My co-blogger Daniel James Levy asked for my thoughts of the “delayed parousia” of Mark 13, so this is my effort to address the passage. For those unfamiliar with the problem it is as follows: Jesus and his disciples are discussing the city of Jerusalem, especially the grandeur of the temple. Jesus informs them that it will be destroyed, completely (v. 2). He warns that there will be false messiahs (vv. 5-6), rumors of wars and actual wars (v. 7), and even “world wars” (“nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” in v. 8a). There will be natural disaster and famine (v. 8b). Jesus say this is but the beginning of “birth pains” (ὠδίνων in v. 8c, which I find interesting since the Apostle Paul speaks of creation as groaning in pain as well, though he uses the word συστενάζει in Romans 8.22. Could this indicate an independent Jesus tradition? Could both Mark and Paul be drawing from a shared Jewish tradition that Mark uses for Jesus’ speech?), which leads Jesus to speak of future persecution in v. 9, 11-13 and state that the gospel will be preached to “all the nations” in v. 10.
This is where it becomes tricky. Jesus speaks of the τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, which we call “the abomination of desolation”. This would have immediately reminded his hearers of the evil deed of the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BCE and maybe the idolatry of King Manasseh mention in 2 Chronicles 33.7. The main idea is that ruler “paganizes” the holy temple. At this he warns it is time to flee Jerusalem (vv. 14b-18). This is to be the worst tribulation ever (v. 19). If God had not limited the terror no one would survive, but God shortens the days “for the elect” (v. 20). Again, Jesus warns against false messiahs (vv. 21-23).
This leads to the “coming of the Son of Man” in vv. 24-26. This certainly seems apocalyptic and it uses imagery from Daniel 7 where “one like a son of man” (כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ) comes to the Ancient of Days to receive his Kingdom over the pagans. It would appear that Jesus is self-identifying with this character and he sees himself as coming in judgement when the pagan ruler desolates the temple.
What complicates matters even more is that Jesus says in v. 30 “this generation (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη) will not pass away” before all of this takes place. Yet he immediately states soon thereafter that “no one know” the “day or that hour” except “the Father”. Mark emphasizes that this includes the Son as well. Even Jesus does not know when this will happen.
The confusion caused by this passage is great and I do not pretend to be one who has a solution. These are some of the problems:
(1) Is ἡ γενεὰ of v. 30 “this generation” as in span of time or as some have suggested does “this generation” refer to a particular ethnicity? In Mark the word occurs four times: 8.12; 8.38; 9.19; and 13.30. In 8.12 it seems most likely that it is temporal. In 8.38 it seems to be temporal, but it is not impossible that it is about an ethnicity (which would be quite the negative statement against many fellow Jews by the author though no different from the attitude held by those at Qumran and pretty much any group who understood themselves as a remnant). In 9.19 I think the odds are that temporality is in view. To further support this we could examine how Matthew speaks of a “generation”, especially “this generation” and I am inclined to see temporality over ethnicity as the emphasis. So while we can’t 100% conclude that when Mark said “this generation” he meant “the people of this time” the evidence does seem to lean that direction.
Of course, if Mark were merely recording Jesus’ words like a modern historian we’d have no problems, but he is not. Mark is remembering Jesus’ speech as the tradition with which he was familiar gave it him and as he adapted it himself. Matthew’s use of Mark seems to be fairly consistent in depicting Jesus as speaking of “this generation” frequently, so I am fairly confident it goes back to Jesus. Now if Mark is pre-70 it would explain quite well why he has no qualms with Jesus connecting the fall of the temple with the coming of the Son of Man. What about Matthew though? I think Matthew is post-70. The parallel in Matthew 24.34 moves along quite smoothly as if Matthew sees no problem with what Mark wrote (I am assuming Markan priority here). Even more amazing is that Luke 21.24, which I take to be post-70 for sure, doesn’t blink an eye at Jesus’ claim.
So what we have is what seems to be a face value a statement by Jesus that this would all happen before the current generation disappeared, but now we are very, very close to that having happened and we have the destruction of the temple without a coming of the Son of Man, yet no one seems worried. This should at least give us pause before quickly assuming that Jesus has been proven a false prophet.
(2) The same people who point to Jesus’ statement noting he did not return physically seem to miss something quite interesting: he was right about the temple. Now what I am saying assumes that the destruction of the temple is a reference to Titus’ invasion. Of course, not everything that occurred during Titus’ invasion matches perfectly Jesus’ prediction, but if we assume this has nothing to do with future events, like some dispensationalist, then we admit Jesus was accurate on one part with confusion on the other. Yes, it may be easy for Jesus to deduce that eventually Rome was not going to deal with the Jews any longer and that he made an educated guess whereas his math was not quite as correct regarding his return. Sure, possible, but again I think we must caution ourselves again simplistic solutions.
(3) The apocalyptic imagery itself is troublesome. Many, many exegetes write about a literal cosmic collapse, but Jesus seems to me to be no different than say the Book of Isaiah where Babylon’s invasion makes stars go dark and the world fall apart. Are we sure Jesus meant “end of the world” like we imagine it? I don’t know.
(4) While Jesus is confident that this will happen during one generation he admits almost immediately that he doesn’t know when all of this will happen, only God the Father knows. What do we do with this? What do we do with what seems to be contradictory claims regarding how much Jesus knows? Does he know for sure that it will happen within “this generation”, but he doesn’t claim precise knowledge? Does this change how we read “this generation”?
