In another post, I argued that Mark does not exactly predict the cosmic return of the Son of Man in a generation but that all the preliminary signs that immediately precede his coming would be fulfilled in a generation (Mark 13:30). Otherwise, it is difficult to reconcile with Mark 13:32 that concerning that eschatological day or hour no one knows (οὐδεὶς οἶδεν), not even the angels in heaven (οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ) nor the Son (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός) but the Father alone (εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ). While this may seem to alleviate some theological concerns about why the end did not come exactly within his generation (but see my post addressing the problem of a 2000 year delay of the parousia!), it raises other problems for later systematic theologians on the nature of the Trinity. Checking out Wieland Wilker’s Textual Commentary on Mark, if you scroll down to Mark 13:32 one can see that a few Markan manuscripts and a lot more manuscripts of Matthew 24:36 omit the offending words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός. I also found online an interesting article Francis Gumerlock, “Mark 13:32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance: Four Patristic Solutions” Trinity Journal 28 (2007): 205-13. Again, since Mark’s christology was not as developed as John I dont think the evangelist was too worried about this issue (rather it may serve a positive function in discouraging overly enthusiastic setting an exact date for the end) and I do not think it has to be a problem for those Incarnational theologians who accept Jesus’ full humanity, but if theology is your interest I want to ask how you deal with the passage?
I myself think that the Early Church believed that Jesus’ return would be in its lifetime ir generation and I also believe that such beliefs go back to Jesus himself. As for the text at hand, I think that it could many things, on one hand Mark Goodacre’s podcast series has shown me that the Citeria are far from perfect and that ww need to take into consideration that what may have been embaressing or against the grain to some was not to others. For example John Meier says that when the first Chrustian generation died text like Mark 9:1 were formef to console mournful believers, such text only became embarressing later when the parousia did not come. So the same could be said for Mark 13:32, but we must also consider the other side as well. Even though the Early Chuch did not profess thei faith in Jesus in th language of fourth century trinitarian theology, they still believed that Jesus acted with the authority if God and could decipher his will, but then again apocalyptic language is flexible in that regard. Even if Jesus does not know the day or hour, he does have a general if not foggyidea of when the apocalypse would occur.
Woah that post had way to many grammatical errors, I feel quiet ashamed…
Anyway I want to complete my thought.
I struggle with this passage every so often, as a devout and relatively orthodox Roman Catholic, I have a rather high view of Jesus, in terms of his identity and relationship to God and my own method for dealing with the text is to allow it to speak for itself and all it’s historical limitations. Jesus phrased his faith and self understanding in the language of second temple Judaism and Jewish eschatology and I try my best to understand and respect that but I also try looking at the heart of what those text and proclamations are trying to say. Jesus is God’s agent called to speak authoritatively for him and to make know his will as well as issue the challenge to accept God’s word. I see in this the kernel for what may legitimately be developed into Trinitarian doctrine. But my career as an amateur scholar has opened my eyes to the many challenges and difficulties that come with bringing one mode of expression into a completely new realm, filled with different languages, meanings, and symbols. My faith has had to take this into consideration and in many ways it has had to become more naunced than the faith of my fellow Catholic coreligious. But it is not weaker, these past two years have made me a stronger, deeper, and more faithful Catholic and I am even more in love with my faith than I ever was in the past.
Thom Stark’s chapter, “Jesus Was Wrong,” in his recently published book, The Human Faces of God, debunks N.T. Wright’s attempt to explain how Jesus could still be error free concerning the soon coming of the Son of Man. Stark was a former fan of Wright’s interpretation, but he became convinced by arguments from Dale Allison and others that Wright was wrong. Here’s a review by a preterist of Stark’s chapter with some comments by Stark and myself. The preterist admitted after reading Stark’s chapter that “Stark has convinced me that the Gospels (by and large) and the Epistles (by and large) teach that Jesus’ imminent return would be about more than just the vindication of Christians as implemented through the destruction of Jerusalem”:
http://undeception.com/the-human-faces-of-god-apocalyptic-contortions-part-2/
_________________
Also see The Lowdown on God’s Showdown for a list of predictions in the Gospels concerning the soon coming of the Son of Man, and predictions in other NT writings of the soon coming of the Lord:
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article86.html
The “day and the hour” cannot be stretched out indefinitely.
