Obviously, one week (and a few thousand years) later—no Rapture has been forthcoming.
I smiled at all those “true believers” who smugly smacked down Rev. Camping’s predictions with the gloating scorn, “Ha! No one knows the hour of Jesus’ coming. Who was Harold Camping to proclaim such a thing?” Stabbing out Matthew 24:36 like a weapon.
Yet curiously, many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—believe the Rapture will occur. And many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—declare it could happen this very afternoon. And those same people—just like Harold Camping—urge you to “get right with God” or else you could be too late, ‘cause it could happen today. (Why is there is always a hint of gleeful revenge when we say, “No” as they look forward to showing US who was correct?)
Aren’t these same people committing the same error, albeit with slightly less precision? They know it could happen today. Yet, ironically, by such knowledge, seem to have eliminated today as a possibility, pursuant to their own Bible verse.
Has Jesus been waiting around for 2000 years for people to stop remembering he is coming back?
I wonder if he regrets putting that clause in the contract….
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's something so ironic to me about Christians mentioning the first half of that verse to disprove Camping's belief. However, a quick look at the second half will show Jesus differentiating between the son and father. I'm Christians have some elaborate and unlikely explanation for why this does not disprove the trinity, but I've never heard a convincing one.
ReplyDeleteJust one hour ago, on my drive home from work, I again tortured myself by tuning into Pastor Mike Kestler of CSN’s ‘To Every Man an Answer’ radio call-in show. I kid you not, DaGoodS, in the space of 5 minutes Mike Kestler:
ReplyDelete1) Again ridiculed an unnamed “false prophet” for daring to incorrectly specify the date of the rapture
2) Quickly admitted that the rapture would indeed occur, we just cannot predict the exact date.
3) Advised listeners to take comfort in their persecution by the world, since that is a sign that they indeed radiate the Holy Spirit, and the world, who hates the light of God, will attack them for it.
4) Took a phone call from a man who asked Kestler to explain how God can send tornadoes and floods to Missouri in judgment and response to Obama’s coddling the Palestinians while he is in Europe, and at the same time not send the same types of natural disasters to Iran and Iraq.
5) Kestler agreed with the caller, and said that God’s judgment comes to any nation that does not side with Israel, and God’s punishment is indeed upon the United States, most recently in the form of a devastating tornado in Missouri. God has not yet judged the Middle East in the form of natural disasters, but God has a Special Judgment in place that will someday hit the Middle East…
and at this point I turned the station. DaGoodS, it is not only the mindblowing ignorance of these people, who are PROMINENT in our Christian culture, it is their unbelievable hypocrisy. One old man is (justifiably) raked over the coals because he made **a falsifiable prediction** that failed, then they, in the very next breath, claim that recent tornadoes are caused by a foreign policy trip by Obama? My GOD, do these people have a critical, thinking neuron in their entire bodies? If Pat Robertson can get hammered because he thinks an earthquake was a sign of judgment over Haiti, why can’t everyday, common evangelists and apologists, who continually and routinely make these absurd claims, receive the same treatment?
At first I pitied Camping’s deluded followers, but now I actually pity Camping himself! He is doing nothing different that I can tell – nothing different from your typical, standard, run of the mill, garden variety Evangelical Irrationality!
Sorry – my comment turned into a bit of a rant. I am fresh from listening to the broadcast – and even though it drives me crazy, CSN radio is actually good for my health. It never fails to raise my heartrate for the required 30 minutes each day.
Hi DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteAren’t these same people committing the same error, albeit with slightly less precision? They know it could happen today. Yet, ironically, by such knowledge, seem to have eliminated today as a possibility, pursuant to their own Bible verse.
Most Christians didn’t eliminate May 21, 2011 as a possibility. We just didn’t think it was any more likely than, say, May 25, 2011. It’s the difference between expressing confidence that someone is going to win the lottery and being so confident that I will win the lottery that I take out a loan and spend the money in anticipation.
And Harold Camping’s antics have about as much in common with the position of Christian orthodoxy as the behavior of the Heaven’s Gate UFO religion has in common with the statements by Stephen Hawking that aliens probably exist somewhere. Whether or not Hawking is right, his statement is not worth laughing at because he has good reasons for saying that. This would be even truer if scientists actually discovered evidence of extraterrestrial life. The fact that most of the people who talk about aliens have been kooks wouldn’t then render scientists kooks.
I know that the idea of Jesus coming again is bizarre, because something like that has never happened before. But quantum physics is bizarre and so is the Big Bang. The question is whether we have good reasons for accepting those bizarre things as true.
And since Christians have good reasons for believing that God exists and that the Bible is God’s word, and the Bible is very clear that Jesus will come again, our belief is reasonable and Camping’s is not. He used completely random calculations to arrive at his date, going against Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32, and Acts 1:7. What he did has nothing to do with Christianity—he will now simply take his place in history (once again) as one of a number of failed apocalyptic preachers, not all of whom were Christian.
Yes, he’s right that every day is a good day to get right with God, and in his case that would have meant the humility of admitting he was completely wrong (rather than just changing the date) and taking some responsibility for the people he mislead.
Has Jesus been waiting around for 2000 years for people to stop remembering he is coming back?
ReplyDeleteMatthew 24:14 and Mark 13:10 say that the Gospel must first be preached to all nations. That probably has happened by now, but it was certainly not true in the first century when those words were written. So that is a fulfilled prophecy.
The description of the church in Revelation 7:9 has also been fulfilled: “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and people and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands.”
