Yes, following Peter's Confession of Christ, this is Christ's Confession of Christ. And He must have known that it would lead to His death. So why didn't He remain silent before the High Priest as He did before Pilate?
And why did He remain silent before Pilate rather than contest the false charges? The gospel authors portray Jesus as allowing His death to go forward. Is this the true interpretation - or did Jesus really see it as His being His time to die?
My goodness, Rublev, he remained silent for a long time before both as charge after charge after charge were heaped up against -- so much so that both were surprised, and said so.
(I think Jesus was consciously fulfilling the Isaian passage about being silent before his slaughterers.)
But when the high priest in desperation stood up and directly confronted Jesus, asking him a direct question, he answered. But even then only briefly.
Even more brief was his answer to Pilate's "Are you the king of the Jews?" (And he did answer him.)
did Jesus really see it as His being His time to die?
If his anguished cries in Gethsemane were met with an answer requiring that, or if only met by a horrible silence!, he must have.
______
The passage in Luke where a comforting angel appears is pretty definitely not part of the original gospel.
According to the theology of the gospel writers Jesus sees it as His appointed time to reveal His messianic identity and fulfil His messianic destiny by His death. The passion narrative is portrayed as a spiritual battle which no other human can endure: 'this is your hour and the power of darkness' (Luke 22: 53).
Peter denies Him three times. James and John cannot drink the cup of suffering and die at His left and right hand. The disciples all flee and desert Him.
*And yet, notice how the Gospel of John presents the Gethsemane scene as if Jesus is totally in control. There is no agonized prayer struggle down on the ground, but when the soldiers come to arrest him, they fall to the ground! And it is as if Jesus in lordly fashion gives his disciples permission to leave, telling those who came to arrest him, "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."
I still don't understand how the image of "ransom" works in this context. The picture in my mind is of an individual or individuals held captive, and the captor demanding payment for them to be released. In this context I would like to know who are held captive, who holds them captive, and how the ransom is paid to the captor. Then how this all fits into Isaiah 53. Perhaps it doesn't.
There are unmistakable parallels between Is 53 and the gospel accounts of the Passion and crucifixion. What I find surprising is that the clearest exposition of it is by the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8: 32-35. You would think that John would nab it and turn it into one of his thematic discourses, as part of his theology of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God (John 1: 29).
Mark expresses the classic statement of the atonement that Jesus gave His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10: 45). Humanity is held captive by satan according to the gospels (the consequence of the Fall). In the Temptation story satan says that authority over all the kingdoms of the world has been given to him (Luke 4: 5-7). Prior to His arrest Jesus tells His disciples that 'the Prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me' (John 14: 30). And the Risen Christ tells the disciples in the Great Commission that 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me' (Matt 28: 18). The ransom model is the same theology as the Harrowing of Hell.
But there is a varied language of the atonement being used in the gospels. All the theology models of the atonement are far too small to be satisfactory as an explanation. The salvific act includes the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and Pentecost. It has been God's plan for eternity.
I still don't understand how the image of "ransom" works in this context. The picture in my mind is of an individual or individuals held captive, and the captor demanding payment for them to be released. In this context I would like to know who are held captive, who holds them captive, and how the ransom is paid to the captor.
I would hazard the guess that all humanity is held captive, and that it is death that holds humanity captive. Exactly how Jesus's death pays that ransom, I'm not sure, beyond "undoing" it.
This strikes me as yet another example of how this sort of thing should be phrased "is like a ransom" rather than "is a ransom." These are all imperfect metaphors to help us get a handle on what is ultimately a mystery.
There are a range of images of the atonement in the Bible:
ransom (Mark 10: 45),
propitiation (1 John, 4: 10),
reconciliation (2 Cor 5: 18; Eph 2: 16; Col 1: 20-21).
sacrifice (Heb 8: 3-6; 9: 6-8),
righteousness (2 Cor 5: 21),
triumph (Col 2: 15),
suffering servant (1 Pet 2: 24),
new covenant (Matt 26: 28; Heb 12: 24),
covenant love (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; Jer 31: 3).
