The Destruction of the Temple, 1-2

13:1 Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts, one of his disciples said to him, “Teacher, look at these tremendous stones and buildings!” 13:2 Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!”

‘One of the main reasons, I suppose, why the obvious way of reading the chapter has been ignored for so long must be the fact that in a good deal of Christian theology the fall of Jerusalem has had no theological significance. This has meant not only that Mark 13 is found puzzling, but also that all the references to the same event elsewhere in the gospels — even where it stares one in the face, as in Luke 13:1-5 — have been read as general warnings of hellfire in an afterlife, rather than the literal and physical divine-judgment-through-Roman-judgment that we have seen to be characteristic of Jesus’ story.’ (Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God)

Jesus was going out of the temple courts – and on to the Mount of Olives.  Matthew may have in mind

‘not only Jesus’s withdrawal from Jewish public life but also Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of God abandoning the doomed temple and resting on the Mount of Olives (Ezk 10:18–19; 11:22–23).’ (NBC)

Blomberg:

‘He leaves their “house” abandoned—devoid of adequate leadership, true godliness, and divine presence (cf. Ezek 10–11).’

‘When Jesus’ disciples exclaimed, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” it is easy for us to underestimate just how massive and how impressive the Temple complex was.

‘The platform on which the Temple stood was enormous: the largest of its kind in the ancient world. The southern wall, the shortest, was 930 feet long, the western wall, the longest, 1,620 feet long. The Temple Mount thus enclosed an area the size of some thirteen football pitches, two and half times as long as St Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and nearly four times as wide. By way of comparison, it was five times the area of the Acropolis in Athens.

‘The smallest of the stones used to build the massive walls weighed between two and five tons, and many weighed ten tons or more. The majority were 3-4 feet high, and between 4 and ten 10 feet long, though some stones were much, much larger. Those which are sill in place on the south-west corner are about 40 feet long, 3 feet high, and 8 feet thick, and weigh about 50 tons each. A number of massive stone in the western wall are unequalled in size anywhere in the ancient world. The largest is almost 40 feet long, 10 feet high, and 13 feet thick, and must weigh about 400 tons.

Two thousand years later, these walls are still as solid and sturdy as if they had just been built. At the joins where the blocks meet, we can see that they have not moved at all in that time, not even a millimetre. Sometimes it is only the dressing around the edge of the stones that shows where one block ends and the next begins.’ (Coupland, Spicing up your Speaking, 140f)

Lane writes,

‘The buildings of the area which prompted the disciples’ comment would include not only the sanctuary itself with its magnificent facade 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 splendour 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.” As a mountain of white marble decorated with gold it dominated the Kidron gorge as an object of dazzling beauty.’

‘One future event which is clearly and repeatedly predicted by Jesus is the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple (Mk 13:2 and the following discourse; Lk. 21:20ff.; cf. also Mt 23:37-39 Lk 23:28-31). This is presented as the inevitable result of the Jewish rejection of God’s final appeal (Lk 13:34-35:19:41-44; cf. Mt 22:7), and it will come upon that generation. (Mt 23:36 Mk 13:30) It is likely that some of Jesus’ sayings about the ‘coming of the Son of man’ (again echoing Dan 7:13f) relate at least in part to this event rather than to his second coming, particularly as they too envisage a fulfilment within the living generation. (Mk 8:38-9:1 Mt 10:23 Mk 13:26,30) This act of judgment would then be a further manifestation of his vindication. It is not agreed how much of the Olivet discourse refers to the question about the destruction of the Temple with which it opens and how much to a more ultimate future, but certainly the fate of Jerusalem holds a prominent place in Jesus’ expectations for the future, and is viewed in relation to his own ministry.’

“Not one stone here will be left on another”– This prediction was literally fulfilled.  Herod’s temple was the greatest architectural wonder of the Middle East, but ‘all that survived the Roman assault was part of the platform on which they were built (including the ‘Wailing Wall’).’ (NBC)

Signs of the End of the Age, 3-8

13:3 So while he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, 13:4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that all these things are about to take place?”

How do the signs of Mark 13 function? –

‘The signs of Mark 13 are not like the signs which say, “End of Motorway 1 mile.” They are in fact more like the hazard warning lights which warn us of dangers along the way. Jesus spoke of signs, not to satisfy curiosity or to make calculation possible, but to strengthen faith and to warn of dangers that his followers could expect…The keynote of Mark 13 is not in predictions so much as in exhortations – “Keep awake, be on your guard!” (verses 32-37) – and promises – “the person who holds out to the end will be saved” (v13).’ (Travis, I Believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, 123)

“When will these things happen, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to take place?”” – There are two parts to this question, and it is not always clear which part Jesus is addressing in the reply that follows.

