The Narrative Integrity of Mark 13:24–27

The Narrative Integrity of Mark 13:24–27

Peter G. Bolt

The Narrative Integrity of Mark 13:24–27

Australian College of Theology Monograph Series

Copyright © 2021 Peter G. Bolt. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-6667-3079-1

hardcover isbn: 978-1-6667-2272-7

ebook isbn: 978-1-6667-2273-4

10/15/21

Table of Contents

Title Page

Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Referential Problem of Mark 13:24–27

Chapter 2: The Literary Method

Chapter 3: Mark 13 in Anticipation (Mark 1–12)

Chapter 4: Mark 13: A First Reading

Chapter 5: Mark 13: A Close Reading

Chapter 6: Mark 13 in Retrospect (Mark 14–16)

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Appendix 1: The Parallels

Appendix 2: A Brief Note on T. J. Geddert, Watchwords

Bibliography

To Kathryn

exalted

the Son of Man

gives gifts to man

the news abounds

true love is found

late in life but

in eternity

early

Preface

This book began life as a thesis submitted to the Australian College of Theology in December 1991 as a partial requirement for the MTh awarded me in the following year. I am therefore pleased that, thirty years after it was first submitted, it can be published as part of the Australian College of Theology Monograph Series.

Apart from the addition of transliterations and translations to assist those without facility in Greek, necessary corrections, and some updates in relation to my own subsequent work (marked with square brackets and this year’s date [2021: ]), this book is basically the publication of the MTh as submitted.

Whereas an undergraduate degree is meant to familiarize a student with the classic discussions of the broad disciplines of their field of study, a master’s degree takes them to the leading-edge discussions in a narrower area of inquiry chosen according to their interests. Unlike doctoral research, a master’s degree is not required to show an exhaustive grasp of the relevant literature, nor is it required to contribute something new to the body of existing scholarship.

In my final year of undergraduate studies, Moore College permitted students to pursue a project (10,000 words, if I recall) that formed a piece of preliminary work towards the Australian College of Theology Master of Theology award. Having been alerted earlier to a minority view on the interpretation of the coming of the Son of Man in Mark 13:24–27, and then becoming fascinated with the newer literary studies of the Gospels emerging during my undergraduate years (1982–85), when the final year opportunity presented itself, I decided to use these newer approaches to explore that minority view.

Because the world of literary studies was only just beginning to be applied to the Gospels, I had the opportunity to explore that world for myself as I sought to formulate an appropriate method (especially Booth, Iser, Chatman), following up leads suggested by those Gospels scholars who had begun to dabble themselves (especially Fowler, Dewey, Boomershine). The seminal ideas in an article by R.H. Lightfoot—brilliant, brief, and mostly ignored—suggested the way forward, and I was set to explore the central verses of Mark 13 (vv.24–27) in their narrative integrity. Consistent with the brief of a master’s degree, my research was not exhaustive. However, the resultant thesis accidentally made a new contribution by arguing Lightfoot’s suggestions more carefully to give what seemed to be a much more coherent view of that difficult chapter than the prevailing views at the time.

Once I joined the faculty of Moore College in 1990, my explorations of Mark 13 began to be inflicted upon the students in my New Testament 1 class, and successive generations would be so inflicted for the next twenty-six years. I am grateful for the many fruitful interactions and oppositions that have enabled me to hone these ideas and to learn to better express them for an audience that was usually taken by surprise, to say the least.

After the thesis was awarded, I had the opportunity to present it in a summary paper presented to the SBL International Meeting, held in Melbourne in 1992. I then published a version of this paper a few years later in the Reformed Theological Review, under the title Mark 13: An Apocalyptic Precursor to the Passion Narrative.¹ Despite this article being published in what might be regarded as a rather obscure journal from the Antipodes, it was gratifying that it was occasionally noticed, even if—perhaps corresponding to its size—it received but little interaction!²

Nevertheless, my research on Mark 13 went with me into my later work,³ even protruding into my King’s College, London, doctoral thesis, published in 2003 as Jesus’ Defeat of Death. Persuading Mark’s Early Readers.⁴ That same year, I had the privilege of delivering the Moore College Annual Lectures, in which I explored Mark’s presentation of the atonement. The conclusions of my MTh were most apparent in the third lecture, entitled The Cross as the End of the World.⁵ When these lectures were published in 2004 as The Cross from a Distance. Atonement in Mark’s Gospel, what was by then my long-held view on Mark 13 became more widely known. Even if still regarded as unusual, it began to be received at least as worthy of more consideration than the earlier quick interactions.

