I’ve been thinking a bit more about Mark 13 since I posted on it a few days ago (see “The ‘delayed parousia’ of Mark 13”). Two brief thoughts came to mind.
(1) For those who maintain a futurist position what justification do we have in reading the whole passage as about some future temple considering Jesus was pointing to the one present at the time and he was telling his disciples that they would see it fall. I don’t buy that this was figurative and that there must be some eschatological temple. It doesn’t make sense of the narrative. It doesn’t make sense of Matthew or Luke either, especially Luke’s additional statements about the age/time of the Gentiles/nations.
(2) For those who maintain this passage refers to a failed prophecy of Jesus why would Jesus be speaking of a coming as the Son of Man? Did he envision an ascent into heaven allowing him to become a Daniel 7 figure? Most who postulate that Jesus gave a false prophecy regarding his parousia would doubt that he spoke of his resurrection in any meaningful way, so what context do we have for his appearance in the sky?
I’m thinking out loud here.
the archives near Emmaus 
The Son of Man issue is probably the most complicated issue in NT studies and it is likely that we’ll never come to a consensus regaurding it’s original meaning. But we can take several paths, the first is that Jesus originally refered to somebody else. The second is that Jesus invisioned that he had a heavenly counterpart [as Dale Allison suggested], this rather bizzare theory is supported by some varities of angelology that were floating around back then, as well as the idea that Jesus had a twin in some of the apocryphal gospels. Third, the Danelic imagery was a product of the early church. And much, much more.
As for how Jesus spoke about his death, that too, is another complicated issue. I’m inclined to think that Jesus saw his death as nessecary and expected in some way. I won’t go as far as Casey in saying that those passion predictions are historical in the sense that Jesus had a clear map of his future right down to the detail about rising on the third day. But those like Crossan who see Jesus’ death as surprising even him, aren’t very convincing. Since they fail to adequately explain the huge amount of texts related to suffering, which to me only make sense if they have their basis in the words, life, and ministry of Jesus. So with regaurds to his resurrection, I would argue for a more conserative [by which I mean reserved, not bold] conclusion, Jesus expected vindication but only at the final judgement, I seriously doubt that he expected to rise on the third day, since that wouldn’t have made much sense in his cultural context. I am aware that early Christians used scripture as proof of Jesus’ messiahship but I think that Mark Goodacre is correct in saying that the reason for doing this is because they were expressing their community’s memories in the language of scripture.
Regarding option (2), Jesus’ confession before the high priest in Mark 14:62 seems to suggest that he saw himself as a descending Son of Man. Moreover, the response that comment elicits would also suggest that Jesus’ contemporaries understood his claims in that “high” sense.
As far as the “most” who “doubt that he spoke of his resurrection in a meaningful way,” there is a lot of interpretive room between the positions of “the Jesus of history never spoke of his resurrection, these are all early church interpolations” and “Jesus predicted his resurrection on the third day because he could foresee future events.” It doesn’t seem out of bounds to understand him speaking with confident hope, based on what he had seen God do through him in his lifetime. Is there anything in Mark that suggests Jesus understood himself as anything other than the Son of Man?
Also thinking out loud.
Brian, do you believe it must be one of the above two options? (It’s not clear if you are presenting a false dichotomy or are paying little attention to other interpretations.)
Are you aware that one need not necessarily see it in a futurist sense or as a failed prophecy?
Brian: These are two complicated matters. One reason I note the Son of Man tradition is because it seems odd to me that many who would see Jesus saying something about the Son of Man coming in the sky seem to take Jesus’ words at face value as it has been interpreted over time. In other words, Jesus expected to appear as a vindicated ruler as Jerusalem met it’s fate. It isn’t clear to me why they allow for that while denying many of the other odd and exalted things Jesus is said to have said about himself like some that you mentioned.
Joe: I think Mark does frame Jesus as having that self-understanding. In your first paragraph are you suggesting that he may have seen himself as already enacting the descent of the Son of Man?
