Mk 12:41 Then he sat down opposite the offering box, and watched the crowd putting coins into it. Many rich people were throwing in large amounts. 12:42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth less than a penny. 12:43 He called his disciples and said to them, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others. 12:44 For they all gave out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had.”

Lk 21:1 Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box. 21:2 He also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. 21:3 He said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. 21:4 For they all offered their gifts out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in everything she had to live on.”

Not exactly a ‘troublesome text’, this one, but a text which certainly invites a second look.

A model of piety…?

The usual approach is to understand Jesus as commending sacrificial giving.  Edwards, for example, says that the main point is the woman’s modelling of discipleship:

‘No gift, whether of money, time, or talent, is too insignificant to give, if it is given to God. And what is truly given to God, regardless how small and insignificant, is transformed into a pearl of great price. What may look like a great gift, conversely, may in reality be little in comparison with what one could give. The widow’s giving “ ‘all she had’ ” is a true fulfillment of the call to discipleship to follow Jesus by losing one’s life (Mk 8:35). The final Greek words of the chapter might be paraphrased, “she lay down her whole life.” That is what Jesus will do on Golgotha.’

Hurtado takes a similar approach:

‘The virtue of the widow’s gift lies in her giving all she had (v. 44), illustrating for the disciples the wholesale commitment for which Jesus called (e.g., Mk 8:34–9:1; 10:28–31). Her action exemplifies the complete devotion spoken about in Mk 12:28–34, where it is hinted that commitment to God is not to be measured in the impressiveness of the sacrificial gift one is able to offer (v. 33). The elevation of this simple woman to such an exemplary place captures the essence of Jesus’ words that in God’s judgment “many who are … last [will be] first” (Mk 10:31).’

So also Hooker:

‘The story is a reminder to Mark’s readers that the humblest and poorest of them can make a worthy offering to God.’

…but also a tragic victim?

Other commentators have suggested an additional layer of meaning.

One such is Wright, who thinks that the additional meaning is that

‘when we read this story in the light of Jesus’ riddle about David’s Lord and David’s son we discover a strange affinity. One might have thought she was ‘merely’ putting in two copper coins, but in fact she was putting in everything she had. One might have thought the Messiah was ‘merely’ David’s son—a human king among other human kings. But in fact, in the Messiah, Israel’s God has given himself totally, given all that he had and was.’

Writing in the Women’s Bible Commentary, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon is perhaps, on to something when she writes:

‘Later interpreters misuse this poor widow by making her the model for a stewardship campaign. She is, rather, an image of the demands and risks of discipleship that Jesus has proclaimed and is, at the moment of his telling of her story, in the midst of enacting—giving his whole life.’

The approach taken in Harper’s Bible Commentary also suggests that this story might be taken in more than one way:

‘The incident provides the bridge between Jesus’ attacks on the Temple and its authorities, Mark 11-12, and the predictions of the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13. It also prepares for the woman who anoints Jesus in Jerusalem who, like the widow, gave “what she had” (Mk 14:8; cf. 12:44) and for the discipleship of other women during the passion narrative (Mk 15:40-41, 47; 16:1-8).’

Garland (NIVAC) is content with understanding this story as an example of sacrificial giving.  Yet he agrees that

‘one can give this incident a quite different spin, which laments that this widow gives so sacrificially to this den of thieves. The woman is to be praised, but giving sacrificially to a corrupt, spiritually bankrupt, and oppressive temple is to be lamented. She exhibits unquestioning devotion to the temple, a fruitless cause that exploits her. The high priests live in luxury on their cut from the contributions made by the poor. Hers is a misguided gesture, a case of the poor giving to the rich, the victim lining the pockets of the oppressor. The costs to operate this extravagant temple are therefore one of the things that “devour the resources of the poor.”’

Matt Anslow develops this alternative (or complementary) approach.  Note the context: this incident in preceded by Jesus’ denunciation of the scribes (vv38-40) and is followed by his prediction of the destruction of the temple (Mk 13:1f).  Note also that Jesus does not commend the woman’s giving.  It looks, then, as if his teaching is meant not as a celebration, but as a lament.  The woman had given all that she had.  Quite possibly, she would have nothing to eat for several days to come.  Her wealth, such as it was, had been ‘devoured’ (v40) by those responsible for the temple treasury.  An institution that should have protected her, exploited her.  This interpretation, it has to be said, is consistent with Jesus’ more general critique of the temple and its institutions.

