Is "stay awake" meaningful advice?

[marco]

Mark 13:30-36 (NIV)

" 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert[a]! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. 35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping."

This was read to me yesterday.


A few questions.

Is it sensible to tell people not to be asleep when the master returns, especially since he might be back at 3am?

Given the situation of people having to stay awake till master gets home is it reasonable to suppose the waiting time might be 2 millennia? Does the "generation won't pass away" statement not continue the parallel of master and sleepless servants, so master is to be back within at most weeks?

Jesus had no idea when finality will come, which is a theological wonder if he's consubstantial. Given his ignorance, is he just speculating - wrongly as it happens - that the last day will be soon?

[marco]

I know of no one who has to live a life of alertness and expectation for 2 millennia; average life span is well below that.

But then we have miracles, do we not? Chesterton said so. And Jesus himself has apparently been with us, very much awake. Matthew 28:20 explains: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. " KJB

I am a Christian; the quote continues to influence me:

As quotes do, even ones where the vehicle used to make the point isn't too good. The meaning is obvious. The story is poor and the generation gap wrong. I'm sure you give his listeners credit for an ability they didn't possess. Intelligence doesn't grow on fig trees.

[JehovahsWitness]

The story, not the related metaphor, makes no sense.

Makes no sense in what way? "Makes no sense" in the details ie, Masters never went away? "Makes no sense" in that if they did, no master would expect his servant to be awake if he returned at night (presumably because of the Slave Trade Unions that protected the extensive civil rights of first century slaves, dictating they all got a good night's sleep and only worked between 9 and 5)... Besides, if you are questioning the details in the story it says that the Master specifically assigned slaves on guard duty. So staying a wake would have been his JOB and I think it safe to presume if he were expected to stay awake at night he was free to sleep at other times. Still, I'm no expert on first century society but feel fairly confident that there is nothing in the story that is historically out of place in detail

I think the story Christ has chosen imperfectly illustrates the point he is trying to make.

I would ask "And WHAT point he was trying to make?" but you've already said the meaning (ie what the POINT or what central idea the story was trying to communicate) is not open to debate. What the whole thing was trying to communicate is open to interpretation and since that is the case, so is whether it did so effectively. Above and beyond the general concensus that the servant's wakefulness was a metaphore to being alert and ready for action, I can't see how one can declare "that it (the story) makes no sense" without imposing what your understanding of *sense* would be (ie interpretation of the point).

So either you are questioning the details in the story, or the appropriateness of the story to the meaning (which would require knowing the meaning), which would involve interpretation.

JW

[marco]

The story, not the related metaphor, makes no sense.

Makes no sense in what way? "Makes no sense" in the details ie, Masters never went away? "Makes no sense" in that if they did, no master would expect his servant to be awake if he returned at night (presumably because of the Slave Trade Unions that protected their civil rights and dictated a good night's sleep and only service between 9 and 5)... "Makes no sense"? because ....?

You are doing wonderfully well on your own without my assistance. Of course if one has the ability to see sense in Jehovah, then few things will be a puzzle. To murder is to show love; to destroy is to forgive; so telling people not to sleep for several weeks is fine by Biblical standards.

Jesus did make mistakes. I'm sure they've been listed somewhere.

[1213]

Mark 13:30-36 (NIV) " ….Be on guard! Be alert[a]! …."

The message is, “Be on guard! Be alert[a]!�. It is not “don’t ever sleep�. Person whose body is sleeping, can still be prepared and ready for the Kings comeback.

Jesus had no idea when finality will come, which is a theological wonder if he's consubstantial. Given his ignorance, is he just speculating - wrongly as it happens - that the last day will be soon?

Obviously, after all, Jesus himself says also in the text:
But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Mark 13:32

So, Jesus didn’t know when it all happens, he knew what will happen, but not when. And when he says:

…even so you also, when you see these things coming to pass, know that it is near, at the doors. Most assuredly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things happen….
Mark 13:29-30

Jesus seems to be speaking of the generation that sees all the things he told, not necessary about the generation who was with him at that day. But there is maybe also possibility that all the things already happened.