Andrew: It isn’t a dichotomy. I am asking questions to those who hold one of these two approaches to the passage.
@Brian thanks for the clarification. Others may be in neither category that you are asking about, which is why the question was posed. For example, one might argue that the parousia is neither; that there are 2 phases to Daniels visions, the first phase, better understood than the second, historical, and the second phase (the parousia) ongoing.
For example [Dan 7:17] makes it clear that the four beasts are 4 kingdoms, but Nebuchadnezzar’s vision included 6 descriptions (not 4), of which, only the first four are attended to.
-=-=-=- PHASE 1 (let’s say the first 1260 days)
The four beasts of Daniel 7, covering a set period are:
1. Lion, with eagle’s wings who stood as a man [Dan 7:3] –> Babylonian Empire
2. Bear, with ribs in its mouth [Dan 7:5] –> Medo-Persian Empire
3. Leopard, with four wings and four heads [Dan 7:6] –> Greek Empire under Alexander the Great and four generals
4. 4th Beast, dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong with iron teeth [Dan 7:7] –> Roman Empire
What’s interesting about the Lion’s association with Babylon is that Babylon own symbol associated itself with the lion (Google Image: Babylonian Lion).
Also, compare Alexander the Great’s conquest to India with the the “Amazon & Skythian War of Dionysos” or the “Indian War of Dionysos” (Google Image: “Dionysus Riding a Leopard”?)
Notice also that the Prophet Jeremiah [Lam 3:10] portrayed Babylon as a Lion and Medo-Persia as a Bear, and that Daniel was aware of Jeremiah’s writings on the matter [Dan 9:2]. Thus Daniel was not the only one who made these associations.
However, Nebuchadnezzar’s description of these same empires in the ‘great image’ [Dan 2:31] extends the vision beyond these first four symbols. The statue includes the above vision of 4 empires as follows:
1. “Head was of fine gold “[Dan 2:32] – Babylonian Empire
2. “.. breast and his arms of silver ..” [Dan 2:32] – Medo-Persia Empire
3. “..belly and his thighs of brass ..” [Dan 2:32] – Grecian Empire
4. “His legs of iron .. ” [Dan 2:33] – Roman Empire
-=-=-=- PHASE 2 (the next 1260 days)
But then Daniel adds these details which were included in the origin, but often get overlooked:
5. “.. his feet part of iron and part of clay” [Dan 2:33]
The iron is the Roman Empire, but the clay is a metaphor for Israel [Isa 29:15-16][Isa 64:8][Isa 41:25][Isa 29:16] (also Jeremiah thought so too [Jer 18:4,6]). However, Israel at the time of the last beast, the time of the ‘new covenant’ would not be Israel recognized by history able to recognize itself, rather it would be Israel unrecognised in History [Isa 43:14-19][Isa 47:7][Isa 54:4][Lam 1:9][Isa 49:15][Isa 65:11,17][Jer 2:32][Jer 23:27] unable to recognize themselves, i.e. “would not know it”, names a ‘new name’ by God Himself [Isa 62:2,22].
Therefore 5. is the Empire of Iron (Rome) mixed with the empire of Clay (Israel)
5. “.. his feet part of iron and part of clay” [Dan 2:33] – Empire of Iron mixed with the Empire of Clay
Note also, that this was likely already the case as of the writing of the Bible. Galatia, after all, received its name from the Hebrew word “גלה” (galah – H1540) meaning exile [Gal 6:16]
[Isa 51:14-16] says (Looking ahead) – “The captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed, and that he should not die in the pit, nor that his bread should fail.”
This is when the Roman Empire falls, but that’s not all for [Dan 2:34-35] goes on to say:
6. “.. stone cut out by no human hand ..” which strikes the feet of iron and clay destroying the ‘great image’ by dispersing the iron, clay, bronze, silver and gold.
