Jesus, the Temple and the Coming Son of Man: A Commentary on Mark 13...

[Abram K-J]

...by Robert H. Stein (IVP Academic, 2014):

 

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=4058

 

Really good book, even though it's one among several interpretations of this difficult but important chapter. Would make for a great Accordance module!

[Enoch]

...by Robert H. Stein (IVP Academic, 2014):

 

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=4058

 

Really good book, even though it's one among several interpretations of this difficult but important chapter. Would make for a great Accordance module!

What is he?  A preterist or futurist or newspaper exegete who sees it all happening today?  Does he note how Luke is distinctively different in the Olivet Discourse?

[Abram K-J]

What is he?  A preterist or futurist or newspaper exegete who sees it all happening today?

 

Can't say I'm familiar with these terms you're using. But if this helps, here's his outline of Mark 13 (in his words):

• 13:1-4: Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple (and Jerusalem) (chapter 3 of this book)
• 13:5-23: The coming destruction of the temple (and Jerusalem) and the sign preceding it (ch. 4)
• 13:24-27: The coming of the Son of Man (ch. 5)
• 13:28-31: The parable of the fig tree and the coming destruction of the temple (and Jerusalem) (ch. 6)
• 13:32-37: The parable of the watchman and the exhortation to be alert for the coming of the Son of Man (ch. 7)

I have a full review ready to be posted tomorrow morning (you can check my signature below for the blog url, if you wish), but here is a bit more of what I'll say, which is just summarizing the book:

 

“Stein teases out different settings and time-frames that different portions of Mark 13 refer to. He says, for example, “Mark does not see the coming of the Son of Man [AKJ: the apocalyptic imagery in 13:24-27] as part of Jesus’ answer (13:5-23) to the disciples’ twofold question (13:4) concerning the destruction of the temple” (72).

 

Throughout the book Stein keeps in view the distinction between the soon-to-come, 1st century future (destruction of the temple) and the distant, unknown day of the coming of the Son of Man. Stein acknowledges that it is “easy to intermix these two horizons [two settings in time] of the text, and the result is confusion and lack of clarity in understanding either setting in time” (100). Much of the chapter (but not all), Stein argues, anticipates the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Does he note how Luke is distinctively different in the Olivet Discourse?

 

I don't recall that he gives much attention to this.