The Gospel according to Mark

13. The Olivet Discourse. Ch. 13:1–37

In the Gospel of Mark there is no passage more problematic than the prophetic discourse of Jesus on the destruction of the Temple. The questions posed by the form and content of the chapter and by its relationship to the Gospel as a whole are complex and difficult and have been the occasion of an extensive literature.1 The Olivet discourse is unique as the longest uninterrupted course of private instruction recorded by Mark. Moreover, it is the only extended speech attributed to Jesus by the evangelist. The interpretation of Mark 13 is inevitably colored by critical decisions concerning the character and function of the material, its structured arrangement and essential authenticity.

The Olivet discourse occupies a special position in the Marcan outline. It provides the bridge between Jesus’ public ministry, culminating in the conflict with the Temple authorities (Chs. 11:11–12:12), and the Passion Narrative, where the conflict with authority is the occasion of Jesus’ condemnation and death (Ch. 14:1f., 10f., 42–65). By locating the eschatological discourse in this crucial position, and by recurring reference to the destruction of the Temple in the context of Jesus’ trial and execution (Chs. 14:58; 15:29, 39), the evangelist points to the relationship which exists between the judgment upon Jerusalem implied by the discourse and the death of Jesus. This theological understanding is reflected by the literary form of verses 5–37. In form Jesus’ words are a farewell address providing instruction and consolation for his disciples just prior to his death. Ch. 13 unites prophecy concerning the future with exhortation regulating the conduct of the disciples in the period when the Master will no longer be with them, and this is characteristic of a farewell discourse.2

The character of the discourse is further defined by its parenetic framework.3 It consists of admonition supported by reference to apocalyptic events which must take place within the plan of God. The emphasis upon parenesis, and even the detail of the constant form of address in the second person plural, are features which serve to distinguish Mark 13 from Jewish apocalyptic documents contemporary with it. At transitional points in the discourse Mark’s arrangement of Jesus’ words is punctuated by the characteristic word, “take care” (verses 5, 9, 23, 33). In verse 5 this exhortation introduces Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question concerning the destruction of the Temple. They are to “take care” that they are not deceived by the course of events into thinking that the end has come. This warning is repeated in verse 9 with reference to the disciples themselves and the prospect of their suffering. Persecution does not mean that the end has come, nor is it an occasion for the loss of hope. It is rather an occasion for witness to the nations, for this must take place before the end comes. What is required for vindication is patient endurance (verse 13). Verses 14–23 speak of an appalling sacrilege, the great tribulation, and a final wave of false messianic pretenders and prophets. The people of God, however, have been forewarned and must “take care” to avoid being deceived (verse 23). Following the description of the parousia (verses 24–27) and instruction regarding the time (verses 28–32), the final parable is introduced by the admonition, “Take care, watch” (verse 33).

The speech-pattern evident throughout the discourse may be analyzed as paraclesis supported by a statement introduced by the conjunction “for.”4 Paraclesis denotes both exhortation expressed in the imperative and consolation expressed in the indicative, as in verses 5–8.

Take care that no one leads you astray.	paraclesis (imperative, verse 5b)
For many will come in my name saying that ‘I am he’ and they will lead many astray.	for—reason (verse 6)
And when you hear of wars do not be disturbed.	paraclesis (imperative, verse 7a)
For this must take place, but it is not yet the end.	for—reason (verse 7b)
For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines.	for—reason (verse 8a)
These are the beginning of the pangs.	paraclesis (indicative, verse 8b)

The recognition of this pattern indicates that the apocalyptic instruction is not an independent element in the discourse. It has been introduced to provide the supporting reason for the exhortation. Far from being the main point stressed by Jesus, these developments are presupposed as something known from the Scriptures, from which Jesus draws out the consequences for his disciples. The discourse is actually structured and sustained by the nineteen imperatives found in verses 5–37.

This observation indicates that the primary function of Ch. 13 is not to disclose esoteric information but to promote faith and obedience in a time of distress and upheaval. With profound pastoral concern, Jesus prepared his disciples and the Church for a future period which would entail both persecution and mission. The discourse clearly presupposes a period of historical development between the resurrection and the parousia. The relationship of the necessity of suffering to the experience of vindication and glory established in Ch. 8:34–38 is stressed once again by the announcement of the manifestation in glory of the Son of Man in the context of eschatological suffering for the people of God.

This message was of profound significance for the Christians of Rome, harassed by persecution and disturbed by the rumors of the developments in Palestine in the sixties. The inclusion of the eschatological discourse in the Gospel was motivated by the same pastoral concern that had prompted Jesus’ teaching. Mark cautions his readers that the community is to find its authentic eschatological dimension not in apocalyptic fervor but in obedience to Jesus’ call to cross-bearing and evangelism in the confidence that this is the will of God which must be fulfilled before the parousia. Jesus’ words provided a bed-rock for Christian hope. The witness of the eschatological community not only focuses on the suffering Son of Man whose crucifixion and resurrection comprise the core of the gospel but also looks forward to the triumphant Son of Man whose appearance represents the one event in light of which the present is illumined. This fact enabled Mark to face the crisis of the sixties with realism and hope.5

An analysis of the structure of Ch. 13 must take account of the key phrase “these things.” The disciples ask when these things will take place, and what is the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished (verse 4).6 The italicized words are reference-points throughout the discourse. Jesus announces the sufferings which can be expected (verses 5–23) as well as the final victory which terminates the period of trial (verses 24–27). In verse 23, at the conclusion of the sketch of the historical events which must precede the in-breaking of salvation, Jesus cautions, “Take care, I have told you beforehand all things.” The announcement of the salvation which follows these events is then expressed in the classic formulation of the parousia. There is a correspondence between the question of verse 4, “Tell us when these things … will be accomplished” and the response of Jesus in verse 23, “I have told you … all things.” Verses 29–30 return to these reference points: “Whenever you see these things happening … and this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place.” The vocabulary demands that these statements be considered in relationship to verses 4 and 23. They cannot have reference to the cosmic dissolution described in verses 24–25 since these are phenomena which accompany the parousia, not preliminary events which point to it. These things in verse 29 refers to the entire discourse from verses 5–23, with special reference to verses 14–23.7 They provide the evidence for which the disciples asked. The point of Jesus’ warning is that these preliminary events must not be mistaken as evidence that the end has come. The events to be fulfilled within the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries (verse 30) should be regarded for what they are, preliminary events only. The parousia cannot take place until after they have occurred. They are the necessary precursors of the parousia, yet in themselves they do not determine the time of that event, which is known only to God (verse 32).8 The thrust of Jesus’ discourse, as Mark has recorded it, is to warn the disciples not to be disturbed by the preliminary signs nor to confuse them with the end itself.

