Wrong answer to the wrong question (was Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ))

Hi Ed,

As a trivial observation: Yes, I have read the inter-testamental literature - thanks very much - but I don't think Jesus' disciples did so I'm pretty sure THEY couldn't have informed themselves by reference to the Qumran literature. :)

But onto more significant matters...

I fear you miss the weight of my objection.

The passages in question - Matt 24:4-35 et passim - are in response to a question which the disciples asked.

And that question - according to the "plain sense" of the text - COULDN'T be about Jesus second coming because the disciples had NO such concept.

So WHATEVER "this generation shall not pass away" refers to, it CAN'T refer to a "second coming" because it ISN'T addressing that question.

I agree that swathes of exegetes have thought it does, but I'm not responsible for them reading their ideas about a post-resurrection return INTO the disciples' question.

As for the question of whether this causes a problem for a theory of inspiration: again, if the context of the question DENIES the idea that it concerns a second coming, then clearly God DIDN'T inspire a "mistake" - what he inspired was a monumental whopper of an ambiguity.

And if your response to questions about THAT is to say "I don't know" then that's probably appropriate. Only, let's not try to find simplicity and clarity where in reality complexity and ambiguity are palpably in evidence. Particularly, let's not pretend there's ENOUGH clarity to construct a logical disproof of synoptic eschatology. It simply doesn't allow of that sort of "solution."

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

Edward T. Babinski wrote:
> Hi Murray,
>
> Thanks for your questions that I repeat below, followed by responses:
>
> Murray's 1st Question: Given the disciples didn't EXPECT Jesus death but considered that Messiah had ALREADY come - how could they understand his predictions about the destruction of the temple in terms of a "second coming"? Indeed, how could their question even relate to such a "second coming" at all?
>
> ANSWER: Some pre-Christian Dead Sea scrolls mention a human figure appointed by God to come and judge the world, the figure being based on an O.T. figure, Melchizedek. Some Dead Sea Scrolls also mentioned a final battle between the sons of light and darkness that would take place within a generation of whenever they were written, and the battle is depicted as involving all the peoples of the world and is centered round Jerusalem. If you haven't studied pre-Christian literature I suggest the book by British theologian Edward Adams. It is possible that Jesus did not see himself as the same "Son of Man" whom he predicts must come since some verses distinquish between the two. Theologians also point out that the phrase son of man could be understood in both the sense of an apocalyptic being coming on clouds, and as a phrase that could be used by anyone to refer to themself in a humble deferential fashion, and that the earliest N.T. Gospel which was composed
> 40 or more years after Jesus' day could have confused the phrases, and confused Jesus with the Son of Man apocalyptic figure whom he had predicted must come to justfiy him and his mission.
>
> Lastly, I do not know nor say whether the little apocalypse in Mark 13 contains the verbatim words of the historical Jesus. They could have been composed by someone living nearer to the time of the actual destruction of Jerusalem or right after it. Josephus mentions a man in the streets of Jerusalem prophecying its destruction who lived quite near the time of the Jewish revolt and Rome's retaliation. And as we also know, some prophets in the O.T. also predicted Jerusalem's fall, so it was itself a possibly recurring theme, especially in times of great empires pressuring the city. There could have been lots of such "prophecies." One such "prophecy" found its way into Mark 13, and then was later edited by Matthew and Luke. But the point is that however it got there, whomever said it, they put the following words in this order:
>
> "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
>
> "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."
>
> That is the content and order of the passages in question. If you believe that chapter in the Bible was inspired, then you are left pondering -- as so many scholars have before you for ages -- why God allowed those words to get "mixed up" with the "destruction of Jerusalem" passages, and also why the words about the Son of man being "seen" coming with "great power and glory," and "angels gathering the elect from all the earth," directly precede verses that speak about it "all" happening within a "generation."
>
> Look at how unmistakable the "coming of the Son of Man" was depicted as being: It would be ["as the lightning shines from the east to the west, lighting up the sky from one side to the other" Mat & Lk]. According to Matthew's little apocalypse [based on Mark, but with edits] Jesus added that "immediately" [Mat 24:29] after this time of tribulation "they will see the Son of Man coming;" and his angels would "gather the elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven" [Luke adds, "when these things begin to take place (including Jerusalem's fall in 70 A.D.), look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near"]. Jesus then spoke of the fig tree (the budding of its leaves tells you summer is near), "when you see these things happening [Matthew says, 'all these things...'], recognize that He is near" [Luke substitutes, "recognize that the kingdom of God is near"]; Matthew & Mark add, "...at the door." Followed by
> the prediction:
>
> Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [Mat 24:34 = Mk 13:30]
>
> Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. [Lk 21:32]
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> Murray's 2nd Question: if Jesus' prophecies about his return at the time of the destruction of the temple "failed" are you saying that such sayings actually WERE prophecies spoken before the event? Or do you hold the view that these were written into the Gospel record AFTER the destruction of the temple? I think you ought to clarify this chronological relationship given its obvious importance to your entire argument.
>
> ANSWER: Please see above answer, where I admit I don't know, and why the questions raised by the text itself and it's plain words are more central.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 22 22:53:08 2008