(5) What about the Lukan Solution? In Luke 21.24 Jesus has some additional insights into the matter. Namely, “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” What is this? Why does Luke insert this statement about the time of the Gentiles between the same temple destroying events mentioned by Matthew and Mark and the same “coming of the Son of Man”. Unlike Matthew and Mark it seems like Luke acknowledges some fulfillment. He has the temple falling. He describes the sacking of Jerusalem in terminology that seems a bit like the work of Titus’ armies. He know Jesus did not return and he makes the apocalyptic imagery eschatological! In other words, for Luke, Jesus did split the events and “this generation” if a temporal reference can apply to the first part, but it doesn’t seem the second part (although he does keep the order of Jesus’ saying with Jesus saying this even after his statement about the time of the Gentiles).
Maybe there is something to the author of Luke-Acts knowing the Apostle Paul and maybe even being Luke the Physician who is connected to Paul. In Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians he seems to see several hurdles standing in front of the parousia of Christ, including the abomination. Did Luke adjust Matthew and Mark because of Paul’s influence?
(6) What can we say of Paul’s influence? Did Matthew and Mark know of his writings and his eschatology? If so, how does this impact how we read the Evanglists?
(7) What are we to do with the claim in Mark 13.10 and Matthew 28.19 that they expected the gospel to go global. Now I know they didn’t foresee Brazil and Argentina, but they did know the Roman Empire, the eastern world of China and India, and Africa to the south. In the midst of all of Jesus’ predictions there is this presentation of a missionary endeavor that should take more than a generation, unless Jesus or the Evangelist are being hyperbolic.
I don’t know how to put all these pieces together. I know some who think they do and they are apologetic in their purpose. Others think the same and they think they’ve found an obvious piece of evidence that Jesus was a failed prophet. I think this may be oversimplified.
Obviously, I am a Christian who doesn’t find much room for “Jesus-as-a-failed-prophet” in my approach. If Jesus is a failed prophet then I am happy to learn from him, but I don’t see a reason to speak of myself as a “Christian”. I’d be pleased with the Deism of my youth or some form of agnosticism since I am not intrigued by the other religions of the world at this juncture. Personally, I find Luke’s solution worth considering: namely the “age of the Gentiles”. Mark’s earlier date doesn’t guarantee the most accuracy. Maybe Luke knew something Mark did not…or maybe his situation in a post-70 world forced him to dig for a Jesus tradition that would fit and explain why Jesus had not returned yet.
Note: I know of two other common solutions. One is to suggest that this whole prediction is eschatological. This still causes some trouble for interpreting “this generation”. Another is to suggest that Jesus did return, but I think this raises even more questions. If Jesus did return do we need to abandon Paul’s vision of a resurrected and renewed cosmos for a heavenly by-and-by where Jesus never rules the world physically, but only in “heavenly places” as we see in the Epistle to the Ephesians? Maybe, but I’d rather be surprised after death than assume this solution which seems to be begging the question on several fronts.
the archives near Emmaus 
It might be worth dipping into Andrew Perriman’s, The Coming of the Son of Man, though it will challenge you. Don’t label him preterist. He doesn’t like that. His approach is to understand the historical narrative of the NT within its historical narrative, first century, second temple Judaistic framework. I’ve got it on my shelf, but am aware of his approach to eschatology. I hope to take up the book in the near future.
I think Matt’s version in 24:30 is telling – ‘Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.’
There was to be a SIGN that the Son of Man was reigning in heaven and the SIGN that Christ was ruling was that the temple and city were ransacked, as he apocalyptically predicted.
As Brian, I don’t have it all figured out. I know I don’t see this as Jesus predicting something way future that hasn’t happened yet, as in premillenialism. Though I was more open in the past to this, I am not as willing to see a ‘gap’ in the discourse – half of it speaking to first century/generation, half of it speaking to a final century/generation. (This is different from the ‘gap’ that some will speak of in the 70 ‘weeks’ of Daniel.)
Brian – Just as a thought to your comments, what if the phrasing of Luke at the end of 21:24 – until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled – is connected to the previous phrasing of that same verse – Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles. The ‘time of the Gentiles’ is about the Gentile Romans ransacking Jerusalem and the temple, thus being fulfilled ‘back then’.
I myself would argue that Jesus was off about the coming Kingdom. Since you have to realize that Mark 13 is but a part of a much longer narrative and in that narrative, Jesus always speaks about the Kingdom of God with a degree of imminence. His exorcisms and healings, for example, are interpreted as proof that as God’s kingdom draws near, Satan’s kingdom begins to fall. I also doubt that he was only thinking of the fall of Jerusalem when he uttered that prophetic oracle. The reason being is that, although Jesus’ message had an eschathological flavour, it was nonetheless about hope, not doom [with the exception of Rome, of course]. I highly doubt that the utopia he announced came [or at least began to take place] at 70AD, which was hell for a lot of people.
