 |
 |
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
The Olivet Discourse II
The Second in a Series of Reflections on the Olivet Discourse
As I was praying and reading this morning – praying in general and for you, and reading in preparation for the message Sunday, I had cause to think about the core personal aspects of “end times” issues for me, as well as the incredibly pastoral nature of Jesus’ words in Mark 13.
In my own praying and meditation, I noticed how much a part of own daily Christian experience certain matters are which relate to the end of time. For example, how often I find myself praying “Come, Lord Jesus!” How often, when I think of injustice, of the persecution of the saints, of the suffering of the weak, of the wicked prosperity of the wicked, I cling to the message of Revelation. What is that message? God wins. Things will be made right. In the end the people of Christ will be vindicated. And then, when I think of the suffering of loved ones, of troubled relationships, of war and conflict, of sickness and death and loss, even my own headaches, I close my eyes and imagine the New Heaven and New Earth. I know that the end of the story is unspeakably good. The curse is undone. Death is defeated once for all. The world is restored and beautiful again. I have an inheritance that will never spoil or fade.
What all exactly that will come about between now and then I can’t be sure. I think that the end will come suddenly, with Jesus appearing, the dead in Christ being raised, the great day of judgment, and the bringing in of the New Heaven and New Earth all happening quickly one after the other. If there is a thousand year earthly rule of Jesus in between, I’m cool with that. If there is a worldwide distress or tribulation before Jesus comes, well, I just ask for prayer to get through that faithfully. But the end of it all, well, that just seems pretty clear to me. And the end game forms a central part of my day to day faith and hope and spiritual life.
When I consider Mark 13, I still am working to understand how much of that applies or will apply directly to us and to our experience. However, my praying and yearning and interceding pastorally for you has given me great insight into the heart of this chapter. In this sense I think the chapter applies profoundly by way of general example and encouragement. And I am amazed at the love of Jesus for His flock in this chapter. I ask you to do this: read Mark 13 again, but this time read it as much as you can from the standpoint of Jesus who is giving a sort of loving last will and testament to his beloved followers. Notice the pattern. Jesus issues an imperative or command, “Watch out no one deceives you,” “Do not be alarmed,” “Be on your guard,” “Do not worry,” Flee,” “Pray.” Then notice that for each command or imperative he gives a reason: “Many will come in my name,” “Such things must happen,” “You will be handed over,” etc.
As you read and notice this pattern think of the way you would want to warn, protect, or encourage your loved ones if you were in a similar situation. Imagine being a missionary deported from a country undergoing great political turmoil, believing your little flock to be in great danger of persecution. Imagine sending a child off to college! I think when we imagine these scenarios we are getting close to the point of this chapter, closer to its heart. Indeed, I think Jesus’ purpose in speaking these words, and Mark’s purpose for including these words, both are deeply pastoral. The words of this discourse are not so much meant to disclose esoteric secrets about the end times, but to encourage faithfulness and obedience in Jesus’ followers, to help his flock prepare for a period of mission and persecution, to protect and prepare them by way of warning and exhortation. Though I will go on in this letter to reflect on the end-time aspect of this chapter, I hope that the pastoral and personal aspect will not be lost.
As promised, this coming Sunday I plan to do what I call a running commentary or running exposition of Mark chapter 13, the Olivet discourse. In the interest of time and clarity, my exposition will reflect certain tentative conclusions I have reached about the chapter. I cannot possibly explain in any reasonable time allotment how every end-time perspective views every verse of the chapter. I understand however how various positions can draw support from this chapter.
As I mentioned in the sermon and in the sermon outline last Sunday however, there are, in my opinion, two approaches to the Olivet discourse in Mark 13 which could not possibly be right. These approaches are, respectively, what I call the “full preterist,” which views all of the events in the chapter as now past for us, and the “futurist,” which views all of the events of the passage as now future for us. Let me repeat here the reasons why I believe these two approaches are not possible.
I cannot accept the “futurist” approach for three primary reasons. First, Jesus has just predicted the destruction of that particular temple at which his disciples are marveling. The disciples ask him when “these things” would take place, meaning when would the stones of that specific temple be thrown down. Jesus then answers this specific question. The bulk of the chapter then has to do with how it would come to pass that that temple would be destroyed. Second, Jesus says in that “this generation” will not pass away until “these things” have happened. Which things? Minimally, the events leading up to and including the destruction of the temple, the “these things” of the disciple’s original question. Third, for the events of this chapter to be all future for us would mean that there would have to be yet another temple, which would mean some sort of reconstitution of Old Covenant Israel. I believe this possibility is excluded by the overall teaching of the New Testament. See below my reflection on Israel and the people of God for more insight into why I think the New Testament does not look to a reconstitution of Old Covenant Israel.