Over the years, narrative-reader studies on Mark have become an industry in their own right, and I could certainly use much of this scholarship to further bolster the arguments made in the MTh.⁶ The difficulties and fascinations of Mark 13 and its central figure, the Son of Man, have also continued to inspire further inquiries and publications, upon which I have kept a quiet but interested eye. Some of this work could also be used to strengthen the position argued for here. See, for example, Geddert’s work, which also drew upon Lightfoot with a similar aim to my own, shared some similar conclusions, but differed on others. Geddert published as my MTh research was about to be submitted, enabling only a little interaction.⁷ However, many of the subsequent publications simply plough time-honoured furrows. I have had more than enough to keep me far too busy in other areas to publish any kind of ongoing interaction with this literature. Neither can I do this at this present stage of my life, and I am loath to promise any larger-scale publication for the future! But in view of the trickle (if only it were a flood!) of requests I have had over the last three decades to make my original thesis available to more people than the few who can find it on a dusty library shelf in Sydney, it seems to me to be entirely justified to publish it in more or less its submitted form, with some reference to my own further work where it has been built on in various ways. This publication might save some from the embarrassment of having to deal only with my conclusions without having had the opportunity to carefully consider the supporting evidence and argument. It may also assist others to gain a richer appreciation for the marvelous artistry of the Gospel of Mark. But, most importantly, in so doing it may help them to stand in greater awe of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ in enduring the greatest distress ever in order to deliver us a safe passage into the glorious kingdom of God.

1

. Bolt, "Mark

13

".

2

. Reacting initially to the RefThR article, fellow Aussie, Keith Dyer applauded the bravery of my attempt, but found it rather forced; Dyer, "‘But Concerning that Day’",

104

n.

1

. Subsequently, Keith interacted further with the article in The Prophecy on the Mount,

174

n.

40

,

219

n.

16

,

247

n.

30

,

260

n.

45

. Brower, ‘Let the Reader Understand’,

124

n.

15

, declared me correct that Mark is anti-religious authorities, not anti-temple, but felt the latter was implicit, asserting that I minimized "the importance of the setting and

13

:

2

" (cf. n.

65

). He also felt I was probably right to see this generation (

13

:

30

) as pointing to events in the narrative itself, but felt there was nevertheless a future element pointing beyond the narrative (n.

72

). My colleague, Graeme Goldsworthy was affirmative, finding support in John

2

:

17

–

22

: the destruction of this temple is clearly the crucifixion, for its rebuilding is the bodily resurrection of Jesus; Preaching the Whole Bible,

175

. In order to critique my disavowal of the notion of imitation, Hood, Evangelicals and the Imitation of the Cross, also touches on the article (and some of my other writings, but notably, not Jesus’ Defeat of Death, which would have been to his advantage). Most recently spotted, N.T. Wright’s discussion of the End of the World notes the article as a fascinating suggestion that the chapter is replete with hints towards the coming passion narrative; History and Eschatology,

307

n.

62

. So in its brief mentions the article seems to have moved from forced to fascinating, which is at least in the right direction!

3

. For my relevant articles published since

1991

, see bibliography.

4

. Bolt, Jesus’ Defeat of Death, 252

–

53

. Its influence is also apparent elsewhere in both the identification of Mark’s narrative flow and in numerous questions of detail.

5

. Bolt, Cross from a Distance,

85

–

115

.

6

. To say the least, my own narrative-reader approach has continued to be refined, as reflected, for example, in Jesus’ Defeat of Death.