[Dan 2:34-25 says: “As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”
This vision was about Empires, nations, kingdoms, and super-powers, not about individual people. Certainly, Christ as the ‘chief cornerstone’ [Mark 12:10][Eph 2:20][Luke 20:17-18][Acts 4:11] was responsible the destruction of the fourth beast (which also occurred just after he was crucified). However, this thing that grew to be a mountain, “the Kingdom” (whose identity no one seems to recognize in history), consists of the living stones made in the image of Christ [1 Peter 2:4-5], built on the foundation of Christ [1 Cor 3:11][Heb 11:10]. God’s prophecy is throughout ‘all time’, not just ‘some time’ because God has written the end from the beginning and everything in-between [Isa 46:10][Ecc 3:11].
Thus the “this generation” of [Mark 13:30] is the same as the stone that struck the image which became a great mountain. The “this generation” is every generation included in the growth of the mountain from Christ onwards, which fills the whole earth.
Looking for one single generation, amongst many, misses the point that this is a process. God is not confined to time, man is. Thus man looks for fulfilment in time instances, rather than across time as branches of a tree, or threads.
Thus, the parousia could be a process, beginning in the past, ‘still taking place’, and continuing into the future until the Kingdom has been sanctified (just as individuals are). This view does not quite fit into the 2 categories you queried above; it is not quite the futurist position, and certainly not a failed prophecy.
Andrew
That may be a solution of sorts.
Here’s what I don’t understand, on the assumption that the Son of Man sayings go back to Jesus it’s perfectly clear that the synoptic evangelists all thought that when Jesus spoke of the Son of Man that he was referring to himself as an individual. Now either they are right or they are wrong, but if the latter is the case then it means that our earliest interpreters of the Jesus tradition, who are also our earliest witnesses to that tradition and the primary source for the Son of Man sayings, misunderstood Jesus on this point, in which case why should we expect to be able to recover what Jesus really meant when he spoke of the Son of Man? In short, it seems to me that either the evangelists interpreted Jesus rightly on this point or we have forever lost his own understanding of what he meant by his references to the Son of Man.
NW : You are correct in this observation. I think the Son of Man sayings are authentic, especially because of how unique they are to Jesus and how little they were used by the later church (in other words, it wasn’t a title the church would have invented).
But still, some interpretations of the Son of Man traditions allow for both understandings of the title to go back to Jesus. I’m of course talking about the heavenly counterpart interpretation as proposed by Allison. Though the implications you outlined are correct, though only to some extent, if our earliest witnesses misunderstood Jesus on that part, it is unlikely that we will ever know what Jesus meant by the phrase ‘Son of Man’. On the other hand, the saying tradition is rather diverse and we can possibly sort out which sayings are more authentic or representative of Jesus’ own thought than others using the tools of critical scholarship.
But one problem I would like to point of with my qualification is that in the end it might not prove so helpful since religious language is often ‘poetic’ in the sense that it isn’t always coherent, a good example of how this is so is the diverse descriptions of the afterlife in Jesus’ teaching and in the early church. In some cases, we have a resurrection in others we have a typical depiction of heaven/hell, and etc. So, the fact that these sayings are so diverse and at times contradictory might not be the best criteria to sort out where they originated from. The best we can do is consider their prelevance in our source material and give a general explaination on how they got there.
Brian: I am unfamiliar with Allison’s overall argument, but you’ve peaked my interest. I will have to look into it. You are correct that we are unlikely to reconstruct Jesus’ exact meaning which leaves us with the evangelists themselves.
WRT the ‘son of man’ comment possibly being never understood; Jesus used this phrase from the OT (i.e. [Dan 7:13]) and it was familiar to his audience. Jesus expected his followers to understand him, so it’s unlikely he would have used something unobtainable to them. We should be able to understand it’s meaning by seeing how it’s used in the OT.
In every case (in the OT), it is either referencing the Messiah directly (such as in [Dan 7:13]) or it is addressing a human prophet (who you could say was reflecting the image of the Messiah).