And so the BCP communion service makes a Protestant statement about the atonement which tries to include a number of them: 'Almighty God... didst give thine only son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, who made there by his one oblation of himself once offered a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.'
+'Surveying the Wondrous Cross: New Testament Pictures for the Atonement.'
+'Atonement - Encyclopedia of the Bible - Bible Gateway.'
The the images in Romans and 2 Corinthians would have to be complementary, since Paul himself wrote both, and some say this is also true of Colossians.
Ephesians is (perhaps) another matter, being pseudonymous
Mark - ransom (Mark 10: 45).
Matthew - ransom (Matthew 20: 28); new covenant (Matt 26: 28).
Luke - new covenant (Luke 22:20); suffering servant (Acts 8: 32-33).
John - lamb of God (John 1: 29); covenant love (John 3: 16); propitiation (1 John 4:10).
Peter - suffering servant (1 Pet 2: 24).
Paul - reconciliation (2 Cor 5: 18; Eph 2: 16; Col 1: 20-21); righteousness (2 Cor 5: 21); triumph (Col 2: 15); covenant love (Rom 5: 6); sacrifice (Heb 8: 3-6).
Some argue that Luke has no theology of the atonement and for him it is all about the resurrection. He omits the 'ransom' statement in Mark and Matthew. The apostles in Acts emphasise the message of salvation and the resurrection of Christ rather than His death and crucifixion (Acts 2: 14-41; 7: 55-56). Which is interesting because Paul takes a different view and goes to Corinth determined to preach nothing but Christ crucified (1 Cor 2: 2; 1: 17-25).
The the images in Romans and 2 Corinthians would have to be complementary, since Paul himself wrote both, and some say this is also true of Colossians.
Ephesians is (perhaps) another matter, being pseudonymous
Though Paul could well have been developing and grappling with his ideas and theology over time? Most of us are in a different place, theologically, than where we started from.
Mmm, I do know a few of them as well, @Bishops Finger 😥. Sadly there’s still much arrogance, from some people, who ‘know’ that their interpretation is absolutely the right one.
"Raptor Eye" said:
Why wouldn't 'Q' be simply that, what everyone knew and passed on about Jesus?
Q can't be simply that because many of its passages are written word for word the same or very nearly the same in two gospels, Matthew and Luke. Oral memory would hardly manage to remember word for word the same in Aramaic, much less translate an oral Aramaic tradition word for word the same into Greek. .
So there must be some written Greek behind the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, and that's a bit encouraging.
A simple example why: Mark 1:7-8 tells us what John the Baptizer preached.
preached.Some have translated it,
"...and to give his life a ransom for many."
@Rublev
This is a post in reply to your question today on the Errant Baptist thread:
Jesus was surely into apocalyptic eschatological thinking.
His first words in Mark are, The time is fulfilled and the K of G is near.
Later in Mark he tells the Twelve and others: There are some standing here will not taste [experience] death before the K. comes in power.
Overlooking Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives he tells Peter, James, John, and Andrew that the end of the world is near and the stars will fall from heaven, adding: All these things will take place before this generation has passed away.
Standing before the Council who are about to condemn him to death, he affirms to them that he is the Messiah and says "You (pl.) will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven." In other words, they will live to see that.
In Q, there is a Matthew-Luke passage to the effect that all the punishment for all the sins of the generations will fall on "this generation." Why would Jesus have said that if he did not believe his generation was the last generation?
Rublev, I simply cannot agree with you on that. Jesus was telling the Council not that they would see a vision of him sitting at the right hand of God but that they would actually see him sitting there and see him coming with the clouds of heaven. He was saying they would live to see it--and I think he even meant that at that time they might see and understand, like the numerous voices in Isaiah 53!
