Mark is taking what you might call the long-range, “prophetic” view on authorial intent, given the premise that the revelation is directly from God. So while discourse analysis would insist, in principle, that we not take the phrasing to mean more than its target audience could have possibly understood, he is comfortable reading a first century statement backwards into the text, claiming that this is, indeed, the fruit of the seedplot which was intended to be eventually understood, “prophetically,” by the ancient text.
The problems from this have begun to be identified, not the least of which is the implication that the Son of God was, IN ANY SENSE, not yet “created” until this sixth day.
Mark will rightly counter that all he’s positing is the pre-incarnate Christ being made manifest in human-appearing form, in heaven, on this “day” --but in my understanding, even this is too late.
It’s not exactly heretical, given his qualifications of his understanding, but does seem to quickly run afoul of Christological conceptions as to when He was made manifest, and how integral He was to every single facet of creation.
Keep contending Mark, because I know you know what this understanding means to you, but keep an open ear and an open heart for any ways in which, either to explain it better, or “tune it up,” or at least understand better why there are legitimate hermeneutical objections to be dealt with. Cheers!
1 Like