Understood in this light, these words of Jesus do not stand in any tension with the saying which follows about not knowing the time of the master’s return. Since the preliminary events do not rigidly fix the date of the parousia, vigilance rather than calculation is required of the disciples and of the Church. These considerations, based on Marcan vocabulary and structure, demonstrate that verses 32–37, with their demand for confident faith and vigilance, should not be regarded as an afterthought, inserted by the evangelist. They constitute Jesus’ true answer to the disciples’ question.9

The OT plays an essential part in the structure and imagery of the prophetic discourse. L. Hartman has argued convincingly that the eschatological discourse has at its foundation an exposition or meditation based on texts in Daniel about “the last things,” to which other OT passages were joined by common themes and key words.10 The resultant prophetic discourse employed a reinterpretation of the OT prophecies of the Day of the Lord as the basis for pastoral exhortation. A form of this teaching circulated in the churches as an authoritative tradition at least two decades before Mark prepared his Gospel. It was known to Paul and cited by him as “a discourse of the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15) in the teaching he transmitted to his churches. In this tradition a parenetic exposition of the OT was combined with words of Jesus on watchfulness and on the unexpected occurrence of the end. The discourse existed in this form at the latest a few years prior to A.D. 50, since Paul must have come in contact with it before his arrival in Thessalonica.11 If Hartman is correct, Jesus’ words have had a significant pre-history before they were finally recorded in the pages of the Synoptic Gospels. This Christian life situation, in which the tradition was used to provide guidance in actual church situations as well as to supply teaching on eschatology, may help to resolve some of the complex questions raised by a comparison of the Olivet discourse in the Synoptic Gospels.12 The fact that Paul, some fifteen years after Jesus’ death, clearly attributed the first link in the chain of transmission to the Lord himself has important bearing on the substantial authenticity of the tradition incorporated in Mark 13. While it is possible that the form of the discourse has experienced modification in the course of its transmission, the attempt to deny the factual content of this speech to Jesus is unwarranted.

A common critical assumption is that Ch. 13 is a Marcan construction, the integral parts of which are unlike in origin. Elements of Jewish apocalyptic, authentic sayings of Jesus and pronouncements of Christian prophets, it is argued, have been forged into a unified discourse by Marcan redaction.13 This assumption, however, is in conflict with the practice of the evangelist. In Ch. 4, for example, the several parables are preserved as distinct units of tradition and have not been considered as the basis for composing a discourse concerning the Kingdom of God.14 The evidence provided by a comparative study of the structure and content of Ch. 13 with earlier and later eschatological sections in the NT15 supports the contention that Mark received this discourse pre-formed, as the teaching of Jesus, and that he incorporated it into his Gospel without substantial alteration.16

(a) Jesus’ Prophecy of Impending Destruction. Ch. 13:1–4

1And as he went forth out of the temple,17 one of his disciples saith unto him,

Teacher, behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings!

2And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be cast down.18

3And as he sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

4Tell us, when shall these things be?

And what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?

1 The occasion of Jesus’ prophecy of the impending destruction of the Temple was the awe and reverence with which the disciples regarded the spectacle of the Temple area. They were astonished at the magnificence of the construction and adornment of the sanctuary and its complex of courts, porches, balconies and buildings. They particularly marvelled at the massive size of the stones which were used in the structure and substructure of the Temple. Remarking on Herodian masonry, Josephus states that “the Temple was built of hard, white stones, each of which was about 25 cubits in length, 8 in height and 12 in width” (Antiquities XV. xi. 3). On another occasion he remarks that these huge stones were also ornate (War V. v). The buildings of the area which prompted the disciple’s comment would include not only the sanctuary itself with its magnificent façade but its series of enclosures and the related structures of smaller buildings joined to it by colonnaded courts, covering approximately 1/6 of the old city of Jerusalem. This complex of stone was one of the most impressive sights in the ancient world, and was regarded as an architectural wonder. The rabbis had little respect for Herod and his successors, but they said, “he who has not seen Jerusalem in her splendor has never seen a desirable city in his life. He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life.”19 As a mountain of white marble decorated with gold20 it dominated the Kidron gorge as an object of dazzling beauty.

2 Jesus’ response was the startling prediction that “not one stone will be left upon another which shall not be thrown down.”21 The most striking feature of this prophecy is its emphatic definiteness. The double negatives, which occur twice in verse 2,22 already suggest the total nature of the devastation, while the description “stone upon stone” removes all possible misconception about the extent of the destruction envisaged.23 A variant of the saying is found in Luke 19:44, where Jesus addresses the city with the solemn warning that the days are coming when “they will not leave one stone upon another in you.”24 Paradoxically, the prophet Haggai had used the phrase “stone upon stone” in his appeal to the people to resume the work of rebuilding the Temple (Hag. 2:15). Now Jesus announces the approach of a day when utter devastation will overtake the city and the Temple will be systematically dismantled.

This disturbing prophecy must be understood in the context of Jesus’ teaching concerning the Temple on an earlier occasion. It actually forms the expected sequel to Ch. 11:17. There, in a pronouncement of judgment upon the misuse of the Temple, Jesus cited Jer. 7:11. In the context of that passage the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar is seen as God’s punishment of the rebelliousness of Judah in the time of Jeremiah (Jer. 7:12–14). The failure of the Temple authorities in Jesus’ day to respect God’s intention with reference to the Temple created the climate in which its ruin was certain. Jesus’ prediction was fulfilled with awful finality in the destruction of Jerusalem by the legions of Rome in A.D. 70. After fire had raged through the Temple precincts Titus ordered the demolition of the Temple in the course of which buildings were leveled to the ground.25 Isolated fragments of the substructures and of the old city wall which have been recognized by archeological research only confirm the degree to which Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled.26

This prophecy bears no trace of having come into existence after the event. There is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple by fire (cf. Josephus, War VI. iv. 7). Moreover, it is eminently suited to its context, since in the preceding narratives the Temple precincts have been the principal scene of Jesus’ activity (Chs. 11:11, 15, 25; 12:35) and his teaching has stressed the judgment under which Israel stands (Chs. 11:14, 20; 12:9, 40). The terminology reflects a knowledge of OT formulation, but the detail “no stone left upon another” only describes what usually took place during the conquest of cities in antiquity.27 Jesus’ word of judgment marks a continuation of ancient prophecy, along the lines of Micah 3:12 and Jer. 26:18.28 As the Lord of the Temple, Jesus announces its destruction in close connection with the establishment of his sovereign dignity (see on Ch. 11:11–21). The prophecy is distinctly eschatological in its significance.29 Mal. 3:1–6 had described the coming of the Lord to his Temple in the context of judgment for the refining and purifying of his people. In this context the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 is to be understood as the judgment of God upon the rebelliousness of his people, and not simply the response of Imperial Rome to insurrection. Significant strands of Jewish literature also attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the sin of her people.30

3–4 These verses introduce the actual discourse. The short journey from the city to the Mount of Olives furnished a most imposing view of the sanctuary area.31 The route followed by Jesus and the Twelve probably led through a gate in the north wall of the city and then eastward across the Kidron Valley, defined on the west by the high ridge on which the city of Jerusalem stood and on the east by the gentle slopes of Olivet. Because the Temple was set at the crest of the western ridge it loomed over the valley and would have been fully visible throughout the journey. When they reached the western slope of the Mount of Olives the four disciples whom Jesus first called (Ch. 1:16–20) privately asked him to clarify his pronouncement. In a vision Ezekiel had seen the Shekinah glory depart from the Sanctuary to the Mount of Olives, leaving the Temple defenseless against attack (Ezek. 9:3; 10:18f.; 11:23), while Zechariah spoke of the Mount of Olives as the locus of redemption in the last days (Zech. 14). These rich biblical associations between the Temple and the Mount of Olives appear to inform the disciples’ question.32

In the Gospel of Mark a question from the disciples often furnishes the introduction to a section of teaching (cf. Chs. 4:10ff.; 7:17ff.; 9:22f.; 10:10ff.). In this instance the disciples asked a single question expressed in two parallel clauses.33 Both clauses relate to the prophecy of verse 2. In Semitic parallelism the second clause may expand or explain the first. In the Marcan formulation of the question, the second clause resembles Dan. 12:7. When Daniel asked how long it would be to the end the divine messenger replied, “when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end, all these things will be accomplished.”34 In this context historic events are seen as the immediate prelude to the intervention of God. If an allusion to Dan. 12:7 is intended in verse 4b, the second clause indicates that the disciples understood Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple in its eschatological perspective. The question of verse 4 envisions one event, the devastation of the Temple, but it is clearly recognized that this cannot be an isolated incident. The phrase “these things” in verse 4a, which clearly refers to the prophecy of verse 2 and the judgment implied, already envisions a complex of events associated with the destruction. The phrase “all these things” in verse 4b is parallel in its intention and reference.35 What is envisioned is a judgment that will be of ultimate significance to Israel. It is assumed by the disciples that the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its sanctuary is the prelude to consummation. The question provides evidence of implicit faith in Jesus’ word and deep concern.

