Through the Bible -- Mark 13 (Prophecy about Temple)

I was unable to do a summary of Mark 13 during Passion Week, so here is a Sunday post to fill in that gap:

Psalm Sunday
Temple Monday
Debate Tuesday
Maundy Thursday
Good Friday
_________________________

1. Mark 13 -- along with its parallels in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 -- often features prominently in end times prophecy teaching. For example, my grandfather believed that the re-establishment of Israel as a nation in 1948 started the last generation before the rapture. There was actually a book written titled, Eighty-Eight Reasons Why the Lord Will Return in 1988. Mark 13 featured in that list.

One of the key reasons is Mark 13's mention of the budding of the fig tree (13:28-31). When you see it bud, you know the summer is near. Then Jesus says that "this generation will not pass" until all these things come to pass (13:30). We've already seen from Mark 11 that the fig tree that withers there likely symbolized the Israel of that day. So couldn't the budding of the fig tree be the re-establishment of Israel?

What happens within that generation? We have just heard in 13:26. The Son of Humanity will come on the clouds of heaven. Is this not the second coming, the return of Christ?

This is an ingenious interpretation. It gets around one of the key riddles of the passage. In the flow of the chapter, Mark 13:30 seems to say that that generation -- his generation, the disciples' generation -- would not pass before the Son of Humanity came on the clouds. The "generation after Israel's rebirth" argument helps alleviate the puzzle, at least until such time as the 1948 generation might all die off.

2. Is it the right interpretation of the passage? It doesn't seem to be what the passage meant originally. But one of the lessons we learn as we watch the New Testament interpet the Old Testament is that fulfillment can happen in more-than-literal ways. Sometimes I call such interpretations "spiritual" interpretations. Or you might call them "figural" interpretations. These are interpretations that weren't clearly in the minds of the Old Testament authors, but they are meanings that the New Testament authors saw in the words of the biblical texts. 

I grew up with this way of interpreting the text without even knowing it. The Spirit could make a passage come alive and speak to you directly. For example, there is a family story about how someone in my family thought God was telling us to move to Florida when the words "thou hast given me a south land" jumped out to her while reading Judges 1:15 in the King James Version. We were trying to decide if it was God's will to move to Florida at the time, and several passages jumped out at various family members. And move to Florida we did.

However, the Israel/fig tree/last generation interpretation of Mark 13 does not seem to be what the text meant originally. "This generation" does seem to refer to Jesus' generation. There is no clear connection between the fig tree illustration here and in Mark 11. And, most importantly, the context of the chapter points to a much different time in history.

God can fulfill the passage however he desires on a more-than-literal level. But Mark 13 originally was not primarily about the end times. It was primarily about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. 

3. Let's go back to the beginning of the chapter, Mark 13:1-4. At the end of Mark 12, they are at the temple. Jesus has pointed out that the poor widow has given more proportionally than the wealthy have. As they are leaving the temple, One of his disciples admires the stones of that temple.

That's when Jesus begins the train of thought of the chapter. He tells them that none of those beautiful stones will be left standing on each other. This destruction of that temple happened in AD70. The set up for the chapter is Peter, Andrew, James, and John asking him privately when the destruction of that temple is going to happen (13:4). They want to know what the signs of its impending destruction will be.

This all already happened. Jesus' predictions about the temple all came true. That temple no longer stands -- no stone of it is on top of any other. [1] 

The context is crystal clear. The introduction to the chapter is not about the end times as we think of them. The chapter sets us up to expect the chapter to be about the events surrounding the destruction of the temple by the Romans in AD70.

4. Many will come claiming to be the Messiah, the anointed ones to overthrow the Romans and establish the kingdom of Israel. No doubt claims were made around AD70. They all failed.

Wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines (13:7-8) -- I am amazed when people point to wars in the Middle East as signs of the end times. Have they no sense of history whatsoever? There are always wars, earthquakes, and famines going on and have been throughout history. Mark 13 refers to the Jewish War from AD66-72, culminating in the temple's destruction.

"They will deliver you up to councils" (13:9). Who is the "you" here? Who is Jesus talking to? The passage tells us. He is talking to Peter, Andrew, James, and John. He's not talking to Ken Schenck. It is amazing how narcissistically we sometimes read the Bible, making ourselves the "you" of its passages. It's not wrong to do that. It's just not what the text actually meant originally.

Quite clearly, the "you" of the passage is Peter, Andrew, James, and John. In a secondary sense, the "you" of the passage is the audience of Mark's Gospel. We are not reading the passage in context when we see ourselves as the "you." And what if every Christian for the last 2000 years read themselves as the "you" of the passage? Was the passage fulfilled in the year 1200 too? Maybe. But not literally, not for what Mark 13 actually meant when it was written.

Mark 13:9-13 was originally about the persecution that the early church experienced in the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Did Peter, Andrew, James, and John appear before councils like the Sanhedrin? Absolutely they did.