As already noted, Wright thinks that all of Jesus’ teaching relates to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.  There was, he says, little or no expectation among Jewish people of ‘the end of the world’.  Accordingly, ‘the end of the age’ should be construed as ‘the end of the present evil age’, when Jesus will ‘arrive’ as King and dethrone the evil powers that currently occupy the Holy City.

13:5 Jesus began to say to them, “Watch out that no one misleads you. 13:6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and they will mislead many. 13:7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. These things must happen, but the end is still to come. 13:8 For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines. These are but the beginning of birth pains.

“Watch out that no one deceives you” – An important part of Jesus’ teaching in this section is to warn against a premature expectation that the end has come.

‘One of the greatest temptations in times of difficulty is to follow blindly any self-proclaimed savior who promises help (i.e., false christs).’ (Carson, EBC)

‘I am he’ – or, ‘I am’.  Cf. Mk 6:50.

“Birth pangs” – It was frequently thought that the coming of Messiah would be preceded by difficult times – often known as ‘birth pangs of the Messiah’.

False messiahs, wars, famines and earthquakes: these have characterised all ages, from the time of Christ until now.  The point is that they signal ‘the beginning of the end’, but not the end itself.

Persecution of Disciples, 9-13

13:9 “You must watch out for yourselves. You will be handed over to councils and beaten in the synagogues. You will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a witness to them. 13:10 First the gospel must be preached to all nations. 13:11 When they arrest you and hand you over for trial, do not worry about what to speak. But say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. 13:12 Brother will hand over brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rise against parents and have them put to death. 13:13 You will be hated by everyone because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Persecution of Christ’s followers started early, Acts 4:1–30; 7:59–8:3; 12:1–5; Rev. 2:10, 12, and continued more or less uninterrupted.

“You will be hated by everyone” – Mt 24:9 – ‘Hated by all nations because of me’.  This chilling prospect of world-wide persecution is to lead, not to date-watching, but to faithfulness.

“He who stands firm to the end will be saved” – ‘not because salvation is the reward of endurance, but because endurance is the hall mark of the saved.’ (Stott, Authentic Christianity, 213)

The Abomination of Desolation, 14-23

13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. 13:15 The one on the roof must not come down or go inside to take anything out of his house. 13:16 The one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 13:17 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days! 13:18 Pray that it may not be in winter. 13:19 For in those days there will be suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, or ever will happen. 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved. But because of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut them short.

“‘The abomination of desolation’” – A reference to Dan 11:31; 12:11, where the expression is used for a pagan statue which Antiochus Epiphanes set up when he desecrated the temple in 167 BC.

According to France (NBC), Jesus is predicting a similar act of sacrilege prior to the destruction of the temple.  This would occur in the temple itself (‘the holy place’).

The precise nature of the sacrilege is uncertain.

Mounce reminds us that prophecy is capable of multiple fulfilment:

‘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.’

Let the reader understand – The author leaves the precise identity of this new ‘abomination’ unclear.

“…in winter” – when roads would be impassable.

“For the sake of the elect those days will be shortened” – God is not absent even in this most horrific of events.

‘A time of chaos would offer a renewed opportunity for the sort of impostors already predicted in v 5. The fact that they could support their claim with great signs and miracles is a useful warning against drawing too hasty conclusions from alleged signs and wonders today (cf. Mt 7:22–23).’ (NBC)

13:21 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe him. 13:22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the elect. 13:23 Be careful! I have told you everything ahead of time.

The Arrival of the Son of Man, 24-27

13:24 “But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; 13:25 the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 13:26 Then everyone will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds with great power and glory. 13:27 Then he will send angels and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

“The sun will be darkened…” – As Blomberg remarks, these cosmic descriptions are to be taken metaphorically, not literally.  We ourselves might talk about ‘earth-shattering’ events.

