Mark 4:11,12

Unto them that were without— Τοις εξω, the people out of the vessel,—the multitude on the shore. See εξω, used in a similar sense in the history of Peter's denial of his Master, Matthew 26:69. The following words at first sight seem to import, that Jesus spoke to the people obscurely, in parables, on purpose that they might not understand what he said, for fear they should have been converted and pardoned. Nevertheless it is evident from St. Mark himself, that this was not our Lord's meaning; for at the conclusion of the whole he says expressly, with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it; but if Jesus spake to the people in parables as they were able to hear, his answer to the disciples, here recorded by St. Mark, who makes this observation on his preaching, cannot reasonably be understood in any sense inconsistent therewith. The true interpretation of the passage depends on a just view of St. Mark's scope, which our translators seem to have missed; for, remembering that in the parallel passage, Matthew 13:14 the words of Isaiah 6:9 are quoted, and finding some of the phrases of that prophesy in St. Mark, they never doubted but Isaiah was cited there likewise, and interpreted the passage accordingly; for they gave the Greek μηποτε the signification of the Hebrew פן pen, in the prophesy, supposing it to be the corresponding word; and by that means made St. Mark contradict what he himself has told us in Mark 4:33. Nevertheless, if it shall be found that there is no citation here, properly speaking, but only an allusion to a citation which our Lord made in the beginning of his discourse, and which a preceding historian had recorded, we may allow, that though פן pen in the prophesy signifies lest, yet μηποτε, in our Lord's answer recorded by St. Mark, may have a different, but equally natural, signification; viz. If it be so,—if peradventure, agreeably to its use in other passages. (See Luke 3:15. 2 Timothy 2:25.) That Isaiah is not cited in the branch of Christ's answer recorded by St. Mark, is evident, because there is not the least hint of any citation. Besides, the slightest comparison of the passages themselves will shew them to bedifferent. In the prophesy, God orders Isaiah to declare concerning the Jews in after-times, that they would hear the Messiah preach, but not understand him; and see his miracles, but not conceive a just idea of the power whereby they were performed; and to prophesy of them, that they would harden their hearts, and deafen their ears, and close their eyes, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,and understand with their hearts, and be converted and healed. In St. Matthew, our Lord assigns the completion of that prophesy as the reason why he spake to the people in parables. They were become so stupid and wicked, that they could not endure to hear the doctrines of the Gospel plainly preached to them. In St. Mark he added, that because this was the state of their minds, he wrapped up his doctrine in parables, with an intention that they might see as much of it as they were able to receive, but not perceive the offensive particulars, which would have made them reject both him and his doctrines; and that they might hear as much as they were able to hear, but not understand any thing to irritate them against him; and all with a design to promote their conversion and salvation. From our Lord's using two or three of the prophet's phrases in these verses, we cannot conclude that he cited him, or even that he used those phrases in the prophet's sense of them. He had cited him in the beginning of his discourse, and therefore, though he affixed a different sense to his words, he might use them by way of allusion, to insinuate that it was the wickedness of the Jews, predicted by Isaiah, which had rendered this kind of teaching the only probable method of converting them. Upon the whole, the expressions ascribed to Jesus in St. Mark's Gospel are by no means the same with those found in St. Matthew; but they contain an additional sentiment on the same subject, by way of further illustration. It is true, Christ's teaching the Gospel by parables, placed in this light, appears to have been a favour, rather than a judicial stroke; notwithstanding it appears from our Lord's own words, that it was of the latter kind; but the answer is, that this manner of teaching, withoutdoubt,impliedthehighestblameintheJews, whose wickedness had rendered it necessary, and conveyed an idea of punishment on the part of Christ, who for their wickedness deprived them of better means of instruction; so that it was really a punishment: at the same time it was a favour likewise, as it was a less punishment than theydeserved, and a punishment in order to reclaim them. I acknowledge, that if our Lord had not spoken in answer to the disciples, who desired to know the reason of his conduct, what he said on this occasion might have been compared with other texts; in which, according to the genius of the Hebrew language, the words lead us to think of the intention of the agent, while in the mean time nothing but the effect of his action is described. See Matthew 10:34. Nevertheless, the circumstances of the passage under consideration forbid this method of interpretation. To conclude, this sense appears to me for another reason much the most probable, because when our Lord taught men, he never did it but with a view to instruct them, and to promote their salvation; so far was he from forming his discourses darkly, on purpose to keep them in ignorance, and hinder their conversion. For it is beyond the power of the most captious disputant to deny, that the great end of all Christ's labours was the illumination, conversion, and salvation of mankind. Instead of done in parables, we may read, delivered in parables.