(b) Warning Against Deception. Ch. 13:5–8

5And Jesus began to say unto them, Take heed that no one lead you astray.

6Many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and shall lead many astray.36

7And when ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, be not troubled:

these things must needs come to pass;37 but the end is not yet.

8For nation shall rise 38 against nation, and kingdom against kingdom;

there shall be earthquakes in divers places;

there shall be famines:

these things are the beginning of travail.39

5–6 Jesus’ response forms an extended prophecy designed to prepare his followers for the period of distress which must precede the coming of the Son of Man. The reply provides an answer to the question of verse 4 concerning the destruction of the Temple. At the same time it serves to bring this incident within the perspective of the events which are preliminary to the end of time. The purpose of this first section of the discourse is to discourage a false sense of imminence and to urge vigilance in the turmoil and stress which precedes the catastrophe overtaking Jerusalem. The primary element in Jesus’ counsel is exhortation motivated by deep pastoral concern for his people. In solemnly warning the disciples about the danger of deception by false prophets or by a misreading of the significance of contemporary events, Jesus stood in the main line of the prophetic tradition. The formulation of his prophecy has been strongly influenced by the language of the OT, which furnishes parallels to nearly every phrase in this section.40

The admonition “take heed” introduces a call to vigilance which is sounded throughout the chapter, appearing again in verses 9, 23 and 33. In verse 5 it is prompted by the ever present danger that the people of God may be led astray by false leaders who appear in a situation of crisis. In the OT it is the false prophets who lead Israel astray (e.g. Jer. 23:13, 32; 29:8f.), and this understanding of verse 6 is reflected in the Old Latin MS k, which reads “for many false prophets (pseudoprophetae) shall come in my name and say I am he.” The Greek text, however, is not as clear as this. The interpretation of the peril that is seen depends upon the nuance expressed in the related phrases “in my name” and “I am he.” The first phrase was a technical expression designating an appointed emissary or representative (see on Ch. 9:37, 39) and would ordinarily mean “claiming to be sent by me.” Its close association with the ambiguous “I am he,” however, points in another direction. In the Semitic world the “name” of a person denotes his dignity and power.41 Understood in this manner, “in my name” signifies “arrogating to themselves the title and authority which properly belong to me.”42 The enigmatic phrase “I am he” is intelligible in this light. As used by Jesus, these words have been generally understood to constitute a claim of dignity which finds its significance in God’s own self-designation.43 The deceivers will claim this dignity for themselves. Thus Jesus cautions his disciples that men will emerge in the crisis who will falsely claim to have the theophanic name and power of the Messiah and they will lead many astray.44 Their intention will be to lead men to believe that the time of vigilance is past.

The reference in verse 6 is to be understood primarily in terms of the messianic pretenders who throughout the first century won momentary support from segments of the Jewish population by the promise to provide the tokens of redemption that would validate their claims.45 A succession of false messiahs appeared and gathered followers, but the movements which took their impetus from them were dissipated with their capture and death. They represented a misplacement of hope that could only yield deception and disaster.

7–8 Jesus warned that it was also possible to misinterpret the significance of contemporary events such as war or natural disasters. When the disciples hear of armed conflict or the threat of war, they are not to be disconcerted or diverted from their task. These developments fall within the sovereign purpose of God, who controls the historical destinies of the nations. These things must happen, but they do not signify the end, or even that the end is near. Anxiety excited by war is a common theme in the OT (e.g. Isa. 13:6 ff.; 17:14; Jer. 4:19 ff.; 6:29 ff.; Joel 2:1 ff.; Nah. 2:11). The Bible frequently depicts war as a time of divine visitation (e.g. Isa. 14:30; 19:2). It would have been natural for the disciples to have seen in the outbreak of conflict in the land or in the disturbances of A.D. 62–66, when rumors of revolt were common, a sign that the end was imminent.46 Wars, in themselves, however, do not indicate that the consummation is at hand.

This is emphasized in verse 8 when Jesus reiterates what he has said about war and refers to a complex of disorders frequently associated in Scripture with divine intervention in the historical process. The formulation “nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom” echoes the Hebrew text of Isa. 19:2. Earthquakes also have their place in the description of the intervention of God in history,47 while famine is a frequent aftermath of war.48 However calamitous and portentous such developments may appear to be they do not signify the breaking in of the end. They constitute only the beginning of a period of suffering which can be expected to become more intense. They point toward the end and provide a pledge that it will come, but in themselves the disorders enumerated in verse 8 are preliminary events only.49

To express this fact Jesus used a phrase which became technical in rabbinic literature to describe the period of intense suffering preceding messianic deliverance, “the birthpangs (of the Messiah).” In the OT the pangs of birth are a recurring image of divine judgment, often in the context of God’s eschatological action (cf. Isa. 13:8; 26:17; Mic. 4:9f.; Hos. 13:13; Jer. 4:31; 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 49:22; 50:43). The insistence that the crises listed in verse 8 are merely “the beginning of travail” suggests that the period before the appearance of the Messiah in triumph may be extended. Events of greater significance and intensity than those described in verses 5–8 may be expected to follow. From this perspective, the parallel statements “the end is not yet” (verse 7c) and “these things are the beginning of travail” (verse 8b) are delay-sayings, designed to prepare the people of God for facing a turbulent world with firm confidence and unwavering faith. For Mark’s readers in Rome, harassed by the State and disturbed by the confused reports of turmoil in Galilee and Judea, Jesus’ word provided assurance that these events fall within the eschatological purpose of God. Their task is to be vigilant so as not to be led astray and to refuse to be disturbed by contemporary events, which are in God’s control.50

9But take ye heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils;51 and in synagogues shall ye be beaten; and before governors and kings shall ye stand for my sake, for a testimony unto them.52

10And the gospel must53 first be preached unto all the nations.54

11And when they lead you to judgment, and deliver you up, be not anxious beforehand 55 what ye shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you56 in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit.

12And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child; and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death.

13And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end,57 the same shall be saved.58

This paragraph consists of three sayings of Jesus which are held together by the catchword “deliver up.” The first consists of verses 9f. and is concerned with being handed over to different authorities for the sake of Jesus. The second (verse 11) promises the support of the Holy Spirit when those arraigned are to defend themselves in courts of law, while the third (verses 12–13) speaks of division in the family. It is probable that this section of the discourse consists of utterances which were spoken on different occasions. The Matthean parallel to these verses is not found in Ch. 24 but in Ch. 10:17–22 in the mission charge to the twelve disciples, while Luke, in another context, transmits a variant of verse 11 as a separate logion (Luke 12:11f.).