But I do see your point in being surprised that the authors of Matthew and Luke kept the saying. Though my guess would be that for Matthew, depending on when it was written, this generation would still be close enough for his eschathological scenario to work out, which might explain the added sayings at the olivet discourse. As for Luke, he might have reinterpreted it, so that the prophecy was just about the Temple, with the promise of a Utopia, coming later [Think of Acts 1:7]
@Scott : I am interested in reading Perriman’s book. It is one I’ve eyed, though others seem to take priority at the moment. Your point about the “sign” is interesting and I will have to ponder that. As far as the Lukan Solution is concerned, I agree that the time of the Gentiles is about Jerusalem, primarily. That said, he does splice the discourse with this phrase where Matthew and Mark do not and I think this is telling. He puts it right between the fall of Jerusalem and the coming of the Son of Man. If he is post-70 then he know the temple has been smashed and it seems he expects the coming of Christ to be something physical and evident.
@Brian : I avoid language of error for a couple reasons. First, Jesus’ work did bring the Kingdom of God. It was being established. As Jesus was led by the Spirit he may have come to a greater understanding over time of how this would work, including at least his death and maybe even his resurrection. So he wasn’t wrong about the establishment of the Kingdom, but he may not have foreseen God’s plan immediately. Second, the church confesses that he has been enthroned and that is via the resurrection. The earthly side of things is yet to come, but this doesn’t prevent God’s Kingdom from having been inaugurated in Jesus as he said it was.
Thanks for the post bringing out various details of Mark 13! I was mainly just confused on this one point. I think you correctly identify the “coming of the Son of Man” with Daniel 7 where one like a son of man approaches the ancient of days to receive his kingdom (that is, goes FROM earth, TO heaven). Why, then, do you link the coming of the Son of Man with a return (that is, FROM heaven, TO earth) like Jesus’ return at the end of the age?
This goes into my next confusion, I suppose. I think you’re right on when you point out how the apocalyptic imagery doesn’t refer to a literal space-time cosmic destruction (I’d say, when does it ever?), but instead does what apocalyptic does, reveals symbolically what will happen WITHIN space-time to highlight it’s significance in vivid ways. I’m not sure who the “we” is in the “like we imagine it,” so maybe that’s why I’m confused. I thought the discourse referred in general to Jesus’ vindication within 40 years or so (a generation) when he’d rise from the dead, ascend into heaven, the temple h cursed would be destroyed, the Gospel message that Jesus is Lord goes out to all the world (understood in the same way all nations under heaven were gathered together at Pentecost), etc.
I didn’t doubt that God was present in Jesus’ ministry, but I am inclined to think that Jesus made a mistake in saying that the Kingdom would come earlier than not. My own way of looking at it comes through the work of Bernard Lonergan, who said that in Jesus’ earthly life, he expressed his ineffable knoweldge of God in effable terms. As someone living in first century Israel, he would have probably found the language of Jewish eschatology suitable to express his outrage at a cruel world and his hope that the future is in God’s hands and that there is hope for the world.
I am aware that my own theology isn’t perfect but it is how I came to terms with Schweitzer’s legacy. Though I am willing to admit that you are right in expressing confusion at the idea that Jesus’ disciples thought that they could get the gospel out around the world in so little time. It becomes even more confusing when you look at the puzzling evidence. Jesus in his earthly life seemed to restrict his activity to Israel with the exception of a few short journeys to sorrounding territories. After the resurrection, it seems that the disciples were already allowing Gentiles into their midst, which is why Saul/Paul persecuted them [he was zealous for the law afterall.] So it’s rather confusing, and it is possible that John P. Meier is right in saying that “This generation” is secondary.
Well thanks for the challenging read.
Brian, thanks for your thoughts on this particular matter. I did a research paper on this topic around a year ago for my Early Christian and Apocalyptic Literature class. Around this time I read through Perriman, Wright, France, Allison, and even the anti-Christ himself, John Loftus (who draws heavily from Edward Adams and Dale Allison).
If I understand and remember correctly, types such as Adams and Loftus argue that the apocalyptic imagery in Jesus’ time was understood pretty literally: the cosmic world is coming to a close. They argue this by gleaming from texts such as 4 Ezra and 2 Peter.
Some friends and I decided to pick up Thom Stark’s book “The Human Faces of God.” It’s a good read; Stark has some powerful thoughts concerning inerrancy. As well as this, he differs it seems from Loftus and crew by arguing that what is being deployed by Jesus isn’t literal apocalyptic language that we see in 4 Ezra, but rather apocalyptic imagery concerning judgment on Rome, not Jerusalem.
With this said, we came upon chapter 8 and Stark’s critique of Wright is lucid and pretty devastating, at least to my friends. One friend said “He made Wright look like a middle-school Bible student.” While I’m not convinced of what my friend said, Stark does raise some important points about Wright’s work.
Although I’m not convinced of his critique of Wright, the one that stood out to be one of the most devastating points is the following: “Second, and most importantly, the text of Mark and Matthew make it unmistakably clear that the coming of the Son of Man occurs after the destruction of Jerusalem.” His point is made in reference to Wright’s claim that when the destruction of the Temple occurs, that is when or is the coming of the Son of Man – it is the vindication.
I’m not convinced because of a few reasons. I think that 13:2 is sandwiching vv.3-23 and on the other side vv.24-28. Although v. 14 talks about the abomination of desolation, I don’t necessarily think that means the destruction of the Temple. The other part of the sandwich, about the fig tree would be a recapitulation (in my opinion) of Jesus’ casting judgment on the temple in chapter 11. So, I could be doing a bad job with my hermeneutics because it doesn’t explicitly say this, but I still don’t think the “after that tribulation” of v.24 has to do with the destruction of the temple. Rather, the sun being darkened and so on is about the destruction coming on Jerusalem herself (another point Stark takes issue with).