There are Christians around the world of all nationalities, races, languages, and cultures, and the Bible is the most translated book in the world, continuing to be translated into new languages all the time.
In the Great Commission, Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matthew 28:19). Surely He wouldn’t come again before that had been accomplished?
In Mark 13 didn't Jesus also say that "this generation will not pass away" before everything he described had come to pass (including his return)? It seems as if this should pose a significant problem for those still looking for the rapture.
ReplyDeleteFor a well written blog post addressing this prediction, see: http://gropingtheelephant.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-05-28T05%3A48%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=3
I think you'd appreciate this blogger, DagoodS
DoOrDoNot,
ReplyDeleteIn Mark 13 didn't Jesus also say that "this generation will not pass away" before everything he described had come to pass (including his return)? It seems as if this should pose a significant problem for those still looking for the rapture.
I know that a lot of people have been greatly troubled by that passage and even concluded that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher, but I really don’t think it presents a problem because it is not clear that the word genea always means generation.
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines genea as:
1) a begetting, 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) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. 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 by each successive generation), a space of 30-33 years
Jerome, an early church leader/translator of Greek and Hebrew from about 400 A.D. (much closer to the NT time than we are) wrote:
"By ‘generation’ here He means the whole human race, and the Jews in particular. And He adds, ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,’ to confirm their faith in what has gone before; as though He had said, it is easier to destroy things solid and immovable, than that aught should fail of my words.”
Venerable Bede, well-known author and scholar around 700 A.D. said: "By generation He either means the whole race of mankind, or specially the Jews.''
This definition of the word seems to fit better in certain other places in the Bible where the word genea is used:
In Mark 9:19 and Matthew 17:17, Jesus says, “O unbelieving generation. How long shall I stay with you?”
Philippians 2:14 says, “Do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.”
Also in the OT, a Hebrew word translates to “generation” in Psalm 24:6: “Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob.” Barnes Notes says: “This is the generation of them that seek him - This describes the race of those who seek Him; or, this is their character.”
And again, all three synoptic authors make it clear that only the Father knows when Jesus will come again, so why then would Jesus make bold pronouncements about timing? In fact, in Acts 1:7-8, before the ascension of Jesus, when the disciples ask, He says: “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.” And again Jesus talks about His disciples being witnesses to the “remotest part of the earth.”
The snapshot of the church portrayed in Revelation 7:9 is completely consistent with God’s plan mentioned as early as Genesis, where He says to Abraham: "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice" (Genesis 18:22, italics added).
If the Gospel has not been spread to “every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” yet, we are making good progress for that prophecy to be completely fulfilled. And the Bible clearly states that the end will not come until after that.
Correction: I said Genesis 18:22 but it's actually Genesis 22:18.
ReplyDeleteAnnette, this prophesy doesn't just hinge on the word generation in mark. Matt 16:28 also has Jesus saying there were some among Him who wouldn't die tilhhe returned with his angels. And there seems to be an expectation among early followers that Jesus would return soon .
ReplyDeleteAnette Acker,
ReplyDelete1) The term “Christian Orthodoxy” is a semantic trump card that may have purchase when utilized with other Christians in attempting to validate a position—with us non-Christians it has no such weight. I’m no longer trying to first determine what is “correct Christianity” before demonstrating its non-viable; there is no “correct Christianity.”
Our first Christian documents indicate doctrinal disputes, differing theological positions, and authors attempting to persuade recipients as to which is the “correct” doctrine. If Orthodoxy was so established, it is amazing it had such little hold, so that only 20-30 years later no one seems to know what it is!
2) DoOrDoNot is precisely accurate. Jesus predicted the return within the lifespan of his audience. The old apologetic trick of taking multiple possible definitions, ignoring the primary, and looking for a secondary (or tertiary) meaning to avoid the difficulty is unpersuasive for three (3) reasons:
a) Why do we think we know Greek (or Hebrew) now, better than those who spoke it at the time?
b) As pointed out, within the context, (not just looking at the word itself), Jesus talks about people he was talking to still begin alive when the Son of Man comes.
c) The initial reactions of early Christians (as recorded) indicated a belief Jesus meant the parousia would occur within the same generation. To the point Paul thought he would still be alive. 1 Thess. 4:15. Paul’s subsequent works he has to start creating apologetics for why Jesus hasn’t come yet, and some people are dying already. (1 Cor. 15) Later works (2 Peter) generate more apologetics, defending why Jesus hasn’t come, and it doesn’t look like he will any time soon.
In light of the context and the multiple subsequent reactions, the argument we should rely upon secondary meanings in Greek words does not convince.
3) The claim belief in something unlikely is valid because other unlikely events have occurred is not very persuasive. One could believe anything at all, and argue for it under the auspices, “Well, the Big Bang is unlikely, but it happened. So certainly the unlikely possibility I am actually the Prince of Persia is equally possible.”
DoOrDoNot,
ReplyDeleteAnnette, this prophesy doesn't just hinge on the word generation in mark. Matt 16:28 also has Jesus saying there were some among Him who wouldn't die tilhhe returned with his angels. And there seems to be an expectation among early followers that Jesus would return soon .
Well, it’s clear that the early Christians expected Jesus to return early, but the fact that they expected that doesn’t mean that Jesus did in fact say it. Again, in Acts 1:6-7, the disciples ask Him directly whether this was the time he was restoring the kingdom to Israel, and Jesus replied that it is not for them to know the times or epochs the Father has set by His own authority. If they still expected it to be soon, it could just be because we humans have a hard time radically changing our conceptual framework. This is seen in the Jewish response to Jesus as the Messiah (even though He really fits the prophecy and typology), as well as the response of the church to scientific discoveries over the centuries.