Evans (WBC on Mark) advances a similar interpretation.

Focusing on the Markan account, Jeremy D. Otten argues that catchwords (including the word translated ‘widow’) and other contextual clues

‘link the widow narrative not just with the preceding pericope, but with the whole series of five disputations in the temple (vv. 13-40). With the episode functioning in this way as an epilogue to the whole section, the widow may be seen as both a model of discipleship as well as a tragic figure whose poverty illustrates the failure of the religious leadership.’

Counting against this interpretation, however, is the observation that

‘the Lukan Jesus is thoroughly in favor of the temple and its worship: as recently as 19:45–46 he has, at least symbolically, put to rights the abuses interfering with temple worship; and for this whole section he is presented as a regular daily temple-teacher.’ (Nolland, WBC)

Possibly.  But those very verses record Jesus complaining that the temple had been turned into a ‘den of thieves’.  We may conclude that it was this abuse of the temple (rather than the temple itself) that our Lord was hinting at in the present passage.

This difficult saying has been understood in various ways:-

1. Some, such as Barnes, think that this is a promise of supernatural protection to a particular people at a particular time.  Barnes thinks that this was fulfilled at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, when it has been thought that Christians suffered no serious harm.  But Kidner (commenting on Psa 121:7f) notes that

‘God’s minutest care (‘not a hair of your head will perish’) and his servants’ deepest fulfilment (‘you will win true life’, NEB) are promised in the same breath as the prospect of hounding and martyrdom (Luke 21:16f.).’

2. Bengel and Hendriksen take it to mean, “Not a hair of your head will perish outside of God’s providential purpose and timescale.”  See Mt 10:29f.

3. Others, such as Marshall, France and Bock, take it to refer to spiritual safety (it is precisely such spiritual life that is promised in Lk 21:19; cf Lk 12:4-7).

4. Still others, such as Stein, incline to the view that although individuals may perish, the church of Christ will live on.

‘Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.’

This is the one passage in the NT that seems to speak of the return of Jerusalem to the custody of the Jews.

For some, the ‘times of the Gentiles’ came to an end on 14th May, 1948, when Israel became an independent state, or Jane 1967, with the capture of East Jerusalem.

For Derek White, of Christian Friends of Israel, there is no doubt:

‘The plain meaning of these words of Jesus is that the imposition of Gentile rule and possession of Jerusalem is to have an end, and that it will come again into the possession of the Jewish people as their Capital. It is impossible, without doing disservice to all reasonable Bible interpretation, to spiritualise “Jerusalem” here and make it mean anything other than the city, the Capital of Israel, called by that name. In the first part of verse 24 Jesus is certainly speaking literally and therefore also in the second part of that verse. The implication of this verse is the restoration of sovereignty to the Jewish nation when the “times of the Gentiles” have run their course. Many believe this Scripture to have had its fulfilment in June 1967 when Israeli forces liberated East Jerusalem from Arab rule and returned it to Jewish jurisdiction for the first time in 1900 years. Whether or not this is so, we are certainly within the period of the close of the times of the Gentiles.’

But for most commentators, the issue is not nearly so clear-cut.  Stein (NAC), for example, says,

‘there may be hints in Luke about a future restoration of Israel in Lk 13:35 and Lk 21:24, but they are elusive, so that certainty on this issue is impossible.’

However, our Lord says nothing here about what would happen to Jerusalem at the end of the period spoken of.  The view of Hendriksen (citing Greijdanus & Lenski in support) is that the period of oppression of Jerusalem will last until the end of the age, the theme to which our Lord now turns, in vv25-28.

According to McKnight, this suggests either that:

(1) the city will be dominated for only a limited time and that during this period Gentiles will be converted to the Messiah (cf. Dan 8:13–14; 12:5–13; Mk 13:20; Rom 11:25–27) or that

(2) the mission to the Gentiles will run its predestined course, and God will then turn once more to work with the nation of Israel.’

(DJG, 1st ed., art. ‘Gentiles’ (McKnight)

The contributor to HSB regards ‘the times of the Gentiles’ as meaning simply ‘the period of Gentile domination of the city’.  See Rev 11:2.

France suggests that

‘in context the phrase seems to mean “for as long as God permits the Gentiles to have the upper hand.”’  France adds that, ‘no specific cutoff point for the period of Gentile dominance is stated.’