5. Now we get to a key verse in the passage. "When you see the abomination of desolation standing where it must" (13:14). Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye in recent times saw this verse in terms of an end times Antichrist setting himself up in a rebuilt temple as God (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). This is part of the ingenious stitching together of verses that was started by John Darby in the 1800s. Brilliant connective work. And far be it from me to tell God how to spiritually fulfill the biblical text.

But the original, first meaning of Mark 13:14 is overwhelmingly clear. The passage is about the destruction of the temple. The desolation of the temple by the Romans is what Mark has in view. Luke 21 makes the desolation of Jerusalem explicit. In its paraphrase of Mark 13:14, it reads, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is near." Luke takes Mark's ambiguous wording and paraphrases it to make its meaning clear. [2]

Mark 13:14 was thus a prediction that the temple Jesus was looking at would be destroyed. There is no place in the Old or New Testament that literally predicts the rebuilding of a temple again. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. I'm simply saying it is not predicted. [3] All the Old Testament prophecies about a rebuilt temple were fulfilled in 516BC with the rebuilding of the second temple.

Most importantly, the inspired book of Hebrews tells us that there is no further need for an earthly temple. Christ has entered the true temple in heaven (Heb. 8:2). With one sacrifice, Christ has ended the need for sacrifice (Heb. 10:14). Christ's atoning sacrifice has ended the sacrificial system of the old covenant (10:9). There is no need for a temple in the end times (Rev. 21:22).

In short, no rebuilt temple today could ever house the glory of God. Hebrews is definitive. Jesus is the only temple we need, and if the temple were ever rebuilt, it would likely become a stumblingblock to the very elect, a easy idol in waiting for Satan to use to distract God's people from the glory of Christ. God's glory will never return to any earthly temple again. Jesus is the glory of God in this regard, end of story.

6. There is an interesting aside in Mark 13:14 -- "let the reader understand." Because of what a reader is today, we are prone to think it's talking about us understanding as we read. But a "reader" in the first century was the person who read a text aloud to an audience, remembering that many if not most early Christians were illiterate.

Some take the verse to relate to the fact that the phrase "abomination of desolations" is an allusion to Daniel 11:31. Matthew 24:15 makes this allusion explicit. Accordingly, some take the expression "let the reader understand" to mean that the person reading should understand that this event is the fulfillment of Daniel.

It was the fulfillment of Daniel in a spiritual sense. The original fulfillment of Daniel 11 took place in 167BC when the Syrians defiled the temple. This is a testament to the multiple meanings that Scripture can have (it's "polyvalence"). Daniel 11:31 had already been fulfilled once by the time of Jesus.

And it was fulfilled again in AD70, as we have seen. We will see if God chooses to go beyond the text's meaning and fulfill it again in the manner of Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye.

I and many others think that the statement "let the reader understand" was a reading cue to the person reading Mark to a church in the first century. Highlight this verse, the cue says, because it's important and its soon. Why? Because the verse goes on to tell Peter, Andrew, James, and John to flee Judea when these things are happening (Mark 13:15). Head for the mountains.

And there is a tradition that the Jerusalem church did flee the city before it was destroyed by the Romans in AD70.

The statement "let the reader understand" is sometimes taken as a clue as to when the Gospel of Mark was written. It is often dated to the time just before or just after the temple was destroyed. For various reasons, I suspect the Gospel was started before the temple was destroyed but that it reached its current form not long afterward.

7. The end of the chapter does seem to blur into the return of Christ. You could argue that some biblical prophecy does that. As the prophet looks to the future, similar "eschatological" events blur together. Mark has more than one statement that might have led his first century audience to think that Jesus would return within their lifetime. Mark 13:30 is one of them -- this generation will not pass until all these things happen. Mark 9:1 is another -- some standing here will not die until the kingdom of God has come with power.

N. T. Wright has ingeniously suggested that the coming of the Son of Humanity was a reference either to the departure of Jesus from Israel or to him coming in judgment on Jerusalem. This interpretation would alleviate the tension of the passage in relation to its fulfillment in that generation. [4]

He rightly points out that the language of the sun darkening and moon turning to blood could be similar to the kind of language we used when we talk about "earth-shattering" events. For example, Acts 2:20 seems to relate this language from Joel 2 to the Day of Pentecost. It could refer to something momentous rather than something like solar and lunar eclipses, still less a transformation of the moon into hemoglobin.

8. However, perhaps a reference to Jesus' second coming remains the best interpretation of the final portion of the chapter. Mark blurs from predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem to the final return of Christ. The end of the chapter tells Peter, Andrew, James, and John to be watchful as these events unfold (13:32-36). No one knew exactly when Jerusalem would be destroyed. 

And today, no one knows when Jesus will return. "No one knows the day or the hour" (13:32). It is amazing that people still try to set dates. I am also amazed when people say that the signs of the times are clear that Jesus will come back soon. Certainly we must live in readiness and expectation. But people have been saying "the signs are clear" for hundreds of years. 

My grandfather saw signs in the 1940s of the Lord's imminent return. We were on the edge of our seats in the 1970s with Hal Lindsey. I would hardly let my mother out of my sight at a store for fear she would be taken and I would be left behind. We were expecting again in 1988. We were primed for the "any day" of Tim LaHaye in the early 2000s. 