As for the passages you referenced, they are:
“I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:27).
“And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9:1).
“I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28).
And unlike Acts 1:6-7, which answers a direct question in plain language, the above passages are ambiguous.
First, if Jesus is really saying that He knows that He will come again during the life of some of those standing there, then that directly contradicts unambiguous statements elsewhere by each synoptic author that Jesus doesn’t know. Do we have reason to believe that Jesus was that careless about His words? No, we have evidence that He was extremely careful in His interactions with the Pharisees, so that they wouldn’t have grounds to arrest Him until His time had come.
Second, words like “death” and “the kingdom of God” are used in more than one sense in the Bible, so this makes this statement ambiguous. “Death” can mean physical, spiritual, or the second death. “The kingdom of God” can refer to the actual new earth or just the power of God in this world, as in “the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
Third, Jesus wasn’t answering a direct question about timing, so we don’t know why He said what He did. However, when the disciples ask about timing, Jesus gives a different answer. I’ve already mentioned Acts 1:6-7, but there’s also Matthew 24:3-14, where the disciples asked Jesus when the end would come. Jesus replies by talking about many false prophets misleading many, wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, lawlessness—all being just the beginning of birth pangs. And He ends with: “The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come” (italics added).
Acts 1:6-7, Matthew 24:3-14, and all the other passages I have mentioned are relevant because in order to interpret Matthew 16:28, etc., we have to do so within the context of everything that Jesus says about His second coming—or at least everything a particular author said. This is not a special rule that we apply only to the Bible, of course—it is a basic rule of interpretation that applies to any good faith attempt to discern what someone really meant.
ReplyDeleteJust as the broader context helps interpret the passage, the immediate context does as well. And a lot of commentators think that it is significant that the transfiguration of Jesus is mentioned immediately after that statement in all three synoptic Gospels, even though it happened several days later. This is possible, since Peter, John, and James were given a glimpse of Jesus in His glory. Likewise, Stephen saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father, before he died (Acts 7:55). So if we adopt this interpretation, then we are using the spiritual definition of the kingdom of God given in Luke 17:21.
Or we can go back and look at the words of Jesus immediately prior to this statement. What is He saying? He is issuing a warning about living for this world only—gaining the whole world and yet forfeiting one’s soul. And then He says that some of them would not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
But if He is saying that they won’t taste death until He comes again then He can’t mean His disciples because they won’t taste death when He comes again. If that’s what Jesus meant, He should have just said that they’ll never die. In fact, in John 21:22-23, during the discussion about whether John would be alive when Jesus came again, the text uses phrases like “will remain” and “would not die.” And that is the normal and logical way to phrase it.
So if Jesus is talking about someone who will taste death when He comes again, He must mean the unsaved after judgment. This may mean that He is emphasizing His prior warning, saying that when He comes again, death will be final. The word “sleep” is often used in the Bible for physical death, as in Daniel 12:2: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”
These are possible interpretations, but I’m not sure exactly how to interpret that passage. I do, however, know that it cannot simply be taken out of context and relied on for the proposition that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher. In order to make your case, you have to give plausible explanations for why Jesus answered direct questions about timing in a way that contradicts your theory. You also have to explain why a prophecy mentioned as early as the writing of Genesis, restated numerous times by Jesus using plain language, and illustrated in Revelation, has either been fulfilled (every nation) or is moving in the direction of fulfillment (every tribe and tongue).
By examining the context, we find powerful evidence against the position that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher. Why should these two ambiguous passages, taken out of context, prevail, when Jesus answered direct questions the way He did and the theme of God wanting to reach all the nations of world with the Gospel is so central in the Bible?
DagoodS,
ReplyDelete1) The term “Christian Orthodoxy” is a semantic trump card that may have purchase when utilized with other Christians in attempting to validate a position—with us non-Christians it has no such weight. I’m no longer trying to first determine what is “correct Christianity” before demonstrating its non-viable; there is no “correct Christianity.”
Our first Christian documents indicate doctrinal disputes, differing theological positions, and authors attempting to persuade recipients as to which is the “correct” doctrine. If Orthodoxy was so established, it is amazing it had such little hold, so that only 20-30 years later no one seems to know what it is!
In the context that I used it, Christian orthodoxy means the central beliefs that most Christians agree on—as stated in the Bible. Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection is the central teaching of Christianity, and since I have good reasons to believe, based on the evidence (which I examined in detail for about six months on my blog) that Jesus was raised from the dead, faith in Christianity is reasonable. However, Camping’s calculations were not reasonable, nor was his expectation that he alone had figured out the day of Jesus’ return—something Jesus said would not be revealed to us.
a) Why do we think we know Greek (or Hebrew) now, better than those who spoke it at the time?
I don’t think we know it better now, which is why I quoted ways in which earlier writers, as well as the OT, sometimes used the word generation differently. Here is another example in which generation is used this way: “God is with the righteous generation” (Psalm 14:5). Barnes Notes says:
“For God is in the generation of the righteous - The word "generation" here, as applied to the righteous, seems to refer to them as a "race," or as a "class" of people. Compare Psalm 24:6; Psalm 73:15; Psalm 112:2. It commonly in the Scriptures refers to a certain age or duration, as it is used by us, reckoning an age or generation as about thirty or forty years (compare Job 42:16); but in the use of the term before us the idea of an "age" is dropped, and the righteous are spoken of merely as a "class" or "race" of persons.”