Travis remarks that although Jesus taught that the OT prophecies concerning the Kingdom of God were fulfilled in his own ministry, there is nothing to suggest that he expected a time when the Jews would have political independence in Palestine.  And although the present text does speak of the trampling down of Jerusalem until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, it does not say that Jewish sovereignty will be restored at that time.  It is consistent with the general tenor of Jesus’ teaching that the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles would be followed by the parousia.  (I Believe in the Second Coming of Jesus)

Ryrie (Study Bible) thinks that this refers to:

‘The period of Gentile domination of Jerusalem, which probably began under Nebuchadnezzar (587 B.C.), was certainly in effect in A.D. 70 and continues into the Tribulation (cf. Rev. 11:2).’

Matthew Poole judged:

‘Some from this text think, that there shall be a time when the Jews shall repossess the city of Jerusalem. Whether any such thing can be from hence gathered, I doubt.’

Daniel 7:13f – “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

There can be little doubt that, when seen through the ‘lens’ of the teaching of the New Testament, this is applicable to Jesus Christ.  He is the ‘Son of Man’ who ‘comes with the clouds of heaven’, is led into the presence of his heavenly Father, and is given an indestructible and universal kingdom.

But what about this ‘coming’?  Is it a coming down from heaven (at his ‘parousia’) or a coming up to heaven (at his ascension)?

And what are we to make of the New Testament passages which quote or allude to this passage? –

Mt 16:27f  “For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Mt 24:30  “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Mt 26:64  “I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mk 14:62)

Mk 13:26  “Then everyone will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds with great power and glory.”  (Lk 21:27)

Acts 7:56  “Look!” he said. “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

Rev 1:7  Look! He is returning with the clouds.

Rev 14:14  Then I looked, and a white cloud appeared, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man! He had a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

1. The Parousia?

Commenting on Dan 7:13, Nelson (UBCS) sees a clear application of this passage by and to Jesus.  However, he thinks that it is applicable to his return:

‘Daniel 7 is of the utmost importance for understanding both the identity of Jesus and the plan of God for the end times. When the book was written, “son of man” was not a title, but rather the vision referred to a transcendent one who looked like a man. Originally it was probably understood to be an angel or archangel—Michael is the best candidate, since he figures prominently in the deliverance of the Jews (12:1). However, in the NT, Jesus uses “Son of Man” as a title for himself (for example, Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 11:19). Although he sometimes uses it to mean “man,” he identifies himself with the figure in Daniel’s vision at other times, predicting that he will return in power and glory riding on clouds (Matt. 19:28; 24:27, 30; 26:64). John also utilizes the imagery for Jesus in his apocalypse (Rev. 1:7, 13; 14:14). Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 gives us hope for the future. Jesus will return to raise from the dead those believers who have died (1 Cor. 15:22–26; 1 Thess. 4:14–17), to gather together his living followers, and to set up God’s kingdom in its fullness. The oppressive regimes of this world will disintegrate as they are replaced by the eternal, righteous, reign of God. This leads us to cry “Maranatha” (1 Cor. 16:22) and to pray “Your kingdom come … on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). For those who are suffering persecution for the name of Jesus, Daniel 7 holds out the certain hope of the eventual triumph of God’s kingdom and with it the vindication of God’s people for their faithfulness. It calls them to endure and persevere through their present trials with an eye fixed on the horizon awaiting their great future.’

So also Miller (NAC):

‘The phrase “coming in clouds” is understood in Matt 24:30 as a reference to the return of Christ.’

Wallace (BST) is another who thinks that, for Jesus, this passage was about ‘his second coming and ultimate triumph.’

Referring more widely to the ‘son of man’ figure in later Jewish writings, Harper’s Bible Commentary states:

‘This preexistent heavenly figure of Jewish tradition may be the one of whom Jesus speaks in such passages as Matt. 10:23; 16:27–28; Mark 8:38; and 13:26, in which he seems to be referring to some heavenly figure who will come on clouds as the judge of the Last Day.’

See this by Michael Vlach.

