The Olivet Discourse--Broken Prophecy?

[technomage]

I've written in passing on this topic many years ago, but have never set aside a thread specifically for the purpose.

Before we get into the topic specifically, a few requests for this thread:

1. Anyone is welcome to discuss or debate the topic, but insults and derisive language is really not needed.
2. All points of view are welcome, but the thread is not about the following topics:

* The historicity of Jesus. For the purpose of this thread, the historical existence of Jesus is assumed.
* The appropriateness of my posting on this topic. If you feel that I, as a non-Christian, am automatically excluded from posting on this topic, please make your objections in your own thread.
* Assertions of interpolations. If you can document a specific rescension from extant manuscripts, well and good--if not, please make your case in your own thread.
* Assertions of later conspiracy. If you feel that this text was deliberately altered after the first century, please make your argument in your own thread.

With that being said, shall we begin?

-----


The earliest written account of the Olivet Discourse is from Mark:

Mark 13:24-31, KJV

When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now--and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 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. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

We see here a developed apocalyptic passage. One of the definitions of apocalyptic literature is that they are not prophecies--they are theological commentaries on events current to the author. Mark is taken in majority scholarship as the earliest of the Gospels written.

There is one quick clue that this passage was a later development--"Let the reader understand." Of course this is not something Jesus would have said, and it is present in all Markan texts that I am aware of. Even the earliest copies of Mark treats this passage as something to be [i]read[/i[, not as a quotation of something heard.

I hold that the author of Mark heard about the upcoming siege or alredy accomplished destruction of Jerusalem. The above passage does not contain the words of Jesus: this is his analysis of the theological meaning of the account (and as such, would not have been perceived, by the author of GoMark or the raders, as "utting words in Jesus' mouth" or as "writing falsehood." This was an accepted and understood literary device of the time.) So let us then look to Matthew, as the specific "prophecy" I wish to deal with occurs there.

Matthew 24:3, KJV

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

A couple of points here, then we can let the fur fly, because these points will be bitterly disputed.

First and foremost, the narrative speaks of the "coming" of Jesus--the Parousia. Later theological discussion within the early Christian church makes clear that this is speaking of Jesus' literal returnto earth--not a heavenly vision, not a spiritual ascention to the kingdom, but a return to earth. They are literally speaking of a Christianized version of the ha'Olam Ha-Ba--"The End of the Earth, and the World To Come."

This speaks agains both the Preterist and the Jehovah's Witness interpretation: in no way can parusia be interpreted as "He's in heaven on his throne," or as "He's reigning in heaven, but he's invisible."

Secondly, as noted before this is an apocalyptic passage--a literary passage that comments on events current to the author. This is not Jesus speaking--this is the author of Matthew expanding on what he has read from GoMark, and emphasizing his own theological perspective. Most importantly, this is not a prophecy.

Now, let us compare Matthew and Mark:

Matt 24:32-34, KJV

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mark 13:28-30

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.

So much has been argued about the simple phrase "This generation." Again realizing that these are the words of the author of GoMatt, not of Jesus, the Greek is simply inescapable: "This generation" means nothing more, and nothing less, than "This generation of people alive, right now."

Jesus never made this speech. Heck, if he had, the prophecy would have already been broken (or, at least, strained to the breaking point) by the time of the writing of GoMatt. 1 Clement tells us that two generation of church leadership had passed away by the time of his wroting (approx 95 ce, not long after GoMatt), and that by Clements time you had people who had been raised in the faith who had already grown old and died.

This speaks directly against the Futurist interpretation: the phrase "this generation" is not part of the "parable of the fig tree"--the parable only extends to the phrase "know that it is near, [even] at the doors." The next phrase is separate from the parable.

Thus, we can see that it's not really a broken prophecy of Jesus--he never said these phrases. The Olivet Discourse of Mark, and GoMatt's extension of it, is an attempt to reassure the Christian community that, even though the Church in Jerusalem was destroyed, God is still in control, and Jesus is returning soon. It was the beginning of the movement within Christianity that lessened their expectation of the rerurn of Christi, and "soon" became "sometime in the future," with Pseudo-Paul writing 2 Thessalonians to soothe the uneasiness caused by the delay of the Parousia.

The Olivet Discourse cannot be considered a broken prophecy of Jesus--Jesus never said these words. But it is an excellent insight into the thinking of the second- and third-generation Christian community, valuable for the light it shines on the development of Christian doctrine.

[Dee Dee Warren]

There is a tremendous contradiction in your words. With all due respect, I don't generally debate theological passages with non-Christians. Not my calling, but one portion does touch on area that I do.

