Responding to Elton Hollon’s Critique of Full Preterism- #2-#8- Daniel 7, Mark 13- The Coming of the Son of Man
Responding to Elton Hollon’s Critique of Full Preterism- #2- Installment #8 (#2-#8)
Be sure to read Elton Hollon’s Critique of Full Preterism.
Daniel 7- Mark 13- The Coming of the Son of Man
Hollon, along with many scholars today, suggests that in Mark 13, when the author speaks of the coming of the Son of Man as occurring “after those days” (i.e. after the judgment of Jerusalem) he was positing the coming of the Son of Man at some indeterminate time in the future after the AD 70 catastrophe. I believe this overlooks some critical pieces of data.
Daniel 7 posits the rise of the “Little Horn” in the days of that fourth empire (Daniel 7:9f). He would persecute the saints of God, until the judgment was set. The Son of Man would come on the clouds when the fiery stream of judgment against the Little Horn poured forth. In the interpretation of the vision (v. 15f), it is the Son of Man who comes “as the ancient of Days” in judgment of the Little Horn to vindicate the saints. (N. T. Wright – and others– notes, “In the LXX version of Daniel 7.13 the translator has interpreted ‘he came to the ancient of Days’ as ‘he came as the Ancient of Days.’” (Wright, Victory, 625).
If we posit the fourth empire of Daniel 7 as the days of Rome, (which I take as the better view, rejecting the Antiochan posit) this demands that even if one accepted the “after those days” argument, it would still mean that the coming of the Son of Man in vindication of the martyrs was to be in the days of Rome. (I fail to see how the death of Antiochus (See 1 Maccabees 6) in a foreign land fits the bill of Daniel 7. The saints did not receive an everlasting kingdom at that time and the pogroms against them continued).
Matthew 10:22f – The coming of the Son of Man is temporally delimited to the first century, in vindication of his saints. The context of this promise is that his disciples “will be hated of all men” and persecuted by the Jews rejecting the Gospel. Notice that Jesus twice references the Jewish source of this persecution. His disciples would be brought before “councils” (Sanhedrins) and synagogues. It is important to note that this persecution did not take place before the Ascension.
Matthew 16:27-28 – The coming of the Son of Man in judgment is tied contextually to Jesus’ discussion of his own impending martyrdom and the fact that if his apostles were to follow him, they too would be martyred. But they would be vindicated in that generation at his coming as the Son of Man.
Matthew 24:29f – This text should not be divorced from Jesus’ preceding predictions of the coming persecution of his followers (23:29ff; Mark 13:9-12- note the Jewish nature of the persecution in v. 9). It is to be carefully noted that in Mark 13:24, we do not simply have “after those days.” The text reads “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened …” Thus, the tribulation and the parousia are connected to “in those days.” Take note also, as I have observed repeatedly, that in Matthew’s account, the parousia is posited as “immediately after” the tribulations coming on Jerusalem. It is untenable to insert a 2000 year gap between the tribulation and the parousia.
R. T. France offers this:
The coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven was never conceived as a primitive form of space travel, but as a symbol for a mighty reversal of fortunes within history and at the national level.’ (G. B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation (1965), 20). Such language therefore fits well with the apocalyptic language in v. 29 in describing the destruction of the temple, viewed as an act of divine judgment, whereby the authority of Jesus is vindicated over the Jewish establishment which has rejected him. (For this understanding of the significance of the destruction of the temple, cf. 23:29–39.) The language is allusive rather than specific, and depends for its force on a familiarity with Old Testament imagery which is unfortunately not shared by all modern readers! ( France, R. T. Matthew: An Introduction and Mommentary ,Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, (1985). ) 347).
Let me point out again that even Enoch supports this. He foretold the vindication of the martyrs who cried out to the Most High God, when the Son of Man would come in judgment. It would be at the change from the Old Temple to the New which would be the abode of the vindicated martyrs and the righteous. And, it would be in the 70th generation from Adam– i.e. Jesus’ generation (Enoch XC: 23-38, p.127).
It should be noted that my friend, (rightly in my view), understands Daniel 7:13-14 to represent, not the ascension of Jesus but the coming of the Son of Man in judgment. (Elton Hollon, The Jewish Apocalyptic Background of the Son of Man and the New Testament, PDF posted on Academia. EDU- 1-3-2023, pages 8f). Other scholars agree.
Brant Pitre says:
“The evidence strongly suggests that the ‘Son of Man’ spoken of by Jesus in Mark 13:26-27 is none other than the Messiah who would come at the end of the Great Tribulation to deliver his people.” (Brant Pitre, Jesus, Tribulation and the End of the Exile (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 340- His emphasis).