2. The ascension?

Calvin was decidedly in favour of this interpretation.  Bolt (The Cross from a Distance: the Atonement in Mark’s Gospel) provides quotations:

‘The great Reformation exegete, John Calvin, in his commentary on Daniel, also joined this stream of interpretation, claiming that these verses are ‘undoubtedly of Christ … He had been endued with heavenly power, and was seated at his Father’s right hand.’ Throughout his exposition, Calvin uses strong language that expresses his conviction: ‘This passage, then, without the slightest doubt, ought to be received of Christ’s ascension, after he had ceased being a mortal man’; 40, 44; ‘This, in my judgement, ought to be explained of Christ’s ascension; for he then commenced his reign, as we see in numberless passages of Scripture’ (cf. Rom. 6:10, John 16:7; 14:28); (p. 42); ‘He now arrives at the Ancient of days, that is, when he ascends to heaven, because his divine majesty was then revealed’ (p. 43); ‘He ascended to heaven, and a dominion was bestowed upon him’ (p. 44).’

A number of older commentators adopt this view:

‘This relates to his ascension, Acts 1:9–11, at which time, though King before, Matt. 2:2, yet now, and not before, he seems to receive his royal investiture for the protection of his church and the curbing of their enemies, which he says he had before, Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:25; chap. 2:44.’ (Poole)

Charnock writes that this is

‘not to be understood of his coming at the day of judgment, but his coming after his oblation. He comes not here to judge man, but to be judged by his Father; and upon being found to have performed the part of the Son of man, he hath a kingdom both extensive and everlasting bestowed upon him, which should not be destroyed by the subtleties or force of his enemies; a present only worthy of the Son of God. Again, he received not his power at the day of judgment, but upon his resurrection and ascension after his death; but this expresseth the first investiture of this power in him.’ (Works, Vol 5, p55)

John Flavel:

‘This vision of Daniel’s was accomplished in Christ’s ascension, when they, that is the angels, brought him to the Ancient of days, that is to God the Father, who, to express his welcome to Christ, gave him glory and a kingdom. And so it is, and ought to be expounded. The Father received him with open arms, rejoicing exceedingly to see him again in heaven; therefore God is said to “receive him up into glory,” 1 Tim. 3:16. For that which, with respect to Christ, is called ascension, is, with respect to the Father, called assumption. He went up, and the Father received him. Yes, received so as none ever was received before him, or shall be received after him.’ (The Fountain of Life)

Matthew Henry notes that:

‘Some refer this to his incarnation…I think it is rather to be referred to his ascension; when he returned to the Father the eye of his disciples followed him, till a cloud received him out of their sight, Acts 1:9. He made that cloud his chariot, wherein he rode triumphantly to the upper world. He comes swiftly, irresistibly, and comes in state, for he comes with the clouds of heaven.’

Ovey writes that Dan 7:13

‘arguably’ depicts ‘the transition from Jesus’ state of humiliation to his exaltation.’ (New Dictionary of Theology, art. ‘Ascension (and Heavenly Session of Christ)’.

Referring to Mk 14:62, Ian Paul writes,

‘This cannot refer to Jesus’ return to earth (‘second coming’) unless Jesus was deluded about how soon that would happen. But more importantly, it cannot mean this because it is an almost exact quotation from Daniel 7, and refers to Jesus’ (the Son of Man’s) ascending to the throne of God and fulfilling the destiny of Israel. That is why the High Priest considered it blasphemy: in effect, Jesus was crucified because he anticipated his Ascension!’

Commenting on Mt 26:64 – ‘This,’ writes Ian Paul,

‘cannot refer to Jesus’ return to earth (‘second coming’) unless Jesus was deluded about how soon that would happen. But more importantly, it cannot mean this because it is an almost exact quotation from Daniel 7, and refers to Jesus’ (the Son of Man’s) ascending to the throne of God and fulfilling the destiny of Israel. That is why the High Priest considered it blasphemy: in effect, Jesus was crucified because he anticipated his Ascension!’

Ian Paul again:

‘This is associated not with anyone’s coming from heaven to earth, but rather the opposite—the exaltation of the Son of Man as he comes from the earth to the one seated on the heavenly throne. This is language both distinct from, and opposite to, Paul’s use of ‘coming on the clouds’ in 1 Thess 4.17. This would have been very obvious to Paul’s readers, since he uses quite different language for ‘coming’, the word parousia meaning ‘royal presence’.’

Focusing on Lk 21:25-28 (and the parallel accounts in Mt 24:29-35; Mk 13:24-31), Ian Paul notes that this passage is selected as an Advent reading for Year 3 of the Revised Common Lectionary.  There is an assumption that this passage is all about Christ’s Second Coming.