The church came with Pentecost, not the Kingdom. Note that the church is never called the Kingdom of God in the NT. (Paul even warned church members that certain behaviors could prevent them from "inheriting the Kingdom of God" when it came.)
Nor did the world end with the destruction of Jerusalem. The preterists want to say that, and I am convinced they are wrong.
Ever since Johannes Weiss and Schweitzer, scholars have had to struggle with this, and I from my early twenties had to struggle with it. The six scholars I most highly value--seven, including Jeremias, are all of the opinion (as was Schweitzer) that Jesus believed the end was near.
______
Before I saw this post, for which I thank you, I had already written this:
As the wonderfully devout Lutheran conservative scholar Joachim Jeremias wrote in 1971
regarding his scholarly conclusions:
"This raises an extremely serous question: must we not concede that Jesus' expectation of an imminent end remained unfulfilled? Honesty and the demand for truthfulness compel us to the answer 'Yes'. Jesus expected that the end would come soon."
And that, Jeremias says, we must concede "quite frankly." (The Proclamation of Jesus, p.139)
The evangelical scholar I. H. Marshall greatly admired Jeremias, and was in very close agreement with him.
@Bishops Finger Last night and this morning I have had good experiences having real discussions with shipmates who wanted real discussion. You just hit three of my threads wanting only to be provocative. I'm not playing your game.
O dear. A simple, civil request. Please take it in the spirit in which it is asked.
You see, it's all very well to mention these various writers, but some of us do need some corroboration, as it were, of what you say they're telling us. That's where a link (if it can be provided, and it's not always possible, I know, on account of copyright etc.) could be helpful.
Both were "errantly" expecting the ending of the age with cataclysmic judgment and with the coming of the new age.
Which is exactly what happened.
I really don't think so, but I invite you to describe for us in detail exactly how the old age came with cataclysmic fiery judgment in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation, and how the new age came in all its fullness (which surely would have had to include the arrival of the Kingdom of God in all its perfection) in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation. And Paul's as well.
Both were "errantly" expecting the ending of the age with cataclysmic judgment and with the coming of the new age.
Which is exactly what happened.
I really don't think so, but I invite you to describe for us in detail exactly how the old age came with cataclysmic fiery judgment in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation, and how the new age came in all its fullness (which surely would have had to include the arrival of the Kingdom of God in all its perfection) in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation. And Paul's as well.
No detail necessary. It's just typical hyperbole. Not LITERAL.
Both were "errantly" expecting the ending of the age with cataclysmic judgment and with the coming of the new age.
Which is exactly what happened.
I really don't think so, but I invite you to describe for us in detail exactly how the old age came with cataclysmic fiery judgment in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation, and how the new age came in all its fullness (which surely would have had to include the arrival of the Kingdom of God in all its perfection) in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation. And Paul's as well.
No detail necessary. It's just typical hyperbole. Not LITERAL.
Not that the death of a million people can be exaggerated.
@Martin54
I do not agree that you can so easily dismiss the plain sense of John's and Jesus' and Paul's words about what they were expecting.
For example, I think Paul was being quite literal when he advised the Corinthians to give up re-marrying and even marrying(!) in order to better prepare themselves spiritually for Jesus' imminent return (I Cor. 7).
And I think the Baptizer was being quite literal when he said that people must hurry to repentance and baptism in order to avoid being among those thrown into the "unquenchable fire" of the coming "wrath" (Q Luke 3:7, 17):
Also, I think Jesus was being quite literal when he told his twelve and others, "Amen, I tell you, some who are standing here will not experience death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9:1) / "before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom" (Matthew 16:28),"
and when he told Peter, James, John, and Andrew as they were sitting with him on the Mount of Olives, "In those days...the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken" and "people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory ... Amen, I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away before all these things have happened" Mark 13: 24-26, 30)
and when he told the Jerusalem Council who were about to condemn him to death that "you" (plural) will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62), indicating that they themselves would live to see it.