9 The admonition to “take heed to yourselves” introduces a new perspective in the account. While in the preceding verses attention was concentrated on convulsions throughout the Roman world, in verse 9 it is focused upon the prospect of suffering for those who are addressed. The disciples will experience rejection and abuse because of their association with Jesus. His experience will become the cruel prototype of their own.59 Regarded as apostates by Jewish authorities, they will be arraigned before the local courts and subjected to public scourging in the synagogues as heretical men.60 After trial before the Jewish courts, they will be turned over to the Gentile authorities, presumably as disloyal provincials who disturb the peace and incite to riot. The double reference, “kings and governors,” serves to designate all men of authority. While Jesus’ word may be understood within a Palestinian milieu (cf. Chs. 6:14; 15:2; Matt. 27:2), it may also look beyond this local situation to the experience of arrest throughout the Empire. The disciples are instructed to look beyond the tribunal of men to the tribunal of God where the persecutions they have suffered will be reviewed and will provide incriminating evidence against those who have seen in the gospel an offense to God and men.61

10 The natural flow of thought between verses 9 and 11 appears to be interrupted by verse 10. Moreover, the vocabulary of the missionary mandate seems to be distinctly Marcan. For these primary reasons the authenticity of verse 10 has often been rejected.62 The grounds upon which the statement is denied to Jesus, however, are insufficient. The thought of a mission to the Gentiles is firmly grounded in the OT (e.g. Isa. 42:6; 49:6, 12; 52:10; 60:6; Ps. 96) and is found in early Pharisaic Judaism as well (e.g. Psalms of Solomon 11:1; 8:17, 43).63 While Jesus limited his own ministry to Israel he did not hesitate to respond to faith in a Gentile and showed an awareness of the provisional character of the restriction under which he labored64 (see above on Ch. 7:27). It is appropriate, therefore, to accept the authenticity of verse 10, and to regard it as an independent logion in the gospel tradition.65 Mark appears to have inserted it here between verses 9 and 11 to make clear that it is the preaching of the gospel which causes offense and public action against the disciples. A concern for evangelism provokes both mission and persecution.

Verse 10 envisages the disciples’ active participation in the missionary enterprise. Involvement with mission identifies them with Jesus and exposes them to the rejection he faced. Nevertheless, a divine compulsion stands behind mission activity throughout the world. The proclamation of the gospel to all men is an absolute priority in the divine plan of salvation, and as such is an integral element in God’s eschatological purpose.66 This word of Jesus provided assurance that the Kingdom of God cannot be impeded by any local persecution in Palestine or elsewhere. Despite all opposition, the gospel must be preached throughout the world.

The force of the temporal element “first” is that the consummation cannot come until that condition has been satisfied. In itself this detail sheds no light upon the extent of the duration of the period prior to the parousia. If it is proper to understand “nations” in the sense of the Roman world, this imperative was fulfilled at least in a representative sense by A.D. 60 (cf. Rom. 1:5, 8; 10:18; 15:18–24; Col. 1:6, 23). As a necessary preliminary to the end of time, however, the fulfilment of the mandate continually points toward the manifestation of the Son of Man in glory at the consummation.

11 When called to stand before the courts the disciples are not to be filled with anxiety. God will reveal to them what they are to say. In the past he had equipped his servants to speak in the courts of Egypt and Judah (Ex. 4:12; Jer. 1:9), and he graciously promises to do so once again. The speaking in view is not missionary proclamation but is clearly for the purpose of defense. The servant of God would not have to be concerned over Roman judicial procedure or the lack of adequate counsel. He may rely upon the presence of the Holy Spirit, who will inform his word with the power of truth. Jesus’ word provides the assurance that God is vitally involved in the confrontation with authority and supplies the ground for Christian boldness.

12–13 Verse 12 serves to make concrete what is said generally in verses 9 and 11 of being handed over to the authorities for trial. It speaks of division within families and betrayal in the context of persecution. The demand for radical commitment which is inherent in the gospel takes precedence over other loyalties and may disrupt the deepest ties between men. This warning may have been prompted by Isa. 19:2, which is echoed in verse 8, for there it is stated “they will fight every man against his brother, and every man against his neighbor.” Closely related to this is the targumic interpretation of Mic. 7:2, where the Targum of Jonathan reads: “A man delivers up his brother to destruction,” while Mic. 7:4f. warns, “Put no trust in a neighbor, have no confidence in a friend … for the son treats his father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.” The interpretation of this last verse in the LXX and the Targum correspond to the formulation of verse 13a. The LXX reads, “A man’s enemies are all the men in his house,” while the Targum of Jonathan translates the Hebrew text literally, “those who hate a man are the men of his own house.”67 It is probable, therefore, that the interpretation of the text of Micah 7 in the synagogue is reflected in the form of verses 12–13a.

The motive for betrayal from within the family may be fanatical hatred of the gospel or the desire to save one’s own life by betraying others or the hope to win the approval of the world with the rejection of the claims of Christ (see on Ch. 8:35 f.). In any instance, Jesus left no room for the facile assumption that the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised in verse 11 would result in acquittal. The disciples may expect to be treated with contempt by those closest to them, even as Jesus was regarded by his brothers (see on Ch. 3:20 f.). They can hope to be vindicated before the tribunal of God but they will not escape death at the hands of men.

It is significant that the followers of Jesus will be hated because of him (cf. “for my sake” in verse 9). This qualification indicates that the abuse heaped upon the disciples is really intended for Jesus, and that the disciples are persecuted only because they are identified with him. The lash laid upon the back of a Christian was actually intended to strike the Lord (cf. Acts 9:1, 4f.). It was the sense of a communion of suffering with Jesus that gave to the early Church a sense of privilege that they could assume the hurt which was directed toward Christ (cf. Phil. 1:29f.; 3:8–11; Col. 1:24). Jesus, however, did not minimize the severity of the testing to which the people of God would be subjected. They are called to be steadfast under persecution and apostasy. At the same time they are encouraged that those who endure their trials with faithfulness will experience vindication before the bar of God, reversing the condemnation of men. This saying amounts to a call for complete reliance upon God in the fulfilment of mission in a hostile world.

That this word should be treasured and recorded in Rome where persecution threatened to divide and decimate the young church should occasion no surprise. The Christians in Rome were regarded as odious despisers of men whose superstitious allegiance to Jesus was worthy of exemplary punishment, and the persecution under Nero had lent a terrible reality to this prophecy. The Gospel of Mark made clear that no suffering had come to them that had not been foreseen by the Lord and experienced by him.68 Suffering could be borne with patience when it was brought on by the community’s determination to bear witness to Jesus in fulfilment of the missionary task.

(d) The Appalling Sacrilege and the Necessity for Flight. Ch. 13:14–23

14But when ye see the abomination of desolation 69 standing where he70 ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judea flee into the mountains:

15and let him that is on the housetop not go down, nor enter in, to take anything out of his house:

16and let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloak.

17But woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days!

18And pray ye that it be not in the winter.

19For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created71 until now, and never shall be.

20And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved; but for the elect’s sake, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

21And then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is the Christ; or, Lo, there; believe it72 not:

22for there shall arise false Christs and 73 false prophets, and shall show signs and wonders, that they may lead astray, if possible, the elect.

23But take ye heed: behold, I have told you all things beforehand.