Following G.B. Caird and R.T. France, Paul argues that this passage is actually about the Ascension and the subsequent spread of the gospel.  The key elements in the argument are:-

1. ‘the ‘technical’ language of parousia (used repeatedly by Paul in e.g. 1 Cor 15.23, 1 Thess 2.19) occurs in the second half of Matt 24 (Matt 24.37, 39) but is absent in the first half, except in Matt 24.27 when Jesus says all that is happening is not sign of his coming;
2. ‘English translations confuse this, by using the same wording (‘coming’) to translate both this word and the quite different present participle erchomenos;
3. ‘the language of the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in Matt 24.30 is a direct allusion to Dan 7.13, which refers to the Son of Man coming from the earth to the throne of the Ancient of Days. Matthew conflates it with a reference to Zech 12.10, which talks of the Spirit being poured out on the House of David, and all the tribes of Israel seeing the one they have pierced—used in reference to Jesus’ crucifixion and then the events of Pentecost;
4. ‘the main stumbling block for the ‘traditional’ reading comes in Matt 24.34–35 – “Amen I say to you: this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”‘  This seems to demonstrate that the events spoken of would take place within the next 30-40 years.

Paul comments that, in contrast to Matthew and Mark, Luke places these events much more clearly in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Source: Parsons, cited by Paul.

Paul cites Mikeal Parsons to the effect that ‘in keeping with the consistent and distinctive emphasis in Luke on promise and fulfilment, this passage with its predictions of difficulties for the followers of Jesus is actually fulfilled in a range of elements of the narrative in Acts.

The implications for preaching from this passage are, according to Paul:-

First, we need to take this passage seriously in its historical context, noting first what it would have meant for Luke’s original audience, before seeking its meaning for us today.

Secondly, we need to note ‘the connections Luke makes between the events of the fall of Jerusalem, Pentecost, and the gentile mission.’

Thirdly, we need to understand that, for Luke, ‘the “end days” have already commenced with Jesus’ Ascension, the fall of Jerusalem, and Pentecost. God’s covenant grace has now been broken open to include gentiles within the “Israel of God”.’

Fourthly, ‘because of all this, the troubles that Jesus’ followers experienced throughout Acts are troubles that we ourselves might well encounter. Like them, we are to ‘hold our heads up’ and not be dismayed, since this Jesus is Lord, and he will return.’

Tim Chester writes:

‘Luke describes the ascension from below. This is the ground level view and we see one ordinary-looking person rise into the clouds. Daniel describes the ascension from above. He shows us what happens on the other side as Jesus moves through the clouds – not into earth’s upper atmosphere, but into heaven.’ (The Ascension)

3. Christ’s entire journey from resurrection, through ascension, to exaltation and return

It may be that the text in Daniel may be applied with sufficient fluidity as to understood in relation to any or all of these events.  The ‘coming’ itself would refer primarily to the ascension, but this itself may be seen as completing what the resurrection began.  The passage in Daniel can readily be understood to refer also to our Lord’s heavenly session (as he exercises his ‘glory, authority and sovereign power’).  Nor should we, under this view, be surprised if the parousia is described in terms of his ‘coming with clouds’, given that, according to Acts 1:11 “This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven” (emphasis added).

Among older commentaries, JFB state:

‘This investiture was at His ascension “with the clouds of heaven” (Acts 1:9; 2:33, 34; Ps. 2:6–9; Matt. 28:18, “Jesus (after His resurrection, and just before His ascension) spake, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”); which is a pledge of His return “in like manner” “in the clouds” (Acts 1:11; Matt. 26:64), and “with clouds” (Rev. 1:9). The kingdom then was given to Him in title and invisible exercise; at His second coming it shall be in visible administration.’

Bolt’s view is that this passage in Daniel, so far as the references and allusions in Mark’s Gospel are concerned, is fulfilled ‘in the event of Christ’s resurrection, ascension and exaltation.’

Commenting on Mt 26:64, Hendriksen understands Jesus’ words here as spanning an extensive period:

‘Jesus is looking down history’s lane. He sees the miracles of Calvary, the resurrection, the ascension, the coronation at the Father’s right hand (“the right hand of the Power,” that is, “of the Almighty”), Pentecost, the glorious return on the clouds of heaven, the judgment day, all rolled into one, manifesting his power and glory.’