I think I already replied to b and c in my response to DoOrDoNot.
3) The claim belief in something unlikely is valid because other unlikely events have occurred is not very persuasive. One could believe anything at all, and argue for it under the auspices, “Well, the Big Bang is unlikely, but it happened. So certainly the unlikely possibility I am actually the Prince of Persia is equally possible.”
That was not what I said. I said that even if something seems bizarre on a visceral level, we are justified in believing it if we have good reasons for it. If you tell me you’re a prince, I won’t accept that on faith in the same way that I believed you when you said that it rained in Michigan on the day of your soccer game. But if you were to give me convincing evidence that you really are a prince, then I would believe it no matter how bizarre it sounds. And my claim is that there is convincing evidence that Christianity is true. However, there was no convincing evidence that the world would end on May 21, 2011.
Anette Acker says:
ReplyDeleteJerome, an early church leader/translator of Greek and Hebrew from about 400 A.D. (much closer to the NT time than we are) wrote:
"By ‘generation’ here He means the whole human race, and the Jews in particular. And He adds, ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,’ to confirm their faith in what has gone before; as though He had said, it is easier to destroy things solid and immovable, than that aught should fail of my words.”
Venerable Bede, well-known author and scholar around 700 A.D. said: "By generation He either means the whole race of mankind, or specially the Jews.''"
Annete, can you give me the sources that these quotes from Jerome and Bede were pulled from? Thanks
HeIsSailing,
ReplyDeleteThe quotes are from Catena Aurea: St. Matthew, by St. Thomas Aquinas. In it, Origen also says: "Yet shall the generation of the Church survive the whole world, that it may inherit the world to come, yet it shall not pass away until all these things have come to pass." There is also a brief discussion about generation here not meaning "men then living, but of the generation of the faithful," referencing Psalm 24:6.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thorough reply. You've obviously put a great deal of time into studying the topic. I'll check your blog out for posts you've done on the resurrection. I'm currently interested in that topic.
You seem to regard Jesus making a claim that he would return in his contemporaries' lifetimes to be inconsistent with his statement that no man knows the day or the hour of his return. However, I see it as qualitatively no different than giving warning signs to look for or stating that the gospel must be preached to all nations before the return. Those qualifications put constraints on when he would return just as his statement that the return would be in their lifetime. And none of these claims reveal the day or the hour. So I don't think Jesus contradicts himself. I don't believe I've taken the verses out of context. Even the verses you quote point to a theme of Christ's imminent return. There are others we could quote.
I don't see God reaching the world through the gospel as a theme in the old testament. There is a promise to Abraham that he will be the father of many nations, but no where are these descendents described as spiritual heirs in the old testament (that I know of). New testament authors reinterpreted them that way, though. In the promise, the descendents are given "everlasting possession" of Canaan and must be circumcised as an "everlasting covenant". It all sounds very physical to me. And very localized.
In regards to the great commission, I do wonder what "all nations" meant to ancient Mediterranean folk. I doubt it actually meant the whole globe as we know it. It was probably a task they anticipated completing in less than 2000+ years. :)
Annete, thanks for the citation.
ReplyDeletePart of me wants to debate this topic with you. I know you can pull out your verses and arguments, and I can pull out my verses and arguments for the opposite. But in the end, I am coming around to the same attitude as DaGoodS – I don’t really care.
I had a grueling talk with a Christian friend of mine yesterday. It started out as a friendly talk, but somewhere along the line she made the claim that the Bible did not even need to be interpreted – a straight reading would give you the one and only meaning to the text (and surprise surprise, this was exactly how she was reading it). Her claim was that if you start interpreting the Bible outside of its clear meaning, then “that’s when you start getting into that religious stuff”.
I could not let that go – in my view, that is so arrogant to think that everybody who is not reading the Bible as she does is “reading what they want into the Bible” and “being religious”.
I gave her a few examples of what I find to be troubling parts of the Bible – troubling in the sense that they provide many different interpretations and explanations. One of them was “generation” in Mark 2. She said the same thing you said, Anette. “Maybe it means ‘race’”. OK, but maybe it doesn’t. She seemed to think that this is what I believed, and she was getting extremely flustered.
I tried to tell her of all the books and commentaries that explain things differently than her….
“I don’t care about books and commentaries!”
“I am not trying to convince you they are right. I am just trying to show you that many people read this Bible and interpret it differently than you. You don’t have the final say!”
“You don’t have to interpret it! Just read it!”
It then turned into a scold. “Dammit Joe! (I had never heard her curse before – ever) You are so literal! You just make the Bible say what you want it to say! No wonder you have problems with…[insert various personal issues that I have at work – that are unrelated to Bible interpretation].
She stopped cold. “I’m sorry. I did not mean to snap. I’m sorry”.
more...
...cont
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I had to take advantage of the situation. “Look, you misunderstand everything I am trying to say. I am just saying different people read the Bible differently than you do. It is an ancient book, from an ancient culture – of course people are going to read it differently! We think differently. We are all persuaded by different things. But in the end, I don’t care. I am not trying to read anything into the Bible, because I don’t care what the Bible says. No matter what it says, or how you interpret it, the bottom line is that I Don’t Believe It. The only power this book has over me is by way of curiosity. I don’t see any reason to think that I need to believe what it says or that it is personally telling me anything.”
She seemed genuinely shocked by this revelation. I don’t believe what it says – so I don’t particularly care what it means.