This imagery is drawn from Dan 7:13.  N.T. Wright has argued that the imagery in Daniel (and therefore in the present passage) indicates, not a coming from heaven but a going to heaven.  It is, on this reading, suggestive of the vindication of the Son of Man at the fall of Jerusalem, rather than of his second coming at the end of time.  A significant weakness of this interpretation is that the early church clearly thought of the resurrection as the vindication of Jesus, and not the fall of Jerusalem, which is rarely mentioned in the rest of the NT.

Wright:

‘Jesus is not speaking in this discourse about a supernatural figure floating downwards on a cloud to bring the spacetime world to an end; rather he is speaking, as his use of Danielic imagery should have made clear, about the ‘beasts’ that make war on the ‘people of the saints of the most high’, and about the ‘son of man’ who will be exalted and vindicated over them. The ‘coming’ of the Son of Man, is emphatically not, therefore, his ‘coming’ from heaven to earth, but his coming from earth to heaven, in vindication and exaltation over his enemies.’

Referring more generally to the ‘Son of Man’ sayings, and to Wright’s interpretation of these, Robert Stein writes:

‘The sayings are clearly understood by the Gospel writers as referring to a second coming of the Son of Man at the end of history. The return of the Son of Man with the holy angels in Mark 8:38; his separation of the goats from the sheep into eternal punishment in Matt 25:31–46; the return of the Son of Man in the new world in Matt 19:28; the removal from his kingdom of all evil and the casting of the weeds into the furnace of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in Matt 13:41–42; the question of whether the Son of Man will find faith when he comes in Luke 18:8; etc. cannot be demythologized into being a metaphorical reference to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.’

“Everyone will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds with great power and glory” – Who will ‘see’?  The word translated ‘everyone’ is usually regarded as an ‘impersonal plural’, equivalent to ‘people will see’.  But possibly something more specific is meant.  Among the possibilities:

(a) the ‘false messiahs and false prophets will see…’ (cf. v22);

(b) ‘Caiaphas and those with him will see…’ (cf. Mk 14:62 – ‘you will see the Son of Man’);

(c) ‘the elect who have survived the tribulation will see…’ (so Hooker, but why then would Jesus not say, ‘You will see…’?)

(d) ‘The powers in the heavens will see…’ (Neville; see this article for a summary and appraisal of this interpretation).

In Dan 7:13f ‘“one like a son of man” approaches God to receive all authority, glory, and sovereign power—“an everlasting dominion that will not pass away.” In the framework of NT eschatology, we may imagine Jesus the Son of Man receiving the kingdom through his resurrection and ascension, so that now all authority is his (Mt 28:18). Yet it is equally possible to think of him receiving the kingdom at the consummation, when his reign or kingdom becomes direct and immediate, uncontested and universal. Christ’s approaching God the Father to receive the kingdom is combined with his returning to earth to set up the consummated kingdom.’ (Carson)

'Arriving on the clouds of heaven'

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.

Post Views: 216

Blomberg protests that

‘attempts to take the “coming on the clouds of the sky” as Christ’s coming spiritually in judgment against Israel at the time of the destruction of the temple, so that all of vv. 15–35 refer only to first-century events, have to take parousia (“coming”) in v. 27 in a way that is otherwise entirely unparalleled in the New Testament. It is much more natural, therefore, to understand Christ’s coming here to earth, as in Rev 19:11–16, when Jesus brings with him all the company of the redeemed already in heaven to join his faithful people yet on earth and still alive to meet him (cf. Zech 2:6 and Deut 30:4). All this is heralded by an angelic trumpet blast (cf. 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16; and perhaps based originally on Isa 27:13).’

“He will send angels and they will gather his elect from the four winds” – This seems to be ‘end of the world’ language.  But the sending of God’s messengers and the gathering of his people from all nations has been the central component of the Great Commission and the leading theme of Acts.  It is reflected also in 1 Peter and in Revelation.

The word angelos can mean either ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’.  So Jesus might well be referring to the proclamation of the gospel here.

The Parable of the Fig Tree, 28-31

13:28 “Learn this parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 13:29 So also you, when you see these things happening, know that he is near, right at the door. 13:30 I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

‘Jesus used a fig tree in his illustration because, whereas in Palestine most trees are evergreens, the fig tree loses its leaves in winter.’ (Brooks)

This generation will not pass away until all these things take place – ‘Jesus’ saying here is quite emphatic in form, including the emphatic form of the negative, mentioning ‘all’ these things clearly, and opening with the ‘Amen’ formula, characteristic of Matthew’s record of Jesus’ teaching, and suggesting recollection of Jesus’ actual words in Aramaic.’ (Ian Paul)

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” – ‘That Jesus here identifies his words, like God’s, as eternal bears witness to a high implicit Christology.’ (Strauss)

It is also notable that, in a passage which has occasioned so much discussion and debate, Jesus expresses here solemn certainty!

