Mark 13:30: Is this an error?

  • Thread starter Thread starter greenfrog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

greenfrog

Guest
I asked my priest about why this verse:

(Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done) [talking about his second coming]

is in the bible, and he said something along the lines of, well, the thing about scripture is that we have to remember it was people who wrote it, and they thought Jesus was coming back so they would have written that he said that, but he didn’t really because obviously that didn’t happen.

Is this the official teaching of the catholic church (about this verse)? If not, what is? My catholic study bible says something similar - i.e. this is obviously a problem because he did not come back during that generation.

It makes me feel very uneasy - if this is something that Jesus didn’t really say, then how can we trust that he said any of the other things the gospel writers claim that he did?
 
40.png
greenfrog:
I asked my priest about why this verse:

(Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done) [talking about his second coming]

is in the bible, and he said something along the lines of, well, the thing about scripture is that we have to remember it was people who wrote it, and they thought Jesus was coming back so they would have written that he said that, but he didn’t really because obviously that didn’t happen.

Is this the official teaching of the catholic church (about this verse)? If not, what is? My catholic study bible says something similar - i.e. this is obviously a problem because he did not come back during that generation.

It makes me feel very uneasy - if this is something that Jesus didn’t really say, then how can we trust that he said any of the other things the gospel writers claim that he did?
Click to expand...
Mark 13:30 refers to Mark 13:6-29.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What part of the famous Eschatalogical Homily do you have trouble believing?
 
Well, obviously, those things (in Mark 13:6-29) did not come to pass in that generation (he has not returned yet, and it’s been about 40 generations since then), so surely either Jesus was wrong, or the people who recorded what he said recorded it wrong.
 
a couple things,

the word for generation:
γενεά
genea
Thayer Definition:
  1. fathered, birth, nativity
  2. that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
    2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
    2b) metaphorically a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
    2b1) especially in a bad sense, a perverse nation
  3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time
  4. an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive
    generation), a space of 30 - 33 years
    Part of Speech: noun feminine
The word for this (as in this generation)

οὗτος, οὗτοι, αὕτη, αὕται
houtos houtoi hautē hautai
hoo’-tos, hoo’-toy, how’-tay, how’-tahee
Including the nominative masculine plural (second form), nominative feminine signular (third form), and the nominate feminine plural, (fourth form). From the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), that is, this or that (often with the article repeated): - he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

now the word here is the third, the feminine signular, so we have a single female who is related to the speaker (this is drawing form the first several definitions for genea). By implication then this verse can be applied to Mary, our most gracious Heavenly Mother.
 
40.png
greenfrog:
Well, obviously, those things (in Mark 13:6-29) did not come to pass in that generation (he has not returned yet, and it’s been about 40 generations since then), so surely either Jesus was wrong, or the people who recorded what he said recorded it wrong.
Click to expand...
I think that by “generation” Christ meant “the time of the Gentiles,” “the New Testament period.” You can see Him taklking like this elsewhere. See Luke 21:24.
 
But the people of the time may have misunderstood it still, right BR?
 
40.png
Atreyu:
But the people of the time may have misunderstood it still, right BR?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It is well-established that the amount of time left to the world only very gradually came to be suspected by the Early Church. Supposedly, that is the reason why Churchmen waited to draft gospels. Supposely, in 2 Thessalonians, Paul was telling his flock, “Hey! Guys! Go back to living normal lives! It’s going to be a loooooooooong time before this stuff happens!”
 
One of the senses in which Christ promised his coming again (parousia) was his coming in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Scott Hahn holds this view, and he’s a pretty smart fellow.

Some of the people who saw Jesus did indeed live to experience the Eucharistic celebration quite similar even in detail to the way we experience it today.

Catholics are not as prone to interpret “end-times” scripture the way protestants do. While we believe Christ comes in glory to bring all creation to the Father at the end of time, we have no idea of how or when this happens.

Let me say also that the early Christians were not troubled by the apparent discrepancy you are concerned about. We live in an age of radical skepticism and nihilism, and some of that rubs off, which is unfortunate.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Supposedly, that is the reason why Churchmen waited to draft gospels.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question, why would they have written what they believed to be false into the text?
 
There is no need to take an anti-supernaturalist view of this passage or to suppose Jesus or the writers were clueless in their understanding of coming or subsequent events. Recent Catholic commentators point out that this prediction (reflected in the eschatological discourses in the synoptics) is primarily concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem some forty years (a generation) hence and the end of the Jewish world–which for them would be the razing of their temple and an end to the sacrificial system under their Law. All the phenomenoa mentioned in this passage can be seen to have been fulfilled at that time. It can also be seen to be an allusion to the ultimate End Times where there will be an end to* everyone’s* world, but this is not the primary meaning, and to impose this on the text is to make the same error as the “Left Behind” people.

For a terrrific analysis of this, I highly recommend David Currie’s exhaustive book on this topic “Rapture: The End Times Fiction That Leaves the Truth Behind.”
 
**BibleReader: **Supposedly, that is the reason why Churchmen waited to draft gospels.
40.png
mike182d:
Which begs the question, why would they have written what they believed to be false into the text?
Click to expand...
Well, no it doesn’t “beg the question,” because I wasn’t offering that observation as an argument.
 