She again apologized, and I left her cubicle. Yeah, she got personal, and it was emotionally very painful. She knew how to hurt me. Is this stuff really worth it?
It was exhausting talking to her – and all I wanted to point out was that people interpret the Bible differently than her. It is the morning after, and I still feel like she slapped me in the face.
“it is not clear that the word genea always means generation…”
Well, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. If it might mean ‘race’ in Mark 2, it could just as easily not mean ‘race’. But I don’t care what Jesus said about it – either way, I don’t believe it. My problem is not with interpretation – my problem is with the Bible. I simply do not believe the claims that it makes about the nature of reality. Arguing about subtleties in the text is, to me, like geeks at a Star Trek convention arguing about inconsistencies in the different scripts. Sure, they can be harmonized, but in the end – it just does not matter.
So all that to say – I am done with debate – in person or on the internet. It is exhausting to me, emotionally draining, and if it gets personal – as it did yesterday – can be very painful. Annete, can you just accept the fact that some people see things differently than you, and we are persuaded by genuine reasons, not because we are trying to argue something away?
DoOrDoNot,
ReplyDeleteI'll check your blog out for posts you've done on the resurrection. I'm currently interested in that topic.
Great! :) I checked out your blog as well and appreciate your sincerity in trying to work through these issues.
You seem to regard Jesus making a claim that he would return in his contemporaries' lifetimes to be inconsistent with his statement that no man knows the day or the hour of his return. However, I see it as qualitatively no different than giving warning signs to look for or stating that the gospel must be preached to all nations before the return. Those qualifications put constraints on when he would return just as his statement that the return would be in their lifetime. And none of these claims reveal the day or the hour. So I don't think Jesus contradicts himself.
I don’t think Jesus contradicts Himself either, but I do think that if He had meant that He would return before all those living at the time had died, He would have contradicted Himself.
Here’s an example: I think that many of the prophecies Jesus made about what would precede His second coming have taken place. For example, many false prophets have misled many people and the Gospel has been preached to every nation. However, when Christians say that we are in the “last days” right now, I generally reply by saying something to the effect of, “That’s certainty possible, but by no means certain.” Let’s say the next time someone makes the comment about the “last days,” I reply with a thus-sayeth-the-Lord attitude, “That is absolutely correct. And I tell you the truth, Jesus will come again before all the people alive today have died.” And suppose my friends then ask, “How do you know when Jesus will come again?” and I say, “I don’t know.” You don’t think I would have contradicted myself?
I don't believe I've taken the verses out of context. Even the verses you quote point to a theme of Christ's imminent return. There are others we could quote.
How do the verses I quote point to a theme of Christ’s imminent return?
I don't see God reaching the world through the gospel as a theme in the old testament. There is a promise to Abraham that he will be the father of many nations, but no where are these descendents described as spiritual heirs in the old testament (that I know of).
ReplyDeleteGenesis is very concrete and physical, but there is a great deal of symbolism and foreshadowing in it. Numerous times were are told that Abraham will be the father of many nations, and at least twice does Genesis say that all nations will be blessed through Abraham. I’ve already mentioned Genesis 22:18, but there’s also Genesis 18:18: “Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.”
In regards to the great commission, I do wonder what "all nations" meant to ancient Mediterranean folk. I doubt it actually meant the whole globe as we know it. It was probably a task they anticipated completing in less than 2000+ years. :)
Skeptics have made the positive claim that Jesus was a failed doomsday preacher, which means they have the burden of proof (unlike the resurrection, where we have the burden of proof), and the evidence simply doesn’t fit their hypothesis. When Jesus answers direct questions about the timing of His coming, He says that He doesn’t know when it will be but that the Gospel must first be preached to all nations. You can’t make the evidence fit by simply assuming that He didn’t know what He was talking about when He said “all nations.” He even says “the remotest part” (Acts 1:8). Since the Gospel has in fact been preached to all nations like Jesus predicted, that is evidence of a fulfilled prophecy, not a failed prophecy, like Camping made.
As for His use of the word “generation,” Jesus draws heavily on the OT Scriptures in His teachings, and there are several instances in the Psalms where the word is used to mean a people (e.g., “the generation of the righteous”). I have given a reasonable explanation for why Jesus used that word (I didn’t pull it out of thin air because it was already a part of the Psalms at the time), and it is the same explanation given by a number of the early church fathers. So skeptics have not made their case that Jesus was a failed apocalypse preacher.
HeIsSailing,
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry to hear that your friend said those hurtful things to you. Of course the discussion wasn’t worth her bringing up personal issues that felt like a slap in the face.
I think that we Christians sometimes forget that it is not our responsibility to “fix” other people or make them believe. Our number one responsibility is to show the love of Christ, and it’s easy to underestimate the power of that. People often think it seems naïve, but if we believe the Bible, we have to believe that God understands the human psyche and means it when He says through Paul that without love, everything else we say or do in the name of Christ is in vain.
For some people, discussions like this are not helpful because their reasons for rejecting Christianity are not primarily intellectual. When I’ve had conversations with people like that they usually don’t take the form of a debate. And sometimes a person really wants to debate but it becomes clear to me that the discussion is unproductive because my points are not being addressed and the person seems to have made up his mind. When that happens, I want to agree to disagree. Why continue a discussion where neither of us are benefiting?
So I’m perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree with people. I think maybe the reason why your friend lost her temper is because she was under the mistaken impression that it was her responsibility to make you believe and she was frustrated when it was failing. If I had such lofty ambitions about things beyond my control I would feel stressed too! But that is between you and God. All I’m trying to do is answer questions in the hopes that someone will find it helpful.