Be Ready!, 32-37

13:32 “But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father.

Carson (on Matthew) suggests that this verse goes better with what follows (cf. esp. v42), than with what precedes it.

See also Mt 24:36, where some manuscripts include, but many omit, the words, ‘nor the Son’.  See also Acts 1:7.

According the Strauss, Jesus’ attention moves from the destruction of Jerusalem within a generation, about which he is certain, to the time of the Son of Man’s coming, about which he is uncertain.

“But as for that day and hour” – These words introduce an emphatic contrast.  The disciples’ question was in two parts: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (V3).  It is reasonable to suppose that Jesus has been addressing the first part of the question until this point, and has answered it in terms of the destruction of Jerusalem.  This would happen, he has said, within the lifetime of those listening (v34).  Now he turns to the second part of the question, and directs their attention to the end of the age.  The timing of this was unknown.

‘All talk of signs and times now disappears, as we turn from the events of this generation to the parousia. The only thing which may be said with conviction about the time of the parousia is that it will come when it is not expected!’ (NBC)

“No one knows about that day or hour” – ‘Day’ and ‘hour’ refer simply to ‘time’.  As Carson and others point out, it is therefore absurd for some pundits of prophecy to claim to know the ‘year’ or even the ‘week’ of Christ’s return, even though they cannot know the ‘day’ or the ‘hour’.

The reference to ‘that day’ echoes Mt 7:22; 10:15, 11:22, 24 and 12:36.

“Not even the angels in heaven” – ‘The angels, though standing in a very close relationship to God (Isa. 6:1–3; Matt. 18:10), and though intimately associated with the events pertaining to the second coming (Mt 13:41; 24:31; Rev. 14:19), do not know the day nor the hour.’ (Hendriksen)

“Nor the Son” – ‘There is something almost blasphemous in speculating about that which was hidden from even Christ himself.’ (DSB, on Acts 1:9-11)

Mounce comments:

‘As the omnipotence of the Son did not come into play in the temptation scene (Mt 4:1–11), now his omniscience is veiled in a specific area. Were this not the case, the incarnation would be something less than a full and genuine entrance into the condition of humanity (cf. Heb. 4:15).’

This ignorance is surely as aspect of Christ’s voluntary self-emptying (Phil 2:7).

Still, the expression ‘nor even the Son’ implies a high Christology.

This statement

‘is remarkable not only as the only admission of ignorance by Jesus, but also, paradoxically, because it at the same time places him above the angels and second only to the Father. This view of the status of the Son is equalled in this gospel only in Mt 11:27 and Mt 28:19.’ (NBC)

The implication is clear: if neither the angels nor even the Son know the time of the parousia, then speculation on our part is pointless.

Notwithstanding Jesus’ confession of ignorance, he does claim for himself a very lofty position – higher than ‘the angels in heaven’.

Indeed, as Strauss remarks,

‘Even with this reference to the Son’s lack of knowledge, the passage points to a high implicit Christology. The threefold reference to the Father, Son, and angels indicates a heavenly hierarchy (and preexistence?), in which the Son is higher than the angels. This goes beyond a merely adoptionistic or messianic sonship to God. The passage also fits well the doctrine of the incarnation, which holds that the Son “empties” himself of the independent exercise of certain attributes (Phil 2:6–8), including omniscience.’

This admission of ignorance on the part of our Lord has occasioned much discussion down the centuries.  Hurtado notes that some copyists omitted, no doubt because of the theological embarrassment is caused.  For Vincent Taylor, its very offence is evidence of its authenticity.  Then ‘the Arians cited it in support of their contention that the Son was subordinate to the Father’ (Edwards).

The explanation of the admission of ignorance is generally given in terms of our Lord’s humanity.  As God, he was omniscient, but as man he had voluntarily laid aside his divine prerogatives (Phil 2:7).

Howe and Geisler (When Critics Ask) put it simply:

‘We must distinguish between what Jesus knew as God (everything) and what he knew as man. As God, Jesus was omniscient (all-knowing), but as man he was limited in His knowledge.’

