This post is the third in a series on the so-called “delay of the parousia”. See my previous posts here and here.
Three texts in particular have been used by many scholars to argue not only that Jesus thought the end of the world was “near”, but also that he more boldly set a generational deadline for it. Or, to borrow A. L. Moore’s word, these scholars argue that Jesus “delimited” the parousia within one generation. [1]
The three texts given in support of this notion are:
Mark 9:1: “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”
Mark 13:30: “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
Matthew 10:23: “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
Mark 9:1
In her commentary on Mark, Adela Yabro Collins argues that Mark 9:1 refers to the parousia (the Second Coming of Jesus), and thus those to whom the verse is addressed (“some standing here”) are those who will “live until the coming of the Son of Man”. [2] She points to the perfect participle “has come” (ἐληλυθυῖαν) as signifying the full manifestation of God’s kingdom, the second stage after the kingdom has drawn near (1:15). She also notes that the kingdom’s coming in “power” resembles the language of the coming of the Son of Man described in 13:26 (“with great power and glory”). Both of these points are questionable. The use of ἐληλυθυῖαν need only signify the inauguration of the kingdom, not its completed arrival. Jesus elsewhere describes the kingdom having already come (e.g., Matt. 12:28/Luke 11:20), and the early Christians continued this already-not-yet theme (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:25 [the Messiah is already reigning]). And the while Mark does describe the parousia in terms of “power and glory”, even Paul, writing earlier, could use the same kind of kingdom-and-power language to refer to something that has already occured: “and he was marked out as the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). (The same phrase, ἐν δυνάμει, used). The enthronement scene of Psalm 2:7-8 is alluded to here, and Rom. 1:5 (“to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations”) echoes the language of the Son inheriting the nations and taking the earth for his possession in Psalm 2:8. For this reason N. T. Wright remarks,
Thus, though the word “kingdom” is not explicitly mentioned, the way in which this extract… claims the biblical language of kingship for Jesus and declares that this kingship is “with power” and “for the sake of his name,” already indicates an answer to the question of Mark 9:1: yes, the kingdom of God has already come with power, when Jesus was raised from the dead and began to commission his emissaries to summon the nations to allegiance. [3]
(Wright’s point also weakens Bart Ehrman’s argument that Matthew 16:28 and Luke 9:27 omit the phrase “in power” from Mark 9:1 to soften the imminent expectation implied by it). [4]
What does Mark 9:1 refer to, if not the parousia? I think the standard alternative interpretation, which views the Transfiguration as the (or a) fulfillment of the coming of the kingdom, is correct. All the Synoptic Evangelists for this reason place the event immediately after the saying. Even Dale Allison, who argues that saying in its original context referred to an imminent parousia, concedes that the Evangelists have framed it this way. [5] Collins protests that 9:1 has nothing to do with the Transfiguration, because the verse is connected with the parousia described in 8:38, and the time marker in 9:2 (“after six days”) indicates that a new section. [6] Certainly 9:1 is connected with 8:38. But 9:1 follows the focus on the completed arrival of the kingdom in 8:38 with a focus on the foretaste of that future state in 9:1. In other words, there is a progression in Jesus’s words — “The kingdom of God will come in the future,” Jesus says, “and some standing here will be able to experience its inauguration even now.” As Craig Keener comments,
This verse points to the future glory mentioned in the preceding verses by way of an anticipatory revelation of that glory they are to experience in 9:2-13. Because the future Messiah had already come, the glory of his future kingdom was also already present. [7]
And while Collins is correct that the time marker in 9:2 begins a new scene, by no means does it follow that this new scene can have no thematic continuity with the preceding one. Moreover, Collins herself concedes that 9:1 “is set off from the preceding sayings by the introductory phrase ‘And he said to them’ (καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς).” Could this introductory phrase function as a transition between the theme of final judgment in 8:38 and the Transfiguration scene starting in 9:2?
Mark 13:30
Scholars who see Jesus predicting the end of the world within a generation here have simply misread. The phrase “all these things” does not refer to the parousia (vv. 24-27), only the signs leading up to it (vv. 5-23).
