I think the already/not yet issue is far more relevant to Mark 13 than you allow for. How did you determine that Mark 13.13 and 13.20 don't use “saved” "in a proleptic way." To clarify, the term proleptic applies only to the already part of the already/not yet problem, so Mark 13.13, which talks about people being saved in the future, would not be explicitly discussing proleptic salvation (whether or not Mark assumes at least some Christians are proleptically saved would have to be decided on what he says in other verses).Ben Smith: 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.
The problem with saying that 13.20 is not talking about proleptic salvation (granting the full theological significance of the word saved) is that Mark 13.20 is specifically discussing the elect.
Who or what are the elect? I did a Google search for "the elect" and the first hit I got had this:Mark 13.20: And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days.
Now, modern Christians (and other people, of course) can certainly misconstrue terms and concepts found in the NT, but I think this gets it right. But this creates a problem for Mark 13.20, as it would mean that had God not cut short the days the saved ("the elect") would not have been saved. As Haenchen appositely puts it in his comment on Mark 13.20 (translation helpfully provided by Neil Godfrey):Simply put, the “elect of God” are those whom God has predestined to salvation.
We might add that no contradiction emerges because God did cut short the days, thus preserving the elected status of the elect. In order to read Mark 13.20 as non-proleptic one would have to read the word saved as not referring to eternal salvation but only to preserving lives in a particular situation, a possibility you examine further down.Haenchen: Of course that's illogical. An elected person who is not saved is a contradiction in terms. But the expression is just to describe the magnitude of the tribulation, and the author succeeds well.
You start by stating that Mark is not playing around with the notion of whether one can be saved before the end here, but whether Mark is playing with that issue or not is exactly what is in question. We have to deal with the already/not yet problem in Mark 13 because, for one thing, it's the only place Mark uses the word elect and he uses it three times (Mark 13.20, 22, 27). The reason Mark doesn't address the already/not yet problem more widely in his gospel is that, within its timeframe, Jesus is the only character in it who is baptized with the holy spirit. The only place Mark can address the issue is in sayings that are talking about the future situation of Christians after Jesus's lifetime, when there are baptized Christians to be considered.Ben: 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.)
While it's true that in both Mark 13.13 and 13.20, Mark envisions a period of testing with salvation at the end of it, I think we also have to suppose that Mark's intended audience, as opposed to Jesus's audience within the narrative, were (presumably baptized) Christians. At a minimum, it would seem this would have to be true of the elect in v. 20. So the question arises, were they saved when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit or will they be saved on judgment day. This is precisely the already/not yet issue. Can someone lose his election between the time of his baptism and judgment day? Many or most modern Christians would say that one cannot lose one's election or the Holy Sprit -- if one apostatizes, it means that one had not actually received the Holy Spirit at one's baptism and never really been one of the elect. Applying this to Mark 13.20, who is specifically talking about the elect, it would mean that God cut short the days to preserve the saved status of the elect (as Haenchen suggested). That's a somewhat long-winded way of saying that Mark 13.20 may indeed be read proleptically: if God had not cut short the days, the elect would not have been saved, but the elect are saved.
Who and what are the elect and how do they function on this reading? More generally, how does v. 20 work on your reading? Who are the people experiencing the worst tribulation in history? Are they Judeans who fled the defilement/destruction of the temple? Did God cut short the tribulation because some among them were elect?Ben: 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.
