TedM

The word "immediately" doesn't work so well for the interpretation of sending it back to the owner, which would not have been immediate, although I don't know if that word is always meant to mean instantaneous in the Greek. The idea of 'sending it back' normally relates to having first 'borrowed' it, rather than a more passive 'giving permission'. Also, since in reality 'they' asked about the colt, it leads one to think that 'he' wasn't 'they'. All these factors make the passage difficult to interpret. However, I somewhat now favor your interpretation primarily because of the use of 'immediately', if it always is used to mean instantaneous.

So we then are down to only one "the Lord" in question. I'm done with that part of it too though.

Thanks.

spin

The word "here" is significant, as it relates to the position of the speaker and in the context it is Jesus speaking and most natural to read the "here" as in relation to Jesus, so sending it back here should mean to where Jesus was. Consider,

"Go to the library and bring me back here a book by Tolstoy." The librarian sent back War and Peace.

The Greek is sufficiently vague not to need a "he", though this is not the case in English. Jesus refers to "anyone" (τι) in "if anyone asks" and the subject of "send (away)" is not specified, but a singular form of the verb is used to match the vague "anyone". In the fulfillment the "anyone" (τι = "a certain (one)") is realized as a plural (τινες = "certain (ones)"), so the reader can make the connection between the prophecy and the realization.

I don't understand what you are referring to, but I might post a blog entry on the meaning of Mk 11:3.

TedM

Yes. IF it is the disciples saying " and he will send it back here" then they are relaying to the challengers that either Jesus or God will send the colt back to where it came from. If it is Jesus saying " and he will send it back here" then it is either God who returns the colt (here means where it came from) or the challengers who will give permission for the disciples to take the colt to Jesus (here means where Jesus is).


What's missing is the phrase "when finished", "send it back here when finished". If that is what was meant, it is a bit odd that it wasn't included, especially since the word "immediately" would imply the need for it, if it is meant that the colt would be sent back to its owners. With it missing, in conjunction with the word "immediately", the meaning of "here" seems to be where the colt came from, in which case it is Jesus speaking, and the "he" is not Jesus or God, but is the one (anyone) who gives permission for the disciples to take the colt.


If "he" doesn't mean "the Lord" and just means the person who gives permission, then that verse only references one "Lord".

spin

Given the grammatical significance of "here", it is just contorted to think that Jesus would be saying "send it back here" meaning "send it back there". "here" is one of those special words tied to the speaker ("deictic" words, eg "now", "this"): it is the speaker's location and when Jesus uses it, it strongly links to Jesus's location. You would expect a statement without deixis, if the disciples were to relay it to the challenger: 'Tell him "The lord needs it and will send it back."'

OK, thanks.

TedM

I don't see it as contorted if the whole thing is supposed to be what the disciples are to say upon being challenged since 'here' would related to the place where they were speaking, as it just re-emphasizes the authority of the Lord, but maybe that is just me. I still lean toward your interpretation though for the other reasons given.

spin

Last try. Imagine telling a serf to say to a tenant "the lord needs it and besides he'll send it back here". How is the serf to interpret the word "here" from your lips, when it means where the speaker (you) is?

aa5874

Spin's argument is just FUNDAMENTALLY absurd.

In gMark it is already established that Jesus is Lord long before the 11th chapter or the supposed triumphal entry.

In the very first chapter of the gMark Jesus story, the character called John the Baptist introduces Jesus as the Lord.

The character called John the Baptist PREPARES the way for the Lord Jesus [κυρίου] .

SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 1:3
Mark 1:3 NAS In gMark 2.28, the charater called Jesus refers to himself directly as Lord [ κύριός]

SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 2:28
Mark 2:28 NAS Again, long before the Lord Jesus needed the Ass in gMark 11.3, the author established that his Jesus character was the Lord in Mark 5.19.

SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:19 Mark 5:19 NAS It is extremely clear that the Jesus character in the Markan narrative referred to himself as Lord and that the supposed disciples knew Jesus was the Lord.

Now, in Mark 11.3, the Jesus character needed an Ass to ride for his Triumphal entry as believed to be predicted in Zechariah 9.9.

The Lord Jesus must ride an Ass for the supposed prediction to come to pass in the Markan narrative.

SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 11:3 Mark 11:3 NAS Spin's argument is hopelessly flawed.

Now, it was the Lord Jesus character that needed the predicted Ass and it was established long before in the Markan narrative that Jesus was Lord even on the Sabbath.

Zechariah 9:9 NAS Jesus is the Lord in the NT.

TedM

If I tell someone to literally say "the lord needs it and besides he'll send it back here", then the most natural meaning to me is something like "the lord needs this thing, and besides - as soon as he is done with it - he will send it back here to you, so don't worry yourself about it". "here" would be understood to be the place where it is borrowed from. The whole interpretation of the verse in Mark rests on the question of how much of the verse is to be spoken by the disciples. I do hope this is the last of it, too.

TedM

It can be argued, as spin does, that every case of "the Lord" in Mark refers to God Himself. And, there are several cases where that is not even debatable. Here's one:

Use of simply "Lord" in 7:28 clearly refers to Jesus, but it isn't "the Lord" and it doesn't require that people who saw and referred to Jesus as "Lord" would ALSO have referred to him in the 3rd person as "the Lord". This is spin's position, and while I think it as stretch, it is true that I cannot find any clear cases in Mark where Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" without question. That includes the verse about the colt.

aa5874

You seem unfamiliar with gMark, the NT Canon, the Creed of the Jesus cult, the writings of the Jesus cult and the Greek word for "Lord" so spin's absurdities may appeal to you.

The very character called Jesus in gMark claimed he was the Lord so I find it frightening that you cannot find any clear case where Jesus is referred to as the Lord.