Subject: Let the reader understand... Again
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:12 amI haven't given Ben's case the attention it deserves, and haven't really spent much time on it, but I would want to account for the shift in tense between Mark 13.19 & 20 differently. I hope I have Ben's position right in what follows. Verse 19 is a predictive prophecy of the future. But then verse 20 seems to be an accomplished fact in the past.
As it appears, yes.
We seem to be shifting from a predictive prophecy in v. 19, to an accomplished fact in v. 20. So it sounds like v. 20 might be a later addition by someone who had seen the tribulation and it turned out not to be as bad a described in v. 19. My problem with this interpretation is that we're dealing with God and prophecy here. God can give a prophetic timeline and then alter the prophetic timeline. This happens in 2 Kings 20.1-6.
....
Returning to Mark, verse 20 may just mean that, for the sake of the elect, God has shortened the period of tribulation that had originally been foretold. It doesn't necessarily mean the period of tribulation has already happened; it's merely being foretold to be shorter. This is, in a way, the same thing as Ben is suggesting, except that the human author need not have lived through the event to know that God shortened it.
As I mentioned to Bernard some time ago on a different thread (things can get scattered on the forum sometimes, sorry), I have no issue with God shortening in the past a period of time which has yet to happen in the future. This is not too terribly different than the motif we find elsewhere of cutting short the
current time period (the one in which the author and readers are living):
1 Corinthians 7.29-31: 29 But this I say, brethren, the season has been shortened [ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν], so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
Paul here uses (a periphrastic form of) the perfect tense, quite appropriately in my view, since the time period which has been shortened is obviously the present time period from his point of view. But I see no real difference between God cutting short (in the past) the present time period and God cutting short (in the past) a future time period (in our case, the time of tribulation). If that is all we had to reckon with in Mark 13.20, all would be well (from my point of view).
I can foresee two objections here (though I expect there are many more). In the 1 Kings passage, the prayer of Hezekiah intervenes in between the prophecy he would die and the prophecy he would live, whereas in Mark nothing intervenes, it's just stated that God did it "for the elect." There I would argue that this may be Mark's way of communicating how much god loves the elect or he may be aware of an earlier prophecy (like Daniel) which he needs to reinterpret to make the arrival of the eschaton more immanent. One might counter-argue that both of these can actually be incorporated into Ben's position, but are not strong enough to stand by themselves, and therefore Ben's explanation gives a stronger account of the data.
Verse 20
is a bit sudden. It does carry with it its own explanation (God did it in order to spare the elect), however. This suddenness, on its own, would probably not be enough to make me suggest other options.
Second, it isn't just that the days that have been shortened, but that all flesh would not have been saved, which implies some flesh has been saved.
This is the heart of the matter, yes.
But then we're talking about the notorious already/not yet problem in regard to salvation in the New Testament. Are Christians saved already or will they be saved at the judgment? The answer seems to be both, which is why NT scholars love to use the word "proleptic' (the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished).
Let me grant for the sake of argument the theological significance of the word "save" (σῴζω) in 13.20. The usage in 13.13 seems to carry theological weight, but that salvation comes across as strictly future, and not in a proleptic way. Thing is, though, it comes across in much the same way in 13.20: strictly past, but still not in a proleptic way. Had Mark played around with the notion of whether one can be considered "saved" before the end, we would have to deal with the already/not yet issue. But in both verses, 13 and 20, Mark envisions a period of testing with salvation at the end of it. The only difference is that both this period of testing and the salvation at the end of it are in the future tense in the former verse and in the past tense in the latter. (I am not sure that the already/not yet issue ever really arises in Mark.)
The instance of "saved" in 13.20, however, may well be more literal, may it not? We
may be pouring too much theology into the word. Mark is perfectly capable of using this word in the more mundane sense of saving one's life or health (as opposed to dying or continuing to suffer disease), as in 3.4; 5.23, 28, 34; 6.56; 10.52; and 15.30-31. The salvation in 13.20 may simply be the preservation of human life which would have otherwise been lost.
Just upthread, however, I responded to rakovsky and held out the possibility that the author is writing in a "done deal" manner which may occasionally be found in the Hebrew scriptures. I presented one instance of this (Judges 8.19), but I
think I recall seeing others. Still pondering all of that.
What has struck me for a good while now in Mark 13.20 is how straightforward the past tense condition is, and how many of the translations warp the apodosis so as to make it sound more futuristic. I cannot say that my suggestion ("position" is probably too strong a word) is necessarily the best or only way to deal with the verb tenses, but it popped into my head as an option, so I floated the possibility.
Thanks for the feedback.