Mark’s Paraphrase of an OT Quotation in the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:12)

In previous articles, I have illustrated Mark’s tendency towards omitting Matthew’s Old Testament quotations, when covering the same episode as Matthew, while at the same time inserting a few words which allude to the underlying OT passage itself.¹ I am presently aware of six instances of this behavior. Correspondingly, I have speculated that Mark has removed the OT material on the premise that it was not as pertinent to his primarily Greco-Roman audience, while adding sufficient hooks to assure any Jewish readers that he is staying aligned with Matthew.

Now, in Mark 4:12 we find an instance where Mark has retained a portion of one of Matthew’s OT quotations, though still characteristically removing Matthew’s claim of prophetic fulfillment and Matthew’s identification of the prophet Isaiah. However, Mark has also reworked the portion of the quote which he retained, such that it no longer precisely aligns with either Matthew or the original OT passage. What are we to make of this change? In the discussion below, we will reflect on Mark’s paraphrase of Matthew 13’s quote from Isaiah 6:9–10, have a side-conversation about Mark’s introduction to the passage, and then address the shift from Matthew’s “I would heal them” (Matt. 13:15) to Mark’s “be forgiven” (Mark 4:12).

“See But Not Perceive”

In Matthew 13, Jesus quotes from the Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 6:9–10 to explain why he [Jesus] has shifted over to speaking in parables.

¹³ This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. ¹⁴ Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” ¹⁵ For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ (Matthew 13:13–15 ESV)

Note Matthew’s identification of Isaiah and his claim of prophetic fulfillment. Note also that Matthew 13:14b employs the following terms: hear-not understand-see-not perceive, while 13:15b reverses the order of the hearing and seeing: see-eyes-hear-ears. With respect to these sequences, Matthew is aligned with both the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew (Old Testament) texts of Isaiah.

However, the corresponding passage in Mark has reduced the passage to:

¹² so that “ ‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.’ ” (Mark 4:12 ESV)

Thus, Mark has kept the terms of Matthew 13:14b, while embracing the order of Matthew 13:15b. In so doing, Mark has reduced Matthew’s quote of Isaiah 6:9–10 to a short paraphrase. Rikk Watts speculates that Mark “reverses the ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ clauses, perhaps due to Mark’s interest in seeing,” given the two healing-of-the-blind episodes found later in Mark (8:22–26; 10:46–52).² Alternatively, Morna Hooker suggests that Mark is here emphasizing the imagery of seeing in order to parallel the subsequent emphasis on watching, as found in Mark’s other extended discourse (Mark 13).³ In contrast, Gundry suggests that the reversal may be for the sake of placing “‘hearing’ closer to the [following] explanation of the parable in which hearing is emphasized.”⁴ These are fine speculations; however, given our prior recognition that Mark likes to subtly adjust wording in order to keep the broader context of an OT passage in view, my suggestion is that Mark has intentionally shifted from a formal quote of Isaiah 6:9–10 to a paraphrase as a means of signaling to his Jewish audience that not only this clause but also the subsequent clause—which shifts from “heal” to “be forgiven”—is likewise an intentional paraphrase; a paraphrase which gets to the meaning of the Isaiah passage in a way which his Greco-Roman audience would better understand. More on this in a bit.

Speaking in Parables, “So That”

For the most part, commentators are far more concerned with Mark’s version of Jesus’ introduction of the passage—the “so that” (Mark 4:12)—when combined with Mark’s conclusion of the passage: “lest they should turn and be forgiven.” In Matthew and Luke, according to Edwards, “the hardness of heart of the hearers is the cause of their failure to understand the parables, not the result of God’s preventing them from hearing, as implied by Mark”⁵ However, Edwards recognizes that even Matthew and Luke “are not entirely free of the mysterious correspondence of the hardened heart with God’s will.”⁶ Plus, Edwards recognizes that the “the tension between divine sovereignty and free will” was “already present in Isaiah 6, where God sent his prophet to a people who would not respond.”⁷ Correspondingly, Mackay characterizes the mission given to Isaiah as requiring him “to act in such a way that increased unreceptivity and blameworthiness will be the result.”⁸

