Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)

The Mark-first scenario doesn't seem that convincing to me here. The
differences in the texts seem marginal, and it seems to me we should
hesitate to attribute a major "mistake" to Jesus based on them. Altogether,
the teaching seems to be that the Kingdom will come in the disciples
lifetime, which it did, though the disciples apparently misunderstood to
some extent what Jesus meant by Kingdom -- the already-not-yet aspect
awaited further development.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:04 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>wrote:

> Attributing the Mt text to Lk would be sloppy, if not worse, even if
> there were no significant difference - but there is. Concentrating on the
> final sentence which is most relevant to the present discussion we have:
>
> Mt: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death
> before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
>
> Lk: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death
> before they see the kingdom of God."
>
> Lk refers only to seeing "the kingdom," not an advent of the Son in that
> kingdom. Thus one could argue that any clear manifestation of the kingdom
> could fulfill the Lukan promise while that would not be the case with Mt.
> (This does not mean that the Lukan text is ignorant of the Son's advent,
> which is mentioned in the preceding verse.)
>
> Mk, OTOH, differs from both. Still with the NIV:
>
> Mk.9:1: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste
> death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
>
> But NIV here is misleading, or at least ambiguous. The Greek that it
> renders "come" is actually a perfect - *eleluthuian*. NRSV translates
> better, "until they see that the kingdom of God has come with [margin, "or
> *in*"] power." While like Lk there's no explicit mention of the Son's
> advent (though again it's in the preceding verse), it is even stronger than
> Mt in having a note of completion.
>
> These differences are consistent with (I do not say "are proof of") the
> following scenario. Mk, as the earliest gospel written before the
> destruction of Jerusalem, has a more or less straightforward statement that
> the kingdom of God will have arrived before some of Jesus' disciples have
> died. Mt & Lk, writing after the destruction of Jerusalem when it seems
> clear that that event didn't usher in the kingdom in its fullness, & making
> use of Mk, have toned down that statement in different ways. Mt, in
> particular, seems to see the Transfiguration, which immediately follows, as
> a fulfillment of Jesus statement in the earlier verse. (Mt likes the
> literary device of chiasmus, kind of bookending a passage with some
> significant word or phrase. In the present case that's done with "Son of
> Man" in 16:28 & 17:9, which thus form a unit.) Mt, in other words, sees the
> "coming" of the Son of Man in his kingdom as a process, of which the
> Transfiguration is a stage.
>
> That all has to do just with what the texts says & not with the questions
> that have been debated here. About those I'll only say the following.
>
> Was Jesus mistaken in this matter? If the Mk text represents his actual
> words, it seems so. But it should be noted that that text doesn't say any
> of the disciples will see the Son of Man having come into his kingdom in a
> full sense.
>
> What about preterism? I will not get into a debate with anyone who accepts
> full preterism because that seems to me like trying to debate a convinced
> solipsist. But I think that a theology of prolepsis, in which the
> resurrection of Christ is a genuine manifestation of God's ultimate future
> for creation, puts a whole different light on this question. For prolepsis
> see the recent book that I've referred to here before, Ted Peters *Anticipating
> Omega* (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006). My review was in the June 2008
> PSCF.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jack Syme <drsyme@verizon.net>
> *To:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2008 8:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>
> Ok Ill bite, I want some details George.
>
> Matthew 16:24-28
> Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must
> deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save
> his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What
> good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his
> soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man
> is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will
> reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth,
> some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of
> Man coming in his kingdom."
>
> Luke 9:23-27
> Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny
> himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to
> save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life me will save it.
> What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit
> his very self? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will
> be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father
> of the holy angels. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will
> not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
>
> NIV
>
> Obviously, two different accounts of the same event. Yes they differ. But
> do they differ in any significant way that would make the clear time
> statement at the end anything other than what it means?
>
> Just saying something is "sloppy" is not an argument worthy of you.
>
> Jack Syme
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:59 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>
> This is terribly sloppy. The texts from Matthew and Luke are *not* the
> same - they differ in significant ways. & both differ from Mark, again in a
> significant way. Details upon request.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jack Syme <drsyme@verizon.net>
> *To:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 18, 2008 7:55 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
> .....................
>
> "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father
> with His angels, and then he will reward each according
> to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some
> standing here, who shall not taste death till they see
> the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:27-28,
> Luke. 9:26-27).
> ..........................
>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.