7

. Geddert, Watchwords.

Abbreviations

AJ Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews.

AncSociety Ancient Society.

Asyndeton The lack of connection between two Greek sentences.

BAGD Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1957, ²1979.

BDBG Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, & Charles A. Briggs, The New Brown–Driver–Briggs–Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic. Lafayette: Associated Publishers, 1978.

BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

BJ Josephus, Jewish War.

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library.

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

CD Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics.

ChrCent Christian Century.

ExpT Expository Times.

Hendiadys A device where two Greek words are meant to be read together, signalled, e.g., by both being governed by the one article.

HTR Harvard Theological Review.

IDB Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G.A. Buttrick. 4 Volumes. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.

IDBSup Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement, edited K. Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976.

Int Interpretation.

JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature.

JLit & Theol Journal of Literature and Theology.

JR Journal of Religion.

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament.

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement.

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.

JTS Journal of Theological Studies.

LSJ Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry S. Jones, Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon. Ninth edition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940.

Neot Neotestamentica.

NovT Novum Testamentum.

NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplement.

ns new series.

NTS New Testament Studies.

RefThR Reformed Theological Review

Rest Q Restoration Quarterly.

Str–B Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 4 volumes. München, C. Beck, 1922–28.

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76.

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin.

Zerwich Max Zerwich and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981).

ZNTW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

[2021: ] Additions made to the original thesis for this publication.

Introduction

The interpretive problems of Mark 13 revolve around verses 24–27 (Chapter 1). The referent to these verses is usually taken to be either the parousia or the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70. Both of these positions generate interpretive problems, not the least of which is that neither adequately explains the function of these verses within Mark’s narrative. Alongside these majority positions, there is a minority reading that connects these verses with the passion narrative, which begins to overcome this major weakness. Following this lead, this book explores the narrative role of Mark 13 with special emphasis upon verses 24–27.

The approach adopted follows the trend in contemporary Gospel studies, being literary in general and reader-oriented in particular. After outlining the method (Chapter 2), it is then applied to an overview of Mark 1–12, the narrative which prepares for Mark 13 (Chapter 3). A first reading of Mark 13 (Chapter 4) addresses questions of form and function and concludes that the form of the chapter encourages it to be read as an integral part of Mark’s narrative. A close reading (Chapter 5) examines the chapter in detail and identifies certain expectations that are erected for the reader. In particular, the expectation of the destructive sacrilege, the coming of the Son of Man, and the gathering of the elect are identified. Mark’s passion narrative is then read against these expectations (Chapter 6) and it is demonstrated that the narrative encourages the crucifixion to be read as the horrendous sacrilege, the resurrection as the coming of the Son of Man, and the prospective meeting in Galilee as the launching of the Gentile mission (the gathering of the elect).

In conclusion (Chapter 7) this book proposes that Mark 13 is an apocalyptic precursor to the passion. In particular, the referent to Mark 13:24–27 is the resurrection. This reading not only provides the solution to the various difficulties, but, unlike other readings, it allows Mark 13:24–27 to be read as an integral part of the Gospel according to Mark.

For the sake of completion, the parallels are briefly discussed in Appendix 1, and are found to be supportive. Appendix 2 briefly discusses Timothy J. Geddert’s, Watchwords.

Australian College of Theology Monograph Series

series editor graeme r. chatfield

The ACT Monograph Series, generously supported by the Board of Directors of the Australian College of Theology, provides a forum for publishing quality research theses and studies by its graduates and affiliated college staff in the broad fields of Biblical Studies, Christian Thought and History, and Practical Theology with Wipf and Stock Publishers of Eugene, Oregon. The ACT selects the best of its doctoral and research masters theses as well as monographs that offer the academic community, scholars, church leaders and the wider community uniquely Australian and New Zealand perspectives on significant research topics and topics of current debate. The ACT also provides opportunity for contributors beyond its graduates and affiliated college staff to publish monographs which support the mission and values of the ACT.