Addressing the messiah, [Dan 7:13] says
“..there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him” [Dan 7:13]
Likewise, [Isa 51:12] says “I, I am he who comforts you; who are you that you are afraid of man who dies, of the son of man who is made like grass”
[Notice the parallel here with the two great commandments, to love God (represented as Messiah) and to love the image of God (i.e. your neighbour as the image of the Messiah) [Gen 9:6]]. An example here would be:
“Son of man, have you seen this?” addressing Ezekiel [Eze 47:6].
“Son of man, mark well, see with your eyes …” [Eze 44:5]
“As for you son of man, describe to the house of Israel …” [Eze 43:10]
The same expression also appears in Job where this argument ‘seems weaker’. Even so, it can still be argued it is true here too. Notice the expression appears in the famous argument where Job is essentially asking for someone to mediate between him (Job) and God? (So it too is Messianic):
Summarizing [Job 9], [Job 16:19-21] says: “… behold my witness is in heavean, and he who testifies for me is on high. My friend scorn me; my eye pours out tears to God, that he (God) would argue the case of a man with God, as a son of man does with his neighbour.” (The other two Job verses are similarly messianic).
It’s true that some books in the bible are ‘poetic’ but that’s not true of all books. Prophecy is considered its own literary style (not poetic) even if it contains prophetic language (which isn’t the same as poetic). Even in the OT this is true.
I don’t know Allison, and I’ve not read him, but it’s hard to image a biblical scholar copping out like this (if I understand the argument being credited to him). Perhaps if Allison doesn’t understand the expression, it’s because he hasn’t searched it out.
I explained already what I meant by poetic, which was my way of saying that the imagery being used isn’t coherent. I showed this by giving several examples on the diverse expressions used to describe afterlife in the ancient world, and especially Israel. So when Jesus spoke of ‘the son of man’ he probably wasn’t trying to give a systematic interpretation of the phrase, he uses it in many different ways, some of which are conflicting.
As for the Danelic figure, it isn’t at all clear whether or not this passage is messianic, it could be, but to say that it is “clearly” about the messiah isn’t very convincing. As for Job, I’m not sure how the passage in question relates to any of this, but Job isn’t really a messianic work, since it was written prior to when most of speculation reguarding the identity and role of messiah had begun to take hold in Jewish thought.
As for Dale Allison, you should check out his work, since I’m using many of his arguments in my interpretation of Mark 13. Though I would caution that the literature being discuss goes beyond the Bible, you also have to consider text like 4 Ezra, Enoch, along with many of those apocryphal gospels, and etc
@ (other) Brian
Now that you point that out, I see you qualified it, so fair enough.
WRT Job, have you read Job 9 (which [Job 16:19-21] briefly summarizes)? Job is essentially saying no one can be found in the right before God because God is so unlike man no one can contend [Job 9:3] (or make his case) with God (or before God).
He further concludes that to make his case before God, even …
“If I wash myself with snow and cleanse my hands with lye, yet you will plunge me into a pit, and my own clothes will abhor me. For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. THERE IS NO ARBITER BETWEEN US, who might lay his hand on us both.” [Job 9:30-33]
Job is simply seeking a moderator who will represent his case before God such that he can stand in God’s presence without fear [Job 9:34-35].
Do you not see the messianic relevance here, given that Jesus IS that arbiter? Can you not see Job asking for a messiah in his arguments?
(Dale Allison eh? Perhaps I will. I don’t mind books such as the Book of Enoch, Jubilees and the like)
Leport, your interest was “piqued,” not peaked. This is an academic site!
I’m in the camp of: if Jesus did indeed say this, he was addressing the people to whom he was speaking. He probably did no more than lay out the understanding of Daniel, that the Son of Man, who would be some type of agent for God (not necessarily the Messiah, which in any event was to Jews different than Christians imagine), would usher in the physical kingdom of god on earth.
Andrew, you are really reaching trying to connect a messiah in Job. It is just not there.
Nw, it is not clear that Jesus thought he was the son of man, or if he did, what he meant by that. It is very doubtful that it meant “divine member of the godhead” to anybody in the first century.