Goldingay’s interpretation probably belongs here:

‘The actual title “the Son of Man” is a literalistic rendering of the phrase in v 13, though such links between OT and NT are more formal than substantial. Yet Christ is indeed the one who was to come in human likeness from heaven, and the one still to come in human likeness on the clouds of heaven to receive a kingdom and to accept the honor of all nations. The rule of God on earth is implemented through one who is himself from heaven. Along with figures such as the prophet and priest, the angel is one of Jesus’ role models: he fulfills a place analogous to each of these… In the view of theologians such as John and Paul, he is so heavenly that he must share God’s own divinity: the similarity of judge and humanlike figure becomes a similarity of Father and Son… Thus the Christ event initiates the reign of God on earth that Dan 7 promises. It brings that unveiling of the mystery of God’s plan for the world (Eph 3:1–12) which is spoken of here as the opening of the books (v 10).’

Conclusion

I incline towards this last, the more ‘fluid’ interpretation.  The New Testament quotations and allusions, which would seem confusing and even contradictory otherwise, then become more understandable.  Among these, it is now one, and then another, aspect of our Lord’s glorification which is to the fore.

Mt 24:34/Mk 13:30/Lk 21:32 – “I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

Jesus has been speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and the ‘coming’ of the Son of Man.

Taking our Lord’s words at face value, it is possible to suppose that he is teaching that the parousia would take place within the lifetime of his hearers (‘this generation’).  If that is what he meant, then he would appear to have been mistaken.

Various explanations have been offered.

1. One of the more sceptical views is that Jesus did not utter this teaching at all.  Early Christians teachers, such as Mark (see Mk 13), re-told the story of Jesus in highly apocalyptic terms, and it was this which came to predominate over the more here-and-now ethical teaching of Jesus himself.  This, in outline, is the view of scholars such as Bultmann, Funk and Crossan.

2. Others agree that Jesus did give this teaching, and that it does refer to the end of the age coming within a single generation (see also Mt 16:28), but that he was mistaken.  This was the opinion of Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer, and remains the opinion of Bart Ehrman and Dale Allison.  Hand Conzelmann thought that Luke had written his Gospel in order to explain the delay in Jesus’ return.

A traditional, and more conservative, variation on this view is that Jesus is referring to future events using ‘prophetic foreshortening’.  But this is to ignore the very phrase (‘this generation’) which is the focus of so much debate.

Ian Paul says that variations on this view go back at least to Jerome, who thought that Jesus’ teaching here was primarily about the end of the world, but with some predictions of the destruction of the temple mixed in.  Over the past century, some scholars have thought that a Jewish apocalypse has been rather clumsily incorporated into the text.  This would then mean that Jesus was saying, “I tell you the solemn truth, this generation will not pass away until some of the things I have just mentioned have occurred.”  But this is unsatisfactory, since it implies that the Evangelists, nor their sources, nor their readers, actually understood what Jesus what saying.

3. A fairly common evangelical reading is to affirm that Jesus’ predictions do pertain to the end of the age, and that ‘this generation’ refers to ‘this race of people’ (i.e. the Jewish race) or similar.  This is reflected in an NIV footnote.  Such scholars find support for this view by pointing to the parables of the virgins, the talents, and the sheep and goats in Matthew 25, and insisting that these must refer to the final judgement.  Leon Morris, D.A. Carson are among those who take this view.

Chrysostom recognised that in Psa 24:6 and other places ‘generation’ referred to a kind of people:

‘What does he refer to when he says “this generation”? He is speaking not of the generation then living but of the age of believers. For he is prone to distinguish a generation not by times only but also by the mode of their religious service and practice, as when he says, “Such is the generation of those that seek him.” He said “all these things will take place,” and yet “the gospel will be preached.” These two are not inconsistent. The generation of the faithful shall remain through all things that will surely come to pass. The faithful will not be cut off by any of the things that have been mentioned. For both Jerusalem shall be destroyed and a large part of the Jews shall be decimated, but over this generation—the faithful—shall nothing prevail, not famine, not pestilence, not earthquake, not the tumults of wars, not false Christs, not false prophets, not deceivers, not traitors, not those that cause to offend, not the false brothers, nor any other such temptation whatever.’  (ACCS)

The opinion of Ryle, Hendriksen (tentatively) and some others is that ‘the generation’ refers to the Jewish people, and that our Lord is therefore guaranteeing the continued separate existence of that nation until his return.

Ian Paul comments that:

‘all other uses of this in Mark (and the other gospels) make it clear that it really does mean ‘this generation’, that is, the people alive at the time Jesus was speaking.’