Verses 14–23 form a single unit of thought which is controlled by the command to flee when an act of sacrilege, so appalling that it can only invite unparalleled tribulation, is recognized. This extended warning is tied to verse 4 by the reference to “all things” in verse 23 and furnishes the most direct answer to the question of the disciples concerning when they could expect the destruction of the Temple.74 The entire section is to be interpreted in the light of the events which occurred in the turbulent and chaotic period A.D. 66–70.75

14 The language of verse 14a is cryptic and difficult. Yet its interpretation is crucial to the understanding of the discourse as a whole. With terminology borrowed from the book of Daniel (Chs. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) Jesus warned that the appearance of “the appalling sacrilege” signaled that the destruction of the sanctuary was near and that flight from Jerusalem and Judea was imperative.76 The Semitic expression used in Daniel describes an abomination so detestable it causes the Temple to be abandoned by the people of God and provokes desolation. This mode of expression occurs in passages dealing with persecution and the oppression of the people of God. When the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in 168 B.C. by erecting a small altar dedicated to Zeus over the altar of burnt offering, upon which he sacrificed a swine, and made the practice of Judaism a capital offense, it was natural to find a fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy in his action (cf. 1 Macc. 1:54–59; 6:7). Jesus’ use of this distinctive expression, however, indicates that the prophecy was not ultimately fulfilled by the events of the Maccabean period. He warned that there would yet occur an act of profanation so appalling that the Temple would be rejected by God as the locus of his glory (cf. Ezek. 7:14–23). The nature of the profanation is left imprecise, but the use of the masculine participle to modify a neuter noun suggests that Mark found a personification of the abomination in some concrete figure of history. The meaning is well brought out by the NEB: “when you see ‘the abomination of desolation’ usurping a place which is not his.” The evangelist appears to have recognized the fulfilment of the prophecy in his own day since he inserts a parenthetical note to the Christian reader to recognize the significance of Jesus’ words.77 The plea that the reader should “understand” is important in the context of an eschatological mystery (cf. Dan. 1:17; 2:21–23; 9:25; 12:13).

Flight is necessary in order to escape the judgment of God that will fall upon the land as the result of sacrilege. The devastation overtaking Jerusalem will affect all Judea and makes flight to the mountains imperative.78 The tradition of the OT often unites the idea of flight to that of divine judgment (e.g. Gen. 19:17; Jer. 16:16; Ezek. 7:14–16; Zech. 14:5). Ordinarily Jerusalem is regarded as the place of refuge par excellence (cf. Isa. 16:3; Jer. 4:6; Zech. 2:11), but in the circumstances described the almost impregnable walls of the city will offer no real defense to its inhabitants. In fact, those who remained in the city during the siege of Jerusalem found themselves helplessly trapped between starvation and violent destruction.

The dominant note in verse 14 is the command to flee. This exhortation is developed or presupposed in each of the subsequent verses as Jesus addresses himself to the urgency for flight (verses 15–16), to circumstances which hinder flight (verses 17–18), to the reason for flight (verses 19–20), and to a final deterrent to flight (verses 21–22). The injunction to flee clearly implies a crisis in history and not the end, when flight will be useless (cf. Rev. 6:15–17).

Further light is shed on verse 14 by the fourth-century historian Eusebius. He notes:

“But before the war, the people of the Church of Jerusalem were bidden in an oracle given by revelation to men worthy of it to depart from the city and to dwell in a city of Perea called Pella. To it those who believed in Christ migrated from Jerusalem. Once the holy men had completely left the Jews and all Judea, the justice of God at last overtook them, since they had committed such transgressions against Christ and his apostles. Divine justice completely blotted out that impious generation from among men” (Ecclesiastical History III. v. 3).79

The oracle to which Eusebius refers was apparently the saying recorded in verse 14. The circumstances in which it was understood to have been fulfilled are illumined by Josephus in his account of the Jewish War. Jewish forces won an impressive victory over the Twelfth Legion commanded by Cestius Gallus in November of 66 (War II. xix. 2–9). Many persons in Jerusalem, however, recognized that eventually the Zealot forces would suffer inevitable defeat, and those who were realistic began leaving the city in droves, apparently unimpeded (War II. xx. 1). No efforts were marshalled to frustrate desertions from the city until the spring of 68 (War IV. vi. 3; vii. 3). Christians in Jerusalem would have had no difficulty leaving the city unless they delayed their departure until a relatively late stage in the conflict.

The prophecy of Daniel concerning the appalling sacrilege had been called to mind in the year A.D. 40 when Caligula laid plans to have an image of himself set up in the Jerusalem Temple (see Philo, Legatio ad Gaium; Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. viii. 2–9; Tacitus, History V. 9). After that catastrophe was averted, Josephus found the fulfilment of Daniel in the events of A.D. 66–70 (Antiquities X. xi. 7: “in the same manner Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans and that Jerusalem would be taken and the Temple laid waste”). He refers to an ancient prophecy concerning the desecration of the Temple by Jewish hands and found its fulfilment in a whole series of villainous acts committed by the Zealots in the Temple precincts from the period November 67 to the spring of 68.

“For there was an ancient saying of inspired men that the city would be taken and the sanctuary burned to the ground by right of war, when it should be visited by sedition and native hands should be the first to defile God’s sacred precinct. This saying the Zealots did not disbelieve; yet they lent themselves as instruments of its accomplishment” (War IV. vi. 3).

During this period the Zealots moved into and occupied the Temple area (War IV. iii. 7), allowed persons who had committed crimes to roam about freely in the Holy of Holies (War IV. iii. 10), and perpetrated murder within the Temple itself (War IV. v. 4). These acts of sacrilege were climaxed in the winter of 67–68 by the farcical investiture of the clown Phanni as high priest (War IV. iii. 6–8). It was in response to this specific action that the retired high priest Ananus, with tears, lamented: “It would have been far better for me to have died before I had seen the house of God laden with such abominations and its unapproachable and hallowed places crowded with the feet of murderers” (War IV. iii. 10). Jewish Christians who had met in the porches of the Temple from the earliest days would have found this spectacle no less offensive. It seems probable that they recognized in Phanni “the appalling sacrilege usurping a position which is not his,” consigning the Temple to destruction. In response to Jesus’ warning they fled to Pella.

The oracle specified that those in Judea were to flee “to the mountains.” Since Jerusalem itself is located in the mountains the Christians understood the prophecy to refer to some other range of mountains beyond Judea. The nearest such range was the Transjordanian mountains where Pella is located in the foothills. It can be assumed that by the year 66 there were Gentile Christians in the Decapolis, including Pella, who may have acted as sponsors for the Jerusalem fugitives in that traumatic period.80

15–18 These verses underscore the urgency behind the command to flee to the mountains. Jesus insists upon the necessity of an immediate and rapid flight. A flat roof was commonly used as a place for prayer at midday 81 and was reached by means of an outside staircase. While it is necessary for a man to descend from the roof in order to flee he must not enter his house. At the critical moment a concern for life takes precedence over possessions. Under similar circumstances in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes the aged priest Mattathias and his five sons “fled to the hills and left all that they had in the city” (1 Macc. 2:28). The reference to the man working in the fields is appropriate to the rural conditions of much of Judea. The outer garment, designed to shut out the night chill but left upon the ground in another corner of the field, is to be abandoned rather than to risk one’s life in returning for it. There is to be no deterrent to flight. The urgency expressed in Jesus’ instruction may have been prompted by the description of the utter desolation of Jerusalem in Ezek. 7:14–23. In that context the fate of those who did not flee is vividly described: “the sword is without, pestilence and famine are within; he that is in the field dies by the sword; and him that is in the city famine and pestilence devour. And if any survivors escape, they will be on the mountains …” (Ezek. 7:15f.). Jesus’ compassion is evident in his thought of the hardships that will be imposed upon pregnant and nursing mothers forced to flee in difficult circumstances. The peril of flight in winter is that streams swollen by heavy rains would be impossible to cross and could prevent many from reaching a place of refuge. It happened that during the spring of A.D. 68, due to recent rain storms, the Jordan River was too high and swift for Gadarene fugitives to cross from east to west to seek safety in Jericho (Josephus, War IV. vii. 5).