@Bond:
True, true….but as you know it is an academic “blog” and therefore no editors. 🙂
So you’d see Jesus as saying the temple will fall and at that time the Son of Man from Daniel will return, but he didn’t self-identify with the Son of Man? Is this similar to the other Brian’s reference from Allison’s view?
Bondboy,
My point is that the synoptic evangelists clearly interpreted the expression “Son of Man” as referring to the person of Jesus and that not only is their interpretation the most likely to be that of the historical Jesus (on the assumption of continuity) but also that no other interpretation can be credibly gleaned from our sources if in fact the evangelists were mistaken on this point.
For my part, I share Allison’s view that what we can most credibly ascribe to the historical Jesus come in the form of broad generalizations that are independently shared across the tradition that we find in the NT and that any attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus on the basis of identifying quasi-virginal logia that go back to the historical Jesus is misguided. Allison’s main argument is that if our earliest and best sources have misinterpreted Jesus on a particular point then it’s likely that the truth of the historical Jesus on that point cannot be reconstructed as the criteria used by historical criticism for performing the necessary surgery on our sources isn’t up to the task.
Bondboy,
“Nw, it is not clear that Jesus thought he was the son of man, or if he did, what he meant by that.”
If, as I believe, Jesus thought himself to be the Son of Man, then the question of how he understood himself to be the Son of Man can only be resolved (in my opinion) by somehow determining how he envisioned the coming of the kingdom of God and what he understood to be his own role in that process.
“It is very doubtful that it meant ‘divine member of the godhead’ to anybody in the first century.”
Agreed.
For the record, I should state that I’m much more confident in the historical reliability of our sources within the NT than the current zeitgeist of modern criticism would allow.
Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh but I can’t help but feel that the vast majority of what’s been published in the field of NT criticism is rubbish, the tremendous cultural significance that the NT has for Western culture has greatly distorted the critical faculties of those who study in this field. Between the piety of the more conservative researchers and the hostility of their non-conservative counterparts I dare say there aren’t but a handful of researchers whom you can trust to keep their prejudices under control (e.g. Allison, Bauckham). How can conservative researchers expect me to take them seriously when they can’t (for the most part) admit that 2 Peter wasn’t written by Peter and the same goes for the non-conservative researchers who think almost half of the Pauline corpus in the NT wasn’t written by Paul? Ridiculous!
While I agree with Allison that broad generalizations are more useful than idenfiying quasi-virginal logia, I don’t think that we should abandon the classical criteria as he suggested [or implied]. Form and redaction criticism have taught us much and although they remain more “agnostic” on how much we can know about Jesus, they can help us idenify certain developments that took place in the Jesus tradition.
And I think you’re right NW, if we are going to reconstruct what the title the son of man meant, we should first try to interpret it in light of how Jesus saw his mission and how he conceptualized ‘the Kingdom of God’. Other methods, such as reconstructing the title’s meaning on philological grounds, while useful, seem to overlook the big picture in favor of focusing smaller details.
Though, I wonder if we can make use of the work of James Mcgrath et al, in analyizing how the evangelist conceptualized ‘divine agency’. Perhaps Jesus saw that as God’s eschatological agent he would later take on the role of the eschatological ‘son of man’ when the Kingdom arrived?
@NW, you wrote “Perhaps I’m being a bit harsh but I can’t help but feel that the vast majority of what’s been published in the field of NT criticism is rubbish ….”
You’re not being harsh. Welcome to the post-modernest world, where scepticism reigns, and all ideas have equal worth.
Brian,
“Perhaps Jesus saw that as God’s eschatological agent he would later take on the role of the eschatological ‘son of man’ when the Kingdom arrived?”
I think so, but demonstrating that is nontrivial.
Andrew T,
“You’re not being harsh. Welcome to the post-modernest world, where scepticism reigns, and all ideas have equal worth.”