If this makes any sense, what are your thoughts?
Peace.
There are no known solutions that fit all the available evidence. However, I think it is highly probable that Jesus was drawing on his audience’s fervor for the prophecies in Daniel, which they took to mean the end of the world as they knew it was literally near. The Kingdom of God was the fulfillment of the OT prophets, a world in which God would intervene and rule the world through his agents (prophets, kings).
Jesus thought it was near. Acts chapter one the question was not “what is the kingdom?” but “when is it coming?” Paul told people to not marry because it was just about to happen.
Of course, the problem as you identify it is then why did they not edit that language out when it didn’t come right away? My guess is they still thought the end was near, if not immediate, or that it was such an ingrained position that it couldn’t be le out entirely.
Daniel,
The bottom line is that Mk 13 is still an open problem, your solution is as good as any at this point. For my part, it’s sufficiently clear that two different events are in view in this discourse that any reading to the contrary should be dismissed (e.g. that of Stark).
Whether there are two events being described here, doesn’t seem to matter, since Mark does not interupt his discourse to distinguish between the desctruction of the temple and the arrival of the Son of Man. He clearly states that “all these things will happen” in relation to what he had described. I am however willing to grant that Mark may have been using his skills as an editor [of his source material, which is a complicated and highly debated matter] in weaving together, Jesus’ prophecy about the fate of the temple and the sayings about the Son of Man. But if decided to venture out of just Mark’s gospel and view the source material as a whole, I think a case can still be made that Jesus entertained the possibility that God’s kingdom would arrive soon.
Brian, it’s worthwhile to look at some of our presuppositions to see if God will grant us greater discernment about prophecies such as these. Often, when we do not understand, our flawed assumptions are at fault. Lets look at two of our assumptions to see if this is correct.
-=-=-=-
[Mark 13:32] says “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”.
Presupposition Number One then: “No one knows that hour ..”, or in other words we presuppose that this knowledge is “sealed” (forever). When? It was so IAW [Dan 8:26][Dan 9:24][Dan 12:4] since [Mark 13:15], and its equivalent record in [Matt 24:15] reference Daniel. Let us then follow the Son (chronologically) for a bit after he said this, to see if this is true for all time or to see if we are committing the ‘fallacy of modal logic’ with this presupposition.
*In [Mark 14], Jesus celebrates Passover with his apostles, and departs for Gethsemane and is arrested.
*In [Mark 15], Jesus is tried and convicted though He was entirely innocent (and did not open his mouth [Mark 15:5]). He was sentenced to death then slaughtered like a lamb [Acts 8:32-35] IAW the prophets [Isa 53:7][Jer 11:19].
*In [Mark 16] this recently slaughtered ‘lamb’ was taken up to heaven [Mark 16:19] where he then appeared at the throne of God [Rev 5:5-6].
*The lamb is found to be worthy to take the (previously sealed) scroll [Rev 5:8] and is then worshipped. (Recall – Daniel was instructed to seal his vision in the first place [Dan 8:26][Dan 9:24][Dan 12:4]).
*In [Rev 5:12], the lamb is given power, wealth, wisdom, might, honour, glory and blessings, and worshipped again in [Rev 5:14].
BUT, Notice what happens next, in [Rev 6]; the lamb begins to ‘unseal’ what had been previously sealed.
Clearly, immediately after Jesus told His disciples that knowledge about this event was sealed, He ascended to heaven where He was given authority to start unsealing what was hidden from his disciples. If we presuppose that the truth Jesus shared with his disciples is true for all time, we commit the fallacy of modal logic in assuming that something true now is true always. (It may be true now that “It is snowing”, but tomorrow that may not be true at all). What was SEALED then, is UNSEALED now.
-=-=-=-
Likewise, [Mark 13:30-31] say “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until ALL these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
Presupposition Number Two then “.. this generation will not pass away until all these things take place ..” so we expect to look for the generation that will not pass away to understand this. To consider this presupposition, let us consider what Jesus says in [Mark 13:28] about the parable of the fig tree; it teaches us that when her branches are yet tender, and puts forth leaves, we are to know that summer is near [Mark 13:29]. Jesus ties this knowledge and this parable of the tree specifically to faith in the Kingdom of God in [Luke 21:29-31]. Therefore the generation he was referencing must be related to the Kingdom of God in some manner (whatever that is).
Before we go too much further, notice also what He says to the blind teachers in [Luke 12:54-56] who fail to discern events in the kingdom of God like this (and let’s not feel bad as we relate). We ARE expected to recognize the signs of the seasons. In [Luke 12:54-56] Jesus represents the significance of his mission as a ‘season’ to be discerned (also [Mark 12:2][Gal 6:9]). This works well with the Kingdom representation as:
* a vineyard [Isa 5:1,3-7,7]][Isa 1:8][Matt 20:1-2,4,7-8]
* a tree [Psalm 1:3][Psalm 52:8][Psalm 92:12][Pro 11:30][Isa 17:6][Isa 24:13][Matt 3:10][Matt 7:17][Rom 11:17,24][James 3:12]
* as vine/branches [Eze 19:10][Isa 34:4][Isa 36:16][Isa 17:10][Isa 32:12][Jer 8:13][John 15:1][John 15:4-5] etc.
