Mark 8:34–38 contains significant implications for the interpretation of Mark 13. Three thematic similarities link the passages. First, as in 8:34–38, so in 13:9–13: Jesus’ disciples will suffer and stand on
86 So Adams 2006, 9.
87 See Section 1.3.1 for Hays’ criterion of “satisfaction.”
88 The tradition is also present in Did 16:7, which I discuss in Section 6.2.
89 See Section 1.3.1 for Hays’ and Tooman’s criteria of “recurrence” and “multiplicity,” respectively.
90 Dan 7:13; Zech 14:5.
91 Dan 7:18; Zech 14:5.
92 Dan 7:14; Zech 14:9. In Zech, the kingship explicitly belongs to God. In Dan, the “kingdom” implicitly belongs to
God, though the force of the vision in Dan 7 is the giving of the kingdom to Israel.
93 Similarly, Adams (2006, 9) calls Mark 8:38 a “fusion of images” that meshes Dan 7’s “Son of Man” with Zech 14’s
100 trial because of their fidelity to him.94 Each passage gives the same metric for “salvation”: willingness to suffer for Jesus and the Gospel.95
Second, each passage contains two temporal horizons.96 Mark 8:38 contrasts “this present and adulterous generation” with the undisclosed time of the future “coming of the Son of Man.” Similarly, in Mark 13 the events which will occur to “this present generation” (13:30) are contrasted with the
unknown timing of the future coming of the Son of Man (13:32). The sufferings of Jerusalem and the disciples belong to the present generation, but the judgment and salvation concomitant with the coming of the Son of Man belong to the unknown future. Thus, not only does each context contain two
temporal horizons, but each respective horizon in 8:34–38 and 13:5–37 associates the present with suffering, and the future with consummation in the form of judgment and salvation.97
Third and finally, each context describes the coming of the Son of Man with nearly identical imagery. The lexical correspondence between 8:38 and 13:26–27, particularly via forms of “come,” “Son of Man,” “glory,” “father,”98 and “angels,” implies that the passages refer to the same event.99 Two significant implications follow from this conclusion. First, given that 8:38 depicts a future “second coming” for judgment,100 the most likely deduction regarding the same imagery in 13:26–27 is that it also depicts the “second coming” of Jesus. This conclusion speaks against the notion that 13:24–27 should be interpreted with exclusive reference to the destruction of the temple.101 Second, on the basis that each passage refers to the same event, the “angels” in 13:27 are presumably the same entities as “the holy angels” of 8:38. The latter is again significant with respect to the interpretation of 13:27, because those who interpret the “coming” of 13:26 as a cryptic reference to the destruction of the temple then take the Son of Man’s “sending the angels to gather the elect” as a either a type of “great commission” or a reference to evangelism. They translate the ἄγγελοι as “messengers,” which are then
94 See Shively 2012, 165, 189. She rightly compares the passages on the basis of their mutual emphasis on
discipleship.
95 See Mark 8:35 and 13:9, 13.
96 So Hooker 1967, 156–57. On the basis of the links between Mark 8 and 13, she concludes, “The whole of chapter
13 is thus an elaboration of the theme found in 8.34–8: those who wish to follow Christ must expect to follow the same path of suffering, for they will be hated by all because of his name; but those who are ashamed of Jesus, and who do not endure until the end, will not be saved” (156–57).
97 Ibid., 157.
98 See 13:32’s reference to the unique knowledge of “the Father” regarding the timing of the “coming” of 13:26–
27.
99 So Shively 2012, 189.
100 See discussion in Section 4.3.
interpreted as the disciples.102 The precedent set by 8:38, however, suggests that the ἄγγελοι of 13:27 are the angelic host that accompany the Son of Man’s heaven-to-earth coming. Indeed, a telling pattern emerges among those who interpret 13:24–27 with exclusive reference to the destruction of the temple in that they routinely ignore, or even misquote, Mark 8:38, notably overlooking the phrase “with the holy angels.”103
The thematic correspondences between Mark 8:34–38 and Mark 13, and the lexical connections between 8:38 and 13:26–27, indicate that the latter verses refer to the same event: the return of Jesus as the Son of Man in the future. As each text refers to the same event, Zech 14:5 may influence the depiction of the coming of the Son of Man with angels in Mark 13:26–27 as well. Even without the depiction in 8:38, one might detect the influence of Zech 14:5 in Mark 13:26–27 in that the Son of Man comes with angels; other elements unique to Mark 13:24–27, however, indicate that Mark alludes to Zech 14:5. I discuss that passage in detail in six consecutive sections, beginning with Section 5.12.3.