Yes, we must live in constant expectation, full stop. But we also note that every prediction -- and "it's so clear it's happening soon" -- has failed. 100% failure rate.

Watch and stay awake. Yes! Keep your candle lit. But it will happen "when you least expect it" (Matt. 24:44).

[1] The wailing wall in Jerusalem -- which you can still visit today -- was not a wall of the temple but a retaining wall holding the earth of the temple mount in place.

[2] The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars have concluded that Luke used Mark as one of its primary sources.

[3] 2 Thessalonians 2:14 comes closest because it talks about a man of lawlessness setting himself up in the temple as God. However, the temple was still standing when Paul was alive. The passage does not predict a rebuilt temple. Further, there is debate over what the temple referred to here is. Ezekiel 40-45 is highly symbolic but primarily looked to the re-establishment of the temple after the Babylonian captivity. As we will mention, Hebrews prohibits any future literal fulfillment still to come.

[4] In Daniel 7, the Son of Humanity comes to the Ancient of Days, a movement that at least initially is up rather than down.

Things will get worse and worse.

I continue my current book project, trying to finish in time for the eclipse on April 8. Last night I finished the chapter on Israel becoming a nation, going on to explore the imagery of the fig tree in Mark 13 as well as the meaning of Romans 11 and "all Israel being saved."

On to the next chapter this morning.
_______________________________

Growing up, we never stopped to think about our “philosophy of history.” Everyone just knew that things were going to get worse and worse until Jesus returned. 

Of course, if you look back at the last 2000 years, there have been good and bad times. Things haven't irrevocably been getting worse for 2000 years. But this is the "premillennial" mindset and the assumption of my childhood. In the days right before Jesus' return, things will get worse and worse and worse.

2. Let me pause to explain this millennial language. Revelation talks about a Millennium in chapter 20, a thousand year period with Christ reigning on earth. We will explore it further in chapter 9. 

There are three basic views of what this Millennium signifies. First, there are those who take it literally and believe it will happen after Jesus comes to judge the earth. These are premillennialists who believe that a literal Millennium is still to come. This is the order in which events happen in Revelation. There is a battle called Armageddon in which the forces of darkness are defeated (Rev. 16). Satan is bound for a thousand years, and Jesus reigns over the earth.

Throughout most of church history, amillennialism has been the dominant view. This view does not take the Millennium literally but sees it as the spiritual reign of Christ now no matter what might be going on politically with Christianity in the world. This was the dominant view throughout the Middle Ages and even by the Protestant reformers.

Postmillennialism is a view that largely coincided with the optimism of the 1700s and 1800s. In this view, the world was getting better and better in preparation for Christ's return. As it were, the church would prepare the way for the return of Christ. This optimism was more or less dashed by the wake up call of two world wars and a reminder that humanity still reminds capable of the worst atrocities of the past.

3. Most of us didn't have a name for it, but I grew up a "premillennial." Even today, most of the American church is premillennial. We believe that, right before Jesus returns, things will get worse and worse and worse. Then when it looks like there is absolutely no hope at all, Jesus will come back.

In the late 1800s, the preacher D. L. Moody used the image of a lifeboat to capture this perspective on the world. The world was like a ship that was sinking. We needed to get into the lifeboat of salvation. Clearly, he had drunk from the waters of dispensationalism and John Darby that we mentioned in chapter 1. 

From this perspective, there is no point in trying to save the world. It's going down like the Titanic. It has no hope. This view of the world thus has little time for trying to improve society. It downplays concepts like trying to help the poor or address social ills. There's no point in trying to address climate change. The world is burning, and there's nothing we can do about it. Just get in the boat and try to get as many other people as you can in the boat with you.

These are all largely the unarticulated assumptions of a worldview. The bridge is out. We need to warn people. This is no time to work on their car engines. Jesus is coming back any day!

4. Where does it come from in the Bible? Two places, chiefly. First, there are the passages in Mark 13 and Matthew 24 where Jesus talks about the lead up to the temple's destruction. Then there is of course the book of Revelation itself.

Note that this tone is not equally sustained everywhere in the New Testament. For example, the Gospel of John does not have this same urgency. The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) do not have this urgency. Paul's early writings, which seem to expect Jesus to return within his lifetime, do not have the same feel as Mark 13. Even Luke's version of Mark 13 feels less urgent.

What makes the difference? The difference is when Mark is being written. Mark was arguably written around the time when the Romans surrounded and then destroyed Jerusalem. Nowhere is this clearer than when he inserts the words "let the reader understand" into Mark 13:14. This was arguably a note to the person reading Mark to a congregation to emphasize the point about the temple's desecration. Why? Quite possibly because it was in process or had recently happened at the time of writing.

We will return to the question of the temple in chapter 7. For the moment, we want to show that the "worse and worse" dynamic of Mark 13 especially applied to the time leading up to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans in AD 70. It may apply to the end times as well, but let's hear those verses first for their original meaning...