Both were "errantly" expecting the ending of the age with cataclysmic judgment and with the coming of the new age.
Which is exactly what happened.
I really don't think so, but I invite you to describe for us in detail exactly how the old age came with cataclysmic fiery judgment in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation, and how the new age came in all its fullness (which surely would have had to include the arrival of the Kingdom of God in all its perfection) in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation. And Paul's as well.
No detail necessary. It's just typical hyperbole. Not LITERAL.
@Martin54
I do not agree that you can so easily dismiss the plain sense of John's and Jesus' and Paul's words about what they were expecting.
For example, I think Paul was being quite literal when he advised the Corinthians to give up re-marrying and even marrying(!) in order to better prepare themselves spiritually for Jesus' imminent return (I Cor. 7).
And I think the Baptizer was being quite literal when he said that people must hurry to repentance and baptism in order to avoid being among those thrown into the "unquenchable fire" of the coming "wrath" (Q Luke 3:7, 17):
Also, I think Jesus was being quite literal when he told his twelve and others, "Amen, I tell you, some who are standing here will not experience death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9:1) / "before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom" (Matthew 16:28),"
and when he told Peter, James, John, and Andrew as they were sitting with him on the Mount of Olives, "In those days...the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken" and "people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory ... Amen, I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away before all these things have happened" Mark 13: 24-26, 30)
and when he told the Jerusalem Council who were about to condemn him to death that "you" (plural) will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62), indicating that they themselves would live to see it.
Why do you keep ignoring the Transfiguration from the next verse? Perfectly fulfilling the hyperbole in symbolic, metaphoric vision.
I was discussing this my colleague the other day. And he said that the language of Jesus is often extreme and non-literal. And the Bible often speaks about spiritual matters using metaphors, parables, and signs of signs because that is the only way it can be done. Language is finite and God is not.
There is an example coming up in the Anglican lectionary for next Sunday: 'Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple' (Luke 14: 26). That cannot possibly be literal because it contradicts the fifth commandment to honour your father and mother. In Aramaic there was no word to say 'prefer.' If you wanted to say that you preferred apples to pears then you had to say, 'I like apples but I hate pears.' So the text should be taken as meaning that we are to prefer discipleship to our families and even our lives.
I think the church did expect an immanent Parousia and this caused a re-evaluation when it didn't occur. And I think the writing of the four gospels came out of that re-evaluation.
@Bishops Finger Hyperbole, or exaggerated language, is often used in the Bible
Sure, but not a single one of the exaggerations listed in that article you linked comes close to the kind of futuristic apocalyptic expectations John and Jesus expressed. Even the one that almost seems to, Matthew 11:28, is a King James mis-translation (see Bible hub) that even conservative translations render "And you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted to heaven...?"
So my answer must be No, that article does not demonstrate that Martin has a valid point.
And Paul was being especially literal when he advised the Corinthians to give up re-marrying and even marrying(!)in order to better prepare themselves spiritually for Jesus' imminent return (I Cor. 7).
I will next reply to Martin's (in my opinion misguided) attempt to explain Mark 9:1 by an appeal to the Transfiguration.
@Bishops Finger Hyperbole, or exaggerated language, is often used in the Bible
Sure, but not a single one of the exaggerations listed in that article you linked comes close to the kind of futuristic apocalyptic expectations John and Jesus expressed. Even the one that almost seems to, Matthew 11:28, is a King James mis-translation (see Bible hub) that even conservative translations render "And you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted to heaven...?"
So my answer must be No, that article does not demonstrate that Martin has a valid point.
Doesn't stop Martin making a worthwhile point. His opinion is as valid as yours.
@Bishops Finger Hyperbole, or exaggerated language, is often used in the Bible
Sure, but not a single one of the exaggerations listed in that article you linked comes close to the kind of futuristic apocalyptic expectations John and Jesus expressed. Even the one that almost seems to, Matthew 11:28, is a King James mis-translation (see Bible hub) that even conservative translations render "And you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted to heaven...?"