The structure of Mark 13 makes this clear. The disciple’s question in v. 4 pertains to “these things” (πάντα) and “all these things” (ταῦτα… πάντα). [8] This question is followed by Jesus’s answer in vv. 5-23. These verses are held together by an inclusio structure. The πάντα of verse 23 bookends the πάντα of verse 5. The phrase “I have told you all things beforehand” (v. 23) recalls the phrase “Jesus began to say to them” (v. 5). And the exhortation to “be on guard” (v. 23) mirrors the exhortation, “See that no one leads you astray” (the same Greek word is used, βλέπετε). Since vv. 4-23 are bookended by πάντα and ταῦτα… πάντα, it is only natural that ταῦτα πάντα of v. 30 should refer to the material within that section, not to the parousia material in vv. 24-27. [9]
Moreover, the parable of the fig tree in v. 29 should put to rest the idea that ταῦτα πάντα in v. 30 includes the parousia itself. The most natural referent of “all these things” in v. 30 is “these things” in v. 29. And in v. 29, Jesus does not say that the occurrence of “these things” means that the Son of Man is here, but that he is near. Indeed, if v. 30 included the parousia itself within “all these things” it would render v. 29 absurd: “when you see all these things (including the parousia) taking place, you know that the parousia is near, at the very gates”! [10]
George Beasley-Murray also points out that the saying in v. 30 resembles the saying preserved in Matthew 23:36/Luke 11:51. [11]
Matthew: “Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”
Luke: “Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.”
In context, both sayings refer to the doom that it to fall upon Israel for its rejection of God’s messengers. As Beasley-Murray comments, “If Mark recognized this meaning he would have specifically related it to the ruin of the temple and all that is bound up with in within the discourse.” [12] That Mark 13:30 is so close to this logion supports the interpretation already suggested by the structure of the discourse.
Lastly, the interpretation of Mark 13:30 I am putting forward removes a tension with v. 32: “But concerning that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” If one wishes to “harmonize” these two passages by suggesting that Jesus did predict the parousia within his generation without specifying the date more exactly, he is free to do so. But the broadness of time — “day” and “hour” in v. 32 and “time” in v. 33 — fits more naturally if 13:30 only refers to the events of vv. 5-23. Note as well the close relation these verses have with Acts 1:6: “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” [13]
Jesus apparently understood the parousia’s timing to be a matter of God’s providence, and therefore focused more on moral exhortation (Mark 13:33-37) rather than eschatological speculation (cf. Didache 16:1, 2 Clement 12:1 [the time in unknown]; Shepherd of Hermas 9.5.2, Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 45 [it is a matter of God’s providence]).
Matthew 10:23
Matthew 10:23 was the passage which Albert Schweitzer famously called “the first postponement of the parousia.” [14] Anticipating some scholarly interpretations of the passage today, he saw in it a failed prediction on Jesus’s part.
On the other hand, some have suggested that the Son of Man’s coming in Matt. 10:23 is not even eschatological. Witherington, for example, suggests that Matthew could mean “that the disciples shall not have completed the missionary work in Israel that the early Jesus sent them out to do before he rejoins them.” [15] In support of this de-eschatologized interpretation he cites Matt. 11:19 (cf. Luke 7:34), which shows “that Jesus is capable of speaking of his present activities using the phrase ‘Son of Man’ and the verb ‘to come’ in its more common sense.” [16] He also points out that Matt 10:23 lacks any mention of the stock parousia imagery — angels, clouds, etc..
Another interpretation sees the Son of Man’s coming as fulfilled, or at least partially fulfilled, in the resurrection. This is the view, for example, of Leopold Sabourin. [17] In Matthew 10, Jesus sends out the disciples to preach the good news only to the towns of Israel. “Go nowhere among the Gentiles [ἐθνῶν] and enter no town of the Samaritans,” Jesus says, “but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:5-6). But this temporary command is exactly reversed at the end of the Gospel:
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations [πάντα τὰ ἔθνη], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. (28:18-20)
Jesus now commands his disciples to evangelize to the “nations” (or “Gentiles”); before he told them not to. And Jesus in this passage tells us what accounts for this reversal: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matthew’s language here is an allusion what is said about the “son of man” in Daniel 7:14. (Compare Matthew’s Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς to Daniel’s καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς.) Thus Matthew shows his readers that the Son of Man’s “coming” in 26:64 was inaugurated in Jesus’s resurrection.