I think the main problem has been the overall lack of critical scholarship on the part of the church in its attempt to the understand the NT. They (we) got too comfortable with their (our) dogmatic/ecclesiastical readings of Scripture and left ourselves wide open to the assault of modern criticism.
Brian,
For the record, I still like the criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment when properly employed, but they can only operate at the level of blunt instruments in our attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus in my opinion. On the other hand, I think dissimilarity should be abandoned, we simply don’t know enough about the period to confidently state whether something is dissimilar to pre-Christian Judiasm and/or to the church pre-70 in too many cases to confidently wield it as part of an argument.
In my opinion, the most interesting questions are all theological/literary. Forget about the historical Jesus, what kind of story is the NT trying to tell about the character we find in the gospels? There’s very little consensus about that and such a resolution would go a long way in allowing us to answer more historical questions.
Brian,
Sorry for spamming your blog, perhaps I had too much coffee this morning…
NW: No worries, comment on! By the way, to avoid confusion, the “Brian” who is frequently commenting is not the same as me, the one who manages this blog.
@NT, I was painting ‘post-modernism’ with broad brush strokes, and exaggerating slightly, for effect.
Frankly, I have no blunt objections to examining things critically, and certainly agree that dogmatic orthodoxies built up from ecclesiastical tradition (as opposed to true scriptural doctrines) entrench wrong thinking.
I was trying to make the point – mixed in with the good is the bad; I’m talking about academic syncretism mixed in with this draught of ‘reasonable’ criticism make for an intoxicating elixir.
Your comments remind me of a book I read by Luke Timothy Johnson, and I’m inclined to agree. I think in the end the more exciting issues are related to the narrative of the piece and it’s theological value. Historical-criticism for me is a means to an end. Though I must admit, I take great pleasure in thinking about the various issues in the feild, such as the son of man issue and the synoptic problem. Though I have several qualifications, one of the them is that studying the historical Jesus can help us better understand the world in which he lived, it is my opinion that allowing these issues to inform our faith is better than ignoring them and imposing our own convictions onto the text.
Now when I say that, I mean we should try to take into consideration what these scholars are telling us, not abandon the object of our faith in favor of the many reconstructions that are frequently modified and overturned.
Brian LePort,
Thank you
Brian,
Agreed.
@Brian (other), although I don’t disagree with your comments above, should point out the boundary conditions even there, of understandings based upon historical-criticism.
If we understand the bible based upon historical-criticisms, than all we’ve done is shift the source of error from a biblical hermeneutic onto historical-criticism. If we misunderstand history (and I would certainly argue, often we do), we are just as prone to wrong thinking.
It’s the 3 blind men and the elephant all over again, where one is seeing historical criticism, another scriptural hermeneutics and the third theological traditions. The best understanding comes from the objective norm of each of those disciplines (and others) when considered together.
Well it’s not like I think historical criticism is the only proper way to understand Scripture, I use it a lot because it’s my hobby and hopefully my future profession.
I would highly recommend the writings of the Church fathers, midieval theologians, and any other brilliant thinker. But that’s why I made that qualification, we shouldn’t commit ourselves to any one reconstruction because often times they are modified as new evidence comes along. But we can’t pretend as if it doesn’t exist, and say “since this reconstruction is only a probability, I can safely ignore it.”, The most responsible thing we can do is consider what the scholars are telling us and use them to inform our faith and even challenge it if it is necessary.
Brian Leport: To answer your question, there are places in the NT in which Jesus seems to identify himself as Son of Man and others in which it seems he is referring to the title as someone else.
I’m just a layperson and haven’t studied in depth, but if I had to guess I’d say that he used the term much the way it was used at the time. And if I had to guess what that was, it would refer to an “agent” of god (prophet or king or something like that) who would carry out YHWH’s will and serve as leader in the newly established theocracy that was contemplated by the OT prophets.If Jesus had used the term differently, I beieve it would have immediately raised questions that are not in the text, assuming it is an accurate representation of events.
