Mark Chapter 13

Mark 13:1-13.

Matthew 24:1-14; Luke 21:5-19.

In the succinct account which Mark gives us of the prophetic discourse of our Lord on the Mount of Olives,126 and of the questions that led to it, we have the favoured hearers specified more particularly than elsewhere: Peter, James, John, and Andrew. Mark is characterized by this minuteness of detail, although his is much the shortest of the Gospels.

The Lord, in answer to their question to tell them when these things should be (that is, the overthrow of the great buildings of the Temple),127 and what the sign should be when all these things should be fulfilled, warns them to beware lest any man should deceive them. This admonition is common to all three Evangelists who give the discourse. But here we shall find that the Lord's warnings and instructions are very evidently in view of their service. This has been all through the character of Mark. Christ Himself is the perfect Servant of God, the Prophet here below preaching the Gospel and doing works according to its spirit. So, accordingly, even in His prophecy, He is the Servant still giving them that which would be of such high importance, not only for their souls, but in their work. It is not only prediction of coming judgments, but forewarning and admonishing them in their testimony. They were to beware of deceivers. Next, they were not to be troubled by external appearances, such as wars and rumours of wars, etc.; but in presence of either one or the other they were to know that the end should not be yet.

In addressing the Church, there is great stress laid on an attitude entirely reversed: to it the end is at hand. The language is quite different from this, and it is the more remarkable because the Christian knows that these troublous times of the end are to fall upon the Jewish people, not upon the Church. They are retributive because of the rejection of the true Christ by the Jews; whereas the Church has received the true Christ, and therefore does not come under these judgments. Hence the Christian is always impressed in the word of God with the assurance that the end of all things is at hand. "The night is far spent, the day is at hand" (Romans 13:12). The point for the disciples at the Mount of Olives (inasmuch as they were representing, not Christians, but the Remnant of Jewish disciples in the last days) is that, although these distresses and troubles that precede the catastrophe of this age would come, the end is not yet. The Lord was providing doubly for them. He was giving instruction that would be true even then and up to the fall of Jerusalem; and He was making that instruction to suit the latter days also, when Jerusalem should be besieged a second time, and fall in a great part at least, the scourge being sent of God, the great Assyrian power, who will come down upon Jerusalem, because of the abomination that maketh desolate.

"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be earthquakes in different places, and there shall be famines and troubles;* these are the beginning of throes."128 The end, therefore, was not yet. But now He turns aside to introduce an instruction that is not given in the other Gospels in this connection. Even where there is anything similar, it is found at an anterior time and for a mission on which they had been sent out, and from which they had returned. Not that I for a moment doubt that the Lord did give it here also. The fact simply is that Matthew and Luke were led of God to convey similar language to us elsewhere, whereas Mark was inspired to give it here; the Lord no doubt gave this instruction on both occasions at least. "Take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to sanhedrims, and to synagogues: ye shall be beaten, and shall be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. And the Gospel must first be preached to all the nations.129 But when they shall lead you away to deliver you up, be not careful beforehand as to what ye shall speak [nor prepare your discourse],† but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak: for ye are not the speakers, but the Holy Spirit.130 But brother shall deliver up brother to death, and father child; and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all on account of My name; but he that hath endured unto the end, he shall be saved." This is clearly a guidance for their service in the midst of these prophetic events. It is evident also that it suits Mark in a way that is peculiar to himself.

*"And troubles": as A, etc., all cursives, Syr. Edd. omit, as BDL, Amiat. Memph.

†["Nor prepare your discourse"]: as A and later uncials, most cursives, Syrpesch hcl. Edd. omit, as BLΨ, 1, 33, 69, Syrsin.

Mark 13:14-23.

Matthew 24:15-28; Luke 21:20-24.

Then we come upon the final scene. "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it* ought not [he that reads, let him consider131], then let those in Judea flee to the mountains" (verse 14). It is plain that this is the general truth that is found elsewhere. "And let him that is on the housetop not come down into the house, neither enter therein, to take away anything out of his house. and let him that is in the field not turn back to take his garment. But woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! And pray that it† may not be in the winter-time. For in those days shall be distress, such as there has not been the like since the beginning of creation which God created unto now, and never shall be. And unless [the] LORD had shortened those days, no flesh should have been saved, but on account of the elect whom He hath chosen, He hath shortened the days."132 Then we find an outburst of warning, not merely as before, but even more determined. "And then if any one shall say to you, Lo, here [is] the Christ; or lo, there; believe [it] not: for false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and give signs and wonders." It is evident that there is a final appearance, a fresh cloud of these deceivers In the latter days, as there was at the earliest application of this prophecy; and this to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But they were warned, "Take ye heed: behold, I have told you all things beforehand."

*There is an interesting dubious reading, "standing where he ought not": ἑστηκότα, BL (followed by Edd.), instead of ἑστός (Steph.), ἑστώς (Elz., Griesbach, Scholz), ἑστηκός (Lachmann and Green), στηκόν (seven cursives, including 1, 69). If the masculine be well founded, it points to the Antichrist, the lawless one of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (B.T.) Cf. Swete in loc., and see note 131a on the verse.

†"It": so Edd., after pmBDL, 69, Jerome's Vulg. "Your flight" has the support of corr A, etc., 1, Syrpesch hcl Memph. Goth. AEth.

Mark 13:24-32.

Matthew 24:29-36; Luke 21:25-33.

Then comes the power of God interfering to cut short the wickedness of man as well as the tribulation. "But in those days, after that tribulation,133 the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light." Figures may be used, but it is clear that it is God who interposes in power; for man cannot accomplish all that is meant, neither can Satan. God alone can change or deal with the sources of power. "And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken." The sense is plain, although in figurative language, showing a total revolution and overthrow of governmental powers. "And then shall they see the Son of man coming134 in clouds with great power and glory; and then shall He send His angels, and shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from end of earth to end of heaven." It is still the Jewish people, or rather the remnant of the nation, the elect of Israel. Accordingly, the parable of the fig-tree is appended. "But learn the parable from the fig-tree. When its branch already becomes tender, and putteth forth the leaves, ye know that the summer is near." The fig-tree is the acknowledged symbol of the people of God. "Thus also, when ye shall see these things happen, know that it is near at the doors. Verily I say unto you that this generation* shall in no wise pass away till all these things take place. The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My words shall in no wise pass away."

*See "Lectures on Matthew," p. 496 ff., and note 135.

But the Lord also tells us in language peculiar to this Gospel, "of that day or of that hour knoweth no one, neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son136, but the Father." He had thoroughly taken the place of Son upon earth. I do not think that it refers to Him, viewed in His highest character, as one with the Father, but as Son and Prophet upon earth. The title of Son applies to Christ in more ways than one. It is true of Him in the Deity, true of Him as born into the world, and true of Him also in the resurrection. It is the second of these that we find here, as in the very first verse of this Gospel we find it said, "Jesus Christ the Son of God." I do not doubt that refers to His being Son of God here below, begotten in time, not the only-begotten of the Father, as we find so often in John. Looking at it in this way, there is little difficulty In understanding that He should speak as not knowing that hour, because He is speaking in His capacity of minister in the place that He took here below, the prophet that was serving God upon earth. So He did not know that hour. We read of Him in Luke as growing in knowledge as well as in stature. "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2:52). He was always perfect - perfect as a child, perfect as a young man, perfect as a servant; but, nevertheless, all these were quite distinct from what pertained to Him as the Son, one with the Father in Godhead. So here, without derogating from His own intrinsic glory, He could say that "nor the Son, but the Father" knew of that hour.

Mark 13:33-37.

Cf. Matthew 24:42, Matthew 25:13; Luke 21: 36-41.

"Take heed, watch and pray"* is the application. And then He gives a parabolic instruction in the next two verses admirably adapted to this Gospel. "[It is] as a man gone out of the country who left his house and gave authority to his bondmen" (verse 34). Again, it does not say that He gives authority, to every man, but "to each his work." This entirely harmonizes with Mark. Christ Himself was the great Servant. But now His service was past; He was going away, and taking the place of Lord on high. So He gives authority to His servants, and to every man his work, to each and all their due place. Remark, it is here not so much gifts as work."

*"And pray so ACL, etc., almost all cursives, the Syrr. (sin. omitting "take heed"). Edd. omit, with BD.

"Watch, therefore; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh: even, or midnight, or cock-crowing, or in morning; lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. But what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." This is decidedly a suited word for a servant watching in the absence of One who was gone, who left His house, but who was coming back again. Thus, from first to last, Mark is true to the great tone and character and object of his Gospel. It is to show the perfect Servant even in His prophetic testimony, and to maintain those in a spirit of service who are waiting and watching for Him here below. The disciples in their then state represented, not Christians, but the Remnant in the latter day, who will be substantially in the same position.

NOTES ON MARK 13.

126 This chapter sets before us Mark's form of the Apocalypse on Mount Olivet, which brings under consideration the general question of prophecy as such. In this Gospel we have the Lord presented as "Prophet," in which character it may be expected that He would engage in prediction. At the present day this supernatural element is but feebly confessed. Scholars in general incline to content themselves with searching for some historical background to each prediction, to which the application of the particular prophecy is then limited. Consequently, a persistent effort is regularly made to establish the fulfilment already of each prediction, so that the margin of unfulfilled prophecy becomes in men's hands rapidly narrower. That which cannot be so explained is deemed "ideal." The writers who favour this treatment of Scripture have themselves to assume the role of prophets. Thus Professor Driver in his popular Looks on Isaiah and Jeremiah, where we are told that there are predictions which never will be fulfilled. But it is impossible for such writers to establish that conditions which seem to have passed away can never reappear. If we are to attach such importance to individual background, let us not forget the principle long ago stated by a master in this department, that history tends to repeat itself (Thucydides) - a useful consideration when studying the pregnant utterances of our Lord recorded in this chapter. Too many now have the "ideal" on the brain; they need themselves to be more practical.

All Scriptural prophecy looks on to the time when "the kingdom of God and the authority of Christ is come" (Revelation 11:15-19; Rev 12:1-10). For the interpretation of each several prophecy an Apostolic principle serves us: the scope of "no prophecy of Scripture is had from its own (particular) interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). Cf. "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 251 of reissue; also the "Lectures on Matthew," p. 377 f., to which frequent reference has been made in these notes.

Because of the difficulty modern professors have in distinguishing in the prophecy before us the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus from analogous events to take place in connection with Christ's second coming, it is useless for expositors of Scripture to allege confusion in the Evangelists' minds or misreporting on their part of what the Lord said on this occasion. One need say nothing here upon such palpable irreverence. The fault lies with moderns in their "critical" presuppositions, as well as in superficial study of the Old Testament and depreciation of the Jew. The gravity of the sins of that people and consequent national judgment are to be overcome by the future blessing assured to them in their Scriptures. Men shrink from believing that aught of the kind must be attended by preliminary judgments, but this remains as true as ever it was. The "germinant" nature of prophecy, which Bacon wrote of three hundred years ago, is true today, and will remain so (Cf. "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 255 f., 270).

Some particular points will be dealt with in the order in which they arise in the chapter, but the reader is expected first carefully to weigh the lecturer's own remarks.

127Mark 13:2. - From the vicious standpoint of critics explained in the last preceding note Wernle would date the publication of this Gospel after the year 70 (see note 3), because of the destruction of the Temple being placed in the forefront of the discourse - that is, anything like veritable prediction is denied to our Lord as to mere men like Isaiah; simply human foresight at its best (that in His case likewise faulty!) is allowed.

128Mark 13:8. - For "throes" here, cf. Hosea 13:13.

129Mark 13:10. - "The Gospel." As to supposed reflex influence of the theological language of the early Church on the Synoptic vocabulary, see Sanday, "Son of God," in Hastings, p. 573.

120Mark 13:11. - In this early Synoptic Gospel we meet already with the promise of the Spirit in the Johannine sense (cf. note 94).

131Mark 13:14. - The words of this verse (cf. Matthew's parallel) are supposed to suggest that at the time of the siege of the city a sort of "fly-sheet" containing the Apocalypse in a separate form was in circulation for the guidance of Christians (note 10, cf. Carpenter, p. 197; Burkitt, p. 63 f.).

"He that reads" (see 1 Timothy 4:13, Revelation 1:3, and Colossians 4:11). The Greek word implies (cf. "that hear" in Rev.) "reading aloud" that is, ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ. Cf. Revelation 2:7, etc., for the importance of such use of Scripture in ministry, worship, etc. The very "reader" may be preacher in the sense of Romans 10:14, compared with the passages in Revelation. There is blessing to be had by the "hearer" of such.

