Mark. Kim Huat TanЧитать онлайн книгу.
the infidels or the wicked in Jewish literature (Sir 23:25; 40:15; Wis 4:3).
The third type of terrain contains thorns. Due to competition from the thorns, the sown seed cannot reach its full potential of bearing fruit. Jer 4:3 warns against sowing among thorns in his sermon encouraging repentance and return.
The final terrain is good soil, which yields great results. The enumeration of the yields is interesting. If taken as crop yields they are indeed phenomenal, since usual yields were less than tenfold. Even so, this pales in comparison with the exaggerated expectations of the fruitfulness of the eschaton by the rabbis, where yields can be as much as 150,000 times (b. Ketub.11b-12a)! The point is that great fruitfulness, a symbol of the eschaton (Jer 31:12; Hos 2:21–22; Joel 2:22; Amos 9:13; Zech 8:12), has come.138 But if it is taken as the yield of the individual seed, the description is realistic.139
Verse 9 harks back to the “Listen” of v. 3, and together they form a frame for the parable. The saying also serves two functions. First, it makes the parable applicable to all, with the words “those who have ears.” But secondly, “those who have ears to hear” suggests that not everyone uses his/her auditory organs properly, and in this respect the exhortation is narrowed to a special group. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. All are summoned to hear but it is implied that not all will do so.
The Meaning of the Parable (4:10–25)
This section may be broken up into three units. The first (vv. 10–12) tells us why Jesus explains the parables only to his disciples and not to the crowds or “outsiders.” This sets the stage for the second unit (vv. 13–20), which reiterates the importance of the parable of the sower, and also decodes for the disciples the meaning of the different images in the parable. The third (vv. 21–25) comprises four different sayings: two each on the theme of revelation/concealment, and the need to respond appropriately. All this enriches the meaning of Jesus’ parable teaching by promising ultimate clarity, albeit with a warning thrown in.
The Purpose of the Parables (4:10–12)
Mark probably envisages a group larger than the Twelve in v. 10 (cf. 2:15). The plural “parables” is intentional, and not a result of poor composition. The point is that the key to understanding Jesus’ many parables lies with one particular parable. Conversely, to ask about the meaning of the Parable of the Sower is to ask about the parables.
In v. 11 Jesus speaks of the “secret” of the kingdom of God. The Greek word used here is mystērion, and it occurs only once in Mark’s Gospel. It refers to God’s secret purpose which is known only through revelation. Indeed, it harks back to the Aramaic rāz, used in Dan 2:18–19, 27–30, 40, where Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the compositely-made statute by referring to God’s secret. In this sense, what Jesus is about to teach his disciples cannot be obtained through human ability, but comes as a gift, a revelation. This means the images generated by the parables will remain in the minds of Jesus’ hearers, teasing them into active thought but never providing them with the requisite meaning until the light from Jesus’ teaching shines into them. It is also to be noted that with this verse, the connection between Jesus’ parables and the reign of God coming through his ministry is made explicit.
Who are those who are described as “on the outside” (v. 11)? In chapter 3, those who were described or implied to be “outside” (3:31) were Jesus’ family and the scribes respectively. It may then be inferred that the “outsiders” here are those who are quick to dismiss Jesus’ claims and teaching. To the “outsiders” everything about Jesus’ ministry remains as a parable or a māšāl (i.e., a dark saying), but the “insiders” are given the secret for decoding it. Two contrasts are thus set up: revelation versus concealment, and insiders versus outsiders.
Verse 12 presents intractable interpretation problems. There is debate on how the Greek hina, and the corresponding mēpote, may be construed. The question concerns chiefly whether the Greek words convey intention or result. Because of space constraint, only the main lines of interpretation are discussed here.140 (1) If the Greek hina is telic (i.e., stating purpose), then Jesus is saying that the parables are told with the express purpose to make outsiders remain ignorant, so that their sins remain unforgiven. The counterpart mēpote (lest) confirms the statement’s telic force. The problem facing this interpretation is that it appears to contradict Jesus’ proclamation of good news to all and sundry. (2) One variant of this approach is to treat the Greek hina as being a short hand for hina plērōthē (i.e., in order that it may be fulfilled), a formula for citing scripture. This redirects the intention from Jesus to Scripture. But the troublesome intentionality is still there. (3) If it is ecbatic in force (i.e., stating result), the statement of Jesus may be interpreted thus: the result—not the intention—of teaching in parables is that some would remain ignorant, and their sins would therefore not be forgiven. The fault then lies not with the parable speaker but the hearers, whose stubborn hearts prevent them from understanding the parables. The Greek hina is usually telic in force, although at this stage of its development in the first century, it could be used to indicate result.141 However, mēpote proves a challenge and has to be arbitrarily construed as being tentative or conditional. There are unambiguous words to serve this function, such as the Greek ei mē. Hence, while this interpretation makes good theological sense, it is weak grammatically. (4) Some scholars prefer to dig back to the Aramaic substratum, and argue that in the process of translating it into Greek, a misunderstanding has arisen. They contend that hina probably translates the Aramaic dĕ, which although telic in force, can also be used as a relative pronoun, (such as “who”). Mēpote is then construed as reflecting the Aramaic dîlĕmā’, which may be translated as “unless.”142 This produces the sense: “Everything is in parables to those who are outside who may look and yet not perceive … unless they repent …” Consequently the verse describes those who are the “outsiders,” but with a hope held out to them that if they repent they will no longer be outsiders. However, this approach does not quite solve the problem, since it is clear that Mark depicts Jesus as typically explaining parables only to his disciples (see vv. 11, 34). Privileged information is given only to the insiders, implying that it is Jesus’ intention not to make the meaning of his parables transparent to all. This is confirmed in vv. 33–34.
Notwithstanding the interpretational problems, it should be pointed out that, if we bracket off theological concerns, the grammar is actually clear (especially the pairing of hina with mēpote). It speaks explicitly of intentionality. The fact that Jesus explains parables only to the insiders supports this further. Moreover, the original context of the Isaianic quotation in v. 12 speaks clearly of intentionality too (see below). Resorting to a putative Aramaic substratum will not do, as we do not have it and any retroversion is precarious. All we have is the Greek text of Mark, and the contextual indicators he provides us. The difficulty lies not with the grammar but with the presupposed theology. It is jarring to human ears.
One way to solve the problem is to limit the saying to a small group, (i.e., the religious leaders who opposed Jesus).143 But the fact that the insiders are differentiated from “the largest crowd” (v. 1) suggests that a much bigger group is envisaged. Indeed in chapter 3, those who were described as being “on the outside” are the relatives of Jesus. That said, Mark would surely know that James, the Lord’s brother, did come to trust in Jesus after his resurrection! This means the “outsiders” can become “insiders.”
Perhaps the way forward is to start from Isa 6:9–10 and acknowledge that the harshness in Mark 4:10–12 comes mainly from the quoted words. Our preferred interpretation is therefore option 2. It retains the telic idea, which is suggested not simply by the Greek hina but also by the way the story is told. This intention is the divine intention, connected with the words used by Isaiah on the obdurate nation just before her exile. The full force of this obduracy has yet to be unleashed, and Jesus’ ministry does precisely that, fulfilling Scripture (i.e., making it full).144 It will attract rank stubbornness to itself. All this is part of God’s plan and may be construed as the secret of the kingdom. Of course, the Isaianic quotation need not be regarded as totalizing. Other aspects must be brought in to ensure a full-orbed view of Jesus’ ministry. The fact that Jesus appealed to people to hear does not indicate that fatalism is at work.
That said, we must not miss an