Mark 13:30 'The Most Embarrassing Verse in the Bible'

[Miken]

Any further thoughts about that?

The most likely interpretation stills seems to be that Mark meant "the whole multitude of men living at the same time" and that this corresponds to those who heard the words of the living Jesus that some of them "would not taste death" before the Son of Man returned. That is, an end of days no later than the late 1st century CE. Didn't happen.

 

[RJM]

The most likely interpretation stills seems to be that Mark meant "the whole multitude of men living at the same time" and that this corresponds to those who heard the words of the living Jesus that some of them "would not taste death" before the Son of Man returned. That is, an end of days no later than the late 1st century CE. Didn't happen.

In my opinion that is incorrect.

The Christ spoke about two different events -- one: the imminent destruction of the temple within the lifetime of Jesus' own generation, and two: the unknown end of days -- and he made the distinction quite clear by saying that no man knew the eventual end, not even angels, but the Father alone.

It was obviously very easy for anyone writing it down to confuse the immediate destruction of the temple prophecy with the eventual ' end of days' prophecy, which latter Jesus clarified when specifically questioned.

The separation of the two separate prophecies is clearly defined by Jesus definitely prophesying the first within his own generation, while making clear that of the second neither he nor angels but only the Father knew when that would happen

 

[Miken]

In my opinion that is incorrect.

The Christ spoke about two different events -- one: the imminent destruction of the temple within the lifetime of his own generation, and two: the unknown end of days -- and he made the distinction quite clear by saying that no man knew the eventual end, not even angels, but the Father alone.

It was obviously very easy for anyone writing it down to confuse the immediate destruction of the temple prophecy with the eventual ' end of days' prophecy.

The separation of the two separate prophecies is clearly defined by Jesus definitely prophesying the first within his own generation, while making clear that of the second neither he nor angels but only the Father knew when that would happen

After describing all the events including the Son of Man coming in the clouds. Jesus says "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Mk 13:30) All of these things, which includes the end of days, are to happen before everyone who heard the words of the living Jesus have died, which Jesus already said earlier.

Mark 8,9
38 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

 

[RJM]

He predicted the end of the temple within his own generation, but when questioned more closely about the eventual end of days, he made it clear that neither he nor angels but only the Father's knew when that time would come. That is the spirit of what he said, imo

 

[Miken]

He predicted the end of the temple within his own generation, but when questioned more closely about the eventually end of days, he made it clear that neither he nor angels but only the Father's knew when that time woukd come. That is the spirit of what he said, imo

Not the day or the hour is what he said but definitely before the current generation (ca 30 AD) all died.

 

[RJM]

He equivocally predicts the destruction of the temple within his own generation, but 'of the end of days' equally equivocally makes clear that neither he nor angels but only the Father knows when that will happen?

 

[Miken]

He equivocally predicts the first within his own generation, but 'of the end of days' equally equivocally makes clear that neither he nor angels but only the Father knows when that will happen?

No equivocation that I see. 'This generation' fits right in with 'not taste death'. The meaning is very clear. Jesus says that ALL of this, including the appearance of the Son of Man, will happen in the current generation.

 

[RJM]

His listeners confuse the two events, but the Christ, understanding that his words will still be read 2000 years later, makes clear the difference between the two events: of the first he is equivocally definite, but of the second admits he doesn't know?

 

[Miken]

His listeners confuse the two events, but the Christ, understanding that his words will still be read 2000 years later, makes clear the difference between the two events: of the first he is equivocally definite, but of the second admits he doesn't know?

The words are very clear. ALL of these things, including the return of the Son of Man, were to happen before the then current generation passed away, while some of the hearers of the living Jesus had not yet tasted death. The end of days was supposed to happen in the 1st century. It didn't.

You said that Jesus was equivocating. That is a form of deceit. Are you saying that Jesus was lying? How can you trust anything he said?

 

[RJM]

No. He correctly predicted the destruction of the temple within his own generation. When questioned about the end of days he said he did not know when.

 

[RJM]

You said that Jesus was equivocating

No. I said he was not. Forgive me if I typed equivocal by mistake in place of unequivocal which is what I clearly meant. My bad. Apologies

 

[Miken]

No. He correctly predicted the destruction of the temple within his own generation. When questioned about the end of days he said he did not know when.

And incorrectly predicted the return of the Son of Man and ALL the other things before the then current generation passed away, before all of his listeners tasted death.

Jesus was not asked anything. It is all one continuous speech.

Mark 13
24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

32 “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.

Exact day and hour are not given but the general time frame - this generation - is unequivocally given.

 

[RJM]

And incorrectly predicted the return of the Son of Man and ALL the other things before the then current generation passed away, before all of his listeners tasted death.

Jesus was not asked anything. It is all one continuous speech.

Mark 13
24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

32 “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.

Exact day and hour are not given but the general time frame - this generation - is unequivocally given.

It's picking nits. Whether they asked him or not, the meaning is clear: he said the end of the temple woukd happen within his own generation, but he clarified that of the final end, not even angels knew when that would happen.