[marco]

Jesus seems to be speaking of the generation that sees all the things he told, not necessary about the generation who was with him at that day. But there is maybe also possibility that all the things already happened.

His listeners could not possibly understand this. Jesus was in the habit of keeping things simple and he fed his listeners on easy parables to help them along. Why then would be utter such an obscure statement whose obvious meaning is not the correct one? And given he is talking about a generation that will witness some events, signalled by hurricanes and earthquakes - common enough through each century - what possible use could it have been to those hearing him? If it is a lesson over their heads, meant for us, why is it in such codified form?

I'm afraid the obvious and simplest interpretation is that Jesus firmly believed he'd be back soon. That doesn't suit Christian theology, but there you have it.

[1213]

His listeners could not possibly understand this.

I don’t think that is true. Jesus clearly says that he doesn’t know the final day. He just tells what will happen before it and that disciples of Jesus should be ready for it. The day will come like thief in the night.

But what do you think about this thing Jesus said will happen before the end, has it really happened yet?

This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Matt. 24:14

I'm afraid the obvious and simplest interpretation is that Jesus firmly believed he'd be back soon. That doesn't suit Christian theology, but there you have it.

Maybe Jesus believed, but he also said he don’t know the day. And "soon" is relative word, for some 2000 years may be soon.

[marco]

But what do you think about this thing Jesus said will happen before the end, has it really happened yet?

The problem with a prediction is that, since it's not specific, we can pin it down to some event that resembles its terms. This is done regularly with Nostradamus: you can pick something from centuries of French history or you can identify Hister as Hitler.

Maybe Jesus believed, but he also said he don’t know the day. And "soon" is relative word, for some 2000 years may be soon.

That's the same problem of expanding the interpretation of a prediction. People want Jesus to be omniscient - even though he admits he does not know - and take his guesswork as accurate. He probably thought soon meant soon. If I tell my wife I'll put the buckets out soon and wait for a few days, then the apocalypse will come sooner than one imagined.

[1213]

The problem with a prediction is that, since it's not specific, we can pin it down to some event that resembles its terms.

Interesting claim, in my opinion Jesus is specific.

He probably thought soon meant soon.

Yeah, but we don’t know what he meant with “soon�.

If I tell my wife I'll put the buckets out soon and wait for a few days, then the apocalypse will come sooner than one imagined.

Don’t do it.

[marco]

The problem with a prediction is that, since it's not specific, we can pin it down to some event that resembles its terms.

Interesting claim, in my opinion Jesus is specific.

Specific means that he specifies in such a way that we can identify exactly what he is talking about. You can read online umpteen informed interpretations by people well-versed in exegesis.

He probably thought soon meant soon.

Yeah, but we don’t know what he meant with “soon�. [/quote]

When I translate "soon" from another language, I know what it means. The concept of "soon" placed in the eternal is something entirely different and not applicable to Christ's speech. There is no point in using plain language if we are going to change the meaning of a word like soon to mean very far off - its opposite meaning in fact. If we do this we can make any falsehood a truth.

The dilemma is caused over the reluctance of people to accept that Christ guessed wrongly.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 29 by marco]

The dilemma is caused over the reluctance of people to accept that Christ guessed wrongly.

So what if he did? He himself admitted ignorance, "but of that time no one knows but the father". Is he not allowed to have a suspicion?

The language he uses is apocalyptic as any 1st c. Jew would have understood (cf. Daniel, 1 and 2 Enoch; Ezra, etc. etc.; they can be found in Charlesworth's Pseudapigrapha). To pick it apart in this manner is to misunderstand the literary style: not very different from someone crying out at the start of an Aesop fable, "Ha, this can't be true; animals don't talk."

In general, I think the question is making a mountain out of mole hill.