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteI wonder how well we communicate our position. I have a coupla questions for you:
1) What do you think are the two (2) best arguments that the Gospel claim “You will see the Son of Man come within this generation” [paraphrased] is a failed prophecy?
2) Why do you think your arguments it is not a failed prophecy fail to overcome those two (2) arguments?
“I think maybe the reason why your friend lost her temper is because she was under the mistaken impression that it was her responsibility to make you believe and she was frustrated when it was failing.”
ReplyDeleteMaybe. I think the other reason is because she misunderstood my whole intent. I just wanted to demonstrate to her that people read and understand the Bible in divers ways. And just because somebody sees something in the text that she does not, does not mean that they are trying to read what they want into the text, or trying to subvert the true meaning of Jesus, or anything else like that. It is an ancient text from an alien culture – it should be no surprise that there are many legitimate opinions on what particular passages mean. Most Christians see the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as speaking of Jesus. I suspect most Jews think that same passage speaks of the nation of Israel. Are Christians going to accuse Jews of reading what they want into that text? Well if Jews can do it, then so can Christians.
That is all I wanted to show her. But I think she misunderstood me. I think she thought I was trying to argue her out of her Faith. She peppered her talk with “I still have my Faith!” I imagine she thought it was a bit of “spiritual warfare” where Satan was influencing my talk, I was on the attack against her Faith, and she could parry my every thrust. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t care what she believes religiously.
I was shocked at how upset she got with me. The Bible, and ancient literature in general, has become a hobby of mine. I am interested in it as a curiosity and a pastime. But when I disagree about it with somebody, I don’t fly off the handle the way she did. I suppose that is what living in a Christian Isolation Booth does to certain people.
Debate is often frustrating because we are speaking different languages. It is difficult just to get on a level playing field, and we often start debating before we confirm that we are on level ground first.
DagoodS,
ReplyDelete1) What do you think are the two (2) best arguments that the Gospel claim “You will see the Son of Man come within this generation” [paraphrased] is a failed prophecy?
First of all, that is a question-begging paraphrase because it assumes that Jesus meant that He would come within the generation of those still alive, the very issue in dispute.
The only argument I’ve seen is that we should use the plain meaning of the word “generation.” However, in keeping with your original post, let’s analogize this to the rules of contract interpretation, which are just common sense rules of interpretation. (See how well I'm sticking to your main post this time? ;) 2009 California Civil Code - Section 1635-1663 :: Title 3. Interpretation Of Contracts says in part:
1638. The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity. (Italics added.)
1641. The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other. (Italics added.)
1644. The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, rather than according to their strict legal meaning; unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to them by usage, in which case the latter must be followed. (Italics added.)
In light of these rules of interpretation, there are good reasons for defining “generation” as “race or group of people”: 1) It is used in Psalms, and Jesus quotes extensively from the OT, 2) Bible translators and scholars from the early centuries used that definition, 3) using the conventional definition of “generation” would be absurd in light of the answers of Jesus to direct questions about timing, and 4) Jesus’ answers to direct questions about timing help interpret his use of the ambiguous term “generation” by telling us that the ordinary and popular use of the term is incorrect.
2) Why do you think your arguments it is not a failed prophecy fail to overcome those two (2) arguments?
I don’t.
HeIsSailing,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the Bible has to be interpreted. In fact, by the time we read it in English it has already been interpreted from the original languages. Of course that doesn’t mean there is no correct interpretation—I definitely think there is—but it does mean that none of us should just take for granted that we have the correct interpretation. It’s easy to assume that the true meaning is the one we happen to be most comfortable with, but in order to grow in our Bible knowledge we have to be willing to challenge that assumption. This means reading the Bible in context, including the cultural context.
I was shocked at how upset she got with me. The Bible, and ancient literature in general, has become a hobby of mine. I am interested in it as a curiosity and a pastime. But when I disagree about it with somebody, I don’t fly off the handle the way she did. I suppose that is what living in a Christian Isolation Booth does to certain people.
Debate is often frustrating because we are speaking different languages. It is difficult just to get on a level playing field, and we often start debating before we confirm that we are on level ground first.
I think that the fact that this is something very personal and important to her but a casual hobby to you means that you are not on a level playing field. Are you sure that she enjoys debating the Bible? It doesn't sound like it, judging from what you said about her normally being a nice person but reacting so emotionally.
Thank you, Anette Acker. Your response demonstrates I (at least) have not clarified my position. Let me give you what I think are the two best arguments Mark 13:30 and Matthew 16:28 (whether Jesus actually said them or they were placed in his mouth is a different discussion) were intended to convey the Son of Man’s return within the lifetime of the listeners.
ReplyDelete1) The reaction of the recipients.
Imagine watching an audience and speaker who is talking in a language you do not understand. You may still pick out the meaning of the words, even if you do not what they are saying, by the audience’s reaction. Imagine the speaker ended a sentence and you saw:
a) the crowd become quiet and lean intently forward; or
b) the crowd erupt in laughter; or
c) People begin dabbing at tears in their eyes; or
d) People immediately leap from their chairs and run to the exits.
We can (not even knowing the language) understand what is being conveyed:
a) drama;
b) a joke;
c) sad tale;
d) dire warning.
In the same way, the people writing within the earliest Christian community responded to this claim as if it was immediately imminent. 1 Th. 4:15-16. 1 Cor. 15. Rom. 13:11-12. The later writings, recognizing the difficulties of delayed return, began creating apologetics for why it hadn’t occurred. 2 Peter 3:8, Acts 1:6-7.