The general meaning of the passage is clear: two different events, one imminent within his own generation, the other unknown even by angels. Confused in the telling

 

[Miken]

It's picking nits. Whether they asked him or not, the meaning is clear: he said the end of the temple woukd happen within his own generation, but he clarified that of the final end, not even angels knew when that would happen.

The general meaning of the passage is clear: two different events, one imminent within his own generation, the other unknown even by angels. Confused in the telling

The meaning is very clear. Some of those who heard the words of the living Jesus would see the Son of Man return before they died. This is in perfect sync with the current generation not passing away until they saw ALL those things including the Son of man returning. But the exact hour and day is not known. But definitely before the end of the 1st century. Either that or Jesus lied twice.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

You know guys, sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and call it a day...

 

[RJM]

The meaning is very clear. Some of those who heard the words of the living Jesus would see the Son of Man return before they died. This is in perfect sync with the current generation not passing away until they saw ALL those things including the Son of man returning. But the exact hour and day is not known. But definitely before the end of the 1st century. Either that or Jesus lied twice.

As I said: two different prophecies, both mixed up together in the telling.

If as you believe it was written after the fact of the destruction of the temple, with all its horrors for the Jewish people, then it was to provide a platform for including the dire end of days prophecy, to give it weight: if the destruction of the temple had already happened as predicted, so the parousia was soon going to happen.

This is the real debate? Either Jesus said it, else someone made it up?

edited ...

 

[RJM]

So then the issue becomes why such a sincere believer as Mark in the truth of Jesus, could take it upon himself to make stuff up and put his own words into Jesus mouth?

It would be one thing to add a bit of coded anti-Roman slant (as in your post #53: the Gaderene swine) but quite another for a sincere early Christian who was prepared to die for his faith, to go around inventing words for Jesus? And for no real purpose?

I don't believe that the integrity of the person who wrote Mark's Gospel would allow himself deliberately to make up things Jesus didn't say.

He would try faithfully to transmit what he heard from others close to Jesus, especially from Peter. Otherwise his whole ethos in writing it becomes meaningless. Nor would it survive two millennia.

edited ...

 

[Miken]

So then the issue becomes why such a sincere believer as Mark in the truth of Jesus, could take it upon himself to make stuff up and put his own words into Jesus mouth?

It would be one thing to add a bit of coded anti-Roman slant (as in your post #53: the Gaderene swine) but quite another for a sincere early Christian who was prepared to die for his faith, to go around inventing words for Jesus? And for no real purpose?

I don't believe that the integrity of the person who wrote Mark's Gospel would allow himself deliberately to make up things Jesus didn't say.

He would try faithfully to transmit what he heard from others close to Jesus, especially from Peter. Otherwise his whole ethos in writing it becomes meaningless. Nor would it survive two millennia.

edited ...

The purpose is that the near-term eschaton promised by Paul was becoming harder and harder to believe with the passage of time and the destruction of the Temple was a blow to Jewish Christians and a cautionary tale to all about the fate of messianic movements. Mark sought to revive faith in what Paul said by rather brilliantly turning this catastrophe on its head and making it a reason to revive faith rather than lose it.

To make the story sound as real as possible, Mark paints a very credible picture of the time and place of Jesus, substantially different from the world as it was forty or so years later. This sounds very much like it is based on genuine early traditions about Jesus. Mark then depicts Jesus as a living breathing man of action. He also buries some cleverly veiled allusions identifying Jesus as definitely the Messiah. All of this serves to make it sound very real, halfway to reviving faith.

The Olivet Discourse is an example of retroactive prophecy, making an event that has already occurred the subject of a supposed past prophecy. The reader recognizes the ‘fulfilment’ and, if one is already a believer if a lagging one, takes it as a real prophecy that has actually come true. Bingo, faith in a short-term eschaton restored as well as faith in general.

Separating the two – the destruction of the Temple and the end of days – kills any reason for having written it that way. A later ‘edit’ of the two aspects into one makes no sense because by then it would have been obvious that the Son of Man never dropped in after all.

The Olivet Discourse in Mark is original and purposeful.

 

[RJM]

But that's the point: if the writer was a devout believer in the Christ, why would he need to basically invent the story in order to prop up the eschaton?

It sounds alright when you say it like that, but a devout believer in Christ would not want to put words in Jesus' mouth -- in fact he would risk bringing down severe eternal punishment upon himself by doing so? It would be the antithesis of the Christian honesty that he himself believed in?

The Christian movement in Rome was not a political one, certainly not at that time it was not. Christians were going meekly to their martyrdom under Nero, or Vespasian, or whoever.

The theory that Mark completely dishonestly made all this up in order to encourage Christians contradicts itself -- it is a catch-22?

 

[RJM]

Who really knows. Your theory of retroactive prophecy is just a theory. It's an impressive and scholarly one, to be sure. But the alternative can simply be that Mark reported the words he heard from Peter and other apostles, and as a sincere believer in the Christ, he tried in all sincerity to write them down as he heard them?