Is the concensus on this board that this was a no show in the Apostolic generation rendering Scriptures erroneous?
I read this sentence several times and I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by "a no show"?
by logansrun 23 Replies latest jw friends
Is the concensus on this board that this was a no show in the Apostolic generation rendering Scriptures erroneous?
I read this sentence several times and I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by "a no show"?
By a "no show" I mean like being "stood up" One makes a date or an appointment and the other person doesn't turn up, at least not at the promised time (in this case 2000 years late and counting..)
Ah, a "Jesus no show" then... or perhaps better a "Son of Man no show".
Then, indeed. When you look at Matthew 10:23 in context (implying the Judeo-Christian tradition of a mission strictly limited to Israel, cf. v. 6, and that the Son of Man would come before the end of that mission), and then compare that, for instance, to the Lukan parables in which the Master leaves for a long time, paving the way for the development of an international church, it is difficult to miss the change of perspective.
Thanks Narkissos, I knew I could rely on you. Pardon my lack of education but are you saying that...even between the synoptic gospels, there are different understandings by the authors about what was meant by the "Son of Man coming..."?
Was Matthew's gospel written in Hebrew, unlike the rest of the new testament (as an elder told me last week)?
Narkissos,
the common practice (both in Judaism and Christianity) was that of censorship by addition. Iow, nobody would dare delete the already too well-known embarrassing passages, but rather add something which would put them in a more acceptable perspective.
That's very interesting, and I understand the logic. I think that pretty well clears things up. I guess this means we can have a very high degree of certainty that the historical Jesus actually said such apocalyptic prophetic sayings, as no one would make up something which so obviously was not true.
Jim,
Everything went fine on Saturday. Check my topic history for info on what happened (which was not much!).
Leolaia,
Fascinating comments as always.
B.
Jaffacake
are you saying that...even between the synoptic gospels, there are different understandings by the authors about what was meant by the "Son of Man coming..."?
Yes, certainly. And even within the same Gospel. As I said, the conclusion of Matthew (implying a mission to all the nations and a sine die postponing of the "end of the age") is clearly different from chapter 10.
Was Matthew's gospel written in Hebrew, unlike the rest of the new testament (as an elder told me last week)?
Probably not, inasmuch as it obviously relies on (an early version of) Mark, which is obviously a Greek composition, and even enhances it stylistically. Most of Matthew's OT quotations follow closely the Greek LXX. The tradition (by Papias) of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) Matthew probably refers to another (non-canonical) Judeo-Christian Gospel.
Logansrun:
we can have a very high degree of certainty that the historical Jesus actually said such apocalyptic prophetic sayings, as no one would make up something which so obviously was not true.At least we have a testimony of an old Judeo-Christian apocalyptic expectation for a short-term "coming of the Son of Man"... Note that in such sayings the Son of Man is not identified to Jesus.
But couldn't the Transfiguration have been "a sneak preview" of His Return that He was showing them?
No, I don't think that's what the author meant. First of all, the statement in Matthew 16:28 is part of a discussion on endurance in following the "way of the cross" in the face of persecution (cf. those who "lose their lives" for "my name's sake") and temptations of the "world" (Matthew 16:24-26). It is a promise that despite hardships and persecution, the Son of Man will come in deliverance before all his disciples have perished. It has a parallel in the Olivet discourse:
"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake...But he who endures to the end will be saved...If those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened" (Matthew 24:9-13, 21-22).
Note the similar language, concerning the disciples being put to death "for my name's sake". It makes no sense that Matthew 16:28 is talking about something that only happens six days later (Matthew 17:1); the promise in that verse has in view the future tribulations faced by Jesus' followers. Similarly, in Matthew 24:21-22, the days of the tribulation will be cut short so some may still be alive at the time of the "end", and the imminence of the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 10:23 also has persecution in view:
"Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my name's sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.... You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. 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" (Matthew 10:17-18, 22-23).
Note again the identical language used here, as in the Olivet discourse. In all three passages, Jesus is talking about persecution faced by his disciples at a time subsequent to Jesus' earthly ministry. The reference is to the hardships faced by the early Christians in the first century. But Jesus promises that deliverance by the Son of Man would occur "before they have gone through all the towns of Israel," "before this generation passes away," before all those standing before Jesus "taste death". The promise Jesus makes in 16:23 cannot refer to something happening that very week, much less something that would be glorious to behold and without any of the persecution or tribulation that is the focus of 16:28.
Second, as I pointed out in my last post, the reference to "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" in 16:28 is explained by the previous verse. It not a foregleam of the coming, or something like it, but nothing less than the coming itself. The verb erkhomenon "coming" in v. 28 is just not appropriate for the Transfiguration in ch. 17 which involves neither the departure or return of Jesus from his disciples. Jesus was with his disciples the whole while in the Transfiguration narrative; he instead changes into glorious form (which itself is indeed a preview of the glory of Jesus' resurrection). Neither was Jesus accompanied by "angels" as v. 27 says, unless the prophets Moses and Elijah are to be thought of as angels. Neither did the Transfiguration "preview" have Jesus coming "on the clouds" (cf. 24:30-31, 26:64), or sitting on his throne. Most importantly, the Transfiguration has nothing to do with the judgment of all flesh as v. 27 says of the coming of the Son of Man. If it is a preview of this coming (as would be required by wording in v. 28), how could it not include a foregleam of the very purpose of this coming: to judge and convict all men? As mentioned above, the Transfiguration foreshadows Jesus' glory in the resurrection, but does not constitute an actual "coming" in judgment that fulfills the promise in 16:28. All the references to the "coming of the Son of Man" in the gospel refer to a future event, the time of which is not even known (cf. 24:36-44).
Finally, as also pointed out above, the same promise in made elsewhere in the gospel where the reference clearly cannot be to the Transfiguration, which was already a past event in the logic of the gospel. The Olivet discourse has one example (24:34), another is Jesus' trial in which Jesus tells the Sanhedrin judging him that they will see the Son of Man coming in glory: "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven" (26:64).
That is why I think the Transfiguration theory popular with conservative interpreters (preventing the admission of a failure of fulfillment) misses the point of the text.
Logansrun,
An interesting thread. Norman Cohen in his book, The Pursuit Of The Millienium traces the history of chiliastic ambitions and presents the notion, as Narkissos has developed, that a sort of 'Miller' rationalization occured in the early Christian church. Disappointed hopes of present deliverence evolved into a future hope and the church grew around this very rapidly.
It is a rationalization that seems to occur in other aspects of human life, not just theological. We are all very loathe to backtrack on a life that we have invested ourselves in emotionally.
HS
I had never thought of some of those points. Interesting thread.
Well if the Kingdom of God is within us, then the passages were fulfilled.
carmel