Let me emphasize this. The people you claim either actually heard Jesus speak, or spoke with those do did, interpreted Jesus as saying the coming was within their lifetime. The Greek-speaking audience interpreted genea to mean “within your lifetime.” (By the way, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Not Greek. So arguing what Jesus meant with a Greek Lexicon is actually one step removed from the source!)
You are stuck arguing not only skeptics misinterpreting genea but those who actually heard Jesus speak did as well! (People who spoke Greek in that culture.) As if you want to argue, “’Fire’ can be a punch line in a joke, so the speaker was telling a joke” when we see people dashing to the exits as fast as possible. Why do I believe the audience understands what the speaker meant by “fire” more than you?
2) The immediate context of the passages.
You have argued Jesus was referring to Old Testament passages (written in Hebrew, by the by) in other speeches. Yet equally, in other discussions, Jesus is recorded as utilizing genea to mean those immediately present. See Mt. 11:16, 12:39-42, 23:34-36, Mark 8:12, and Luke 17:25. [Synoptic parallels not cited.]
At best, Jesus utilized it both ways. Therefore, to realize what he meant in these particular passages, we need the context.
In Matthew, Jesus tells his disciples they must be willing to lose their lives. To follow Jesus, they will suffer, even potentially be crucified. This is a discussion of events within their lifetime. He then says some standing there will still be alive to see the son of Man come. (Note there is also a reward for good works done under the potential for suffering. This is NOT referring to the Transfiguration.)
Absent the fact Jesus didn’t return, anyone reading this straightforward passage understands the timeframe it encompasses.
Mark 13 starts with the little Apocalypse—the prediction regarding Jerusalem’s fall. (Which I do not have to remind you DID occur within their lifetimes.) Jesus then lists tribulations that the disciples themselves will suffer. Again, within their lifetime. They will see the Abomination of Desolation. They will see these things happening. (Mark 13:29) And then Jesus says this genea shall not pass away before the Son of Man comes. He then goes on to emphasize they must watch. Within their lifetimes.
Again, a straightforward reading necessitates an immediacy in the events. All of which Jesus says occurs in their lifetime.
Now, as to my second question, I am not at all surprised. Those who fail to understand why their arguments are not convincing are doomed to never convince others.
" Are you sure that she enjoys debating the Bible?"
ReplyDeleteOnly with fellow believers. I know - I used to be one of them (she is an old friend of mine from church days), so I am pretty sure I understand her thinking on this. Anyway, I think I am over the emotional impact of that conversation. Thank you Anette for taking the brunt of my brief emotional fit, and thank you DaGoodS for allowing me to slightly hijack this comment thread.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteNow, as to my second question, I am not at all surprised. Those who fail to understand why their arguments are not convincing are doomed to never convince others.
It’s not enough to merely assert that my arguments are unconvincing. You have to demonstrate it by actually responding to them. Before I get to your specific arguments, I would like to remind you that you have failed to address many of my points, like the fact that Jesus answered direct questions about the timing of His coming using plain language. And He said that it would be after the Gospel had been preached to all nations, and that the disciples were not to know the times or epochs of His return. In order to make your case that Jesus was a failed apocalypse prophet, you can’t just ignore the issues that are most damaging to your position and hope nobody notices.
1) The reaction of the recipients.
I have already conceded that the early church believed that the return of Jesus would be imminent, but I will go a step further by saying that I think Jesus intentionally created that atmosphere of uncertainty because He wanted them to live as if His return was imminent. In Matthew 24:44, Jesus says, “So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
But He hints that He will not come for a long time: In Matthew 24:48, He says: “But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time.'” And in Matthew 25:5, He says: “The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.”
So those verses indicate that He wouldn’t come for a long time, but in John 21:22, He gives the impression that it will be soon: “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” But after mentioning that a rumor circulated among the followers of Jesus that this disciple would remain until Jesus returned, the author stresses the fact that Jesus didn’t actually say that.
And that’s the whole point: Jesus may have created an atmosphere of expectation and uncertainty, but He never actually said that He would come soon. In fact, when asked direct questions, He strongly indicated that it would not be soon (after the Gospel had been preached to all nations), and that only the Father knew the times or epochs. So He never gave definitive answers about the timing of His return.
(By the way, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Not Greek. So arguing what Jesus meant with a Greek Lexicon is actually one step removed from the source!)
ReplyDeleteIs your point that the modern definition of “generation” is more likely to represent what Jesus said in Aramaic than the Greek definition of genea?
In fact, even Shakespeare used the broader definition of “generation” in Timon of Athens:
Painter: "Y'are a dog."
Apemantus: "Thy mother's of my generation. What's she, if I be a dog?"
So since the KJV was written around the time of Shakespeare, the translators may well have used the word “generation” more broadly than the modern definition. The Greek lexicon and the Psalms also use the word more broadly. What evidence do you have that Jesus used the word in the narrow modern sense?
You have argued Jesus was referring to Old Testament passages (written in Hebrew, by the by) in other speeches. Yet equally, in other discussions, Jesus is recorded as utilizing genea to mean those immediately present. See Mt. 11:16, 12:39-42, 23:34-36, Mark 8:12, and Luke 17:25. [Synoptic parallels not cited.]
Why are you so sure that these passages refer to those immediately present? It seems at least as likely that Jesus is using the following definition of “generation,” from the Greek lexicon: 2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character, 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation.
