36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.
can one translate this verse
36 “But about that day and hour no one reveals, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.
does the word “oiden” mean ” not knowing ” something or “not able to reveal” something ?
Paul:
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
here paul decides to know nothing, so some say that since he knew other things other than crucifixion….. then when jesus says he does not know the hour, what jesus really means is that he does know the hour, but “chose not to reveal” ?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Perhaps 1 Cor 2:2 is the answer to those who ponder on Paul’s overall lack of interest in the pre-Easter Jesus in his authentic letters. What interests me about Mark 13:32 is not that Jesus lacks knowledge but that Mark creates a situation where Jesus can clearly distinguish himself from the Father. Has anyone questioned the identification of “the Son” with Jesus himself? We know of at least one other “Son” in Mark with divine prerogatives.
“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.
Matt. 24
3. While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen?
14 ..this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.** you do not have permission to see this link **
22. …for the sake of the elect, those days will be cut short.** you do not have permission to see this link **
30. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn…** you do not have permission to see this link **
34. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away (οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη) until all these things take place.
36. No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. the Son of Man will come at an hour you do not expect.** you do not have permission to see this link **
According to Matthew, Jesus said he did not know that “day or hour”. However (two verses earlier), Jesus assured the questioners that it would happen before their “generation” passed away. I wonder what is meant by “generation” and “pass away.” Jesus seems to be saying that “…some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matt. 16:28) This idea of the event happening in this genearation echoes Paul: “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed…” (1 Cor. 15:51)
Robert said
I think Mark thought that the destruction of the temple had indeed taken place within his own generation and that the final ushering in of the Kingdom of God would soon follow. I’m not sure if Matthew’s views differed substantially from those of Mark on this point.
I’ll bet people who had already been reading Galatians as scripture at the time of the literal destruction of the Jerusalem temple would have seen the Jerusalem allegory as prescient:
Gal. 4:24-27
“Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. [Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia]; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above (ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ) is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
I’ve bracketed a probable gloss–τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ·– which I take to have been added as a marginal note before the literal destruction of Jerusalem, but who knows?
I think that “Jerusalem above” in Hebrews suggest that the author had been reading Galatians as scripture:
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ), and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” Heb. 12:22-24
Does the emphasis on Jerusalem above, in the context of the whole letter of Hebrews, suggest that the author has or has not seen the literal Jerusalem temple destroyed? If Hebrews was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, as Witherington argues, then, in hindsight, the author of Hebrews sounds prescient.
Robert said
Since you’re referencing Matthew’s version of this saying (24,36), note that he even intensifies the uniqueness of the Father’s knowledge of this in adding the Father alone (μόνος). Luke is perhaps disturbed at Mark’s admission of ignorance on Jesus’ part and deletes it.
One would generally expect the two secondary gospels to edit in the same direction. Mark downplaying the uniqueness and Luke removing it altogether.
–
Also in Matthew/Mark what follows this verse is a teaching on the “owner of the house” and “keeping watch”.
Mark says “he should not find you sleeping”. Which is not paralleled in Matthew or Luke.
And Luke in his version in chapter 12 says “be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet”. Which is not paralleled in Matthew or Mark.
Matthew follows this section with the Parable of the Ten Virgins. And it is this parable with the sleeping virgins, keeping lamps burning and the wedding banquet, which is being referenced obliquely by both Luke and Mark. Matthew being the template for both of them.
Robert said
I wouldn’t make this into a hard and fast rule since each author has their own perspective. Otherwise, your next observation about Matthew and Luke would suggest that Mark is primary. Which he is, of course, but I should respect that this thread is not about Marcan priority.
Why would the next observation suggest Mark is primary?
Its only a minor observation which favors Matthean priority – not supposed to be taken as a hard and fast rule.
The next point is that Mark and Luke both separately contain a few words without a parallel in the other two synoptics. However they can both be understand as being derived from the same parable found only in Matthew and at the appropriate place. Both secondary synoptics deciding to remove the parable but leaving behind a small remnant.
According to Matthew, Jesus said he did not know that “day or hour”. However (two verses earlier), Jesus assured the questioners that it would happen before their “generation” passed away. I wonder what is meant by “generation” and “pass away.” Jesus seems to be saying that “…some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
The kicker for me is Matthew 10:23.
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes.
If this reflects the attitude of the historical Jesus then it has interesting implications. There wouldn’t seem to be a provision for a gentile ministry!
The translation of Matthew 10:23 should be “until”.
“truly I say to you you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel until the Son of man comes.”
Matthew expressing the difficulty in preaching to all Israel (which won’t be accomplished without the help of the coming of the son of man), rather than expressing the speed at which the son of man will return (before they’ve had time to go through the towns of Israel).
This instruction is given to the Twelve.
Matthew 10:5 “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.”
The Eleven however he tells to make disciples of all nations
Matthew 28:16-28 “Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go … go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
For Matthew scripture is fulfilled by Israel being a beacon to the gentiles.
Matthew 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.
The gospel is preached in Israel and it will bring to gentiles to the faith.
Matthew 8:10 “Truly I tell you I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west and will take their places at the feast with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be thrown outside into the darkness”
“truly I say to you you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel until the Son of man comes.”
Matthew expressing the difficulty in preaching to all Israel (which won’t be accomplished without the help of the coming of the son of man), rather than expressing the speed at which the son of man will return (before they’ve had time to go through the towns of Israel).
Since I am not a Greek scholar I cannot argue on textual grounds but having examined the commentaries and considering the context I simply note that the majority of NT translations do not agree with your interpretation.
Consider the context. Jesus has just instructed his disciples to go preach, telling them to deliberately avoid the Gentiles. The message? The Kingdom of God is imminent. In this many scholars hear the voice of the apocalyptic historical Jesus. Consequently the reference to the Son of Man is to a figure other than himself. The kingdom is coming very soon and Jesus’ disciples won’t make it through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man ushers in the kingdom. Your interpretation is contradictory in context even though it serves to elide the embarrassment of Jesus’ failed prophecy.
The context is that he is sending them on a dangerous mission – “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves”. They will be handed over to courts and flogged. He is sending them to the “house of Israel” but “a man’s enemies are members of his own household”.
The cities of Israel he is sending them to will reject the message “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!”. “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.”
The kingdom of heaven might have drawn near but is a kingdom in the afterlife – “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in gehenna”.
The kingdom of heaven might have drawn near but is a kingdom in the afterlife – “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in gehenna”.
But from the apocalyptic viewpoint the “kingdom” is embodied. Neither soma nor psyche mean exactly what they have come to mean in modern terms. The modern dichotomy between body and soul is more redolent of Medieval scholasticism than ancient thought. What Jesus is saying is not to fear those who can destroy the soma because it will pass away when the psyche is transformed into the spiritual body but to fear those who can destroy both because that means you can’t be transformed and thus cannot enter the kingdom. The kingdom is not immaterial. The psyche is a component of the body made of such finer substance that it can be transformed at the Resurrection.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert