it follows that the application of the one passage to the healing miracles is likely to be as arbitrary and unprecedented as the application of the other to the messianic secret . in fact the application of Isa 53.4 to healing miracles is not really appropriate . it only becomes possible if the verbs have the meaning take away , which is certainly not the meaning of the Hebrew they translate , and contrary to the intention of the original context . it does not mean that Jesus cured diseases , but that he bore them himself . we have previously decided that the proper Christian understanding of this verse is the atoning efficacy of the passion . but because it is a literal translation of the Hebrew , it is necessary to see a real reference to the diseases of the people who came to Jesus , when the verse is selected for a particular purpose in isolation from the whole context . as such , it may have been used to relate Christ &apos;s healing miracles to his total work of redemption . it thus widens the scope of the great passion prophecy from the strict passion apologetic to the whole of our Lord &apos;s ministry . the healings are as much a part of his messianic work as the passion itself . it was prophesied that the Lord &apos;s servant would bear our diseases , and Jesus both removed men &apos;s diseases by his miracles and himself suffered their pains on the cross . these were not the acts of a wonder-worker , but should have been recognized as the proper work of the Christ , even if he was only Messias incognitus . when Matthew incorporates this quotation in its present context , he loses sight of the connection with the cross . all that he is interested in is the fact that the work of healing can receive warrant from scripture . the purpose is pictorial rather than apologetic . the details of the life of Jesus are already present in the revelation given to the prophets . but Matthew scarcely realizes that his use of the verse accords ill with its real meaning . our Lord &apos;s use of parables . the effect of the two quotations which we have so far studied in this section is to prove that when Jesus did acts of healing he was acting as the Messiah . this raises the question whether people can be held culpable for failing to recognize this . this aspect of the matter appears in a further pair of texts which are concerned with our Lord &apos;s use of parables . the analysis will show that the early Church not unnaturally adopted the position that failure to see the messianic character of his work was really caused by the people &apos;s own blindness . there was a fundamental refusal to understand and to believe . we begin by observing how Matthew precisely repeats with regard to the parables the procedure he had used for healings and exorcisms . he takes two virtually equivalent Marcan summaries , abbreviates them to make one point each , and adds what he thinks to be the appropriate testimony in each case . the matter is further complicated , however , by the fact that the earlier passage about parables already contains the quotation material ( i.e Isa 6.9 f ) in the Marcan original ; and this is a quotation which has wide ramifications throughout the new testament . the first summary is Mark 4.10-12 . it is a short paragraph on the reason for parables , largely based on Isa 6.9 f , which Mark has inserted here to mark time between the parable of the sower and its interpretation . Matthew does not add a new quotation , but on the other hand abbreviates the Marcan version still further , when he rewrites this in Matt 13.10-16 . his improvements consist in ( a ) the insertion of the proverbial saying about whosoever hath , to him shall be given , etc , from Mark 4.25 ; and ( b ) the addition of a Q saying about the blessedness of the disciples , which has a closely similar vocabulary to that of the Isaiah allusion . these improvements have the sole motive of enhancing the superiority of the disciples , who have the secret knowledge which others fail to perceive . the inserted verse properly denotes a warning against taking spiritual privilege for granted . it retains this in its Marcan context ( Mark 4.21-5 , otherwise omitted by Matthew ) , and even more clearly in its Q version at the end of the parable of the talents ( Matt 25.29 = Luke 19.26 ) . but here it actually increases the sense of privilege , which directly contradicts our Lord &apos;s intention ! the added Q saying on the blessedness of the disciples is really concerned with the blessedness of the present generation , when the kingdom of God is breaking in , by contrast with the unfulfilled hopes of previous generations . but Matthew has made it underline the good fortune of the disciples as a privileged &amp;eacute;lite . the second summary is Mark &apos;s conclusion to the chapter ( Mark 4.33 f ) . in Matt 13.34 Matthew takes over the first of these two verses , which says that Jesus gave all his teaching in the form of parables . but he suppresses the other , which tells how Jesus afterwards interpreted them to the disciples privately . instead he inserts from his own stock the formula-quotation of Ps 78.2 : I will open my mouth in parables ; I will utter things hidden from the foundation ( of the world ) . these changes thus cut out any further mention of the privilege of the disciples , which had been specifically developed in the former summary , and place the emphasis solely on the intentional obscurity of Jesus &apos; public teaching . we shall see that in both cases Matthew &apos;s interpretation of the material is the end of a process which reflects changing conditions in the Church . as the second is much the simpler one of the two , it will be best to consider it first . the keyword for Matthew is wen parabolai&amp;symbol;s . as the whole of the first line is identical with the Septuagint , it probably represents the final stage of the adaptation of the text . this is to make it specifically applicable to the use of