You said,

I hold that the author of Mark heard about the upcoming siege or alredy accomplished destruction of Jerusalem.

Which one? If it was upcoming when it was written, how did Mark know how it would end? With the level of destruction that was accomplished. It is well documented that the Romans didn't intend to level the place. If after.... well, why then this statement makes no sense:

First and foremost, the narrative speaks of the "coming" of Jesus--the Parousia. Later theological discussion within the early Christian church makes clear that this is speaking of Jesus' literal returnto earth--not a heavenly vision, not a spiritual ascention to the kingdom, but a return to earth.

Since you concede the timing statement. You think Mark was smart enough to figure out the theological significance of the upcoming or accomplished event, but too stupid to notice that Jesus hadn't physically returned.

Each time I hear this argument it sounds worse. You just put it more politely than most, but politeness doesn't improve its coherence, though your politeness is very appreciated. I have been dealing a lot of jerks lately, so forgive me if I am a bit rough around the politeness edge. I don't intend to be a jerk to you.

[Xru]

I have been dealing a lot of jerks lately, so forgive me if I am a bit rough around the politeness edge. I don't intend to be a jerk to you.

Ah Dee Dee

[technomage]

Greetings, Dee Dee,

I will admit I did not expect to see you in this thread. I know the reasons for your reluctance to discuss these issues with me ... and believe it or not, even though I reacted badly the first time this was mentioned, I've had a chance to reflect, and I can respect your reasons.

WIth that being said, on to the specifics of your discussion.

[QUOTE=Dee Dee Warren;3433315]There is a tremendous contradiction in your words. With all due respect, I don't generally debate theological passages with non-Christians. Not my calling, but one portion does touch on area that I do.

Which one?

If you were to hold a squirt-gun to my head and order me to make a decision, I would posit that GoMark was written after AD 70. However, I must leave the door open for a slightly earlier date.

I think you would agree that the very earliest date we can give Mark is 64, after the death of Peter. This is the date cited by Irenaeus, and Papias seems to agree, though not explicitly.

When the revolts that led to the First Jewish-Roman War started out, things went pretty badly for the Romans for a while. The local garrison of Judaea was over run, the reinforcements from Syria were defeated, and the Romans were at once amazed, and hopping mad. Vespasian was given four legions to defeat the Romans, and more reinforcements were sent later.

Four legions, with Vespasian leading them. Dee Dee, that was enough military strength to raze the entire nation and turn Judaea into a parking lot. Heck, they could have even sent the auxiliaries in to paint the lines thereafter. They only sent four legions to Britain. If the author of GoMark had any knowledge whatsoever of the capabilities of the Roman legions, he probably knew that Judaea was toast.

how did Mark know how it would end? With the level of destruction that was accomplished.

The only statement in GoMark about the "level of destruction" is that the Temple would be destroyed. (Even that, as has been discussed here before, was somewhat hyperbolic: while the Temple was, indeed, destroyed, it was not to the point that "not one stone will be left upon another." There were portions of it still standing until the building of the Dome of the Rock Mosque.)

But if GoMark was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, there is no doubt of what the Romans intended to do, nor any doubt of what they would have had to do to quell the rebellion. Jerusalem was the center of the rebellion, its economic base, and its ceremonial seat of power. The standard Roman modus operandi in cases of rebellion was quite well known.

It is well documented that the Romans didn't intend to level the place.

I'd have to see the documentation on that. There were several cities in Galilee that the Romans took without resistance--they left those cities alone. But if a city resisted, they destroyed that city. That was their standard practice ... and they had quite a lot of practice.

You think Mark was smart enough to figure out the theological significance of the upcoming or accomplished event, but too stupid to notice that Jesus hadn't physically returned.

Hardly. Remember, Mark was still of the "real soon now" school, where the followers of Jesus literally weren't doing as much to live a day-to-day life because they expected a nearly immediate return. We see some of this in the authentic writings of Paul, and in the narrative of Acts--some Christians weren't even getting married, and were living economically in common (which I can't see as a long-term solution).

Mark was not saying "Jerusalem is destroyed, so this should have already happened." Mark was saying "Jerusalem is destroyed, but don't worry, because God is in control, and Jesus is coming back real soon."

In some respects, we see a parallel with the Millerite Great Disappointment, the whole Jehovah's Witness repeated sessions of "No, really, this time we mean it!", and with folks like that radio preacher last year. (Speaking of which, I'm glad he's decided not to make any more predictions. Better for him and for his followers, whether one regards the issue from a Christian or non-Christian perspective.) The only difference is the more modern examples had a date--we don't have any record of specific dated predictions for this period.