I do have some doubt whether Jesus predicted the temple would fall. I understand the coming kingdom was a theme based on the interpretation of the prophets, but the kingdom established by YHWH (which meant Israel’s triumph over the world) kind of contradicts the idea of a destroyed temple (which implies the world triumphing over Israel).
@bondboy, the (actual) ‘temple falling’ was a consequence of the (metaphorical) temple falling (dying).
Rome’s conquest of Jerusalem would be the (actual) instrument of the temple’s destruction and the ending of the daily animal sacrifice. However, the falling of the temple can be seen to be a consequence of the fact that God’s ordained high priest [Heb 2:7][Heb 5:5] sacrificed the perfect atonement lamb [Heb 7:27], both removing the need for animal sacrifices and establishing our bodies as God’s (Holy) temple [1 Cor 6:19-20][1 Cor 3:16-17]. Therefore, Christ’s final atonement meant there would no longer be a need for either, a physical temple or animal sacrifices.
Jesus knew (from Daniel 2:35]) that Rome was to be the final empire to inherited Babylon’s legacy. Jesus spoke of himself as the’stone of stumbling’ [Rom 9:32-33] and that ‘rock of offence’ [1 Peter 2:8] prophesied by Isaiah in [Isa 8:14] (and throughout [Daniel 2]) that would come to strike the Babylonian image, to shattering it, then grow into a mountain that would fill the whole earth.
Whether he was intending to speak of his body or not, in addressing the temple (that was his body), Christ would equally have been addressing the actual temple since they were related.
@Bond: So rather than the Son of Man being a particular individual you think it is more or less a title for an agent of God (maybe derived from Daniel 7) that Jesus sometimes used to speak of his own role and sometimes of another individual (angel?)?
Jesus prediction of the temple seems authentic to me because the Evangelists all seem intent on mentioning it as if this would be one way that Jesus would be vindicated. Of course, it is possible that it evolved as a polemic against those who denied Jesus as Messiah after his death/resurrection, but I don’t have a problem with it’s overall authenticity.
I don’t think we should use John’s eschatology to interpret the eschatology of the synoptics. And even if your use of Paul’s writings is correct, it would only add further support to the idea that early Christians gradually conflated the ministry of Jesus with the future eschaton, ultimately accumilating in applying eschatological language to the crucifixion.
My own guess is that if Jesus had some beef with the temple heirarchy, than it is understandable that he would cast judgement on them for turning God’s house into a “den of theives”.
It is also important to remember that tribulation and reversal are reoccuring elements in Jewish eschatology, so while the idea of the temple being destroyed might seem like a defeat, in the overall narrative it is but a part of the end-time drama and is soon [very soon] to be followed by with the ultimate triumph at the end.
Leport, yes I think Son of Man is a title rather than an individual, and I think Daniel is the model. I assume that Jesus used the term consistently, but I think that he was quoted in different ways depending on the author.
AndrewT, you read these words through Christian apologetics and I don’t.
Jews wanted independence as all people do, but they didn’t have the strength to break free from Rome. Yet many Jews thought that god would intervene as was promised by the prophets. Daniel’s book provided a timeline that led right to the age when Jesus and John the Baptiser were active. The holy writings were going to be fulfilled in that day!
This belief was manifested in a bunch of ways. Some took to open rebellion (zealots, sicari), some withdrew waiting for the end (Essenses and others), some joined apocalyptic movements (example; following Jesus and John). That all led to a boiling point in which Rome sent an army that sacked the temple. It wasn’t divine judgement, it was the natural course of events. The temple fell because Rome had a bigger army and that’s what the Romans did to people that tried to buck Roman rule.
The destruction put a wall between Jews and the Jews who followed Jesus, who until that time had worshipped in the temples along with every other Jew. Why had the prophecies seemingly failed? The followers of Jesus could now blame the temple’s destruction on obstinate Jews who refused to see Jesus as the messiah. So I think Brian Leport is right that the prophecy evolved as a polemic.