Yet one more interpretation holds that in Matt. 10:23 Jesus is not cutting short the disciples’ mission but describing a continued mission. A. L. Moore notes the composite structure of the discourse:
10:5-15: The immediate mission of the disciples, limited to the towns of Israel (v. 5).
10:16-23: A more general mission to the disciples, where a Gentile mission is implied (v. 18). Matthew has transferred most of these sayings from the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13.
10:26-42: Various sayings of Jesus.
It is also notable that each section ends with ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (“truly, I say to you”; v. 15, 23, 42). [18]
Moore then points out that the saying in v. 23 must be interpreted within the more widespread mission of vv. 16-23, not the immediate mission of the disciples in vv. 5-15. This frees verse 23 from a having a delimited meaning — “V. 23b is neutral in respect of the duration of the work involved, simply affirming that it will not be completed before the parousia; and if v. 23a is understood in connection with v. 23b and the entire mission charge, this too is undelimited.” [19]
Stephen Witmer similarly argues for this view, noting that a) Matt. 10:16-22 describes an “extended period of time”, with the mention of the disciples before governors and kings, b) Jesus’s command not to go among the Gentiles in 10:5 contradicts his claim that they will bear witness before Gentiles in 10:18, indicating “that 10:16-22 refers to events beyond the immediate trip the twelve will make”; and c) Matthew omits the return of Twelve as found in Mark 6:30. [20]
Of these options, Sabourin’s view and Moore’s view are best. I do see an eschatological meaning in the “coming” of the Son of Man here, contra Witherington’s suggestion. Sabourin’s view requires that vv. 5-23 be intended to portray one extended mission, limited to the towns of Israel, and that Matthew overlooked the discrepancy between v. 5 and v. 18. This, of course, is possible. But Moore’s view irons out this difficulty.
In any case, Schweitzer’s insistence that the saying of Jesus in Matt. 10:23 is a false prophecy and represents the “first postponement of the parousia” is weak.
Notes
[1] A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966).
[2] Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary. Ed. Harold W. Attridge. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007) 412-413 (quotation from 413).
[3] Wright, N. T. “Hope Deferred? Against the Dogma of Delay.” Early Christianity 9 (2018): 58-59.
[4] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) 130, calling this difference “huge”.
[5] Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 168.
[6] Collins, Mark, 412.
[7] Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Second Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: Baker Academic, 2014) 149.
[8] It is not clear what to make of Mark’s two questions. Matthew more clearly separates the two, with the first pertaining to the temple destruction and the second pertaining to the end of the age (24:3). Robert Stein, Jesus, the Temple and the Coming Son of Man. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014) 64-69, argues that both questions in Mark refer to the temple destruction, and cites 11:28 as a parallel. Edward Adams, “The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel.” Tyndale Bulletin 56.2 (2005): 55, argues that the second question in Mark alludes to Daniel 12:6-7 and therefore refers to the final consummation.
[9] For this the argument for this inclusio, see Stein, Jesus, 67, 72. Cf. Ben Witherington III, Jesus, Paul and End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 42-43, who similarly argues that the phrase “these things” characterizes vv. 5-23, as opposed to “those days”, which characterizes the parousia material. Therefore, he argues, Mark 13:30 (when you see “these things”) refers to material in vv. 5-23. See also C. E. B. Cranfield, “St. Mark 13.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6.3 (1953): 291.
[10] Stein, Jesus, 123-124.
[11] George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. (Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing, 1993) 447-448.
[12] Ibid., 448.
[13] Thanks to Jason Engwer for making this connection.
[14] Albert Schweizter, “The Solution of Thoroughgoing Eschatology.” Pages 6-49 in. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research, ed. James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight. (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005).
[15] Witherington, End of the World, 40-41 (quotation from 41).
[16] Ibid., 41.
[17] Leopold Sabourin, “‘You Will Not Have Gone Through All the Towns of Israel, Before the Son of Man Comes’ (Mat 10:23b).” Biblical Theology Bulletin 7.1 (1977): 5-11.
[18] Moore, Parousia, 143-144, see esp. n. 3.
[19] Ibid., 145.
[20] Stephen Witmer, “Keeping Eschatology and Ethics Together:
The Teaching of Jesus, the Work of Albert Schweitzer, and the Task of Evangelical Pastor-Theologians.” Themelios 39.3 (2014): 494.
No comments:
Post a Comment