4. Some think that Jesus is referring to the generation which would be alive at the time of which he was speaking.  In other words, he was indicating that the events associated with the parousia would take place within the span of one generation.  But we can be pretty certain the the phrase, ‘this generation’ refers to the generation alive at the time that Jesus was speaking (so Brooks, Strauss, and many others).  Moreover, on his lips, the phrase usually has negative connotations (Mk 8:38; Lk 11:29,32; cf. Deut 1:35; 32:5).

5. According to Chris Hays and others, Jesus did indeed predict that the end of the age would take place within a single generation.  Nevertheless, suggest these scholars, it does not pose a problem that Jesus should frame his teaching in the form of such a prediction.  As with the prophets of old, Jesus’ purpose was not so much to predict the future, as to issue a warning, and a call to (present) action.  In this regard, our Lord stands in the tradition of Jeremiah 18:5-11, and is of the nature of a conditional prophecy (not, “This is what will happen in the future”, but, “This is what will happen if you respond in a certain way”).  Another example is that of Jonah: destruction is predicted, but is averted by repentance.

Andrew Wilson explains:

‘Understood this way, Jesus predicted his return within a generation, but this prediction was intended to bring about repentance, and ethical living, within God’s people. If these did not follow, the parousia would be delayed.’

Wilson continues his summary of the views of Hays et al:

‘There are partial fulfilments signalled clearly by the gospel writers (the resurrection and ascension in Matt 26:64, Pentecost in Acts 2:14-21, perhaps the transfiguration in Mark 9:1-8, and so on). But the full inheritance of the promise, the bodily return of Jesus to the earth to inaugurate the kingdom in all its fulness, is conditional upon obedient, ethical living among God’s people. Might this be the best way of making sense of Jesus’ prediction?’

Such flexibility, or conditionality, it is argued, is found also in 2 Peter 3:1-13.  The day of the Lord is deferred because God does not want any to perish, but all to repent.  In the mean time, the prospect motivates and energises his people to live holy and godly lives here and now.  Indeed, they not only ‘wait’ for that day, but even ‘hasten’ its arrival.  So (notes Wilson),

‘if Peter could write in those terms, such that the parousia could be accelerated or delayed on the basis of human action, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that Jesus, following the approach of Jeremiah and others, could have done the same thing.’

6. A third view is that Jesus did indeed utter this teaching about the imminent coming of the Son of Man, and that this occurred within a generation.  He is predicting, in highly symbolic terms, the ‘earth-shattering’ events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and his own vindication.  This ‘preterist’ interpretation is the view of Tom Wright (in Jesus and the Victory of God; Mark for Everyone).

Wright notes that ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds’ is a direct reference to Dan 7:13 (LXX), where the ‘coming’ is not from, but to, the Ancient of Days.

Ian Paul summarises Wright at this point:

‘The language of sun, moon and stars in Mark 13.24 comes from Isaiah 13 and 34, and refers to the fall and judgement of great empires and political powers (in this case, Assyria and Edom). It is also used in Joel 2, and strikingly is cited by Peter in Acts 2.17f. Peter appears to think that these ‘apocalyptic events’ are happening in his day.’

Jesus has been answering the disciples question about the destruction of the temple and associated events, Mk 13:1-4.  He is saying that the temple would be destroyed within the present generation.  And this was fulfilled in August AD70, when the temple was destroyed by the Romans.

Blomberg (Historical Reliability of the New Testament) writes that ‘these things’ must refer back to v29, where they refer, not to Christ’s coming but to events leading up to that coming:

‘So Jesus must be referring to everything he has described earlier in the chapter prior to his return, that is, everything leading up to and including the destruction of the temple, which occurred in AD 70, exactly forty years after his death—one generation by common biblical definitions.’

A ‘generation’, in Jewish thought, was reckoned to be a period of 40 years.  And that was pretty much the interval between the time Jesus spoke these words and the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Brooks articulates this view:

‘Jesus meant that some of the people of his generation, and more particularly some of his disciples, would not die until the things of vv. 5–23 had happened, including the very significant destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. To a limited extent v. 30 answers the first question in v. 4.’