If Jesus and his followers had predicted the destruction of the temple, there is no way they could have worshipped there for decades without trouble. Remember the leader of the Jesus movement was also a leader in the Jerusalem temple. If he had forecast the temple destruction, even remebering the words of his brother, it would have caused a riot.
Ugh, Essenes, not Essenses.
I don’t think it’s that simple, even the Essenes who thought that the temple cult was corrupt and/or worshipping God the wrong way still participated in it’s liturgy. So with that aside, I don’t see why the Early Christians couldn’t have worshipped at the Temple while believing that it was destined to be replaced by a new one at the eschaton.
Though I will have to consider your point about James, if he believed that the temple was to be replaced by a new one as Jesus did, then my reconstruction might face some difficulties. I agree with scholars like Paula Fredricksen in saying that Jesus was crucified because his teachings about the Kingdom of God drew unfortunate implications for people like Caiphas and Pilate, and his actions at the temple were a prophetic enactment of it’s destruction. So if James continued to believe in a concept that got Jesus crucified, then I seriously doubt that he would have been able to comfortably lead the Church in Jerusalem, though to tell the truth, we don’t know much about the Jerusalem church, so we can’t really talk about how “comfortable” he was.
Brian, James was nicknamed “James the Just,” and he was lionized by contemporaries almost as much as his brother. When he was killed at the behest of the high priest Caiaphas (grandson of the one who presided over the trial of Jesus) in 62 AD, a delegation of leading Jews went to Rome to protest and had Caiaphas removed. Some ancient writings attribute the destruction of the temple to god’s judgement for Jews who killed James. Yes, James. Does that sound comfortable?
There have been some good books written on James.
Well as I said, there might be a few difficulties in attributing the prophecy of the temple’s destruction to Jesus. Though you can say that because of his popularity, the religious leaders were relucant to kill James until later. Plus, it would seem that the common people were unhappy with the temple leader’s collaboration with Rome and thus welcomed the idea that God would usher in his kingly rule and replace those leaders. But, all in all this is notoriously difficult territory and John Meier didn’t call the crucifixion one of the four enigma’s for nothing.
Anyway, one final comment before I wrap this up, we have to have an overarching theory to explain Jesus’ death and the fact that his followers were able to do things like evangelize and worship at the temple without much difficulty [which again is a debated thing.]
@bondboy – I’ve not heard that a delegation went outside to Rome to protest the death of James by seeking to have Caiaphas removed.
However, I have heard that a delegation of citizens were outraged and (internally) sent to King Agrippa to have Ananus the Sadducee, responsible for the persecution of James, removed as high priest.
The source of this story is Josephus himself. If you have a source for your version of the story, I’d be keen to hear it. In either case, Josephus’ account of the death of James makes it clear James was targeted because of his connection to Jesus. Jesus’s death and resurrection were at the heart of James’ death.
Without Christ there would have been no ‘death of James’ and no delegation. Even if what you say is true, Christ not James, would have been the efficient cause.
If Darby hadn’t dreamed up the current dispensationalist ideas, we wouldn’t have this debate. Before 1870 AD, I don’t think you can find much Christian writing indicating anything but what the early Church believed about this issue.
They saw 70 AD as the fulfillment of this specific “coming in the clouds” statement Jesus used in Caiaphas’ presence and as vindication for Jesus and those who believed He is Messiah. It’s a recent thing we’ve come to discussing this as if it could be about thousands of years later.
There’s an awesome book called, “The Destruction of Jerusalem” written in 1803 and the author had never in that day imagined we’d be arguing about this. Those folks knew 70 AD was what Jesus was discussing.
Heck, Jesus made 2 statements earlier about this, one was some people hearing Him would see these events and one where He said all the villages of Israel wouldn’t yet be visited before “I come again”. He meant in judgment on Jerusalem, IMO. If He meant otherwise, we have to assume some villages in Israel still haven’t been visited by the 12 and some of them are still alive.
I think Jesus was speaking to His listeners and about His era personally. All the modernist Darby stuff is invalid, IMO.