Edwards explains with greater depth and nuance:

‘This verse contains an amazing paradox. Here the bold assertion of divine Sonship is yoked to the unlikely limitation of ignorance. In this the only passage in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus explicitly calls himself “the Son,” he admits to what he does not know and cannot do. This irony is, to be sure, very much in accord with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as the Son, for Jesus does not claim the prerogatives of divine Sonship apart from complete obedience to the Father’s will but rather forsakes claims and calculations in favor of humble confidence in the Father’s will. Equally ironic is the fact that the Son, unlike the disciples, relinquishes all claims concerning the future into the Father’s plan.’

This is not a denial of divinity:

‘We should not think Jesus’ statement here indicates that he is not divine. His statement pertains to limits in knowledge he willingly experienced during his earthly life. Just as he was limited in space and time (he could not be in more than one place at a time), he was also limited in knowledge.’ (Holman Apologetics Commentary)

In this regard, the Son must be obedient to the Father;

‘Just as it is not in Jesus’ power to grant to anyone to sit at his right hand or left, so Jesus must be obedient to the sovereign will of God, who determines the time.’ (Garland)

‘Our Lord had a human mind and that human mind was limited and finite. It had to reason in a human way from premises to conclusions. It had to gather, store and organise information. Its knowledge was not (as God’s knowledge is) intuitive. It was inductive and deductive. Furthermore, it was not absolute or infinite. He was not, at the human level, omniscient. There is nothing at all novel in this idea. For example, we find the Lord confessing his ignorance of the time of the Second Coming: ‘But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’. (Mk 13:32)

Calvin discusses this thoroughly in Volume 3 of his Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. He writes: ‘There would be no impropriety in saying that Christ, who knew all things, was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man.’ He also points out that if we refuse to accept that Christ was not omniscient we shall find ourselves in very serious difficulties when it comes to his mortality. If we are offended by limited knowledge, how will we cope when the Son of God dies?

There is a similar indication in Lk 2:52 where we are told that the child Jesus ‘increased in wisdom’. He became wiser. He became better informed. He accumulated an ever-increasing fund of prudence and common sense. This does not mean that the Lord was fallible. Infallibility does not depend on omniscience. It depends on the ministry of the Spirit, and Jesus enjoyed that in the fullest measure, both because of who he was and because of what he came to accomplish. But it is clear that the Lord’s human mind was finite and his human perception limited. He underwent normal intellectual development and learned by observing the world around him, listening to his mother and searching the Scriptures. He was not ignorant of anything he ought to have known. God kept from him nothing which it was good for his church to know. But there were things like the date of the Second Coming which were not the church’s business and so the Lord said nothing about them. Indeed, he could not. What he knew of the mysteries of God in his capacity as Mediator he knew only as God the Father revealed them to him through the Holy Spirit. Information as to the date of the end was not revealed. Hence his confession of ignorance. Even now, at the right hand of the majesty on high, Christ’s glorified human mind does not fully understand the glory of his own divine nature. There are complexities in his own being which are still inaccessible to his finite human intellect. He is a depth to himself.’ (McLeod, A Faith to Live By)

‘We know that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the Divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of Mediator. There would be no impropriety, therefor in saying that Christ, who knew all things, (Jn 21:17) was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man; for otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and anxiety, and could not have been like us,’ (Heb 2:17) (Calvin)

Discussing the ‘kenosis’ theory (on which see Php 2:7n), Packer says,

‘it is true that Jesus’ knowledge of things both human and divine was sometimes limited. He asks occasionally for information-“Who touched my clothes?” “How many loaves do you have?” (Mk 5:30 6:38) He declares that he shares the ignorance of the angels as to the day appointed for his return. (Mk 13:32) But at other times he displays supernatural knowledge. He knows the Samaritan woman’s shady past. (Jn 4:17-18) He knows that when Peter goes fishing, the first fish he catches will have a coin in its mouth. (Mt 17:27) He knows, without being told, that Lazarus is dead. (Jn 11:11-13) Similarly, from time to time he displays supernatural power in miracles of healing, feeding, and resuscitating the dead. The impression of Jesus which the Gospels give is not that he was wholly bereft of divine knowledge and power, but that he drew on both intermittently, while being content for much of the time not to do so. The impression, in other words, is not so much one of deity reduced as of divine capacities restrained.

