Sure, but I would not argue in those cases that either Mark or Jesus had to clear anything up. The only point was that scripture was being fulfilled.John2 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:56 pm But doesn't Jesus often say "as it is written" and such, including "son of man" stuff, without saying Daniel's name?
9:12: "Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?
14:21: "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him."
14:48-49: “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”
But "let the reader understand" implies that a misunderstanding may be possible, does it not?
I think you are caught in a logical contradiction of sorts. "Let the reader understand" is not enough to point to Daniel for someone who needs scriptural pointers (Mark's readers?), but is more than enough, and therefore unnecessary, for someone who knows the scriptures (Jesus' hearers?). The "abomination of desolation" is just too Danielic to be missed.
So it is a test of sorts? That must be your way of striking that balance (that "sweet spot") I was talking about.Now, just because Jesus says "let the reader understand" doesn't necessarily mean that his hearers did understand his Danielic reference, but they could have (if they weren't "blind"), like in 8:31-32: "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.