So my answer must be No, that article does not demonstrate that Martin has a valid point.
Doesn't stop Martin making a worthwhile point. His opinion is as valid as yours.
Comments
And why did He remain silent before Pilate rather than contest the false charges? The gospel authors portray Jesus as allowing His death to go forward. Is this the true interpretation - or did Jesus really see it as His being His time to die?
(I think Jesus was consciously fulfilling the Isaian passage about being silent before his slaughterers.)
But when the high priest in desperation stood up and directly confronted Jesus, asking him a direct question, he answered. But even then only briefly.
Even more brief was his answer to Pilate's "Are you the king of the Jews?" (And he did answer him.)
If his anguished cries in Gethsemane were met with an answer requiring that, or if only met by a horrible silence!, he must have.
______
The passage in Luke where a comforting angel appears is pretty definitely not part of the original gospel.
Peter denies Him three times. James and John cannot drink the cup of suffering and die at His left and right hand. The disciples all flee and desert Him.
*And yet, notice how the Gospel of John presents the Gethsemane scene as if Jesus is totally in control. There is no agonized prayer struggle down on the ground, but when the soldiers come to arrest him, they fall to the ground! And it is as if Jesus in lordly fashion gives his disciples permission to leave, telling those who came to arrest him, "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."
I struggled with it. Paul struggled with it. Even Jesus struggled with it.
Mark expresses the classic statement of the atonement that Jesus gave His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10: 45). Humanity is held captive by satan according to the gospels (the consequence of the Fall). In the Temptation story satan says that authority over all the kingdoms of the world has been given to him (Luke 4: 5-7). Prior to His arrest Jesus tells His disciples that 'the Prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me' (John 14: 30). And the Risen Christ tells the disciples in the Great Commission that 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me' (Matt 28: 18). The ransom model is the same theology as the Harrowing of Hell.
But there is a varied language of the atonement being used in the gospels. All the theology models of the atonement are far too small to be satisfactory as an explanation. The salvific act includes the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and Pentecost. It has been God's plan for eternity.
This strikes me as yet another example of how this sort of thing should be phrased "is like a ransom" rather than "is a ransom." These are all imperfect metaphors to help us get a handle on what is ultimately a mystery.
"...and to give his life a ransom for many."
See Bible hub.
ransom (Mark 10: 45),
propitiation (1 John, 4: 10),
reconciliation (2 Cor 5: 18; Eph 2: 16; Col 1: 20-21).
sacrifice (Heb 8: 3-6; 9: 6-8),
righteousness (2 Cor 5: 21),
triumph (Col 2: 15),
suffering servant (1 Pet 2: 24),
new covenant (Matt 26: 28; Heb 12: 24),
covenant love (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; Jer 31: 3).
And so the BCP communion service makes a Protestant statement about the atonement which tries to include a number of them: 'Almighty God... didst give thine only son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, who made there by his one oblation of himself once offered a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.'
+'Surveying the Wondrous Cross: New Testament Pictures for the Atonement.'
+'Atonement - Encyclopedia of the Bible - Bible Gateway.'
Ephesians is (perhaps) another matter, being pseudonymous
Mark - ransom (Mark 10: 45).
Matthew - ransom (Matthew 20: 28); new covenant (Matt 26: 28).
Luke - new covenant (Luke 22:20); suffering servant (Acts 8: 32-33).
John - lamb of God (John 1: 29); covenant love (John 3: 16); propitiation (1 John 4:10).
Peter - suffering servant (1 Pet 2: 24).
Paul - reconciliation (2 Cor 5: 18; Eph 2: 16; Col 1: 20-21); righteousness (2 Cor 5: 21); triumph (Col 2: 15); covenant love (Rom 5: 6); sacrifice (Heb 8: 3-6).