No, Dee Dee, the ONLY element of GoMark that makes me less than confident of a post-70 date is the reference to Jesus casting the demons into the swine. If (and I consider this a big if) this was a slur against the Legio X Fretensis, who had a boar as one of their mascots, then it is possible that GoMark was written before 70 CE. I have my doubts against this argument (though i used to hold it at one time), because GoMark does not seem to have any similar accounts against the other legions, and because the boar was not their primary symbol.

I have been dealing a lot of jerks lately, so forgive me if I am a bit rough around the politeness edge. I don't intend to be a jerk to you.

Dee Dee ... considering some of my past actions on this forum, if you had treated me in an ill-favored manner, I think I would have very little moral grounds to object on. You have not, and others here have not, even though some would say I deserve no better for my past actions.

Oh, and by the way--I still have your goat.

[technomage]

Ah Dee Dee

Dee Dee is a good'un. Just ... don't tell her I said so.

[lee_merrill]

So much has been argued about the simple phrase "This generation." Again realizing that these are the words of the author of GoMatt, not of Jesus, the Greek is simply inescapable: "This generation" means nothing more, and nothing less, than "This generation of people alive, right now."

Well, not quite, "this" can mean "that": "I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left." (Lk 17:34) Same word!

One view I like is that these events were fulfilled substantially in A.D. 70, to be fulfilled fully later when Jesus returns.

However I also like Robert Cara's view, the disciples asked two questions: about his coming, and the destruction of Jerusalem. So two answers: no one knows, and here are the signs so you will know; it's a long time, and this generation.

I also like Jesus' view! “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." (Lk 21:32-33)

It seems he knew his statements here would be controversial. So I would say the fitting of these pieces will most likely be altogether unexpected, and it is assuring to know that Jesus knew we would be puzzled over these statements. So I'm not counting him out, yet.

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Well, not quite, "this" can mean "that": "I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left." (Lk 17:34) Same word!

Same word, different grammatical case--different grammar. I am not speaking of how it is translated in English, I am speaking of the Greek, and in the Greek, it simply means "This one present here."

So I'm not counting him out, yet.

Don't! I'm not suggesting anyone use this argument to leave Christianity, much less encouraging them to do so. I had originally posted the comments to explain my own reasoning for leaving Christianity, and was recently asked to present the argument again in full. That's part of why I presented it here--in the Wiccan/Neopagan forum--rather than in Apologetics.

Leaving Christianity was ... very difficult for me. I do not advise it for anyone else. If someone comes to me, having already left Christianity, I will normally advise they take another look at it. Indeed, I've done that more than a few times here on TWeb.

[Lili]

Justin, I've heard that the part about the angels being sent to gather the elect could refer to human messengers spreading the gospel and gathering together the church. Is that true?

[technomage]

It certainly can be interpreted that way ... but doing so misses the point.

The main difference between prophetic literature and apocalyptic literature is thus: the prophets speak of righteousness; the apocalypse of patience or perseverance. In most prophetic literature, the prophet is speaking against particular sins or sins in general, warning the reader "This is what you must not do." In apocalyptic literature, the entire crux of the writing is "Terrible tings are happening, and terrible things will continue to happen, but stand fast, because God is in control, and everything is going to be OK."

[lee_merrill]

Same word, different grammatical case--different grammar.

Though it would still be "that" in the nominative, e.g. "that night will be when etc."

I am not speaking of how it is translated in English, I am speaking of the Greek, and in the Greek, it simply means "This one present here."

Usually, yes, but not always. I grant you that the likely meaning here is "this generation":

Robertson, Word Pictures

Naturally people then living. Shall not pass away ... Strongest possible negative ... Till all things be accomplished ... The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. ... Plummer offers this solution: “The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.”

© source where applicable

I would subscribe to the latter view, though again I like Cara's point, that Jesus was asked two questions, and may indeed have given two separate answers.

"It must be said ... that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming." (Robertson)

I'm not suggesting anyone use this argument to leave Christianity...

Yes, that was rather directed to Justin! I'm thinking you may find it best not to count him out here, especially given his next statement.

"My words shall not pass away ... a bit stronger statement than the subjunctive. It is noteworthy that Jesus utters these words just after the difficult prediction in verse 32." (Robertson)

Seeking the truth, we won't go wrong doing that. That's a rock to build on...