Scripture is so full of this kingdom metaphor as tree, saying its meaning plainly ([Isaiah 5:7][Jer 2:21][Jer 6:9][Hos 10:1][Hos 14:7]) that it is difficult to understand how anyone could miss it at all. Yet the hypocrites of [Luke 12:56] could not discern the prophetic season of His mission despite its clear and unambiguous reference in scripture [Hos 14:7][[Eze 17:4-9][Isa 4:2][Isa 32:12]. But Peter, James, and John, also did not understand [Mark 13:4][Luke 21:7].
In [Mark 13:28] He instructed them to recognize the season by starting with a parable that related the emergence of their faith (and Christ-likeness) represented as the putting out of leaves [Mark 13:28] to his ministry which had been predicted by the prophets. Jesus pointed out that summer was near because the branches had becomes tender and put out their leaves (faith had emerged). We know from from [Hos 10:1][Jer 2:21][Jer 6:9][Isa 5:2-3][Isa 24:7][John 15:1,3,5,8,12] what the branches were and who the vine was. Likewise, we know that the leaves are evidence of Christ-likeness within the assembly of the elect from [Matt 7:17,20]. When Jesus engaged in his ministry, true faith in God sprouted and grew like leaves in spring.
So clearly this generation was ‘the tree’, the Kingdom of God. To understand this then we are going to have to know specifics about the Kingdom of God beyond literary metaphor. Even so, there is only one tree (Kingdom) into which branches are grafted (says [Rom 11:17-24]), that tree does not have only one season, and this is where our second presupposition falls short. Jesus said ALL things had to come to pass, which means we must look to ALL seasons to understand ‘this generation’. “This generation” is the Kingdom, the vine and the branches together, through all generations, even unto winter.
We know winter will come after the messiah because it follows the harvest of [Isa 17:5-7] which says “And it shall be as when the reaper gathers standing grain and his arm harvests the ears, and as when one gleans the ears of grain in the Valley of Rephaim. Gleanings will be left in it, as when an olive tree is beaten – two or three berries in the top of the highest bough, four or five on the branches of a fruit tree, declares the LORD God of Israel. In that day man will look to his Maker, and his eyes will look on the Holy One of Israel.” We see the same thing in [Isa 24:13-16]. Clearly this reference is a BIG CLUE and the same as “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” ([Mark 14:27] quoting [Zech 13:7] and [Eze 34:6,12]). Thus we’re going to have to follow the sheepfold historically after they were scattered to understand what the tree experienced throughout all generations. If we can do this we’ll understand the prophecy.
Here, we’ve only examined two of our presuppositions and seen how they get in the way of discernment (We could likely examine more for greater discernment). Regardless, all this was to say – our presuppositions are getting in the way. That is why our eyes cannot see, nor our ears, hear.
AndrewT, while it is hard to follow your logic, I think there are some obvious flaws in your post. One is that your odds of ending up confirming your own presuppositions increases when you interpret one book through another. Another is that the kingdom was not metaphorical to Jesus or his listeners. It was a literal earthly place they had in mind. The only reason to think otherwise is that it doesn’t support … wait for it … Christian presuppositions.
Some of our issues are translation problems. For example Luke’s “time of the Gentiles” ([Luke 21:24]) may NOT be understood because of poor translation. Consider:
Luke’s “time of the Gentiles” [Luke 21:24] is a Hebrew idiom translated into Greek, translated into English. There is good reason to understand this process has been flawed. This same idiom appears in [Rom 11:25] which cites the “fullness of the gentiles” in relation to the hardening of Israel. In both phrases, the word ἔθνος (ethnos G1484) is translated to mean ‘gentile’ or ‘gentiles’, yet we don’t ever question this translation (we presuppose it to be correct). We do not validate it. If our translation is wrong, our understanding will be.
In Greek, the word ἔθνος (ethnos) means ‘nations’, or ‘ethnic’ (which is, in fact, where we get the word ‘ethnic’ from). But the English word ‘gentile’ (from the Latin gentilis) reflects Roman Catholic influence and implies ‘non-Israelite’. It makes no sense to translate a word that means (multitude) ‘nations’ into a non-Israelite (individual or individuals). If we look at translation of the word ἔθνος outside of biblical translation we never see ἔθνος translated into English as anything but ‘nations’ ( For example, consult the Oxyrhynchus and the Tebtunis papyri; both of which are online and represent 60 million words of Greek literature from Homer to 1453 AD). By simply looking at ancient Greek usage, this word plainly means something different that how we see it in our biblical translations. Our biblical translations impart (theological) meaning onto the word that differs from the linguistic norm. WRT our translations is this a fair comment? Let’s test.
We see ἔθνος translated to mean ‘nations’ in biblical translation 64 times, such as in [Luke 12:30][Mark 13:10] etc). Yet, we see ἔθνος translated to mean ‘gentiles’ or ‘gentile’ (implying non-Israelite) 93 times and presuppose that Paul meant non-Israelite Christians. As far as translations exist these 93 instances seem to be the only instances (in any translation of this word) this word has been translated as such.
The question is: “Are there instances (from the bible) we can show this word to have been translated incorrectly?” Yes. Look at the instances of NT verses using the word ‘gentile(s)’ quoting the OT and compare to the translation of the Hebrew.