Some argue that Luke has no theology of the atonement and for him it is all about the resurrection. He omits the 'ransom' statement in Mark and Matthew. The apostles in Acts emphasise the message of salvation and the resurrection of Christ rather than His death and crucifixion (Acts 2: 14-41; 7: 55-56). Which is interesting because Paul takes a different view and goes to Corinth determined to preach nothing but Christ crucified (1 Cor 2: 2; 1: 17-25).
Though Paul could well have been developing and grappling with his ideas and theology over time? Most of us are in a different place, theologically, than where we started from.
Where they always were. Delusionland.
Why wouldn't 'Q' be simply that, what everyone knew and passed on about Jesus?
Q can't be simply that because many of its passages are written word for word the same or very nearly the same in two gospels, Matthew and Luke. Oral memory would hardly manage to remember word for word the same in Aramaic, much less translate an oral Aramaic tradition word for word the same into Greek. .
So there must be some written Greek behind the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, and that's a bit encouraging.
A simple example why: Mark 1:7-8 tells us what John the Baptizer preached.
preached.Some have translated it,
"...and to give his life a ransom for many."
_____
The intended reading is under An Atoning Jesus.
This is a post in reply to your question today on the Errant Baptist thread:
Jesus was surely into apocalyptic eschatological thinking.
His first words in Mark are,
The time is fulfilled and the K of G is near.
Later in Mark he tells the Twelve and others:
There are some standing here will not taste [experience] death before the K. comes in power.
Overlooking Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives he tells Peter, James, John, and Andrew that the end of the world is near and the stars will fall from heaven, adding:
All these things will take place before this generation has passed away.
Standing before the Council who are about to condemn him to death, he affirms to them that he is the Messiah and says
"You (pl.) will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven." In other words, they will live to see that.
In Q, there is a Matthew-Luke passage to the effect that all the punishment for all the sins of the generations will fall on "this generation." Why would Jesus have said that if he did not believe his generation was the last generation?
James Boswell wrote:
John was not merely predicting the fall of Jerusalem, nor was Jesus.
Martin: Was he precluding it? Unlike Jesus.
James: I wouldn't think so. He seems to have envisioned fiery wrath falling on all the world.
Thanks for these references which are very interesting:
I take the coming of the kingdom in power as a reference to Pentecost.
Jesus sitting at the right hand of God is described in the vision of St Stephen.
But the end of the world does not take place in the generation of the apostles. Unless it is intended as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem?
The church came with Pentecost, not the Kingdom. Note that the church is never called the Kingdom of God in the NT. (Paul even warned church members that certain behaviors could prevent them from "inheriting the Kingdom of God" when it came.)
Nor did the world end with the destruction of Jerusalem. The preterists want to say that, and I am convinced they are wrong.
Ever since Johannes Weiss and Schweitzer, scholars have had to struggle with this, and I from my early twenties had to struggle with it. The six scholars I most highly value--seven, including Jeremias, are all of the opinion (as was Schweitzer) that Jesus believed the end was near.
______
Before I saw this post, for which I thank you, I had already written this:
As the wonderfully devout Lutheran conservative scholar Joachim Jeremias wrote in 1971
regarding his scholarly conclusions:
"This raises an extremely serous question: must we not concede that Jesus' expectation of an imminent end remained unfulfilled? Honesty and the demand for truthfulness compel us to the answer 'Yes'. Jesus expected that the end would come soon."
And that, Jeremias says, we must concede "quite frankly." (The Proclamation of Jesus, p.139)
The evangelical scholar I. H. Marshall greatly admired Jeremias, and was in very close agreement with him.
So does N. T. Wright, in a way. And I'm convinced he is wrong about that.
Thank you.
You see, it's all very well to mention these various writers, but some of us do need some corroboration, as it were, of what you say they're telling us. That's where a link (if it can be provided, and it's not always possible, I know, on account of copyright etc.) could be helpful.
Which is exactly what happened.