How are we to account for this restraint? Surely, in terms of the truth of which John’s Gospel in particular makes so much, the entire submission of the Son to the Father’s will. Part of the revealed mystery of the Godhead is that the three Persons stand in a fixed relation to each other. The Son appears in the Gospels not as an independent divine person, but as a dependent one, who thinks and acts only and wholly as the Father directs. “The Son can do nothing by himself;” “By myself I can do nothing.” (Jn 5:19,30) “I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.” (Jn 6:38) “I do nothing on my own…I always do what pleases him.” (Jn 8:28-29)

It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first. That is why he declares himself to be the Son and the first person to be his Father. Though coequal with the Father in eternity, power and glory, it is natural to him to play the Son’s part and to find all his joy in doing his Father’s will, just as it is natural to the first person of the Trinity to plan and initiate the works of the Godhead and natural to the third person to proceed from the Father and the Son to do their joint bidding.

Thus the obedience of the God-man to the Father while he was on earth was not a new relationship occasioned by the Incarnation, but the continuation in time of the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father in heaven. As in heaven, so on earth, the Son was utterly dependent upon the Father’s will.

But if this is so, all is explained. The God-man did not know independently, any more than he acted independently. Just as he did not do all that he could have done, because certain things were not his Father’s will, (see Mt 26:53-54) so he did not consciously know all that he might have known, but only what the Father willed him to know. His knowing, like the rest of his activity, was bounded by his Father’s will. And therefore the reason why he was ignorant of (for instance) the date of his return was not that he had given up the power to know all things at the Incarnation, but that the Father had not willed that he should have this particular piece of knowledge while on earth, prior to his passion. Calvin was surely right to comment on Mk 13:32 as follows: “Until he had fully discharged his (mediatorial) office, that information was not given to him which he received after his resurrection.” So Jesus’ limitation of knowledge is to be explained, not in terms of the mode of the Incarnation, but with reference to the will of the Father for the Son while on earth. And therefore we conclude that, just as there are some facts in the Gospels which contradict the kenosis theory, so there are no facts in the Gospels which are not best explained without it.’ (Knowing God)

The idea that Jesus was ignorant of some (many?) things is developed by R.E. Brown in his little book Jesus: God and Man.  Brown asks:

‘Is it totally inconceivable that, since Jesus did not know when the Parousia would occur, he tended to think and say it would occur soon? Would not the inability to correct contemporary views on this question be the logical effect of ignorance?’

“Only the Father” – ‘In the midst of calamity and destruction, tribulation and persecution, when even the sun, moon, and stars are shaken (vv. 24–25), the believer may rest assured that God is still Father, and as Father he remains steadfast in his just will, compassion, and purpose.’ (Edwards)

13:33 Watch out! Stay alert! For you do not know when the time will come. 13:34 It is like a man going on a journey. He left his house and put his slaves in charge, assigning to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to stay alert. 13:35 Stay alert, then, because you do not know when the owner of the house will return—whether during evening, at midnight, when the rooster crows, or at dawn—13:36 or else he might find you asleep when he returns suddenly. 13:37 What I say to you I say to everyone: Stay alert!”

The main point, of course, is not that the Son does not know, that that they do not know.  Therefore, they must be ready at all times.

‘If I straighten the pictures on the walls of your home, I am committing no sin, am I? But suppose that your house were afire, and I still went calmly about straightening pictures, what would you say? Would you think me merely stupid or very wicked? The world today is on fire. What are you doing to extinguish the fire?’ (Corrie ten Boom)

“During evening, at midnight, when the rooster crows, or at dawn” – cf. Lk 17:34-35. This has been taken to intimate the sphericity of the earth, which would be required if our Lord were to return at all these times (evening, midnight, cock-crow or dawn) at once. However, the passage teaches that he may return at any of these times, not at all of them. (See Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 93)

“Stay alert!” – The hope of the parousia is for all believers:

‘The exhortation to ‘keep awake’ indicates that the warnings against apocalyptic preoccupation and frenzy in 13:5-8 and 21-23 are not meant to weaken the blessed hope of the parousia but rather to encourage watching, looking forward to and praying for the coming Son of Man. The longing for the blessed hope of the appearing of our God and Savior Jesus Chris is not primarily a characteristic of certain fanatics on the fringe of the Christian community but has been, is and will continue to be at  the heart of the Christian community’s hope and longing. This is why the Christian community has, is and will continue to pray, ‘Your kingdom come’ and ‘Marana tha” (Robert H. Stein.  Source.  Italics added).