Blessings to you,
Lee

[technomage]

You'll have to pardon me, Lee ... I'm more than a bit distracted right now.

[technomage]

There is not a single thing I can do towards the other situation save worry about it, and as the discussions here are a distraction from worry....

Though it would still be "that" in the nominative, e.g. "that night will be when etc."

Nope. The Greek words for "this" and "that" are similar to ours, but the usage is stricter: "this" (Gk 'outos, including its variants) is used to refer to the closer one, the one previously referred to in the sentence. In your example above, the KJ translators chose to use the words "that," but in our English, "this" would serve just as well: ""I tell you, on [this night--i.e. the night referred to previously in the passage] two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left." If you want to indicate "that one over there," the word is ekeinos.

More to my point, however, you are treating and interpreting the passage as precisely the thing it is not--a prophetic passage. Prophecy and apocalypse are entirely different genres, with different themes, and different meanings to the reader.

I would appreciate it if you re-read my post, then re-read the passages, looking at them as apocalyptic literature. Once you do that, look at my analysis of Mark's intent (which I cited as "Jerusalem is destroyed, but don't worry, because God is in control, and Jesus is coming back real soon."). It is that thesis I would really appreciate feedback on.

Robertson, Word Pictures

Naturally people then living. Shall not pass away ... Strongest possible negative ... Till all things be accomplished ... The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. ... Plummer offers this solution: “The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.”

© source where applicable

Robertson errs here. The passage does not read "Till all things be acomplished," it reads "till all these things be accomplished. The phrase is exactly the same in the Greek for both passages: both GoMatthew and GoMark make an absolute promise, in the strongest terms, that the generation alive at that time would not pass away until the whole shooting match--both destruction and return--was complete.

If this were a statement from Jesus, then yeah ... I hate to say it, but it would be pretty damning. It's not, but with the interpretation that many Christians put upon it, it is a potential stumbling block. In some respects, I hope what I've offered here will make Christians who worry about the topic less subject to that worry.

[lee_merrill]

There is not a single thing I can do towards the other situation save worry about it, and as the discussions here are a distraction from worry...

Grace to you....

... in our English, "this" would serve just as well: ""I tell you, on [this night--i.e. the night referred to previously in the passage]

Good point, and I agree that houtos means "this nearby referent". possibly as in nearby in the sentence--as in "this generation of which I have been speaking". But I do agree that the likely meaning is "this generation of people now alive."

"Jerusalem is destroyed, but don't worry, because God is in control, and Jesus is coming back real soon."

I agree that the discourse is to give assurance, and I would say it is also intended to give information.

... both GoMatthew and GoMark make an absolute promise, in the strongest terms, that the generation alive at that time would not pass away until the whole shooting match--both destruction and return--was complete.

Well, let's note that "these things" might not include his return, they may rather be the sign that his return is near:

"... when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Mk. 13:29-30)

Or this might be saying the destruction of Jerusalem is near (cf. Lk. 21:20). Also note that in a similar vein we read of Elijah coming and restoring all things (Mk. 9:12), yet this sequence was not fulfilled (Mk. 9:13), it seems this was conditional: "And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come." (Mt. 11:14)--though the other passages have no condition.

So this might be pertinent to the Olivet prediction (indeed, these are predictions), there might be conditions:

"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." (Acts 3:19-21)

So "these things" would refer to events leading up to his coming, but the actual coming was dependent on these conditions.

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Grace to you....

I thank you, my friend.

Well, let's note that "these things" might not include his return, they may rather be the sign that his return is near:

Like Robertson, you miss a word, though in your case, the word is "all."

"Panta tauta (there's that word again) gynomai" is as close as I can remember the transliteration, but it literally means "(panta) all (tauta) these things (that we've been talking about) (gynomai) are complete." One must either take it that GoMark (and GoMatthew, for the words are identical) meant all these things--both the destruction of Jerusalem, and the return.

So this might be pertinent to the Olivet prediction (indeed, these are predictions), there might be conditions:

An interesting conjecture, but impossible to verify or refute: you yourself are careful to use very cautious language, as if even you are uncertain.

But again, I asked if you could re-read the passage, not as a prediction, but as an apocalyptic passage. Were you able to do this?

[lee_merrill]

Like Robertson, you miss a word, though in your case, the word is "all."

But it turns out, there's another "all"!

"Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Mt 24:33–34)

So "all these things" would not appear to include his return, which would seem to be conditional, given the clear condition we read in Acts.

And I did reread the passage it does (especially the end) read like apocalypse, which need not be either-or with prophecy, I would say.

Peace this week,
Lee