Rev. Dr. Graeme Chatfield

Series Editor and Associate Dean

1

The Referential Problem of Mark 13:24–27

The Problem

The Difficulties

The interpretive difficulties of Mark 13 are well known,¹ embracing questions concerning sources,² authenticity, historical background,³ Sitz im Leben (both of the chapter itself, and for the Gospel as a whole),⁴ and questions of fundamental exegesis,⁵ theological interpretation,⁶ and application.⁷

The Cause

The various difficulties are created by the quest for the referent to vv.24–27.⁸ R.T. France notes:

The difficulties are created entirely by the assumption that vv.24–27 refer to the parousia, as an eschatological event which is still, for us, in the future. From this arise the awkward transitions in the chapter, and the embarrassment of vv.24a and 30, which leave no room for a time-lag of 2,000 years.⁹

Attempts to unravel the problems of Mark 13, therefore revolve around the reading of these key verses.¹⁰

Three Readings of Mark 13:24–27

Three Readings

There are three basic proposals for the referent of Mark 13:24–27. The first reads these verses of the parousia, the second of the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70, and the third reading suggests a relationship with the events of the passion narrative.¹¹

The Parousia

Two Subgroups

Despite the interpretive difficulties it causes, two subgroups read verses 24–27 of the parousia.

The uncommon¹² prima facie subgroup is content to live with an abrupt transition between the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia at several points in the chapter.¹³

The second subgroup seeks to overcome the difficulties by asserting the chapter has a prophetic perspective, in which the judgment on the Jewish nation (i.e., ad 70) is a foreshadowing of the final judgment (i.e., at the parousia), and the long ages between the two are prophetically telescoped.¹⁴

Some Difficulties

This parousia position recognizes that Mark 13 uses Old Testament last day language. However, it has some serious difficulties. It generates the problems alluded to above (awkward transitions and the christological problem of verse 32),¹⁵ disregards the clear chronological connection in the chapter,¹⁶ and has the profound weakness of being largely unargued,¹⁷ but simply assumed, perhaps due to its democratic majority.¹⁸

However, its major problem is that it fails to treat vv.24–27 in their narrative integrity.¹⁹ There is no adequate explanation offered as to why Mark has a prophecy of the parousia at this point—especially given the disregard of the subject in the rest of the Gospel²⁰—or how it functions in the narrative.

The Fall of Jerusalem

Two Subgroups

Two other subgroups postulate that vv.24–27 do not refer to the parousia, but are in fact a symbolic description of the fall of Jerusalem and its implications.²¹

One group understands the chapter as referring entirely to the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70.²² The other is a mediating position which reads the fall of Jerusalem as the referent for vv.5–31 and the parousia for vv.32–37.²³ This means that : there is no time-lag to explain away, and v.30 loses its terror; the doctrine of ‘prophetic perspective’ becomes unnecessary as an apologetic device.²⁴

Arguments and Difficulties

For convenience the arguments of France will be listed and critiqued. This is justified by the fact that he maintains they have not been refuted in twenty years.²⁵

Context

In his major argument, France considers that the context demands vv.24–27 to be interpreted of ad 70. Vv.1–4 are solely about the Temple’s destruction, and which leads us to expect a statement about the fall of the city. Vv.5–13 are about this fall (the second person indicates these people will see the events; vv.14–23, which are generally taken to refer to the events of ad 66–70, are closely linked). Vv.14–23 describe the events leading up to the siege but do not describe the fall. Thus we are left with the impression that we are about to get a scene of the catastrophe. Vv.28–30 confirm the impression by the repetition of the second person and the reintroduction of ταῦτα tauta and ταῦτα πάντα tauta panta from before.

Verse 32, however, begins a new section referring to the parousia, since:

a.This event is unknown by Jesus yet he did know the event of vv.5–31 was soon to come; and

b.περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης peri de tēs hēmeras ekeinēs is a contrast to the preceding, being a new phrase in the chapter with clear Old Testament allusions referring to the last day.