In fact Strauss pointed out over a century ago:
“[Naturally there is a distinction] between an inexact indication of the space of time, beyond which the event will not be deferred (a generation’), and the determination of the precise date and time (the ‘day and the hour’) at which it will occur; the former Jesus gives, the latter he declares himself unable to give.”
Furthermore, having admitted that he did not know the precise “day or the hour,” Jesus continued to address his listeners as though that “day or hour” could not be further than a mere “generation” away: “Therefore be on the alert, for you [his listeners, circa 30 A.D.] do not know which day your Lord is coming…at an hour when you do not think he will.” [Mat 24:36,42,44]
Definitely not a “day” or “hour” that was “two millenniums” from then! Compare Luke 21:36: “But keep on the alert at all times, praying in order that you [his first century listeners] may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”
Obviously, Jesus included the “coming of the Son of Man” among “all these things that are about to take place.”
As professor James D. Tabor explains: “In the [end-times chapters of the gospels], Mk 13, Mat 24, and Lk 21, Jesus connects the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple to the more general ‘signs of the end of the age’: false prophets, war and disruptions, earthquakes, famines, pestilence, persecution, and a world-wide proclamation of his message…The scheme is very tightly connected, and Jesus declares at the end that ‘this generation shall not pass away until all these thing are fulfilled’” [Mk 13:30].
A.J. Mattill Jr. adds, concerning an important verse in Matthew’s end-time chapter: “The eutheos of Matthew 24:29 should be translated ‘immediately’ as elsewhere [in the New Testament] and means that at once after the tribulation connected with the destruction of Jerusalem there were to occur cosmic disasters and the coming of the Son of Man to write the finis to the world drama.”
To Dr. Mattill’s argument may be added these observations of Dr. Strauss: “Not only does Mark in 13:24 [a parallel to Matthew 24:29], by the words, ‘in those days, after that tribulation,’ place the ['coming of the Son of Man'] in uninterrupted chronological succession with [the tribulation connected with the destruction of Jerusalem]; but also, shortly after the [coming of the Son of Man] is discussed in each of the narratives, we find the assurance that all this will be witnessed by the existing generation.”
_____________
And note:
Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
“Affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be?” More affliction than people suffered during the worldwide Flood of Noah, more than than the affliction caused by all the worldwide curses in Revelation? That’s a jolly big embarrassing bit of hyperbole if applied, as it appears to be, to what people were afflicted with during the destruction of Jerusalem. And only after such hyperbolic “affliction” does the Son of Man arrive:
Mark 13: 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
Stark’s point is that God is depicted in Mark 13 as using the Roman army to chastise his people, but then God was going to punish the punishers and finally set things right on earth. Soon after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Yes, I agree with Stark and Dale Allison against NT Wright on this point. The problem of imminent eschatology and the delay of the parousia has been put to the forefront since Schweitzer and various Christians (including Schweitzer) have found different ways to deal with it theologically. I tried my own hand at some thoughts in the post I link to.
Ha, don’t worry about the spelling errors as I always edit my posts or comments like 10 times after I publish them for mistakes
About the criteria, I am not as sceptical about them as Mark Goodacre but I agree that we have to be careful with them. As you point out with Meier, it is possible that a specific prediction that Jesus would return within a generation would not have been embarrassing in the first generation and would also add that Mark 13:32 about Jesus ignorance about the timing may not have been embarrassing if Mark’s christology was less developed than other parts of the NT. I agree that the imminent eschatology goes back to Jesus and have posted on the arguments for and against the apocalyptic coming Son of Man. I also have experienced the same thing with faith having to become more nuanced when I try to wear my scholar’s cap and ask what a text meant to Mark and then my amateur theologian cap when I ask what it should mean today for whatever faith community.
Note: This comment was to Brian S. above.
[...] the accusation that Jesus usurped a divine prerogative in claiming to forgive sins, the ignorance of “the son” about the eschatological day or hour, the experience of Jesus [...]