Bock

Trip to Australia (and Other Nations) Wraps Up with Video/Audio Posting Aug 3 09

I finished my 7 nation, 10 city tour today with two lectures at Ridley College in Melbourne (Home in the past of Leon Morris). It was a great close to a wonderful trip that had me away for almost two full months. So tomorrow will be spent all day on a plane working my way back to Dallas.

I finished my 7 nation, 10 city tour today with two lectures at Ridley College in Melbourne (Home in the past of Leon Morris). It was a great close to a wonderful trip that had me away for almost two full months. So tomorrow will be spent all day on a plane working my way back to Dallas.

My audio and video interviews with the Centre of Public Christianity in Sydney posted today.  Here is the link:

http://publicchristianity.org/bock.html

Enjoy.

10 Comments

  • Colin

    Son of Man
    Dr Bock,
    I was grateful to attend your talk in Brisbane, it was a real help! One point I thought to bring up was the Old Testament usage of Son of Man – both books are exillic, and while Daniel sees the glorification of the son of Man, as per Phillipians 2:9-11, so Eziekiel has the term as the nessesary prior humiliation – as per Philipians 2:7. Eziekiel is in exile, has lost his right to the titles of priest (he is not in the temple) or Israelite (he is not in Israel), and God adresses him to reflect that – he has no special privilage or value. The upside is that therefore the Son of Man is not the redeemer of priests only or Israelites only, or the rich/powerful/clever etc, but, because he has humbled himself to the lowest, he is able to save to the utmost. Jesus’ usage of the title seems to encompase both apects – what do you think?
    God bless

    • bock

      Son of Man dlb

      Colin:

      Sorry to have a disappointing response, but I am not sure one should juxtapose Ezekiel and Daniel’s portraits like this. Ezekiel’s use is simply an idiom of address to a human prophet, while Daniel is looking at a specific figure of eschatological hope. Jesus’ appeal is only to Daniel as that is the only text alluded to in the NT usage. All the best.

  • Magnus Nordlund

    Correcting Jesus?
    Hi Dr Bock! Having read through a great deal of NT introductions as well as a few important books concerning the historical Jesus — Ive got a real problem explaining the synoptic accounts regarding Jesus words of his returning.

    Delbert Burkett explains these incompatible facts shortly and pregnant:
    “Within Mark, we can see an interesting attempt to deal with the fact that Jesus did not return soon. Jesus’ prediction that he would return within a generation occurs in the material to all three Synoptics (Mark 13:30; Matt 24:34-35; Luke 21:32-33). A further statement occurs in the material common to Mark and Matthew: “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Mark 13:32; Matt 24:36). Apparently, when Jesus’ prediction did not take place, someone explained this failure by asserting that Jesus had not really known when his comming would occur: only God knew that”.

    Dr Bock, the apocalypse of Mark and its synoptic counterparts are highly problematic. My question to you: Do you agree with Dr Burkett’s assertion that the actual words of Jesus was in some way corrected (by later editors) by the Church ?

    For me these textual evidences is disturbing i. e. showing a Jesus who either is misquoted by the tradition or is clearly wrong in his predictions. No other options is left; is there?!

    As far as I understand it; these passages is the hardest to explain in the NT…
    However, It needs explaining concerning the vocal attempts by atheistic/agnostic writers and/or exegets to show that the founder of Christianity was wrong all together…

    Sincerely Magnus, Sweden…

    • bock

      Correcting? dlb

      Magnus:

      A couple of points. (1) Jesus also said the gospel would go into the whole world before he returned (Mark 13:10). (2) Generation need not be temporal (i.e.. within a life span). It can be ethical (= wicked or good generation, depending on the context). This problem is an old one. It was what caused Albert Schweitzer to argue Jesus got the coming of the kingdom wrong. 

      My take is that the generation referred to in the Olivet Discourse is about the coming of justice being sure and that this wicked generation will not disappear before it comes. 

      dlb 

  • Ian

    “Way of the Master” approach to evangelism
    Dear Dr. Bock,

    I’m not sure if you remember but I had the pleasure of meeting you at Beit HaMashiach and also St Judes Anglican Church when you were in Melbourne in August. During your talks at Beit HaMashiach you touched on the subject of the best approach to use when evangelising to someone about Yeshua. Although you didn’t specifically mention the “Way of the Master” approach by Ray Comfort and Kirk Carmeron, from what I remember you seemed to imply that this type of the appoach is not the best one. I have a friend who very much likes the “Way of the Master” approach and I was hoping to share with him your views on it and what you believe is the best approach. Therefore, I was hoping you may be able to direct me to any articles you’ve written on what you believe is the best approach to evangelism and why others like “Way of the Master” are not the best. If no such article exists, could you please briefly write about it here? Thanks very much and hope to see you in Australia again in the future.

    God bless,
    Ian

  • Dennis Martin

    Olivet Discourse; Jesus’ Return
    Greetings, Darrell! I have been working through Mark’s account of the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13) in my sermons and wondered what you think of the concept that Jesus was not speaking of the end of all time, but rather the end of the age of the temple (which is the immediate context of the conversation).
    When asked about the when the end of the temple would be and signs of it’s coming end, Jesus responds with apocalyptic imagery from Daniel, Isaiah, and Joel among others to describe that the end is nearing. In this view the tribulation (vv. 19,24; “great tribulation” in Mt. & Lk.) in view is the destruction of the temple.
    Jesus coming in the clouds (v. 26) is possibly the realization and confirmation that Jesus is the mighty judge (clouds being a typical OT prophetic symbol of judgment) having judged Jerusalem and the nation. The cloud imagery could be taken as all who recall Jesus’ prophecy of the end of the temple should clearly see His authority as judge (see Dan 7:13).
    Mark 13:27 speaks of the Son of Man sending out the angels to collect the elect from everywhere seems to speak of that time after the destruction when after being scattered due to the tribulation of the temple’s destruction (and Roman scouring of the region) Jesus would draw His elect unto Himself in effect saying that the destruction of the Jewish way of sacrifice would give way to the Newer Covenant of the Church.
    Admittedly this is synthesized from H. Hanegraaff’s “The Apocalypse Code.” I’m not trying to get you to cross swords with another writer, but I’m trying to work out some of this stuff and trust you to be a sound, sensitive, and careful scholar. I think the general view has much to commend it regarding the Olivet Discourse, with less Biblical gymnastics than some of the more traditional views favored today.
    I appreciate your time in considering this lengthy matter. Thanks.

  • bock

    Discourse dlb

    Dennis:

     

    Jesus actually covers both topics. One of the mistakes is to make this an either-or. Jesus treated AD 70 as a pattern for the end. I have discussed this in detail on any of the commentaries I have done on Mark and Luke and in Jesus according to Scripture

    dlb