19–20 The reason that flight is so urgent is that a catastrophe without precedent is imminent. The severity of the distress that will accompany the destruction of Jerusalem is vividly suggested through Semitic hyperbole. It is characteristic for oracles of judgment to be couched in language that is universal and radical. The intention is to indicate that through human events God intervenes powerfully to modify the course of history. The entire world feels the vibrations of that intervention. The OT offers numerous examples of this vision of God from the perspective of historical events which are quite localized, e.g. Micah 1:2ff. depicts the Lord going forth from his sanctuary to punish the crimes of Samaria and Judea: all the earth staggers (cf. Isa. 13:6–10). It is appropriate to the prophetic style of utterance that verses 19–20 be seen in the context of the impending destruction of the Temple. Josephus uses almost identical language in his account of the devastation of Jerusalem (e.g. War, proem; I. i. 4; V. x. 5). Emphatic affirmations of this type are not uncommon in the OT and subsequent Jewish literature and must not be interpreted too rigorously (cf. Jer. 30:7; Joel 2:2; Baruch 2:2; 1 Macc. 9:27; Assumption of Moses 8:1). One example from the Qumran material will be sufficient to illustrate the degree to which Jesus’ statement has its parallels. In reference to “the great day of judgment” it is said: “And it shall be a time of distress for all the people redeemed by God, and among all their afflictions there will have been nothing to equal it from its beginning until its end in final redemption” (1QM i. 11–12). Verse 19 conforms in style to the prophetic oracles of judgment which threaten an unprecedented catastrophe which in reality is a judgment of the chosen people to whom God will leave a remnant. In the context of verses 19–20 a distinction is made between the disciples, who escape by flight, and the men of Judea 82 who cannot escape the judgment, except for the remnant which is spared. The destruction of Jerusalem and its sanctuary is in this way situated within the perspective of a universal judgment.83

Verse 19 is virtually a citation of Dan. 12:1 (“And there shall be a time of trouble such as never has been since there was a nation till that time”), although the mode of expression may echo other passages which describe the day when God will visit his people in judgment. The significant addition “and never shall be” clearly indicates that the tribulation is not the distress which accompanies the last days. As great as the oppression will be, it is nevertheless not to be immediately followed by the end, for time will be extended, with the possibility of other, though lesser, tribulations. The fact that this qualification was added to the citation of Dan. 12:1 demonstrates that this section is a prophetic oracle providing instruction for a specific historical situation in which the prophecy of Daniel will be fulfilled.

In this immediate context, the normal sense of the words “no flesh would have been saved” is that no one would have escaped physical death if God had not shortened the period of tribulation. The severity of the judgment reflects upon the abuse of Israel’s privileged status provided by the covenant. This lends support to the proposal that it is from within the nation that the appalling act of sacrilege is committed. Yet God’s judgment is tempered by his mercy expressed in the curtailment of the period of tribulation. For the idea of the shortening of the days of affliction there is no clear parallel in the OT and only one in later Jewish literature (III Baruch 9).84 The reference to “the elect” may have been suggested by the continuation of Dan. 12:1 which promises deliverance to the people, “every one whose name shall be written in the book.” God’s maintenance of the elect is an extension of the OT concept of the remnant which God leaves in Israel as an act of grace and judgment.85

21–23 Verses 21–22 have frequently been regarded as a doublet of verses 5–6, and inappropriate to this context. Earlier in the discourse Jesus had warned his disciples not to be deceived by men claiming the dignity which is proper to himself, for the time of the open manifestation of the messianic presence lay yet in the future. The perspective in verses 21–22 is different and is entirely appropriate to a context dominated by the motif of flight. Here the point is rather not to be deterred from flight by the claim that the Messiah was here, or there. The internal unity of verses 14–23 demands that Jesus’ warning at this point be interpreted in this manner. The stress falls on not turning aside when the imperative need is for refuge. Such claims are fallacious and those who make them are not to be believed. The distress described by Jesus does not compel the intervention of the Messiah. While the historical crisis invites a final wave of messianic pretenders and prophets, they will not be able to bring a halt to the tribulation convulsing the land. Flight remains imperative for the people of God. They must not be deceived by a readiness to show signs and wonders which will validate a claim. Already Deut. 13 had warned that men of lies will seek to lead the faithful astray with their signs (cf. Deut. 13:6, 7, 11, 14). The exhortation not to believe those who say, “Look, here is the Messiah” indicates reflection upon the same source. Deut. 13:4 says, “You shall not listen to the words of that prophet,” while verse 9 repeats this admonition in connection with the enticing member of the family: “You shall not yield to him or listen to him.” In contrast to the extravagant claims of many of those who appeared on the scene during the turbulent years preceding the destruction of Jerusalem 86 stands the refusal of Jesus to provide a sign which will relieve men of the responsibility for faith expressed through commitment (see on Ch. 8:11f.; cf. Ch. 15:32).

The account of the events preliminary to the destruction of the Temple is rounded off in typical Semitic fashion by returning to the admonition which introduced Jesus’ response: “take heed” (verses 5, 23). Here the command is reinforced with the affirmation that the disciples have been adequately forewarned. The “all things” which Jesus has told them corresponds to the request of the disciples to know when “these things are all to be accomplished” (verse 4). From this structural perspective the response to the question of verse 4 is complete with verse 23. All that remains is to announce the final victory of the Son of Man.

(e) The Triumph of the Son of Man. Ch. 13:24–27

24But87 in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

25and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken.

26And then shall they see 88 the Son of Man coming in clouds89 with great power and glory.

27And then shall he send forth the angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

24–25 Juxtaposed to the false hopes which will mislead many of the people in the critical moment is the assurance that the period of suffering and distress will be followed by final redemption when the Son of Man will be manifested in power and glory. The correspondence between these two phases of God’s eschatological program is indicated only in a general way: “in those days, after that tribulation …” “In those days” is a stereotyped expression in the OT that came to acquire distinctly eschatological associations from the contexts in which it occurs (e.g. Jer. 3:16, 18; 31:29; 33:15f.; Joel 2:28 [M.T. 3:1]; Zech. 8:23). In itself, however, it has no determined temporal value. In verse 24 this phrase designates a period subsequent to the days of tribulation described in verses 19–20, but the matter of chronological sequence is left imprecise. It is clear from the structure of the discourse that the parousia cannot take place until after all the preliminary events announced in verses 5–23 have occurred. They are the necessary precursors to the coming of the glorified Son of Man, yet in themselves they do not determine the time of that event. Jesus simply declares the sufferings which can be anticipated (verses 5–23) and the final triumph which will resolve the tensions and paradoxes of historical existence (verses 24–27). The end is contemplated from the standpoint of a concrete event (the destruction of Jerusalem and its sanctuary) which serves as its prelude.