BibleReader said:
**BibleReader: **Supposedly, that is the reason why Churchmen waited to draft gospels.

Well, no it doesn’t “beg the question,” because I wasn’t offering that observation as an argument.
Click to expand...

lol. My apologies. I stand corrected 🙂
 
40.png
Fidelis:
There is no need to take an anti-supernaturalist view of this passage or to suppose Jesus or the writers were clueless in their understanding of coming or subsequent events. Recent Catholic commentators point out that this prediction (reflected in the eschatological discourses in the synoptics) is primarily concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem some forty years (a generation) hence and the end of the Jewish world–which for them would be the razing of their temple and an end to the sacrificial system under their Law. All the phenomenoa mentioned in this passage can be seen to have been fulfilled at that time. It can also be seen to be an allusion to the ultimate End Times where there will be an end to* everyone’s* world, but this is not the primary meaning, and to impose this on the text is to make the same error as the “Left Behind” people.

For a terrrific analysis of this, I highly recommend David Currie’s exhaustive book on this topic “Rapture: The End Times Fiction That Leaves the Truth Behind.”
Click to expand...
I agree… I think this passage along with the parrallel passage in Matthew 24 is primarily a prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and secondarily a prophecy about the end. If this is a dual application prophecy (which I believe it is) there will be aspects that may only apply to one or the other.

Peace
Brandon
 
But for Grace:
a couple things,
the word for generation:
Thayer Definition:
  1. fathered, birth, nativity
  2. that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
    2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
    2b) metaphorically a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
    2b1) especially in a bad sense, a perverse nation
  3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time
  4. an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive
    generation), a space of 30 - 33 years
    .
Click to expand...
I highlighted part of this material to say: Growing up in the Methodist church, I was taught that this meant the Jewish people would never be completely destroyed. That there would still be blood descendants od Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob living at the end of the world.
 
40.png
SDA2RC:
I agree… I think this passage along with the parrallel passage in Matthew 24 is primarily a prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and secondarily a prophecy about the end. If this is a dual application prophecy (which I believe it is) there will be aspects that may only apply to one or the other.

Peace
Brandon
Click to expand...
I recently listened to Scott Hahn’s bible study of Revelation (12 audio CDs) which addressed this issue in great detail. His view is that the end times prophecies of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and John in Revelation refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. He backs this up with quotes from many other scripture scholars, verses from the Old Testament and historical writings. This interpretation is based upon the fact that the Jews viewed the temple in Jerusalem as a microcosm of the entire universe so that many these prophecies of the end times referred to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. He also points out that scripture often has not only dual interpretations, but sometime triple and quadruple interpretations, all of which can be valid and Catholic.
 
40.png
Zooey:
I highlighted part of this material to say: Growing up in the Methodist church, I was taught that this meant the Jewish people would never be completely destroyed. That there would still be blood descendants od Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob living at the end of the world.
Click to expand...
Zooey - in a general sence I agree with you, however, the preceeding word this is congagated as a feminine singular which implies that he is talking about a woman. Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was speaking metaphorically then I will stand by my origional opinion.

God Bless
 
According to the NAB,

Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:2) provoked questions that the four named disciples put to him in private regarding the time and the sign when all these things are about to come to an end (Mark 13:3-4). The response to their questions was Jesus’ eschatological discourse prior to his imminent death. It contained instruction and consolation exhorting the disciples and the church to faith and obedience through the trials that would confront them (Mark 13:5-13). The sign is the presence of the desolating abomination (Mark 13:14; see Daniel 9:27), i.e., of the Roman power profaning the temple. Flight from Jerusalem is urged rather than defense of the city through misguided messianic hope (Mark 13:14-23). Intervention will occur only after destruction (Mark 13:24-27), which will happen before the end of the first Christian generation (Mark 13:28-31). No one but the Father knows the precise time, or that of the parousia (Mark 13:32); hence the necessity of constant vigilance (Mark 13:33-37). Luke sets the parousia at a later date, after “the time of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24). See also the notes on Matthew 24:1-25:46.
 
But for Grace:
Zooey - in a general sence I agree with you, however, the preceeding word this is congagated as a feminine singular which implies that he is talking about a woman. Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was speaking metaphorically then I will stand by my origional opinion.
God Bless
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing with you at all!! Yours is a very interesting idea that I had not previously thought through completely.(Working on it!).
Jesus could have been speaking metaphorically; or not. My point was that there is ample evidence to show that the writers of the sacred text were recording a promise/prophecy of our Lord, & that there is no problem with finding a fulfillment.
You make a compelling argument for the Mother of Jesus fulfilling this. (Of course, since she was/is;) a nice Jewish girl, that would also:yup: fulfill what I was taught!).
I simply find it interesting that there has been a pattern of evil individuals from Haman (in Esther), to Hitler & cohorts (20th C.), and beyond, and yet they have never been able to fully wipe from the earth a small religious/ethnic group who have survived despite all odds…Survived, what is more, pretty much as they began in the OT.
Perhaps we may give some credit to the fact that said “nice Jewish girl” has an enormous “in” with our Lord, & may be interceding for them…Just a thought…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top