[net.religion] Interpretations of Mark 9:1

david@ssc-vax.UUCP (05/16/84)

Lew Mammel:

>By the way, a while back there was some discussion of Jesus's failed
>prophecy that he would return before "this generation passes away". This
>was answered by someone by saying that "generation" meant "race", or something.
>As strained as this is, it fails to answer the version in Mark, wherein
>Jesus states with almost legalistic specificity, "Truly, I say to you, there
>are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom
>of God come with power." (Mark 9:1)  Even conservative Christian scholars
>admit this is a failed prophecy.

Even though others have provided Lew with an explanation, I couldn't let this
one pass by without comment.  Care to produce the "conservative Christian
scholars" who admit this as a failed prophecy?  If I were a betting man, I'd lay
odds that I could produce many more such scholars who make no such admission.
Wycliffe states:

"The chapter division here is unfortunate, since this verse is clearly the
conclusion of the discourse recorded in the last part of Mark 8 ...  The coming
of *the kingdom of God* in this statement has been variously interpreted.
However, in the preceding verse Christ speaks of his advent in glory, and in
the following verses Mark records the Transfiguration..."

Note that the Transfiguration takes place in Mark 9:2, immediately after the
disputed verse.  It's not unreasonable to assume that Jesus was speaking of
Peter, James and John, who witnessed the event.  This is only one of a number
of possible interpretations.  It is the one I prefer, as it makes the most
sense given the context (that the event occurred 6 days after the prophecy,
and the proximity of the verses).

>It is only the Fundamentalists who try to squirm out of this embarassment
>by the contorted interpretations which so typify their thinking, and
>which place them beyond the pale of reason.

This is easily disproved by the above quoted paragraph.  I can produce other
non-Fundamentalist works which discuss the verse.  Embarassment?  Hardly.
Contorted interpretations?  It seems to me that Christians are more open to
the possible interpretations of the verse, as opposed to your insistance of
the interpretation of a failed prophecy.

	-- David Norris        :-)
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david