I really don't think so, but I invite you to describe for us in detail exactly how the old age came with cataclysmic fiery judgment in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation, and how the new age came in all its fullness (which surely would have had to include the arrival of the Kingdom of God in all its perfection) in the lifetime of John's and Jesus' generation. And Paul's as well.
No detail necessary. It's just typical hyperbole. Not LITERAL.
Not that the death of a million people can be exaggerated.
I do not agree that you can so easily dismiss the plain sense of John's and Jesus' and Paul's words about what they were expecting.
For example, I think Paul was being quite literal when he advised the Corinthians to give up re-marrying and even marrying(!) in order to better prepare themselves spiritually for Jesus' imminent return (I Cor. 7).
And I think the Baptizer was being quite literal when he said that people must hurry to repentance and baptism in order to avoid being among those thrown into the "unquenchable fire" of the coming "wrath" (Q Luke 3:7, 17):
Also, I think Jesus was being quite literal when he told his twelve and others, "Amen, I tell you, some who are standing here will not experience death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power" (Mark 9:1) / "before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom" (Matthew 16:28),"
and when he told Peter, James, John, and Andrew as they were sitting with him on the Mount of Olives, "In those days...the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken" and "people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory ... Amen, I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away before all these things have happened" Mark 13: 24-26, 30)
and when he told the Jerusalem Council who were about to condemn him to death that "you" (plural) will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62), indicating that they themselves would live to see it.
@Martin54 may have a valid point here. Hyperbole, or exaggerated language, is often used in the Bible - Jesus himself used it:
https://tentmaker.org/Biblematters/hyperbole.htm
@James Boswell II , is it not feasible that both John, and Jesus, employed this method of teaching?
Why do you keep ignoring the Transfiguration from the next verse? Perfectly fulfilling the hyperbole in symbolic, metaphoric vision.
I was discussing this my colleague the other day. And he said that the language of Jesus is often extreme and non-literal. And the Bible often speaks about spiritual matters using metaphors, parables, and signs of signs because that is the only way it can be done. Language is finite and God is not.
There is an example coming up in the Anglican lectionary for next Sunday: 'Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple' (Luke 14: 26). That cannot possibly be literal because it contradicts the fifth commandment to honour your father and mother. In Aramaic there was no word to say 'prefer.' If you wanted to say that you preferred apples to pears then you had to say, 'I like apples but I hate pears.' So the text should be taken as meaning that we are to prefer discipleship to our families and even our lives.
@JamesBoswellII
I think the church did expect an immanent Parousia and this caused a re-evaluation when it didn't occur. And I think the writing of the four gospels came out of that re-evaluation.
A good example of what I was getting at re hyperbole. Thank you.
Hyperbole, or exaggerated language, is often used in the Bible
Sure, but not a single one of the exaggerations listed in that article you linked comes close to the kind of futuristic apocalyptic expectations John and Jesus expressed. Even the one that almost seems to, Matthew 11:28, is a King James mis-translation (see Bible hub) that even conservative translations render "And you, Capernaum, shall you be exalted to heaven...?"
So my answer must be No, that article does not demonstrate that Martin has a valid point.
And Paul was being especially literal when he advised the Corinthians to give up re-marrying and even marrying(!)in order to better prepare themselves spiritually for Jesus' imminent return (I Cor. 7).
I will next reply to Martin's (in my opinion misguided) attempt to explain Mark 9:1 by an appeal to the Transfiguration.
I was just now busy posting in Hell and only now saw your characteristically unhelpful comment.
No, you raised the question and I will answer it fully in scholarly fashion. That's how it goes here, or at least with me.
Doesn't stop Martin making a worthwhile point. His opinion is as valid as yours.
@James Boswell II, here's a link to the Wikipedia article, in case you don't know about Occam's Razor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Sir. More so. As it's more parsimonious.
Alas, no further reply is likely to be forthcoming from our teacher, as he's taking some shore leave.