Ian Paul notes the contract between ‘these things’ and ‘that day’ (v36 onwards).  He concludes that Jesus’ teaching in this chapter is in two parts, relating to the two parts of the disciples’ question: ‘When will all this happen, and when will be your coming and the end of the age?’  The first part of his answer concerns those things which will take place during his hearers’ lifetime, and the second part concerns the parousia, which will take place at a time unknown even to him, the Son of Man.

The contributor to the New Bible Commentary notes:

‘This poetic language appropriately refers to the great changes which were about to take place in the world, when Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed. It speaks of the Son of Man entering into his kingship, and his angels gathering in his new people from all the earth. The fall of the temple is thus presented, in highly allusive language, as the end of the old order, to be replaced by the new régime of Jesus, the Son of Man, and the international growth of his church, the new people of God.’

7. Still others think that the prediction admits of two or more fulfilments.  If ‘these things’ means the parousia, then Christ’s words, as recorded by Matthew, would appear to be untrue.  France suggests that Jesus is still dealing with the first part of the disciples’ question  in v3a – “When will these things (the destruction of the temple) be?” and has not yet addressed the second part of that question, which asks about the “sign of your parousia and of the close of the age.”

France, then, thinks that from v32 onwards Jesus is talking about his parousia.  The phrase peri de (‘now concerning’) indicates a change of subject.

It is thought that Mark wrote his Gospel in about AD 65.  He could not have known that there would be a substantial lapse of time between God’s judgment on Jerusalem and the final judgment.  Accordingly, he makes not attempt to separate them in his account.  Matthew, however, writing soon after the fall of Jerusalem, could see the separation between the two judgments and reflects this in his account.

Carson, along with others, is confident that this refers to the generation alive at that time.  However, the expression has a qualitative, and not merely a temporal character: ‘this generation’ is a sinful generation, one ripe for judgment (cf. Mt 11:16; 12:41–42, 45; 23:36).  According to Morris, ‘this generation’ then takes on the meaning of ‘this kind of person’ (as in a number of OT passages – Psa 12:7; 14:5; 24:6).  This understanding prompts us to adopt a double (or multiple) fulfillment: A ‘wicked generation’ resisted and opposed Jesus during his earthly ministry, and such a generation will exist until the time of his return.

In commenting on the parallel passage in Mk 13:30, the Apologetics Study Bible suggests:

‘“These things” that will happen in “this generation” are the events surrounding the destruction of the temple, about which the disciples asked. The temple was destroyed 40 years after the prophecy of Jesus, well within the lifetime of many of those present. Jesus, however, also talked about events surrounding His second coming. The two events are spoken of together because the terror of the first-century Roman invasion of Palestine was viewed as representing the terror of the days leading to the coming of the Son of Man.’

Mounce, after reviewing various suggested interpretations, favours the view that this saying admits of multiple fulfillment:

‘In the immediate context, the “abomination of desolation” (v. 15) builds on the defilement of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, is repeated when the sacred temple in Jerusalem is destroyed by the Roman army in A.D. 70, and has yet a more complete fulfillment when the eschatological Antichrist exalts himself by taking his seat in the “temple of God” proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess. 2:3–4). In a similar way, the events of the immediate period leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem portend a greater and more universal catastrophe when Christ returns in judgment at the end of time.’

Ian Paul, who favours the last-mentioned view, concludes:

‘This passage, with its bridging from one part of Jesus’ teaching at the end of Mark 13 to the final element, has important things to teach us. The material in Mark 13.24–31 takes us into the horrors of the First Jewish War and the cataclysmic destruction of the Temple; as Ben Witherington comments, it wasn’t the end of the world, but it was the end of a world, and led to the Jews being once more a people in exile for nearly 2,000 years, which accounts for the use of cosmic language. In that kind of context—and in the practicalities of the personal and nation disasters we face—we too need to ‘read the signs’, and ‘look up’ as we seek to trust God despite the chaos around us.

‘But once we reach Mark 13.32 and its orientation away from whatever chaos there is in our present world, and towards the promised sudden presence of Jesus with us at the end of time (the parousia), then the guidance is completely different. There will be no warning signs; you will not be able to predict the arrival of Jesus, just as you cannot predict where lightning will strike (Matt 24.27). There is only one way to be ready for his return—to watch and pray, living each day as faithful disciples. That is the lesson of these closing verses, just as it is the lesson of the sequence of parables in Matt 24 and 25 that develop this idea, which we have been reading in the last few weeks.

‘It is a clarion call, not to endless speculation about the imminent future, but to faithful witness in the immediate present.’