parables . for earlier stages we have to look at the second line , which is an independent rendering of the Hebrew text . this was not necessarily concerned with parables at all . the most notable feature of it is the translation kekrumm&amp;eacute;na ( = things kept hidden ) for ( = riddles ) . this directly contradicts what is said in Ps 78.3 f , that these things have been handed down from the fathers , and we will not hide them from succeeding generations . thus this version disregards the context , presumably intentionally . nevertheless there is evidence that this psalm was used by at any rate one circle in the Church with closer attention to its meaning . in John 6.31 our Lord &apos;s opponents quote v 24 : he gave them bread out of heaven to eat . the objection is that Jesus &apos; claim to be the Messiah is invalidated by his failure to repeat the miracle of the manna . it is evident that the feeding of the multitude is held by John to be a proper repetition of this miracle . but the teaching shows that the miracle is fulfilled more truly at a much deeper level . this implies an interpretation of the whole psalm in terms of our Lord &apos;s redeeming work . the psalm is a poetical narrative of the acts of God in redemption . the elaborate opening verses , speaking darkly of a mystery from the foundation of the world , are intended to show that such acts are always true of God . the whole thing is thus an expression of faith , that he who acted in this way can do so again . in the same way , those who try to figure out eschatological programmes can expect the same acts to be repeated . this was perhaps too naively imagined by some . but if the Jews objected that Jesus had failed to perform the repetition of acts of redemption expected in the eschatological programme , the Church could reply that he had indeed fulfilled it , though in a mystery . this is an apologetic motive for the feeding miracles . and it also shows how Jesus was truly acting as the Messiah in the time before his crucifixion . we have now arrived at an intelligible reason for kekrumm&amp;eacute;na as a rendering of . these riddles are the righteous acts of God in redemption , as the psalm itself implies . the works of Jesus - primarily his atoning death , but also , at this stage in the apologetic , the rest of the ministry - are the final expression of these acts of redemption . but if it be objected that his works bore little relation to the way in which this was expected , then it invited the apologist to place the emphasis on the hiddenness of God &apos;s ways . to say that Jesus &apos; works were genuinely messianic , but took the form of , so that they could only be perceived as such by the elect , solves the whole problem . such is the application of Ps 78 considered as a whole . the selection of v 2 as a pesher quotation narrows the application to the teaching of Jesus . it is the full and final revelation ( cf Heb 1.2a ) . in the first line has a roughly equivalent meaning to in the second . to apply it to the parabolic method is a further refinement , effected with the aid of the Septuagint rendering . finally Matthew inserts the resultant text into his parables chapter for its pictorial value , just as he used Isa 53.4 at 8.17 . these stages of development reflect the Church &apos;s changing outlook . to begin with , the resurrection is held to be the revelation of the mystery of redemption , the open demonstration of God &apos;s saving activity to which all previous sacred history has been leading . this idea is commonly met with in the Pauline epistles , e.g 1 Cor 2.7 , where it characteristically refers principally to the cross . secondly the teaching of Jesus is held to be an essential part of the revelation , though its true significance was known only to the elect . thus the construction put upon the teaching in the light of the resurrection faith is read back as if that was its recognized meaning all along . this is exactly parallel to the attitude adopted to the healing miracles . it was a natural position to take , once the teacher himself had withdrawn . it is similar to the position of the Qumran covenanters , who preserved a tradition of biblical exegesis , derived from their founder , which they regarded as a secret revealed to the &amp;eacute;lite . the third and final stage is the claim that this method was a deliberate policy on the part of Jesus , to prevent the mystery from being revealed to any but the few who are chosen . it is probable that this idea of a policy of concealment on the part of our Lord corresponds with an actual impression given by his anxiety to prevent his own radical reinterpretation of the kingdom of God from being confused with popular expectations . the special Marcan nuance in connection with this is the impression that even the inner group of disciples were themselves equally mystified by the parabolic method ( Mark 8.17 ) . a concomitant of the final stage is the sect-type doctrine of the Church . the Church is a privileged &amp;eacute;lite , having access to knowledge denied to those outside its ranks . Isaiah 6.9 f . we now turn to the earlier paragraph on parables , and look first at the material as it stands in Mark 4.10-13 . it is clear that we have here an original saying built on Isa 6.9 f , sandwiched between Marcan editorial matter which considerably alters the sense of it . the nucleus consists of vv 11 f , which is a perfect expression of the doctrine of the &amp;eacute;lite . the mystery of the kingdom is given to the disciples , but to outsiders all things are in parables . the purpose is to sift the people , for ( it is assumed ) the elect perceive the mystery , but the rejected are blind to it . if wen parabolai&amp;symbol;s represents ( collective ) , as it actually does in the Septuagint of Ps 78.2 , then the original saying was probably more general in intention , and it is Mark who has narrowed it down to parables in the technical sense . 