*[Matt 4:15] uses ‘Galilee of the gentiles’ but it is quoting [Isa 9:1] which uses ‘Galilee of the nations’.
*[Matt 12:18-21] quote Isaiah the prophet [Isa 42:1-4] which says the ‘isles’ will hope in the messiah [Isa 42:4], but we can see from [Isa 20:6] the isles are the ‘nations’ [Isa 40:15][Isa 41:1,5] that escaped from Assyria [2 Kings 15:29][2 Kings 17:23-24] (Israelite in other words). Yet again, [Matt 12:21] translates it ‘gentiles’ rather than ‘nations’ or ‘isles’.
*[Luke 2:32] also translates it as ‘gentiles’, quoting [Isa 42:6] which instead translates it as ‘nations’.
In every case where the NT quotes the OT and translates it ‘gentiles’, the OT Hebrew translates it as ‘nations’ showing that the translation of the Hebrew idioms into Greek and then into English has inserted a defect. The difference between ‘nations’ and ‘gentiles’ is that ‘nations’ is inclusive and often refers to Israel in its scope, but ‘Gentiles’ never does. If the OT Hebrew intends ‘nations’ but the NT Greek uses the word ἔθνος to represent the same intent AND ἔθνος means ‘nations’ the translation should faithfully translate ἔθνος into ‘nations’.
If ἔθνος means ‘nations’ and has only been translated to mean something else ONLY in the 93 biblical instances, AND if we can show that within those 93 instances it appears to have been mistranslated, there is a very good case for saying that ἔθνος has been mistranslated when it has been translated as ‘Gentiles’. Thus translation is obfuscating the text.
-=-=-=-
Working on this assumption, let’s test this idea further by looking at the sister verse to [Luke 21:24]. Look at [Rom 11:25] which is talking about Israel’s hardening (from the surrounding argument in Romans 11). This verse, with the word ‘gentiles’ doesn’t make much sense, but since we’re wondering if it shouldn’t instead be translated as ‘nations’, does [Romans 11:25] make any more sense?
It does. The greek expression “πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν” (from [Rom 11:25]) now reads “multitude of nations’ (rather than ‘fullness of Gentiles’), since πλήρωμα (plērōma G4138) means ‘multitude’ from the Hebrew מלא (mĕlo’ H4393). The Septuagint has translated the Hebrew word מלא (mĕlo’ H4393) into Greek as πλήρωμα (plērōma G4138). The big deal here is that ‘multitude of nations’ is a well known Hebrew idiom that would have resonated with Israelites. The Abraham covenant [Gen 17:4-5] uses this exact phrase. Thus [Rom 11:25] is citing [Gen 17:4-5].
[Gen 17:4-5] reads “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
If we translate ἔθνος as ‘nations’ [Rom 11;25], the verse and Paul’s argument makes sense WRT Israel’s hardening. The verses is saying that this hardening which has come on Israel will remain until God fulfills his promise to make Israel (as descendants of Abraham) many nations, rather than one. Given [Eze 37:11,16,17], this process would seem to be related to the new covenant because [Eze 37] is entirely messianic [Eze 37:13-14]. Notice the similarity between [Eze 37:7-10] and [Eph 4:16][Eph 1:23] and [Rom 12:5]?
Furthermore, if we translate ἔθνος as ‘nations’ in [Eph 3:6], it also reinforces what Romans [11:25] is saying because it now reads as follows “This mystery is that the nations are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (this also re-affirms [Eze 37:13-14]). Again (just like in the post above), the theme reappears that we are perishing because of our lack of knowledge [Hos 4:6]. We lack a proper understanding of what is happening to the Kingdom of the elect (the vine and the branches) across all of history (all seasons) because of our desire to impart meaning on words where none was intended.
Therefore, reading [Luke 21:24] as we have [Rom 11:25], translating ἔθνος as ‘nation’ or ‘nations’, the verse becomes “Jerusalem will be trampled down by nations until the times of the nations is fulfilled.” This is also a theme we’ve seen before. The trampling of Jerusalem by nations hearkens back to Daniels’ prophecies (and his beasts which also happen to reappear in Revelation). This seems fare more clearer than when we take ἔθνος to mean ‘Gentiles’.
Translation is impeding our understanding.
@Bondboy, before you critique the logic, understand it. One way to do that is to read the verses that were cited (it is a pain in the butt (with so many), but they were not references idly; they contribute to the overall point).
About the Kingdom being real or metaphorical, ask yourself this: “How literal do you take it?”. If you see the Kingdom as something other than an actual Kingdom, it can be taken more literally than perhaps you’d be comfortable with (likely). Likewise, if you see the Kingdom as an actual Kingdom, that just hasn’t come yet, but Jesus intended it to be recognized throughout history, again it can be taken more literally than perhaps you’d be comfortable with. Don’t assume I take the Kingdom to be metaphorical in the least. Relative to this view, the Kingdom is metaphorical to the average Christian.
Notice, saying the Kingdom is ‘literal’ also suggests it is historical. Therefore, we should be able to see it now (in history) if prophecy has anything to do with history (what-so-ever) since prophecy is about the Kingdom and will be fulfilled before the 2nd coming. The above post shows how this is possible (simply by looking at 2 presuppositions)
WRT interpreting one book through another – the character of God is eternal, without shade or variation; with no hint of change [James 1:17]. God’s word reflects His character perfectly [Psa 18:30a]. With no hint of change or variation then, the bible MUST interpret the bible. To struggle with prophetic meaning in one part of His word, without reading it plainly in another, is too great a handicap to accept given God’s nature and the wealth of His word.