4.5: Conclusion
Mark 14:27 quotes Zech 13:7 to refer to the death of Jesus. The “striking” of Jesus sets off the eschatological tribulation entailed in the related prophecy in Zech 13:7–9. In the latter text, God strikes the shepherd, he turns his hand upon “the little ones,” and then he takes his covenantal people
“through the fire.” The “fire” in Zech 13:9 does not entail the people’s condemnation, but rather their purification, and it is likely manifest in some form of suffering. Mark provides evidence throughout the Gospel that he intends these elements of Zech 13:7–9, particularly in Mark 9:42–49 and 14:27–31,
102 E.g. Wright 1996, 363; Hatina 1996, 65; France 2002, 536.
103 Hatina (1996, 61) lists Mark 8:38 as one of the instances of the “coming of the Son of Man” in Mark, but he does
not discuss the passage. Wright (1996, 183) while listing verses that demonstrate that Jesus was an oracular prophet who spoke of an impending judgment on Israel, lists “Mk. 8.38/Lk. 9.26” and summarizes a conflated version of the saying, but he excludes the phrase “when he comes with the holy angels” from his conflated quotation. All the quotations on that page, however, admittedly present truncated versions for the sake of space. Nonetheless, Wright’s interpretation of Mark 13 contains no recourse to Mark 8:38. Dyer (1998, 181) similarly provides an interpretation of the “coming” without referring to Mark 8:38. On p 195, point (iii), Dyer quotes Mark 8:38, but excludes “with the holy angels.” France (2002, 342) too does not interpret “with the holy angels.” Finally, see also Gray 2010, 143. Regarding Mark 8:38’s significance for the interpretation of Mark 13, Gray writes, “In other words, Mark 8:38–9:1 helps us see through the thicket of controversy about temporal limits and understand that, for Mark, the coming of the Son of Man in judgment is both imminent and directed at the temple” (143). Gray does not, however, offer an interpretation of the phrase “with the holy angels,” nor does he explain how the metric of judgment that explicitly pertains to fidelity to God’s Messiah in Mark 8:38 is “directed at the temple.” I single out these otherwise careful and helpful works because they are significant proponents of the “temple-only” interpretation of Mark 13, and I regard their collective exclusion of salient features of Mark 8:38 as an indication of an important weakness in that proposal.
102 where he both quotes Zech 13:7,104 and uses language from Zech 13:7–9105 to refer to the future
tribulation of the disciples. Accordingly, the “striking of the shepherd” is fulfilled in Jesus’ death, and the consequent tribulation of God’s people is fulfilled in the subsequent tribulations of those who follow Jesus. In addition to Mark’s use of language unique to Zech 13:7–9 throughout his Gospel, Mark 13 and 14:27–31 contain several thematic and lexical links that encourage mutual interpretation. Consequently, Mark 13 presents the content of the cryptic references to “fire” and “stumbling” from 9:49 and 14:27– 31, and should be understood as a fulfilment of the tribulations of Zech 13:8–9.
Additionally, Mark 8:38 alludes to Zech 14:5 in its depiction of the coming of the Son of Man. Comparing 8:34–38 to 13:26–27 demonstrates that each passage refers to the same event, namely the coming of the Son of Man with angels from heaven to earth to judge and to save. This implies that Mark depicts Jesus’ departure and his return by a citation and allusion to Zech 13:7 and 14:5 respectively. The latter events comprises the “bookends” of the events predicted in Mark 13.
As already suggested, the material between these bookends, that is, Zech 13:8–14:4, describes the suffering of the land or city, a subsequent testing of the people of God who are aligned with the stricken shepherd, and the attack of Jerusalem and the concomitant suffering. By virtue of the thematic and structural correspondence between this material in Zechariah and Mark 13, and by virtue of allusions to the pertinent material from Zechariah in the beginning, middle, and end of Mark 13, I propose that the Olivet Discourse gains shape and meaning from Zech 13–14. It is to this argument I finally turn.
104 Mark 14:27.
103
Allusions to Zechariah throughout Mark 13
5.1: Introduction to Studies on Mark 13
I turn finally to the review of scholarship on the Olivet Discourse. Mark 13 has been the subject of countless studies. As Beasley-Murray completed a well-received history of interpretation of the Olivet Discourse from 1836 to 1993, surveying form-critical, redaction-critical, and narrative-critical studies, I do not repeat his discussion here.1 The criteria for inclusion in the present review is the respective study’s methodology, the depth of its discussion, and its impact on scholarship. Accordingly, I include studies whose methods are broadly narrative-critical, whose discussion of Mark 13 is not incidental to the larger goal of its study, and whose claims have shaped scholastic conversation on the topic.2 I divide the review according to four types of interpretation: 1) that Mark 13 is intentionally ambiguous; 2) that Mark 13 pertains only to the destruction of the temple; 3) that Mark 13 pertains to tribulation generally conceived and the parousia; and 4) that Mark 13 pertains to the destruction of the temple and to the
parousia. I interact with representative scholars of each view, and I note adherents to the respective
views in footnotes.