No other section of the eschatological discourse is more indebted to scriptural imagery and language.90 The entire description is drawn from OT material, which has been brought together through common motifs or keywords which present the coming of the Son of Man in terms of Yahweh’s theophany on the Day of the Lord for the gathering of his people. The references to the celestial phenomena which accompany the appearance of the Son of Man are appropriate in this connection. Thus in Joel 2:10 and 3:15 we read of the coming Day of Yahweh: “The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining” (cf. Isa. 13:10; 34:4; Ezek. 32:7–8; Amos 8:9).91 In the prophets and later Jewish apocalyptic writings the dissolution of the cosmic structure frequently orchestrates the intervention of God in history. The imagery employed indicates an important turning point in history, but not necessarily the last act of the historical process. Fundamental to this manner of speaking is the profound concept that the universe is united with man in his destiny, and the prophets, who envisaged a radical reversal in human fortunes, spoke freely of an upheaval in the heavens themselves.92 In Ch. 13 the judgment upon Jerusalem marks the passing of one era and the establishment of another in which the glory of God is no longer concentrated in the Temple but in the Son of Man. The significance of this fact is expressed in four lines of poetry in verses 24–25, where the first three parallel statements are summed up in the fourth. The language has been profoundly influenced by Isa. 13:10 and 34:4, but there is no actual quotation of either passage. It is possible that Jesus intended a contrast with the signs and wonders of the false prophets (verse 22), in terms of Joel 2:30f. (M.T. 3:3f.): “I will give wonders in the heavens and on the earth … The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood … ,” which the Targum of Jonathan interprets in the category of signs.93

26–27 In these verses all of the actions are attributed to the Son of Man: he not only comes, but he gathers the elect through the ministry of the angels, and the elect are “his.” These elements serve to bring the Son of Man into bold relief.94 His triumph is described in the classic formulation of the enthronement of that mysterious, transcendent figure “like a son of man” in Dan. 7:13f. There are, however, two distinctive features in Jesus’ interpretation of that passage. The Son of Man is not, as in Daniel, brought to God’s throne. There is, in fact, no allusion to a revelation of God in the context. Instead he comes to gather together the scattered people of God, a function attributed to God in the OT (e.g. Deut. 30:3f.; Ps. 50:3–5; Isa. 43:6; 66:8; Jer. 32:37; Ezek. 34:13; 36:24; Zech. 2:6, 10). This coming as a sovereign in the celestial chariot of the clouds, adorned with power and glory, is properly designated the parousia after the analogy with the triumphs celebrated by royal figures and heroes in the Hellenistic-Roman world.95 Yet it is imperative to recall that Jesus had earlier announced that the Son of Man would be rejected, humiliated and put to death (see on Ch. 8:31) and that the ambiguity in his own historical particularity would be resolved only with his coming in glory as the eschatological judge (see on Ch. 8:38). In this given context the reference to the parousia serves to vindicate Jesus’ dignity over against all detractors and the false claims of men (verses 5–6, 21–22). His coming “with the clouds” will mark the end of the veiledness that characterizes both Jesus and the people of God. As such, the parousia provides the kernel of Christian hope, for the triumph of the Son of Man is the one event in the light of which the contradictions of the present are illumined and resolved.

The affirmation that the Son of Man will send forth the angels to gather the elect brings together Deut. 30:4 and Zech. 2:10. In the OT “to scatter to the four winds” (Jer. 9:15; 18:17; Ezek. 5:10, 12; 12:14; 17:21; Zech. 2:10 M.T.) or “to regather from the four winds” / “from every country” / “from the extremities of the earth” (Deut. 30:3–4; Isa. 11:12; 27:13; 56:8; Jer. 23:3; 29:12; 31:8; Ezek. 11:17; 20:34, 41; 28:25; 34:13) are recurring expressions. The first describes the loss of national unity by the elect people as a consequence of their infidelity to God; the second announces the salvation of Israel through a return to spiritual and national unity. The regathering of dispersed Israel is an essential and traditional theme of Jewish eschatological hope (e.g. Tobit 14:7, “all the children of Israel that are delivered in those days, remembering God in truth, shall be gathered together …”; cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:28). When Jesus touched upon this theme in the context of the eschatological discourse he reinterpreted Israel’s hope in a profound way. Until that time the Temple of Jerusalem had been the visible center for the gathering of the scattered chosen people. The destruction of the Temple, however, would not result in their permanent dispersement. On the contrary, it will be followed by the regathering of the new people of God around the Son of Man, that is, around Jesus. The counterpart to the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary is the eschatological salvation of the elect. The remnant of Israel will recover their lost unity through Jesus, the triumphant Son of Man. To be gathered by the Son of Man is to participate in the eschatological community and to experience the messianic blessing. The scope of the activity of the Son of Man through the angels is universal, for Mark’s formula “from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven” synthesizes two OT expressions which mean “everywhere.”96

(f) The Lesson of the Fig Tree. Ch. 13:28–31

28Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch has now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer97 is nigh;

29even so ye also,98 when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that he is nigh,99 even at the doors.

30Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished.

31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

In this section Jesus responds to the original question of the disciples when they may expect to see his prophecy concerning the Temple (verse 2) fulfilled. It is important to review the relationship of these verses to the structure of the discourse. In response to the disciples’ question when “these things” will take place and the request for some indication that “all these things” are about to be accomplished, Jesus spoke of the complex of events which find their culmination in the devastation of Judea and the demolition of the Temple. He concluded his remarks with the admonition, “Take care, I have told you beforehand all things” (verse 23). The vocabulary of verse 23 underscores the correspondence between the question of verse 4 and the response given in verses 5–23. In verses 29–30 this terminology reappears: “when you see these things happening … and this generation shall not pass away until all these things occur.” The italicized words demand that these statements be considered in relationship to verses 4 and 23. They cannot refer to the celestial upheavals described in verses 24–25 which are inseparable from the parousia (verse 26) and the gathering of the elect (verse 27). These events represent the end and cannot constitute a preliminary sign of something else. The phrase “these things” in verse 29 refers to the entire discourse from verses 5–23, with special reference to the material evidence provided in verses 14–23. The parallel phrase in verse 30 provides the same perspective. Before the passing of a generation, Jerusalem and the Temple will lie in ruins.

28–29 In contrast to most of the trees of Palestine (the olive, oak, evergreen, terebinth), the fig loses its leaves in the winter, and in contrast to the almond, which blossoms very early in the spring, the fig tree shows signs of life only later. Jesus’ parable appeals to this particularity: when the branches of the fig become softened by sap flowing through them and leaves begin to appear one can be certain that winter is past (cf. Song of Sol. 2:11–13) and the warm season is very near. The parable relates the sprouting of the fig tree and the summer in terms of a beginning point and its inevitable sequence. The accent falls not on immediacy but on proximity: when the fig tree becomes green, one is not only certain that summer is coming but that it is near.100 The Mount of Olives was famous for its fig trees, which sometimes attained a height of 20 or 30 feet. Assuming that Jesus gave this instruction just before the Passover, the fig tree would be in the condition described in the parable, its branches tender, its leaves sprouting.101 By calling the disciples to observe properly what was immediately at hand Jesus reinforced his exhortation to observe what was happening in Jerusalem and Judea and to recognize its significance.

The application of the parable in verse 29 places the accent on proximity more vigorously: “it is near, at the door.”102 The catastrophe of sacrilege which will profane the Temple (verse 14) will enable the disciples to know that the destruction of the Temple is imminent in the same manner that the coming of summer is imminent to the moment when the fig tree covers itself with leaves. In verse 29 the words “when you see these things happening” appear to be an intentional echo of the beginning of verse 14, “when you see the appalling sacrilege.” That catastrophe, which will take place in the Temple, will be the signal for flight from unheard of distress. The parable and its application invite the reader of the Gospel to see in the misfortunes which will overtake Jerusalem the evidence that its devastation and ruin is near.