The above posts have looked at 2 presuppositions and questioned them. Doing so has exposed the text as less opaque (by using the bible to interpret the bible). If you confirm the verses cited, and try to follow the logic and still question the above posts – feel free to pose additional questions.
And now for something completely different … :-). And I mean, completely different.
Personally, I think the GoM was written as a chiasmus. And in that chiasmus, Mark has certain writing tendencies. One of those tendencies is to place ideas about the future at the very center of his sub-structures. And in the case of Mark 13, where the entire chapter is about the future, Mark choooses to place the item about the MOST distant future (13:24-27) in the very center of his already ‘future dominated’ passage.
With this strucuring in mind, I like to read Mk 13 in the following order: from 13:5-23 (the ‘near’ future: e.g., the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)), to 13:28-37 (a message for the interim: until Jesus’ return), to 13:24-27 (Jesus’ return). In so doing, I think I’m simply unraveling a Markan writing tendency (a chiastic writer’s tendency, if you will, which is a tendency to write helically (from outside to inside) 😉 and as a result, I think, some of the problems disappear.
I know. It’s too bizarre, right … ?
Well, there may be a way to check this a bit. Imo, Mk. 13’s chiastic match is Mk. 4:1-34. Here’s some general connections:
– Both are large teaching sections. (Ched Meyers refers to them as Jesus’ first sermon and Jesus’ second sermon.)
– Both are largely about the future.
– Both have 3 sections. (E.g., Mk. 4 has 3 parables; Mk. 13 has 3 sections as delineated above).
There are more connections, but that’s enough for now.
The interesting thing about Mk. 4 is that it can be read the same way as Mk. 13. I.e., Mk. 4 can be read in the same outside to inside order as Mk. 13: from 4:1-25 (the now), to 4:30-32 (the interim period between the ‘now’ and the ‘end’), to 4: 26-29 (the end: the harvest, or ‘gathering’: see middle section of Mk. 13). Once again, the very center has the item referring to the most distant future. Imo, it all comes down to Markan tendencies – which of course, depends on the chiasmus I use; whether it’s correct, whether there are tendencies such as this within the chiasmus, etc.
I could, of course, be wrong.
____
Here’s another big ‘match’ (a contrast) between Mk. 4 and Mk. 13. Mark 4 emphasizes the success of the kingdom of God (via Jesus), while Mk. 13 has an emphasis on the destruction of the temple. Note here perhaps how the first section of Mk 4 (an a,b,a’,b’,c construction) ends (v. 25: “For whoever has, to him shall more be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.) and how that might relate as a match for the first section of Mk 13 (the destruction of the temple), and in fact the overall contrasting match of Jesus kingdom success vs. the destruction of the temple. Pretty amazing I think.
Imo, Mk. 4 and Mk. 13 are meant to go together. Further, taking Mark’s overall chiastic tendencies into consideration, it’s possible Mark has arranged these chapters in a certain unusual and unexpected way. At least for us moderns. When read in accordance with Mark’s writing tendencies I think some of the problems associated with Mk. 13 may disappear.
Thus ends the my brief explanation of my admittedly ‘different’, chiastic, ‘structural’ approach. Perhaps a hard one to swallow. … Part of me agrees. 🙂
Mk. 4:22-23. (a big wink here).
____
I also think the first 2 sub-sections in Mk. 13 should be understood as chiasmi:
http://biblicalchiasmus.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/mark-134-23-the-little-apocalypse/
http://biblicalchiasmus.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/181/
Bondboy,
your sarcasm aside, one reason to think Jesus might have had more complex concepts of the kingdom of heaven is that he told his listeners, it ‘is within you.’ that clearly alludes to something other than a bricks and mortar throne. you cannot be so dogmatic about what Jesus was thinking, or limit his plans to the expectations of the people he was teaching. they very likely expected a revolution in jerusalem; instead he changed the world.
A more correct translation is “The kingdom of God is among you [or in your midst]. And I think that the saying is more complicated than Jesus advocating some internal, feel-good state. What seems to be going on here is that Jesus interpreted his successful healings and exorcisms as proof that the benefits of God’s kingdom are already manifesting. Though you’re right about one thing, Jesus didn’t seem to put much stock in the various revolutionary movements that were popping up in his day, he instead hoped that God would bring about the radical changes himself. This does not mean however, that Jesus basically said, “Don’t do anything, because God will care of it.” He clearly ordered his disciples to do good and help out the lowly and oppressed.
Thank you, Brian. That is the most mis-interpreted phrase the the entire bible. There are more than 100 references to the kingdom in the NT, and that is the only one that can be construed to mean an existential belief system. Yet that outlier of a verse is taken by most people as the best way to define the kingdom. Because it is the only one that meets … wait for it … Christian presuppositions.
Andrew, you list a whole bunch of presuppositions about god and the bible that go into your translation. That is why you will never get it. If you read the book the way you would read anything else, a different meaning would be rather obvious.
