Hello everyone, isn’t Mark 9:2 referring to what Jesus talks about in Mark 9:1, supposedly showing the kingdom to Peter, James, and John? Some theologians interpret it this way, suggesting that 9:1 transforms from an unfulfilled apocalyptic prophecy into something fulfilled in 9:2. Or could this be a later insertion to resolve the contradiction in 9:1? I apologize for any language errors; I hope my message is clear. Thank you. And a huge thank you to Bart for the opportunity to write here.
Thank you. This interpretation suggests that Jesus was not speaking about the end of times or the day of judgment, but rather about something His disciples would witness? In this case, He may not be confidently labeled as an apocalyptic prophet? However, on the other hand, there are also words about “you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel”.
My admittedly non-expert opinion is that 9:1 is part of the ending discourse of Chapter 8, and what we see is a “bad” chapter break. In my view, Chapter 9 should begin with verse 2. That does not mean, however, that there is no relation of themes between the speech ending at 9:1 and the transfiguration story starting at 9:2
TThorne56
My admittedly non-expert opinion is that 9:1 is part of the ending discourse of Chapter 8, and what we see is a “bad” chapter break. In my view, Chapter 9 should begin with verse 2. That does not mean, however, that there is no relation of themes between the speech ending at 9:1 and the transfiguration story starting at 9:2.
Steefen, Editor
Since 9:2 begins with Six days later, a case can be made that verse 2 can start a new paragraph.
i wasnt clear enough, what i meant was that there is a command to keep silent
9 As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
So would the reader understand the tansfiguration and the coming kingdom as same thing?
Believing the Bible teaches the mortality of man until the resurrection requires the transfiguration to be a vision of the post-resurrection future for the simple reason that Moses and Elijah would not be alive before that time.
I don’t get the acceptance of Bart’s insights into the fact that the Bible doesn’t teach the immortality of the soul while on the other hand accepting the argument that the transfiguration is peering through some window into a so-called heaven 2000 years ago. That would seem to me to be bouncing around between two opinions with a vengeance (cf 1Kings 18:21).
My pov is that the Transfiguration episode is a Markan literary invention that serves as a center of gravity for his work, simultaneously pointing backwards to the baptism of Jesus and forward to his Resurrection. Interestingly that one episode encapsulates every theme in Mark’s gospel.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert