Stephen Finamore
The discourse in Mark 13 is usually interpreted in either preterist or futurist terms, though there are occasional commentators who combine the two.
Interpreters who take the former position usually argue that the passage refers to the events of AD 70 when the second temple was destroyed. Of these, some regard the sayings as wholly or partly dominical and some as the work of the early church, including those who regard the material as having been produced after the events they purport to describe.
Those adopting the futurist view claim—regardless of their understanding of the origin of the words—that the text refers to the renewal of all things, an event or series of events that is predicted to occur in the future. The perspectives are occasionally combined by dividing the text, often at the end of verse 23, with the text up to that point taken to be about the events that culminated in AD 70 and the verses afterwards being said to concern the Parousia.
It is not my intention to choose between these options but to acknowledge the strengths of both the preterist and futurist positions. Instead, I plan to add a third approach and to argue that the whole of the text is actually concerned with all three. This third position concerns the events that culminate in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In addition, I intend to offer a rationale for my argument based on the different ways in which the Scriptures use the term temple.
The Gospel Context
As Jesus leaves the temple with his disciples, one of them praises the building. In response, Jesus announces its destruction (Mark 13:1–2). Only once they have reached the Mount of Olives and Jesus is sitting with the inner circle of his followers are the questions asked that prompt the extensive apocalyptic message of Mark 13. The disciples want to know when this astonishing event is going to happen, though the plural tauta—these things—in v. 4 suggests that they understood this would not be an isolated incident. They also ask what the singular sign of their accomplishment will be.
These seemingly innocuous questions provoke a discourse that has generated countless further questions. It is not my goal in this brief essay to try to answer all or even most of them. Instead, I want to propose a way of interpreting the text that might suggest a fresh way of seeing some of the issues.
Apocalyptic Language
In these verses, Mark’s Jesus goes out of his way to use language and imagery associated with the Hebrew prophets. The apocalyptic nature of the discourse is universally recognised. However, as far as the biblical world is concerned, this language belongs to the texts known as prophecies.
The circular letter known as Revelation or the Apocalypse regards itself as prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18–19) and its author as a prophet (22:9) and one who prophesies (10:11). Other biblical books that contain apocalyptic features—Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah—are all counted among the prophets.
In using this kind of language, Jesus is deliberately signaling that he is speaking as a prophet. That is to say that the genre of the discourse tells the hearer that the speaker wishes his words to be understood as prophecy. Furthermore, this is a distinctive type of prophecy, the kind that modern scholarship has labeled apocalyptic. It is suggestive of a claim to special revelation acquired through an angelic visitation, a heavenly ascent, or some other encounter with God or God’s agents. The speaker is claiming to offer a view from heaven.
In the biblical tradition, the prophets are those who have stood in the divine council and so are able to speak from the perspective of heaven. The prophet has stood in the heavenly holy of holies and so has looked out at the cosmos and history from that perspective. From there, things are not connected from the human perspective of cause and effect but by their analogical relationships and their theological meanings.
When addressed in this way, things that appear to be unconnected in historical terms can be treated together if there is some overlap of their theological meanings. Here, the key term is hieron (Mark 13:1). This word—usually translated temple—has a range of theological valences, of which three are especially significant in this passage. These are the body and person of Jesus, the building in Jerusalem we know as the temple, and the cosmos. The three share a meaning and are treated together in the discourse.
In other words, I am arguing that the death and resurrection of Jesus, the destruction of the temple, and the renewal of the cosmos share overlapping theological significance and that Jesus prophesies about them as though they are one event.
If it is accepted that the word temple can bear these three meanings, there must have been some understanding of a relationship between them. This was almost certainly of an analogical nature, but the issue is not especially relevant to this essay. The three different meanings of the word temple suggest the possibility that Jesus’ discourse has three distinct horizons and sees the three together.1
There is little need here to go over the case for the preterist or futurist horizons. The standard commentaries make the case for one or the other. Instead, I will focus on the reasons for understanding the text in terms of the passion of Jesus on the basis that his body is to be understood as temple.
The Temple
First, though it scarcely seems worth saying, the word temple, when used in the Scriptures, usually refers to either the first or second Jerusalem temple.
Next, it is also generally accepted that the cosmos as a whole is regarded as a temple, with the Jerusalem temple sometimes being understood as its microcosm. One text that declares the cosmos to be God’s dwelling place is Isaiah 66:1, which says, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” John Walton has argued in The Lost World of Genesis One that the creation story found in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is about the inauguration of God’s cosmic temple.
Third, as I shall argue below, the Scriptures also refer to humans, individually or collectively, as temple.
The Person/Body of Jesus
This theme is less explicit in Mark than it is in the other Gospels, but it is present. At Jesus’ trial, the prosecution witnesses—described as false, I suspect, because of their motives rather than because of the inaccuracy of their words—state that they heard Jesus say, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands” (14:58). Something similar is said by those who taunt Jesus at his crucifixion (15:29). The reference to “three days” can, in the light of the same words found in the passion announcements at 8:31, 9:31, and 10:34, only be understood as referring to Jesus’ resurrection, which strongly suggests that Jesus, or others, made a connection between his body and the temple.
Matthew’s Gospel is a little more specific with claims of this kind. At 12:6, Jesus insists when speaking of himself that “something greater than the temple is here.” Of course, it is in John’s Gospel that the connection is explicitly made. Jesus says at 2:20, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The narrator tells us that he was speaking of the “temple of his body,” and after the resurrection the disciples remembered what he had said. Furthermore, in his prologue, John speaks of the logos that became flesh and eskēnōsen among us (1:14). The word is usually translated dwelt but is related to the word skēne, meaning tent or tabernacle. In the Gospels, then, temple discourse can blur into body discourse.
This argument is reinforced by the observation that Jesus is not alone in his treatment of temple and body. Similar language is found in Paul. The Apostle more usually speaks of Christians collectively as the temple, as he does at 1 Corinthians 3:16–17, 2 Corinthians 6:16, and perhaps Ephesians 2:21–22. Peter says something very similar at 1 Peter 2:4–5, as does the writer to the Hebrews at 3:6b.
However, Paul is also capable of speaking of the body of a single believer as temple. This appears to be the logic of the argument of 1 Corinthians 6:18–20. It also seems to be the thinking that lies behind the discussion in 2 Corinthians 5:1–5 where Paul describes his own person as a skēne, a tent, which awaits an oikos, a house, from God. The language of tent and house is, of course, a way of speaking of the tabernacle and the temple.
If the word temple can bear all these meanings, then it is surely possible that the discourse of Mark 13 has them all in mind. The text is best understood as having three things in view, or three horizons. It does not necessarily see them as distinct events because, in the overall purposes of God, their meanings are related to one another and even overlap with one another.
Horizon 1: The Passion of Jesus
The first horizon concerns the events of the days we call Holy Week. There are many points of connection with the discourse of Mark 13. It seems most straightforward to take them in the order they are found within the text. I recognize that while I can be fairly confident about many of these links, others might be regarded as speculative. I have included all the ones I can because the case is, in part, cumulative.
Jesus and the others are sat on the Mount of Olives (13:3). At the foot of the Mount was the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus went there to pray on the night of his betrayal, and he separated Peter, James, and John from the others (14:32–33). These are three of the four disciples who heard the discourse.
The first warning is that they are not to be led astray (13:5). By the time Jesus dies, none of his followers are with him, though a group of the women are looking on from afar (15:40–41). The verb planao is often used in relation to the shepherd motif (as in Matt 18:12), which may be implicitly present here, and this motif, if not the verb, is explicit in the narrative at 14:27.
13:9 contains a reference to being delivered up/betrayed (the verb, paradidomi, is the same) to councils, being beaten in gatherings and standing before governors and kings. There is no trial of Jesus before Herod in Mark, but the remainder of these thing all happen. Jesus is handed over by Judas (14:10, 21), passed on to a council (14:55), and then handed over to a governor (15:1). The betrayal of Jesus by Judas may be an example of brother betraying brother to death (13:12). It is at least a possibility, given the events in the Garden of Gethsemane, that the crucifixion can be read as a father handing over his child to death (13:12). In addition, 13:9 also refers to being beaten, and this happens at 14:65 and 15:15–19.
13:10 states that the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. We find a parallel at 14:9 with its reference to the gospel being proclaimed in the whole world. Of course, the first fruits of this are seen at 15:39, where the Gentile centurion confesses that Jesus is God’s Son.
13:11 says that the Holy Spirit will speak when the time comes. Jesus breaks his silence before his judges at 14:32 using a direct citation from Daniel that both he and his hearers understood to be inspired.
At 13:14 we find the reference to the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand). Mark seems to expect a great deal of his reader. Perhaps we should find a reference to Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, which is often read as a reference to an action of Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes, or perhaps a reference to the actions of the Zealots in their occupation of the temple during the Jewish War. Another possibility lies in the words uttered by Jesus from the cross at 15:34. While the words are not the same—Jesus uses egkataleipo rather than a cognate of erēmōsis—the sense is very similar. The latter means something like “a making waste” or a desolation while the former means to desert, forsake, abandon or leave desolate. Perhaps Mark’s reader is intended to understand that among the referents of this strange phrase is the body of the crucified Messiah hanging in the place of the skull.
At 13:16 there is an instruction to flee without your coat, an instruction taken seriously by the young man who, in a passage unique to Mark, leaves behind his garments and runs away naked (14:51–52).
13:19 refers to a unique affliction, and this seems an apt way to describe the crucifixion of the Messiah. Certainly, two millennia of Christian devotion is full of superlatives focused upon this event. As Wesley writes in the hymn “All Ye That Pass By,” “Come see if there ever was sorrow like his.”
Then comes the section that contains apocalyptic imagery. 13:24 refers to the sun being darkened, something that is described at 15:33. Then verse 25 refers to the powers of heaven being shaken. Given that Josephus tells us that the heavens were depicted on the temple veil, it may not be too far-fetched to see some fulfilment of this in the tearing of the veil mentioned at 15:38. He writes, “On this tapestry was portrayed a panorama of the heavens.”2 Given the significance of the veil in separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place and therefore from the sight of the priesthood, this may be understood as a sign that the temple has lost its purpose and as a portent of its eventual destruction. It may be worth noting at this point the irony implicit in the fact that as Jesus hangs on the cross, he is mocked for prophesying the destruction of the temple (15:29) which is, from one perspective, exactly what is happening in that moment.
At 13:28, there is a reference to the fig tree. The lesson to be drawn from the fig tree appears at first sight to be a different one from that set out in 11:12–14, 20–22. This may be about the power of prayer but is more probably an acted-out parable of the temple’s destruction: the fig tree/temple is condemned because it has failed to provide the fruit that God expected. The reference in Chapter 13 appears to be about reading a sign of the times. However, perhaps we are to understand that it is now summer, and it is time for the enacted parable of the fig tree to find its initial fulfilment. Of course, a further fulfilment will happen within a generation (13:30)—that is, within 40 years, when the temple is destroyed. This may link to the gnomic saying at Luke 23:31 about things that happen when the wood is green and those that happen when it is dry.
At the end of the discourse at 13:33, 35, and 37, Jesus tells his disciples to keep awake. This is exactly what they fail to do in Gethsemane (14:32–42). The verb is the same on both occasions. It means to stay awake, to be alert, or to keep watch. Peter’s failure to be awake or alert may be signalled by his recognition of his prediction-fulfilling denial at cockcrow (14:72). The passage ends with a parable about a man who leaves his servants in charge of his work, which is the situation the women find themselves in when the Gospel ends at 16:8, or that in which all the disciples subsequently find themselves if one or other of the longer endings is preferred.