"Standing where he ought not." Throughout medieval times "Antichrist" was regarded as Mohammedanism; since the Reformation the Papacy has enjoyed that unhappy distinction in the eyes of Protestant controversialists. To the view in general of the Reformers Dr. C. H. H. Wright adheres in the first of his two volumes on Daniel recently published. According to Dr. Wright, the Jesuits started, as a set-off against the Protestant view, the idea now shared by all premillenarian writers, who have abandoned the Lutheran "Antichrist." Be this as it may, the belief that the "man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4) stands either for the political head of the Roman Empire when it is revived (Revelation 13:1), or for his confederate (ibid., ver. 11) prince of a revived Jewish State, called the false prophet in Revelation 16:13 (see Kelly, "The Revelation Expounded," third edition, pp. 159-162), agrees, as far as the first alternative is concerned, with the conviction of the primitive Christians, which seems to have passed away definitely only after Constantine's acceptance of Christianity as the religion of the Empire. The "Holy Roman Empire" established by Charlemagne passed away in 1806, and the "temporal power" of the Pope in 1870; but students of prophecy look for a confederacy between the magnates symbolized in Rev. 13 as "beasts." Those who advocate "reunion" of Christendom on the basis of "the primacy of Peter" seem as feebly to apprehend the bearings of the last book of the Bible as supporters of "Zionism" would do. The "Revelation of John" must be studied in close connection with the prophecy on Olivet. Besides Mr. Kelly's writings on the subject, readers would do well to acquaint themselves with the late R. Govett's "The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture," and Sir R. Anderson's "The Coming Prince."

132Mark 13:19-20. - In keeping with the theory of the strictly contemporary character of the account (note 127), Carpenter (ubi supra) here finds "retrospect" in the one verse of what has been "anticipated" in the other. But the Lord's words in verse 20 are to be understood of what had already been predetermined when He spoke. In verse 19 the reference is to the time of "Jacob's trouble" (Jeremiah 30:7). The miseries of the Jews during the siege doubtless exemplified what is here set before us, just as the phenomena of Pentecost did Joel's prediction, which in like manner awaits complete fulfilment.

133Mark 13:24. - This Gospel has not Matthew's word "immediately." On this Carpenter (p. 198) bases a supposition that Mark here, or his editor, is post eventum ("secondary" to Matthew). Such literary analysis may be ingenious, but Mark's reason for its omission seems hidden from writers who can but indulge in barren conjectures.

134 Mark 13: 26. - Cf. 8: 38, and note ad loc. Here we have what Paul in one of his very earliest letters (2 Thessalonians 2:8), speaks of as the ἐπιφάνεια of the Lord, "the appearing of His coming (παρουσία)." The "coming" in its initial stage he has described in his first letter to the same Christians (4: 15). It may be useful at this point to state the ideas of some critics on the subject. We shall take H. J. Holtzmann as a now long-accredited spokesman. In his somewhat famous "Synoptic Gospels," published just before these lectures appeared in the Bible Treasury, this scholar discriminated three aspects of the Second Advent - of His return as dealt with by the Lord when on earth; (a) for judgment (Luke 17:24), (b) a historical coming (Mark 9:1), (c,) a spiritual coming (Matthew 18:20, to which we may add John 14:18, John 16:7). All this, it is believed, is very much in accordance with the facts which the Gospel records supply. To the view thus gained we have to add Paul's revelation (1 Thess. 4), which speaks of that not to be confounded with any of Holtzmann's comings. The Apostle's first statement many Christians, misled by the majority of commentaries - e.g., Alford on 2 Thessalonians 2:1 - wrongly merge in his supplementary declaration, made to correct the Thessalonians' understanding of his first (see 2 Thessalonians 2:2, R.V.). Cf. note 88 above.

135Mark 13:30. - "This generation . . . all these things . . . ." From taking "generation" in the temporal sense of the word, Strauss and De Wette represented the Lord as fallible. Others, as Meyer, A. Wright, Swete, preserve their "orthodoxy," while still explaining the word of a period of some thirty to thirty-three years. The difficulty of determining when such a generation should begin - the Lord's contemporaries belonged to different generations relative to their age - is altogether ignored. These writers, to begin with, have to assume that such a generation as they think of commenced with His ministry, without anything in the Gospels to appeal to for support. Origen and Chrysostom of old, followed by Wordsworth and Alford (as equivalent to γένος) of recent English commentators, with Dorner and Stier amongst Germans, take "generations," as it must be taken, in its moral meaning. Not only is it so used in the Old Testament (as in Deuteronomy 32:5, Psalm 24:6 and Psalm 73:14, Jeremiah 8:3), but in the Gospels themselves (Mark 9:19, Matthew 17:17, Luke 16:8), as elsewhere Acts 2:40, etc.; cf. Galatians 1:4). Is not "that day" in verse 32 suggestive of "something at a distance"? (Beet, "Manual of Theology," p. 446 f.).