These arguments fail to establish that the fall of Jerusalem is the subject of vv.5–31. The use of the second person in vv.5–13 to establish that the referent will be seen by the hearers does not in itself establish what that event will be. Likewise, the statement that vv.14–23 are generally taken to refer to ad 66–70 begs the question of why they are so taken.²⁶

France’s admission of the parousia into vv.32–37 can also be questioned. To know something is ‘soon’ is not equivalent to knowing the precise date, so this argument does not require two separate events. Likewise, a new phrase does not demand that a new subject is being introduced, especially given that the language of vv.24–27 is often associated with this phrase in the Old Testament, and that the equivalent phrase in the plural is actually used in verse 24! That it refers to the last day in the Old Testament is no criterion for suggesting that vv.32–33 introduce a new subject unless it has been demonstrated that vv.24–27 have not already referred to the last day.

The most France can establish by these arguments is that the referent of vv.24–27, whatever it may prove to be, will take place in this generation. The real strength of his position rests entirely on his interpretation of vv.1–4, taken as controlling the thought of the chapter. The interpretation and nature of the control exercised by these verses will therefore need to be examined below.²⁷

Verses 24–27

France firstly adopts the premise that it is more consistent to restrict Jesus’ words to their Old Testament sphere of reference, i.e., to national disaster. He then infers that if this is so, it is hard to see a more obvious reference than to the fall of Jerusalem and the eclipse of the Jewish state.²⁸ Feeling that the language is clearly suitable to the fall (with J.S. Russell), France therefore rejects other alternatives. However, this premise is questionable,²⁹ and the inference, that the fall is obvious or suitable, is hardly solid argumentation.³⁰

Secondly, France tackles the crux of the question, that is, the use of Dan 7:13 in verse 26. He correctly observes that Daniel 7 concerns vindication and exaltation and that the coming of the Son of Man is a coming to God to receive dominion not a descent to earth. He shows that Jesus uses this verse the same way at all times and nowhere uses it of his return to earth. As in the close parallel in Mark 14:62, here we have a prediction of Jesus’ imminent exaltation to an authority which supersedes that of the earthly powers which have set themselves against God.³¹ Elsewhere Jesus may apply this Dan 7:13 vindication in other ways, but here the context is quite unambiguous, Jesus is speaking of the fall of Jerusalem.³²

The third stage of his treatment of vv.24–27 deals with verse 27.³³ Favoring the primary meaning of ἄγγελοι aggeloi, namely, messengers, France says verse 27 is

describing the sequel to the fall of Jerusalem. The Jews are no longer the people of God; now the true people of God, chosen from all nations, ‘from the four winds’, will be brought in. The agents of this ‘gathering of the elect’ will be the preachers of the Gospel, God’s messengers, his ἄγγελοι aggeloi.³⁴

The Old Testament language of the latter part of the verse does not require any eschatological sense, but is typically applied to the gathering of the Christian church.³⁵

But if this is the meaning of ἄγγελοι aggeloi in view here, what is the evidence that this really describes the sequel to the ad 70 fall?³⁶ Leaving Mark aside for the moment, the New Testament evidence suggests that the gospel was taken to the nations in the immediate post-exaltation period, and that this mission was well-established some four decades before ad 70. Moreover, the fact that France is forced to abandon his previous strict reading of Old Testament allusions (i.e., to the political sphere) by denuding the eschatological overtones here, questions whether his exegesis is the best fit.

Synoptic Parallels

His third main argument invokes the support of other synoptic parallels, especially Matthew 24. Although the parallels are invoked by every position, they should not supply determinative but merely supportive evidence.³⁷ Mark must be allowed to speak for himself. I deal briefly with the parallels in Appendix 1.

The Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem

Given that ad 70 was the eclipse of the Jewish state, the end of an era, a symbol, and more than a symbol, of the inauguration of the kingdom of the Son of Man,³⁸ France considers the extravagant language of the verses completely warranted.

This historical event looms large in the arguments of many and France ascribes it tremendous significance. But