Kata Markon

[HStaiti AT aol.com]

Larry,

What you presented does seem to be the straightforward interpretation of the 
text. Which is also the problem

The immanancy of the return of the Son of Man is as immanent as summer to the 
budding fig tree (which blooms in late spring).

But all of the things described in 13.5-23 had occurred in the first century, 
yet the return of the Son of Man, as written about in vs 24-27, did not occur 
in the first century. Yet, the solemnity of the assurance in v.30 negates 

making the prediction an error.

So there is a problem...

In a message dated 1/3/01 6:04:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
hurtadol AT div.ed.ac.uk writes:

> 
>  It is worth noting that the "ta panta" of Mark 13:30 probably relates 
>  back to the initial ref to "ta panta" in 13:4, which refers to the 
>  destruction of the temple, alluded to again in 13:29 "tauta".  
>  Moreover, *the* fig tree of 13:28 is likely the Markan fig tree of 
>  11:13-14, which is in Mark sandwiched with the incident in the 
>  temple in chap. 11. 
>  So, 13:30 may mean that "all things" involving the destruction of 
>  the temple will happen "in this generation".  The return of the Son 
>  of Man is placed after "these things" (13:29) and after the 
>  tribulation of the temple's destruction (13:24).
>  Larry Hurtado
>  



Peace to you,
Harry Staiti
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.EvangelAssemblyOfGod.org (UPDATED Jan 2, 2001)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~