Leelee

I have been reading some articles about the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 and the parallel passages, in which Jesus seems to be saying that his second coming will occur sometime before his generation passes away. For a while, I have been convinved that this was a failed prophecy. I read some preterist articles on this prophecy and others that appear to say that Jesus would return sometime in the first century, but I did not find them convincing. However, I recently came across thisarticle that argues that when the disciples asked Jesus what would be the sign of his coming, they couldn't have been referring to his second coming because they did not even understand that he was leaving.

Based on the verses that were cited, it appears that the disciples had no idea that Christ was even leaving. Since they did not expect him to leave, it seems unlikely that they were asking him when he was going to come back from Heaven.

neilgodfrey

I don't have an answer to this but I do have some more questions:

1. The prophecy is clearly the product of a time when Jesus' elect were found throughout the known world (Jesus speaks of gathering his elect from the four corners when he comes in the clouds) so we know it was not original to Jesus. Unless Jesus really was a prophet who foresaw that his little band of followers would evangelize the entire known world. (Okay, that one was not a question.)

2. If we accept the argument that these chapters record a failed prophecy, and that the authors of the gospels wrote from 70 ce onwards when they knew it was a failed prophecy, why would they narrate it? One presumes some sanity on the part of all the synoptic authors and their reluctance to openly expose their gospels to instant ridicule.

3. If we accept that this prophecy appeared first in the Gospel of Mark, and that possibly Mark was written just prior to the fall of Jerusalem, why did the same author, or scribal transmitters soon afterwards, fail to correct this mistake? Why did not Matthew and Luke, who were quite capable of re-writing and correcting Mark when it suited, not correct him here? (After all, when the Gospels were first written they were not immediately regarded as sacred inspired texts.)

4. Is there significance in the fact that in Mark the question being addressed is never the parousia of Jesus but the destruction of the city of Jerusalem?

5. If we accept that this prophecy first appeared in Matthew and was later transplanted into Mark (Detering), is this omission of the parousia question the earliest attempt to correct the prophecy? But if so, we are still left with the question why Matthew allowed such an error to enter his gospel in the first place.

6. What is the significance of Luke's version where he tells readers that when they see Jesus coming in the clouds then the time of their salvation "is drawing near"? "Hey, look up in the sky! It's Jesus coming again! Wow -- let's start work next Monday with a positive cheerfulness knowing there won't be too many more weeks we have to continue at the grind! It's a pretty slow moving cloud he's on -- will take some time before it reaches us."

7. What if any is the significance to this question of Mark's gospel being an attack on Peter and the Twelve? If we accept that Mark's gospel was saying that Jesus at no time appeared after his resurrection to the Twelve, but that they all got the wrong end of the stick and didn't even understand the gospel of salvation via suffering and service, is it not plausible that Mark 13 was written directly to and for Mark's audience and not the disciples? Is the author of Mark stepping outside the narrative here to address his own audience? After all, the false prophets described in Mark 13 have been argued as being the epitome of all that Paul found wanting in the likes of Cephas (Peter?), James and John (Weeden).

8. Do not the old testament prophets also describe the coming of God in clouds to refer metaphorically to armies sent by God in punitive judgement? Is it possible or plausible to apply the same meaning to the synoptic prophecies? But the synoptics link the coming of Jesus with "gathering" and "redeeming" of the elect from the "heavens" and ends of the earth. Is there any relation between that and the part of the narrative where Jesus says he will rejoin his disciples in Galilee after they had been scattered?

Neil Godfrey

Decypher

Remember that the Bible may not be strict history, and it may not be entirely consistent. So such an argument looks somewhat question-begging against a sketpic.

Decypher

It wasn't a failed prophecy at that time. There was still time for the "Son of Man" to turn up.




Compare with:

I know some Christians will read this as metaphor, but it doesn't look like that to me.

aa5874

In order to establish whether a statement is actually a prophecy, it must be verified by whom and when the statement was made. Now these criteria has not been established and further, if Jesus was only human, it would be foolhardy for him to claim that he would come back to earth a second time.

From the NT, all that can be established is that the words therein are from the actual writers, whoever they may be. The authors write that the disciples did not understand Jesus when he said he would be crucified and rise from the dead. This statement is not difficult to understand, yet the writers claim the disciples could not.

Jesus, according to the NT, was alive at least 30 years before the destruction of the Temple, and when after looking on the Temple he declared, "....There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down". (Matt 24.2)

Now, the questions that follow from the disciples may be a clear indication that it is the writer himself that asks the questions because he, the writer, already knowns the plot.

If Jesus said that the temple would be destroyed and the disciples did not know when it would happen, it means that the temple could be destroyed a few months later, a year or two after, and Jesus would already be with them, he would not have to come back again. Remember the disciples did not know or understand that Jesus will die, resurrect and then ascend to heaven, but the author already knew the whole story.

So the writer let the disciples ask, without knowing that Jesus would die and go to heaven, "......what shall be the sign of thy coming.....?" Then the author proceeds to answer his own question, but using Jesus this time, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken by Daniel, the prophet......."(Mt 24.15)

Now, from Josephus, we learn that the destruction of the temple was regarded as the prophecy of Daniel 9. (Wars of the Jews 6.5)

The writer already knew the plot, his Jesus would replace the sacrificial system of atonement for sins, and go to heaven and come back, another time, to restore Jerusalem after Daniel's prophecy has come to pass.

The writer continues to reveal his story and he lets Jesus say at his trial, ".......Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven".

The author believes his Jesus is coming back a second time after he is supposed to be dead, and he wants his readers to know that without ambiguity.

So, the writer begins writing his story, maybe it can be called the gospel of Mark, he has witnessed the fulfillment of part of the prophecy of Daniel 9 before his very eyes, the destruction of the Temple. The Messiah must have come already so now the good news is that he must be coming back to restore Jerusalem, according to scripture.

The "Second Coming" of Jesus does not appear to me to be prophecy, but may be the basis for the Gospel story.