfilled, it is expected by Isaiah 6 that the people can see again with their eyes. While in Mark 4:11-12 Jesus wants that the outsider will be blind forever.

Rightly prof Avalos notes that there is no scholar who criticizes Jesus because of this (moral) difference (and deliberate misintrepretation of Isaiah 6, in all worthy of a Mel Gibson's artistic license).

Then I wonder: did 'Mark' expect that his readers didn't understand never his esoterical meaning ?

Was he serious at all?

Those on the inside are the Christians, while those on the outside are those who reject his teachings. He teaches them to love one another and they reject this and stay on the outside, according to this scheme. Some teachings are in parables and others like the Sermon on the Mount were in straightforward language.

Russian theologian Lopukhin says about this verse that the outsiders were shown by the Parables a bit into the Kingdom, in order to invite them further to come inside. Lopukhin says that one of the main ideas was actually the death of the Messiah (eg. "Unless a seed fall to the ground and die...."), but that the Jews' leaders did not prepare them for this teaching. Lopukhin concludes that teaching directly and openly about his own death would have been unsuccessful. Based on that view, maybe Jesus could only teach this in a parable that only those inside could understand, because if he taught it more openly, he would get stronger rejection.
SOURCE: http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Lopuhin/tolko ... blija_52/4

[Giuseppe]

Based on that view, maybe Jesus could only teach this in a parable that only those inside could understand, because if he taught it more openly, he would get stronger rejection.

Logically, the reader of Mark knows what ''would get stronger rejection'' if put more explicitly in mouth of Jesus: the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

The cruel and hidden irony of Mark is that the 'good notice' by Jesus is the destruction of Israel and his resurrection as New Israel.

The cruel irony of Mcn is that the 'good notice'by Jesus is the destruction of Israel and his resurrection as ''NOT-Israel'.

Who comes first? But this is another topic.

[iskander]

Based on that view, maybe Jesus could only teach this in a parable that only those inside could understand, because if he taught it more openly, he would get stronger rejection.

Logically, the reader of Mark knows what ''would get stronger rejection'' if put more explicitly in mouth of Jesus: the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

The cruel and hidden irony of Mark is that the 'good notice' by Jesus is the destruction of Israel and his resurrection as New Israel.

The cruel irony of Mcn is that the 'good notice'by Jesus is the destruction of Israel and his resurrection as ''NOT-Israel'.

Who comes first? But this is another topic.

There is no cruel irony in disagreeing with the established ' church' and work for that institution to change into something different. History has separated Judaism and Christianity, but Jesus was a Jewish man and he had the right to offer an alternative to ' the management'.
Martin Luther was a Catholic man and he had the right to offer an alternative to ' the management'.

Please Giuseppe, can you tell me what is it that you find attractive about Marcion ?

[Giuseppe]

History has separated Judaism and Christianity, but Jesus was a Jewish man and had the right to offer alternatives to ' the management'

It is difficult to derive this reading when you feel so much subtle irony from 'Mark'.

Please Giuseppe, can you tell me what is it that you find attractive about Marcion ?

In short:

1) The marcionite Jesus seems more mythological than Jesus of Mark because his Jesus descends from heaven and has never a body. If Jesus is mythical, then it would be a bit more expected that the marcionite Jesus was earlier than Mark's Jesus.

2) Mark hopes in a New Israel - the collective body of Christ - among the gentiles.
To what extent does not this desire by Mark betray specific Marcionite influence? Marcion was the first to clearly distinguish Christianity from Judaism as a religion per se. Marcion was the first to act as Martin Luther, to say. Is the distinction between Judea and Galilea a marcionite move, in essentia?

3) Mark is the most allegorical of the Gospels and has subtle traces of separationism. Is his allegory an anti-marcionite reaction to mitigate the incompatibility of Jesus of Marcion with Judaism?

I have no answer, at moment. But I am curious to know more about Marcion from prof Vinzent and Klinghardt.

[iskander]

History has separated Judaism and Christianity, but Jesus was a Jewish man and had the right to offer alternatives to ' the management'

It is difficult to derive this reading when you feel so much subtle irony from 'Mark'.

Please Giuseppe, can you tell me what is it that you find attractive about Marcion ?

In short:

1) The marcionite Jesus seems more mythological than Jesus of Mark because his Jesus descends from heaven and has never a body. If Jesus is mythical, then it would be a bit more expected that the marcionite Jesus was earlier than Mark's Jesus.

2) Mark hopes in a New Israel - the collective body of Christ - among the gentiles.
To what extent does not this desire by Mark betray specific Marcionite influence? Marcion was the first to clearly distinguish Christianity from Judaism as a religion per se. Marcion was the first to act as Martin Luther, to say. Is the distinction between Judea and Galilea a marcionite move, in essentia?

3) Mark is the most allegorical of the Gospels and has subtle traces of separationism. Is his allegory an anti-marcionite reaction to mitigate the incompatibility of Jesus of Marcion with Judaism?

I have no answer, at moment. But I am curious to know more about Marcion from prof Vinzent and Klinghardt.

Please Giuseppe, can you tell me what is it that you find attractive about Marcion ?

Forget those secular cardinals who are no more deserving of attention than Tomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo. What do you like about the Christianity of a triumphant Marcion?. Is it because iMarcion can be used as another stick with which to hit Christianity ?

[Giuseppe]

Kindly, I can't continue the discussion with this your inquisitive approach.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are a Christian.

[iskander]

Kindly, I can't continue the discussion with this your inquisitive approach.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are a Christian.

You prefer to preach! I will leave you alone