Mark 13 starts with the little Apocalypse—the prediction regarding Jerusalem’s fall. (Which I do not have to remind you DID occur within their lifetimes.) Jesus then lists tribulations that the disciples themselves will suffer. Again, within their lifetime. They will see the Abomination of Desolation. They will see these things happening. (Mark 13:29) And then Jesus says this genea shall not pass away before the Son of Man comes. He then goes on to emphasize they must watch. Within their lifetimes.
Yes, as I said before, Jesus did want them to watch. But He also says in Mark 13 that the Gospel must first be preached to all the nations. And in Luke 21, Jesus describes the fall of Jerusalem and then says, “and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” How long does it take for “the times of the Gentiles” to be fulfilled? The text doesn’t say, but the end won’t come until after that.
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteI have long lived by the adage—“No matter how difficult the problem presented by the skeptic; the apologist manages to create an even bigger difficulty in their defense.” As if we accuse Jesus of speeding, and the apologist cries out, “Oh no—Jesus has an alibi. He was murdering someone at the time.”
Sure, it may get them out of the present accusation…but not exactly the best defense.
You are saying Jesus deceived his followers…er…excuse me…let me put it in your euphemism, “Jesus intentionally created that atmosphere of uncertainty” so effectively, every single early Christian (as far as we can tell) bought it hook, line and sinker. Jesus was so effective in this deception, every person within earshot was convinced he was coming back within their generation.
Indeed, it was so effective, what you would call inspired scriptures found it necessary to explain away why Jesus was incorrect when really he wasn’t. He was just “teasing.” So effective, we have numerous biblical scholars who continue, 2000 years later, to be convinced of the deception. So effective a deception, we have an eschatological viewpoint of Preterism, that continues to divide the church today.
Curiously, your apologia relies upon precise and fine-tooth memory of the writers, both telling and recording the sayings of Jesus done to differentiating between when Jesus just blurts out about the Son of Man’s coming, and when asked. And the same writers translating Jesus’ Aramaic accurately into one (1) alternative definition of a Greek word.
One can’t help but wonder what other deceptions they so accurately transmitted.
Further, if we have reached the point were you feel unable to admit sometimes Jesus did use genea to refer to the present people living, this conversation has abandoned intellectual dispute, and had disintegrated into your saying something—anything!—to desperately cling to the remote chance of a “possible” interpretation fitting your theology.
You may have the last word; “Jesus was really good at deceiving them” is really the end of the road.
Bravo, DagoodS! That was quite an impressive job of . . . what was it you said you do in every trial again? Oh, yeah—“we bob and weave and dance and twist.” I’m sure you’re an excellent attorney, because for a moment there your soaring rhetoric made me forget that you still have not responded to my central arguments.
ReplyDeleteSetting aside the answers of Jesus to direct questions about timing (which are a slam dunk for our side), let’s recap the evidence for our respective definitions of “generation”:
The Broader Definition:
1. Shakespeare
2. The Psalms
3. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon
4. Jerome
5. Venerable Bede
6. Origen
7. St. Thomas Aquinas
The Narrow Modern Definition:
1. People reacted as if Jesus was coming soon
2. It’s possible that Jesus used the narrow definition
Is there anything you’d like to add to that list, because I think we both agree that it really comes down to evidence and not rhetoric.
You are saying Jesus deceived his followers…er…excuse me…let me put it in your euphemism, “Jesus intentionally created that atmosphere of uncertainty” so effectively, every single early Christian (as far as we can tell) bought it hook, line and sinker. Jesus was so effective in this deception, every person within earshot was convinced he was coming back within their generation.
First, I see no reason to think that they all thought Jesus would come back within their generation. And I don't see any evidence that they connected their expectations about the parousia with Jesus' use of the word "generation," even if they thought it would be soon. You're making a logical leap there.
Second, it is not possible to deceive about that of which one is ignorant, and each of the synoptic authors say that only the Father knows the timing.
Third, even if Jesus had known, and He had told His followers that they should always be ready because He could come back any time—and they assumed that it would be soon—then that would not be a deception. It may simply have meant that they wanted it to be soon. Only if He had answered direct questions in a misleading way would He have been deceptive.
Further, if we have reached the point were you feel unable to admit sometimes Jesus did use genea to refer to the present people living, this conversation has abandoned intellectual dispute, and had disintegrated into your saying something—anything!—to desperately cling to the remote chance of a “possible” interpretation fitting your theology.
I did not say that Jesus never used the word “generation” to mean those who were presently alive. I just see no reason why we should lean toward that definition in the examples you gave. And even if Jesus did occasionally use the word in that sense, there is no reason to think that He always or even usually did. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon includes both definitions. Even Shakespeare used the word “generation” to mean “race,” so you have no good reason to insist that Jesus used the word narrowly just to prove that He said something incorrect.
I think we can see who is grasping at “possibilities” here.
Anette,
ReplyDeleteI don't know the hour that I will die, but I'm pretty sure that it will be within the next fifty years. There is no inconsistency between what I do know and what I don't know.
By the same token, there is nothing inconsistent in Jesus saying that no one knows the hour while also saying that it will occur before everyone present dies.
However, even if the statements were inconsistent, so what? Human beings often write and say things that are inconsistent with other things they have said or written. There is no reason to interpret every statement attributed to Jesus as being consistent with every other statement attributed to Jesus even when they are recorded by the same writer.
@Vinny
ReplyDeleteI know this conversation is long dead, but I think you hit the nail on the head.
*Jesus said the Son of Man would come before that generation would pass away, yet nobody, not even he, knew the [exact] day or hour.*