Well it’s a certain type of “Chistian” presupposition, there are many varities of Christianity that see the phrase as describing a future, literal kingdom. So it’s not as if that particular saying in Luke is the only place in the NT that suggest that the Kingdom is in some way an internal/spiritual reality. The Gospel of John seems to conflate the present state of the believer with his/her destiny in the coming kingdom, suggesting that eternal life and its benefits are obtainable now, in the present moment. And that’s not all, John is continuing a practice that likely goes back to the earliest days of Christianity itself, which is to interpret the present [and past] in terms of the Kingdom. Take, Mark’s gospel for an example, the language Jesus uses to describe the last days is also applied to his death. Earlier than that is Paul who see’s things similarly.
So while I think that George is wrong to interpret the sayings about the Kingdoms solely on the basis of Luke’s egnimatic phrase, he isn’t without some justification that early Christians believed that while the Kingdom was not yet [it was very, very soon, of course.] they can still taste it’s benefits even before it arrived.
@Bondboy, it’s not entirely clear to me what you believe I do not get. My sense of our interaction so far is that you acknowledged not understanding my logic (which is fair, if you don’t). I offered to explain any questions you might have. (Though, I didn’t think my logic was that elusive. Follow the chain of thought, for example, from Jesus’s crucifixion to his appearance in heaven in Rev 5).
You also pointed out that I shouldn’t take the Kingdom as metaphorical; while I certainly agree, believe you missed my point (I don’t take the Kingdom as metaphorical at all, I take it MORE literal then is generally done).
All of our presuppositions flavour how we see the text (including mine). Pointing that out is a fair comment since it’s true, but that misses the point. The point being generally the text Brian posted about is considered to be difficult or veiled. Therefore there are one of two ways to progress in an evolutionary sense where we fundamentally don’t question our presuppositions but build off what we know, or in a revolutionary sense where we questions our presuppositions (generally this is how knowledge advances). I was suggesting the latter by pointing out two specific presuppositions which I believe are easy targets (but I believe there are others). Namely I believe Jesus’ claim that “no man knows” was true when it said it, but immediately after his ascension and started breaking scrolls was not longer true, since He then knew and obviously started revealing ‘mysteries’ to Paul [Eph 1:9][Eph 3:3-4]. Secondly, the presupposition that generation is ‘temporal’ is an easy target because of the connection it has with related scripture (listed in the above post). (In the second post I addressed the issue of “time of the gentiles” but examining the translation of ἔθνος.
If you believe my presuppositions get in the way of my understanding, I’m open to being shown how. If you believe my exegesis is ‘off’ or the connections I’ve drowned between scripture, again show me. Otherwise it’s not clear (to me) what you are objecting to.
Sorry for the spelling, grammar errors. (drowned = drawn)
Sorry if I’m not getting your points. My bad.
@ Daniel :
Sorry for the delayed response. I was away for a couple days and I lost track of the conversation! I saw your comment today.
As to apocalyptic imagery I think we need to be cautious when appealing to it being literal as you say Loftus and Adams do. Sure, there are those who seem to have seen it as literal, but that doesn’t mean everyone did, and therefore we can’t know 100% as to whether Jesus and/or the Evangelists did. I tend to lean toward the imagery being metaphorical, especially since it is connected to political events, but I am open to other suggestions.
I agree with Stark that a close reading of Matthew and Mark seem to suggest that these two saw no gap in time between the fall of the temple (assuming this is a 70 CE temple, contra futurist). I think Luke sees this and that is why he puts his caveat where he does. Now what we must note here is that this doesn’t end the theological discussion on the matter. It is only a literary observation. Some like Stark may not give Luke’s qualification any attention because it is the third latest gospel and because two earlier gospels do not mention the ‘age of the Gentiles’ (or καιροὶ ἐθνῶν). I see the value of this argument, but Luke does seem to have an apologia in place for the possibility that the temple and the parousia wouldn’t be side-by-side. Admittedly, the Synoptics are sloppy with this discourse in my opinion. As I stated earlier, Jesus’ knowledge of the event is not all that clear or it is at least highly qualified.
When we read the Hebrew prophets we see one event happening right after another in a way that it did not happen. For instance, some of the restoration passages of the Book of Isaiah seem to follow some negative prophecies. Those negative events happened, but the positive one have not. Babylon has come and gone, but Gentiles are not marching to Zion and the knowledge of YHWH does not fill the planet. Did Isaiah and his editors know of this gap? Unlikely. Likewise, Jesus may not have known of the gap or maybe he did say something like we have in Luke.
To summarize: I think Stark is right about the general feel of Matthew and Mark. I think I may disagree with his theological conclusions because I give Luke more clout and I observe that in Hebrew prophecy there are multiple circumstances when it seems like two events immediately follow as the prophecy is given, but this is fact so.
One final note about prophetic pronouncements. There is often a lot of “If A, then B” involved. While I don’t see one in the Olivet Discourse it is something to ponder when we consider Jesus the Jew prophecying in his tradition. Did he provide qualifications? Did A (a particular abomination; a calling of Jerusalem for Messiah) have to happen for B (parousia) to be immediate? We’ll never know.
I used to be a Christian, but now days I agree that these passages are just too hard, and most closely point to a prophet influenced by Jewish apocalyptic literature, who like all Jewish prophets made predictions about the end times that I and any other non-Christian reader would shrug off as culturally interesting but ridiculous in reality. I read Hindu, Egyptian, and Native American prophesies which are equally crazy and I don’t give them a second thought, so that is how I see the failed predictions of this otherwise great prophet.