Verse 10 must be borne in mind in connection with the words "all these things." The convenient makeshift of critics has been mentioned in note 129.

135a Mark 13:31. - "My words." It is not merely a question in this Gospel of His words (Wellhausen), but of His deeds likewise (see note on last verse of Mark 16).

136Mark 13:32. - "Nor the Son." Cf. Matthew 24:36 in the critical text, followed in the "Workers' New Testament." These words have been supposed by writers of Unitarian tendency to impair the Lord's omniscience, in which they are followed by several in high ecclesiastical position in the English Establishment. The κένωσις (emptying) of the Lord spoken of in Php 2:7 has a bearing on the words.

"it is of course difficult," writes Dean Strong, "to understand how two kinds of consciousness can have been present at one time in one Person" ("Manual of Theology," p. 119). Again, Bishop Gore: "He willed to observe the limits of the science of His age, and He puts Himself in the same relation to its historical knowledge" ("Lux Mundi," p. 205). This idea had already been countenanced by a living prelate. "When He quoted passages from the Old Testament, He might have no more knowledge of their age and actual authors than that which was current in His own time" (Bishop Moorhouse, "Teaching of Christ," p. 47). See, however, more healthy remarks than these in Schaff, "Christ and Christianity," pp. 107-119.

The American writer Gould speaks of the passages having given rise to much "theological tinkering." He does not himself, certainly, afford any help on the Subject.

Augustine (quoted by Wordsworth in loc.) refers to the elastic force of the word "know," undeniable as regards both Hebrew and Greek. Here the word is οἷδεν (not γινώσκει). Its use may be seen in "I know you not," "the Lord knoweth them that are His . . . . . I knew Him not" (said by John Baptist of Christ, evidently not deriving any ordinary previous acquaintance with JESUS (John 1:31; Joh 1:33, Matthew 3:14, and Luke 1:36). Cf. Peter's "I know not this Man" (Mark 14:71).

Some have repudiated explanations offered on the ground that these virtually supported a Docetic view - that is, that our Lord "feigned a condition which did not actually exist for the benefit of His disciples." The Docetists, such as Cerinthus, held that the flesh of Christ was not real (see Strong, p. 99, and cf. Fairbairn, "Christ in Modern Thought," p. 353). Réville (ii. 313), condemning words of a sermon by Bossuet, questions the authenticity of the words, which he supposes were due to Arian influence on the manuscripts of the Gospels. Worst of all, Schmiedel (article on "Gospels" in "Encyclopaedia Biblica," col. 1881) boldly says, "In the person of Jesus we have to do with a completely human being," and that "the Divine is to be sought in Him only in the form in which it is capable of being found in a man." He seems to seek to blunt the edge of these soul-corrupting words by adding what is true - that the historical value of the Gospels goes with the presence of such passages in them.

The devout Bengel's explanation, which most commends itself of all put forth on the "orthodox" side, is that the Lord had no command from the Father to declare that day. For the "authority" of His words, see Mark 1:2, John 12:48-50, John 14:24, and cf. Acts 1:7 (Greek), Revelation 1:1 ff., and see remarks of Professor Sanday (article "Son of God" in Hastings), also Dorner, "Person of Christ," i. 54. As to correlative use of the "Father and the Son," reference may be made to Mark 9:37, Mark 14:30, comparing Matthew 11:27, Matthew 28:19, Luke 10:22, all of which bear on Harnack's proposition that "the Gospel as Jesus proclaimed it has to do with the Father only, and not with the Son" ("What is Christianity?" p. 147).

With this question is connected that of silence (see Mark 15:5).

A few words of the late J. N. Darby may be welcome as a conclusion to this note. "In the historical presentation of Christianity the Son is always presented as down here in servant and manhood estate all through John, though in heaven and one with the Father. . . . In Matt. 3 the whole Trinity is revealed, and, we may say, for the first time fully. . . . Hence, No! not the Son, has no difficulty" ("Notes and Comments," vol. ii., from p. 416).

136a Mark 13:35. - Observe the division of the night, and see on 15: 25.