Strauss, on his premise of Markan priority, points out that “both Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s language” by “suggesting that Jesus speaks in parables either because of their refusal to believe or resulting in their unbelief.”⁹ Regardless, he resolves that Mark is asserting that “God will now accomplish his sovereign purpose of salvation not just despite their rejection, but by means of it. To do this he will blind their eyes and shut their ears.”¹⁰ Similar to Edwards, Cole suggests that Mark’s “stern words” must be understood in the Isaiah 6:9–10 context, “where it is plain that it is Israel herself who has obstinately shut her eyes and ears against God’s pleading. Israel’s blind condition is therefore culpable and a judgment which they have brought upon themselves; and so it is inevitable that they should fail to understand.”¹¹ Lane adds that “the introductory term in verse 12 is intended to serve as a citation formula, meaning ‘[so] that it [Isaiah’s prophecy] might be fulfilled.'”¹² In summary, these views recognize that Jesus’ “so that” is preserving a tension found in Isaiah, that hard hearts and cryptic parables are not going to bring Israel to a place of repentance, such that they will be forgiven.

“Turn and Be Forgiven”

Matthew, quoting Isaiah, concludes with “lest they should … turn, and I would heal them” (Matt. 13:15). Whereas, Mark concludes with “lest they should turn and be forgiven” (Mark 4:12). I suggested above that Mark, in the earlier portion of Mark 4:12, had intentionally shifted from a formal quote of Isaiah 6:9–10 to a paraphrase as a signal to his Jewish audience that the subsequent clause—which shifts from “heal” to “be forgiven”—is likewise an intentional paraphrase, which gets to the meaning of the Isaiah passage from a perspective that his Greco-Roman audience would better understand. Israel did not just need physical healing of their people and their land. Their root problem was that they were suffering due to their iniquities; until the nation repented and God forgave them, they would remain under divine judgment for their sin. This connection is apparent throughout the OT. For example:

Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases. (Psa. 103:3)

If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14 ESV)

¹⁸ “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. ¹⁹ If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; _²⁰ but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken” (Isaiah 1:18–20 ESV).

Appropriately, therefore, Riley asserts that Mark’s “be forgiven” is equivalent to Matthew’s “heal them,” with the modification made to “reflect the church’s gospel of forgiveness.”¹³ While I accept that this contributes to Mark’s motivation to make the change, I suggest that Mark’s primary motivation is to provide clarity for his primary audience. The need for repentance and forgiveness to occur before national healing can occur was implicit in Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah; Mark was simply making it explicit to his Greco-Roman audience.

Conclusion

I have previously illustrated Mark’s tendency towards removing Matthew’s Old Testament quotations, when covering the same episode as Matthew, while at the same time inserting a few words which allude to the underlying OT passage itself. I have speculated that Mark removed the OT material on the premise that it was not as pertinent to his primarily Greco-Roman audience, although he has added sufficient hooks to assure any Jewish readers that he is staying aligned with Matthew.

In this article we have considered an instance where Mark has retained one of Matthew’s OT quotations, yet modified it to the extent that it qualifies as a paraphrase rather than as a quotation.¹⁴ Given Mark’s handling of other OT quotations found in Matthew, where he appears sensitive to both of his audiences, I have therefore speculated that Mark has chosen to paraphrase the first part of Isaiah 6:9–10 to indicate to any Jewish readers that the subsequent be forgiven phrase is an intentional paraphrase, employed to make the meaning behind the healing in Matthew more explicit to Greco-Roman readers.

Undoubtedly, whether the present reader accepts this speculation will likely depend on whether I can identify similar behaviors elsewhere in Mark’s text.

---

1. This, on our premise of a Matthew-Mark-Luke publication sequence. Allusions in Mark to Matthew’s OT Citations: The Time is Fulfilled (Mark 1:15); Allusions in Mark to Matthew’s OT Citations: He Lifted Her Up (Mark 1:31). ↩︎
2. Rikk E. Watts, “Mark,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 111–249, 151. ↩︎
3. Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (London: Continuum, 1991), 128–29. ↩︎
4. Robert H. Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 210. Reference is made to Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 201. ↩︎
5. Edwards also rejects the proposal that Mark has been influenced by the Aramaic Targum of Isaiah. James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 133. ↩︎
6. Ibid., 134. ↩︎
7. Ibid. ↩︎
8. John L. Mackay, A Study Commentary on Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2008), 175. ↩︎
9. Mark L Strauss, Mark, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 184. ↩︎
10. Ibid., 185–86. ↩︎
11. R. Alan Cole, Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), 152. ↩︎
12. William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 159. ↩︎
13. Harold Riley, The Making of Mark: An Exploration (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989), 47. ↩︎
14. It is recognized herein that Matthew does not provide an exact quote of Isaiah; however, the discrepancies are not pertinent to the present discussion. ↩︎

---

NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)