I have attempted to make the case from Mark. We have seen that Luke seems to make a connection between the death of Jesus and a further tragedy to come. Matthew seems to understand that something similar is going on. For example, at 24:7, he repeats Mark’s reference to earthquakes (13:8) and includes a description of an earthquake at 27:51.
It has not been my intention to argue that every element of the apocalyptic discourse refers to the passion of Jesus or even that the events of Jesus’ final week are the exclusive referents of any part of it. Rather, I have tried to show that there enough parallels between the prophecies contained in Mark 13 and the events recorded in the rest of the Gospel for the death of Jesus to be regarded as one of the horizons to which Jesus refers.
Horizon 2: The Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple
This is the traditional preterist reading and requires little defence. The disciples ask about the temple’s destruction, and Jesus’ discourse is understood as an answer to their question.
There is no doubt that the years leading up to AD 70 were filled, as v. 7 indicates, with wars and rumours of wars. Apart from the Jewish War, there were wars in many parts of the empire, and AD 69 is infamous for the number. This was a period in which the church suffered persecution, as vv. 9–13 suggest. This included the martyrdom of James, pastor of the Jerusalem church, as reported by Josephus.
The sight of the Roman armies entering the city may have been understood as the desolating sacrilege that led the primitive church to abandon Jerusalem and flee to Pella (see Eusebius Church History 3.5.3) as instructed in v. 14. Evidence from Josephus suggests it was a time when would-be Messiahs abounded, and portents were observed in the heavens (vv. 24–25). The fact that a biblical generation is understood to be 40 years and that that these events occurred about 40 years after Jesus spoke the words suggests that v. 30 is to be understood as a prophecy of these things.
Horizon 3: The Renewal of All Things
This is the traditional futurist reading, and, like the preterist position, it needs little exposition. Verses 24–27 are often understood to have no other possible point of reference than the eschaton:
“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.”
Theological Meanings
The Christ event, especially the passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, is understood by the primitive church in a number of ways. It is the definitive sacrifice of atonement and therefore relativizes the Jerusalem temple. It is the first fruits of the resurrection of the dead and therefore a part of the process that culminates in the renewal of all things. It is the means by which a human is crowned with glory and honour, thus fulfilling the purpose for which, according to Psalm 8, humans were created. I could go on, but the point is surely made.
When prophets see from the perspective of heaven, they see things connected by their place in the purposes of God. Jesus, speaking as a prophet, speaks of three horizons as though they are one because those three horizons share theological meanings. Jesus knows that his death and resurrection, the events of AD 70, and the renewal of all things belong together in the purposes of God.3
Stephen Finamore is the Principal of the Bristol Baptist College. He has worked as a pastor, in community development in inner London and the Peruvian Andes, and as a lawyer. He is married to Becca, and their daughters are Debbie and Jen. Steve’s publications include God, Order and Chaos; Rene Girard and the Apocalypse.
Image: David Roberts, The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans Under the Command of Titus, A.D. 70
- No claim is being made that the ideas set out in this essay are in any way original. In The End of the Ages Has Come; An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), Dale Allison makes the case that the Synoptic apocalyptic discourses intentionally allude to the passion of Jesus. David Bentley Hart claims the best way to understand Jesus’ discourse is “to see his words as pointing towards and fulfilled within his own crucifixion and resurrection—wherein all things were judged, all things redeemed.” That All Shall Be Saved; Heaven, Hell and Universal Salvation, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 128. Robert O. Smith in More Desired than Our Owne Salvation; The Roots of Christian Zionism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 70, refers to the scholar Thomas Draxe who, in 1608, argued that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish state in AD 70 was “a type and patterne of the worlds destruction.”[↩]
- Jewish War, 5.5.4[↩]
- It may not be too far-fetched to observe that Mark 15:25–39 seems to make the connection between all three horizons.[↩]