Mark 13:1-23

The Coming of the Son of Man

Interpreting Future History

Mark 13:1-4 – Looking to the Future

The temple, rebuilt by Herod and only recently finished, had truly been a splendid edifice, qualifying among the wonders of the world of the time. Jewish people generally had been enormously proud of it.

Jesus solemnly told the disciples that this building, glorious and all as it is, was destined for destruction.

From the Mount of Olives, the temple would have been in full view across the valley.  Jesus was sitting opposite the temple, as though Mark wished to show him in opposition to it (as Jesus had sat opposite the treasury when he had repudiated the greed of the scribal class [12:41]). 

Mark emphasised that the question of the four disciples was made privately. Presumably the answer, too, was private.

In this way Mark carefully set up what scholars have called the eschatological or apocalyptic discourse. (The word eschatological refers to the ultimate outcome of history - “eschata” means “last things”).

The Course of History

Mark 13:5-23 - “Business as Usual” 

It is obvious that the discourse was Mark’s own composition, written for the reader of his narrative. He would explicitly indicate this (13:14). In putting the discourse together, it was quite possible that Mark drew on sayings uttered by Jesus to whom apocalyptic language was not foreign. 

Mark was thinking about the experience of his readers, his Christian community wherever it was, though he put the discourse in the mouth of Jesus.

The time would be a time of confusion, with many different figures claiming people’s allegiance.

Mark described what would effectively have been “business as usual”. War, particularly on the frontiers of the empire, was constant. There was also insurrection in Palestine itself during the sixties, as many Jews tried to oust the Roman occupiers. (This occurred thirty or more years after Jesus’ death, but was most probably the decade during which Mark was writing.) Mark’s comment about troubles referred to acute suffering, but suffering that would lead to birth and new life.

The Council (Sanhedrin) convened in Jerusalem. The word could also have referred to Roman councils operative in the cities of the empire. Synagogues were found throughout the villages and towns of Palestine and also in many of the cities where diaspora Jews were numerous. Magistrates were Roman officials; rulers were Roman puppets in a variety of countries.

The Christian community was warned that it would face persecution from all sides. Disciples were urged to stand firm as witnesses to God’s power in face of opposition.

Mark was writing in the late sixties, at a time when the Christian message had indeed been brought to all the major cities of the empire.

Disciples were not to rehearse their defence but rely on the Spirit who would inspire them.

Sadly conversion to the message of Jesus had not been universal, even within the one family. Strong emotions had been stirred. The stress of persecution only served to exacerbate differences. Jesus had already foretold that eventuality, and stated that the cohesion of the Christian community was a greater value even than family unity (10:28-30).

Disciples would be rejected by others, but they themselves were not to be agents of violent turmoil. Their response would be to accept the inevitable persecution that came their way because of their free and determined commitment to kingdom values, and to endure.

The discourse had shifted into a different gear. Mark’s reference was clearly to the siege of Jerusalem mounted by the Roman army. 

Roman Siege of Jerusalem

In fact, in June 66 AD, a Jewish provisional government had been set up in Jerusalem, extending for a brief time to Idumea in the south, Perea to the east and Galilee to the north.

In November of the same year, 66 AD, Sextus Gallus, a Roman General, had marched to Jerusalem, but had surprisingly been turned back at the Temple Mount, and had to retreat to the coast, suffering severe losses at the hands of the Jewish rebels.

During 67 AD, in Jerusalem, there had been serious internal power struggles between different bands of Jewish rebels.

In June 68 AD, the Roman General Vespasian had begun the siege of Jerusalem. However, due to unrest in Rome, he had been summoned away and the siege had been abandoned. The Jewish rebels had been temporarily reprieved.

Two years later, from April to September 70 AD, the Roman General Titus renewed the siege of Jerusalem. During this time a mentally deranged Jewish citizen burned the temple to the ground, and Titus eventually destroyed the city.

Detestable destructive thing

The “detestable destructive thing" was an image borrowed from Daniel (9:27). It possibly referred to an attempt by the Emperor Caligula in the year 40 AD to erect a statue of himself in the temple. Disciples were not to stay to defend the city (or any of the towns and villages of Judea) by use of arms, but were to attempt to flee to the greater security of the mountains around Samaria, or even further afield in northern Galilee. The language reflected a sense of urgent insistence.

Before the destruction of the temple

There was a noticeable absence of clear detail, which would seem to indicate that Mark has composed the discourse before or at the early stages of the second siege under Titus. There was no reference at all to the actual destruction of the temple that had occurred in the year 70, even though the question used to introduce the discourse had referred to the temple’s destruction. (In fact, the temple was burnt, not knocked down stone upon stone.)

Mark seemed to infer that the advice to flee given to disciples would bring them no friends. Following the insistent lead of Jesus, they certainly did not side with those Jews who preferred to accommodate to the Roman ethos. On the other hand their choice to flee, their option for non-violence, would not have endeared them to those inciting armed resistance. They would, indeed, be hated by all.

The degree of suffering of the time was described in hyperbolic language, yet in fact, as the siege of Jerusalem was prolonged, the suffering there had indeed been intense. The reference that “for the sake of the chosen ones whom he has selected, he will cut those days short” was no doubt geared to reassuring the disciples to remain firm in their decision.

Reference to false Christs and false prophets was simply a reflection of the actual experience. Leading up to the time of the Jewish revolt there had indeed been people who had claimed to be the Christ/Messiah. (Across history, many leaders would claim their war was 'war against evil', and so God was on their side.) Mark would have been well aware of all that. Real pressure would have been brought to bear on the disciples. Beyond that, Mark was ignorant of further significant detail: “I have told you everything”.

Next >>