I attended a two hour talk/discussion/Bible Study on Mark 13 by a theologian from my local church. For those that don't know, Mark 13 is the chapter in which Jesus preaches at length about the end times and makes several prophecies about the destruction of the temple as well as noting that no one will know when the Son of Man will come down from heaven.
I find, that if I read this chapter it seems clear that some of Jesus' predictions did not come true. If I take the verses at face value and read the direct words that are written, then the things that he said would come to pass before that generation died did not come to pass. Most Jewish Christians in the early Christian movement thought that Jesus was going to come back during their lifetime which was clearly proved wrong. When this didn't happen, the early Christians had to severely alter their doctrine and interpretation of Mark 13 to make it "fit" with reality.
Now, this theologian who was giving this long talk went into elaborate detail about various historical details and how certain things did come to pass but you really have to dig; he was referencing Isaiah and Daniel and claimed Jesus was also referencing these verses. He then went on to say that the entire chapter takes on a pseudo-chiastic structure or a A-B-A1-B1 structure in which verses 1 to 23 are talking about the destruction of the temple (which happened in 70 AD) and then verses 24 to 27 refer to the "endtimes" of the "end of the world" and then verses 28 to 31 refer back to the destruction of the temple and then 32 to 37 refer to the endtimes again.
This guy even pointed out the "apparent contradiction" between verses 28 to 31 (the fig tree parable) because here Jesus says there will be signs of the end and then contrasted with verses 32 to 37 in which Jesus says no one will know when the end times will occur. The theologian explained this away by saying that these three verses (28-31) refer to the destruction of the temple, sandwiched between verses talking about the true endtimes.
And I just sat there thinking that this guy's explanation of how Mark 13 could possibly make sense is so convoluted. He was trying so desperately to fit the words into the Christian mold and seemed to just be pulling far-fetched metaphors and random references right out of his you-know-what.
And I find this happens a lot with the Bible. Someone will over-analyze it and stretch the words to their utmost length rather than just saying, "Hmmm, maybe this rationally doesn't make any sense and maybe it's okay to admit that it doesn't make sense."
Maybe Jesus was just wrong about his predictions. Reading that chapter without pulling stuff out of my you-know-what gives the interpretation that Jesus thought that the Son of Man would come before this generation passed away. He also seems to indicate that the Son of Man had not come at that time yet. Reading this chapter without the Christian doctrinal lens seems to say that Jesus failed at making the correct prediction and that he did not think he was the Son of Man but that the Son of Man would be coming; he never says anything about "returning".
So, how far can you stretch Bible verses before you obscure the more obvious truth in the actual words? How far can you make a metaphor go before losing sight of the more literal meaning?
I find that Bible-believing Christians stretch metaphors and references and make it sound so "complex" and this complexity validates the truthfulness of the claims. It allows them to say, "Oh you just don't understand because you haven't studied enough." or "Oh you don't get it because God has made his Word so complex". Have you ever considered that "studying" too much just makes you over-analyze, overthink things and pull stuff out of your you-know-what?
I find, that if I read this chapter it seems clear that some of Jesus' predictions did not come true. If I take the verses at face value and read the direct words that are written, then the things that he said would come to pass before that generation died did not come to pass. Most Jewish Christians in the early Christian movement thought that Jesus was going to come back during their lifetime which was clearly proved wrong. When this didn't happen, the early Christians had to severely alter their doctrine and interpretation of Mark 13 to make it "fit" with reality.
Now, this theologian who was giving this long talk went into elaborate detail about various historical details and how certain things did come to pass but you really have to dig; he was referencing Isaiah and Daniel and claimed Jesus was also referencing these verses. He then went on to say that the entire chapter takes on a pseudo-chiastic structure or a A-B-A1-B1 structure in which verses 1 to 23 are talking about the destruction of the temple (which happened in 70 AD) and then verses 24 to 27 refer to the "endtimes" of the "end of the world" and then verses 28 to 31 refer back to the destruction of the temple and then 32 to 37 refer to the endtimes again.
This guy even pointed out the "apparent contradiction" between verses 28 to 31 (the fig tree parable) because here Jesus says there will be signs of the end and then contrasted with verses 32 to 37 in which Jesus says no one will know when the end times will occur. The theologian explained this away by saying that these three verses (28-31) refer to the destruction of the temple, sandwiched between verses talking about the true endtimes.
And I just sat there thinking that this guy's explanation of how Mark 13 could possibly make sense is so convoluted. He was trying so desperately to fit the words into the Christian mold and seemed to just be pulling far-fetched metaphors and random references right out of his you-know-what.
And I find this happens a lot with the Bible. Someone will over-analyze it and stretch the words to their utmost length rather than just saying, "Hmmm, maybe this rationally doesn't make any sense and maybe it's okay to admit that it doesn't make sense."
Maybe Jesus was just wrong about his predictions. Reading that chapter without pulling stuff out of my you-know-what gives the interpretation that Jesus thought that the Son of Man would come before this generation passed away. He also seems to indicate that the Son of Man had not come at that time yet. Reading this chapter without the Christian doctrinal lens seems to say that Jesus failed at making the correct prediction and that he did not think he was the Son of Man but that the Son of Man would be coming; he never says anything about "returning".
So, how far can you stretch Bible verses before you obscure the more obvious truth in the actual words? How far can you make a metaphor go before losing sight of the more literal meaning?
I find that Bible-believing Christians stretch metaphors and references and make it sound so "complex" and this complexity validates the truthfulness of the claims. It allows them to say, "Oh you just don't understand because you haven't studied enough." or "Oh you don't get it because God has made his Word so complex". Have you ever considered that "studying" too much just makes you over-analyze, overthink things and pull stuff out of your you-know-what?
