Kata Markon

["Professor L.W. Hurtado" <hurtadol AT div.ed.ac.uk>]

Harry Staiti wrote:
> 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...
Welllll, yes and no.  If the "all these things" of Mk 13:30 refers to 
the events leading up to the destruction of the temple ("these 
things", 13:4), and "these things" is not inclusive of the coming of 
the Son of Man of 13:24-27 (which is explicitly distinguished from 
the preceding events in v. 24, "AFTER THAT TRIBULATION"), then 
for "all these things " to happen in "this generation" required only 
everything up to v. 24.  Now, I quite agree that 13:28-29 makes the 
coming of the Son of Man very close ("at the door") to "all these 
things"; and so there remains the "problem" that the subsequent 
19 centuries make clear:  the Son of Man didn't come all that 
terribly close to the destruction of the temple!
Larry Hurtado

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  L.Hurtado AT ed.ac.uk