30–31 Verse 30 is solemnly introduced and emphatically affirmed.103 It is tied intimately to its immediate context by vocabulary and perspective, “all these things” in verse 30 corresponding to “these things” in verse 29. This mode of expression refers to the prophecy of verse 2 and the complex of events preliminary to its fulfilment in verses 5–23. The significance of the temporal reference has been debated,104 but in Mark “this generation” clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfilment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple.105 With this word Jesus responds to the initial question of the disciples regarding the time when “these things” will take place.

The declaration of verse 30 is strengthened by the assertion which follows. Verse 31 has its background in the OT where the enduring quality of God and his word is contrasted with the only apparent durability of the created universe (cf. Ps. 102:25–27; Isa. 40:6–8; 51:6). While heaven and earth will be cataclysmically destroyed, Jesus’ word is established forever. This claim of high dignity for Jesus’ words implies a christological affirmation: what is said of God in the OT may be equally affirmed of Jesus and his word. The prophecy developed on Olivet will surely come to pass.

(g) The Call to Vigilance. Ch. 13:32–37

32But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son,106 but the Father.

33Take ye heed, watch and pray:107 for ye know not when the time is.

34It is as when a man, sojourning in another country, having left his house, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded also the porter to watch.

35Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning;

36lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

37And what I say unto you I say unto all,108 Watch.

32 Jesus concluded his response by stressing the responsibility of maintaining vigilance. The duty to watch draws its force from the fact that “no one knows” the critical moment of God’s decisive intervention. “That day” evokes a formula consecrated by use in the prophetic Scriptures; it appears with a clearly eschatological resonance in passages which announce the day of Yahweh’s appearing (Amos 8:3, 9, 13; 9:11; Mic. 4:6; 5:9; 7:11; Zeph. 1:9f.; 3:11, 16; Obad. 8; Joel 3:18; Zech. 9:16; 12–14 passim). Here it designates an indeterminate date which remains the Father’s secret. In the light of its association with the theophany of God on the Day of the Lord it must have primary reference to the parousia, the coming of the Son of Man (verse 26).109 Jesus thus affirms that no one knows that day or the hour (the smallest unit of time; cf. verse 11) when the Son of Man will appear in glory with power. In order to understand the relationship of this affirmation to the assurance given in verse 30 that the events preliminary to the destruction of the Temple will occur within the experience of that generation, it is necessary to give full force to the adversative particle in verse 32: “I say to you solemnly, this generation shall not pass away … As for that day and that hour, on the contrary, no one knows …” While the parable of the fig tree illustrates the possibility of observing the proximity of the first event, another comparison is developed in connection with verse 32 which underscores the impossibility of knowing the moment of the Lord’s return. Verses 30 and 32 concern two distinct events (the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the Day of the Lord, respectively).110

The accent falls on the words “no one knows,” not on the qualification “neither the angels in heaven nor the Son.” Very early the clause “nor the Son” attracted the attention of theologians anxious to trace the christological implications in the confession of ignorance,111 but in this context it is accidental with respect to Jesus’ intention. His purpose was not to define the limits of his theological knowledge, but to indicate that vigilance, not calculation, is required. If the Son of Man (interpreting “the Son” by verse 26) and the angels are ignorant of “that day” it is because nothing allows a presentiment of its coming. Its approach is impossible to discern and so to prepare oneself for it. In this respect it stands in sharp contrast to the destruction of Jerusalem, which could be clearly foreseen and its devastation avoided by flight. The day of judgment will arrive so suddenly and unexpectedly that absolutely no one will have the least warning. That is why vigilance and confident faith are required of the disciples and the Church. Correctly understood, the qualification “nor the Son” indicates that even Jesus had to live by faith and to make obedience and watchfulness the hallmark of his ministry.

Jesus recognized one exception to the true ignorance implied: “except the Father.” The determination of the critical moment of intervention rests exclusively with him (cf. Acts 1:6–7). On this point the Father has not delegated his authority to anyone, not even to the Son. The one certainty the disciples may have is that the day will come when God will execute his decision to judge the world, and for that purpose he will send forth his Son with the hosts of angels (Ch. 8:38; 13:26f.). The parousia and the judgment it will inaugurate are matters irrevocably decided. From this perspective the parousia is not conditioned by any other consideration than the sovereign decision of the Father, which remains enveloped with impenetrable mystery.112

33–36 The exhortations to vigilance which follow are linked to the fact that the critical moment remains unknowable. The connection with verse 32 and with the brief parable which follows is underlined by reference to an ignorance of God’s secret counsel:

verse 32 “No one knows that day or that hour …”

verse 33 “For you do not know the critical moment.”

verse 35 “For you do not know when the lord of the household comes.”

In the parallelism that is developed “that day or that hour,” “the critical moment,” and the moment of the householder’s return are identical expressions for the same reality: the mysterious moment of the divine intervention, which cannot be foreseen. Because the moment of crisis is unknowable, unceasing vigilance is imperative.

This fact is illustrated by the parable of the absent householder, which is peculiar to Mark. A journeying master delegated authority to his servants and assigned each to his work, specifying that the doorkeeper is to watch.113 These details recall a familiar early Christian pattern of exhortation stressing vigilance and an application of the vigilance concept to the Christian ministry in terms of work and labor.114 The true servant will want to be actively engaged in his Master’s service when he returns. The danger is “lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping” (verse 36). The imagery of a master who first leaves and then returns suddenly, which is integral to the call to watchfulness, is appropriate to the parousia and serves to make the content of “that day” precise. A subordinate feature of the parable is the reference to the four night-watches in verse 35b, which conforms to the Roman reckoning of time (in contrast to the Jewish practice of dividing the night into three watches).115 As in Ch. 6:48, Mark has transmitted the tradition he received in a form which would be recognized as familiar to his readers.

37 This pregnant statement serves to recall verse 3, where the question which prompted the eschatological discourse was asked privately by Peter, James, John and Andrew. The explicit extension of the exhortation to watch to a wider circle, which Mark undoubtedly understood to include the Christians of Rome, suggests that it was Jesus’ intention to transcend any distinction between the disciples, to whom he delegated his authority (see on Ch. 6:7), and the Church at large. That which is primarily the duty of the disciple is secondarily the responsibility of the entire community. Each member has “his work” and by completing it he fulfills the obligation to watch.116 Vigilance is the responsibility of every believer and provides the sole guarantee of preparedness for the Lord’s return.

The imperative “take heed, be vigilant” in verse 33 and the related call to “watch” in verses 35, 37 furnish a climax to the exhortations of verses 5, 9, and 23. The stress upon vigilance sustained throughout the discourse suggests that the final call to watchfulness in verse 37 is not focused exclusively upon the last day, but like the previous admonitions, has bearing upon the continuing life of the Church during an age marked by false teachers, persecution and delay in the Lord’s return. The phrase “to each his work” in verse 34 tends to strengthen this conclusion. When verses 33–37 are seen in the context of the entire discourse, it is evident that the vigilance of the Church may have as much reference to the perils from within and without delineated in verses 5–23 as to the climactic event of the parousia in verses 24–27.117 The time of the appearing of the Son of Man in glory is unknown, but the fact that he will come is certain. The Church is called to live vigilantly in the certainty of that coming.