Andreas Stutz offers this:
While Jesus applied the term ‘Son of Man’ from Daniel 7:13-14 to the various states of his ministry, he applied the vision reported in Daniel 7:13-14 (along with Zechariah 12:10) exclusively and unambiguously to his return (Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Luke 21:26-27). This observation confirms Jesus understood himself as the Danielic ‘Son of Man.’” ( Andreas Stutz, A Handbook on The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Edited by Craig Evans and David Mishkin (Peabody, Mass; Hendrickson, 2019), 158).
Now, if the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14 is the coming of the Son of Man in Mark 13:26f, as virtually all scholarship agrees, that delimits the temporal framework for the fulfillment of Mark 13 to the days of the fourth empire– the Roman empire. But even more, it demands that, “this generation shall not pass until all of these things be fulfilled” encompassed the coming of the Son of Man within that framework as well. Thus, the suggestion that “after those days” must be referent to some unknown future generation is called into serious question.
So, Daniel 7 posits the coming of the Son of Man as the coming to vindicate the martyrs. Jesus posited his coming as the Son of Man in vindication of the martyrs, at the first century judgment of Jerusalem. How then is it tenable to create a temporal disconnect between the coming of the Son of Man in vindication of the martyrs from the AD 70 judgment?
As I noted early on, what is evident in my friend’s postings – and the vast array of literature – is the fundamental presupposition that the Bible posits an end of time, physical parousia of Christ, attended by the physical resurrection of all the dead of all the ages. This is evident in Hollon’s citation of Dale Allison (with whom I have had the pleasure of corresponding). But I am convinced that this is fallacious and overlooks the reality of the typology of scripture.
Did the Jews expect, for instance, the literal return from captivity? Hollon / Allison argues that since they did (and it is clear that they did) and that such a national physical return from exile never happened per that expectation, such a restoration either simply failed, or is in the future.
Concomitant with that expectation was the hope that a physical Messianic, Davidic Warrior would come, destroy all of Israel’s enemies and establish God’s theocratic kingdom over all the earth.
Andrew Stutz chronicles the nature of the first century Kingdom expectation of the Jews:
The hope of that time (first century, DKP) was for a royal, ruling, sovereign Messiah who would lead Israel to a new spiritual, social and political future.
One feature of first century messianic expectation is the appearance of rebels as end time savior figures, as witnessed in both the New Testament and extra-biblical literature (cf. Acts 5:34f with Antiquities 20:97-99; Acts21:37-38, with Josephus Wars 2:261-263). In fact, ‘one can say that all the libertarian movements of the Second Temple period were messianic, whether at their base or at their roof beams’ (Haggai 1969, 48-49, author’s translation).These uprisings were stifled by the Roman occupying forces. Another characteristic of the imminent messianic expectation is the tense expectation found in the Qumran texts (see Betz and Riesner 1993, 119) and in the Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (Churgin 1907, 124). This messianic expectation was not unknown to the Roman historians (See Suetonius, Vesp.; Tacitus, Hist. 5.13). (Andreas Stutz, A Handbook on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, (Peabody, Mass,; Hendrickson, 2019), Craig Evans General Editor), 144f).
Richard Hays notes: “The title ‘Son of Man’ was often associated with the nationalistic hopes for a military ruler to drive out the foreign powers that controlled Jerusalem and to restore the sovereignty of Israel.” ( Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016), 54).
Hollon suggests that since some prophecies were conditional (which is true, of course) that this may explain the reason for the non-occurrence of the literalistic expectations of the parousia in the first century. In the Tanakh, conditional prophecies were generally contingent on obedience or disobedience (cf. Jeremiah 18). Promises of blessing could be withdrawn if the nation was disobedient. Threats of destruction could be delayed if the nation repented.
The problem with this posit is that Christ’s parousia was to be in judgment of Israel for filling the measure of her sin through killing Jesus’ followers. There was clearly no repentance. Thus, any possibility of a delayed parousia did not apply.
Undeniably, the Jewish expectation of a conquering Davidic Warrior Messiah did not come to a reality, nor were the other literalistic expectations realized. Thus, once again, it is suggested that either prophecy failed or it is projected into the future. The problem is that Jesus rejected those nationalistic expectations. It behooves us to document this, so in our next installment I will examine the contrast between the literalistic, nationalistic, expectation of the Jews and what Jesus actually taught. The contrasts are clear and decisive in my estimation.