I cannot accept the “full preterist” approach for one primary reason. According to this approach, not only are the events leading up to and surrounding the destruction of the temple now past for us (I agree with that part), but the fullness of what the full preterists think was meant by the “coming of the Son of man” in verses 24-27 is also past for us. If this passage in Mark 13 were the only place that the “coming” of the son of man were ever mentioned, and given that this passage is an allusion to the enthronement of the son of man in Daniel 7:13, then I could almost go with the full preterist understanding. However, elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:13 – 5:11, and 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10), this coming of Jesus is presented as a very public visible universal phenomenon, not simply an unseen or local enthronement. In addition, this coming of Jesus is elsewhere associated with the resurrection. The full preterists know this too. They deal with this problem by redefining resurrection as a spiritual, and not a physical or bodily event. This, in my judgment, puts them outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy.
I thus cannot accept either the full preterist or futurist positions. Taking the ground between these two leaves open many possible approaches. Included in the possible approaches which would fit into this “middle ground,” approaches which are in my mind still viable, are various of the present day millennial views -- the historic premillennial, amillennial, and certain postmillennial perspectives. However, in the “running commentary” which I plan to do this coming Sunday, I am going to have to exposit according to how I understand the flow of the text. My goal in exegesis and exposition is not to try to fit the text into any millennial position, but to be faithful to the text. To be faithful to the text, I have to be sensitive to its historical context, to its audience, and to the fact that neither Jesus in speaking his words, nor Mark in presenting Jesus’ words, could have cared less about our millennial squabbles. We must try very hard not to try to make Jesus’ words answer questions which are not being asked of him. We must also try very hard to try to understand Jesus’ words in light of questions which are being asked of him.
But the issues raised in Mark 13 are obviously still important to us, followers of Jesus two thousand years later. It is natural to want to know how or if we fit into all this. What of the chapter does and what doesn’t apply – directly or indirectly – to us. My approach is tentative and I am still very much still learning. So that you will in a general way which direction my running exposition will take, my general view (this week) of the passage is that the events of verses 5-23 are mostly past for us, and that the events of verses 24-27 are mostly future for us. When Jesus spoke in verses 28-31 of what would happen during “this generation,” he was referring to the “these things” in the question of verse 4 and the “everything” of verse 23, that is to the events laid out in verses 5-23. When Jesus spoke in verses 32-37 of events “the day and time” of which he himself did not know, he was referring to the events laid out in verses 24-27.
I use the words “mostly” in the paragraph above (“mostly past,” “mostly future”), because I acknowledge both the possibility that the tribulations of verses 5-23 could be “typical” or representative in some way of the period of the “overlap the ages,” and the possibility that the “coming” of the son of man in verse 26 could be said to have had a partial fulfillment in the events surrounding the destruction of the temple.
I mentioned Sunday, but didn’t get to explain very well because my dry erase marker didn’t work (I’m sorry I didn’t check the marker ahead of time!), that the fact that we are living in the period of the “overlap of the ages,” or as some put it, in the “here but not yet here” of the kingdom, has a lot to do with the difficulty of getting at this passage. Let me explain what I wanted to say by that.
The Jewish people of the first century thought of themselves as living in “this age,” “this present age,” or “this present evil age,” and they awaited the day, often referred to as “the day of the Lord,” when YHWH would decisively act and usher in the “age to come.” The day of the Lord was to be a day of judgment for the enemies of YHWH, a day which brought in a new and better day for Israel the other side of judgment. This would be the day when YHWH brought in His kingdom. The coming of the kingdom of God and the coming of the age to come more or less corresponded. So what the first century Jews looked to was “the end,” not the end of this physical world or of the space time universe, but the end of “this age.”
This neat picture is complicated in the New Testament. In the ministry and preaching of Jesus we see that awaited kingdom has come, indeed that the king has come, but not exactly as expected. In fact, as we look at the entirety of the New Testament teaching about the kingdom of God, we see that though it has come, it has not yet fully and totally come. It is here, but it is not yet here completely. We still pray, “Thy kingdom come.” We still await Jesus who will come in his kingdom. This means that we live, at the same time, in “this age” and the “age to come.” “This age” will not be completely ended until Jesus returns again. But the life and power of the “age to come” has broken into this age through the new life and regeneration of the Spirit of God. For the people of Jesus, the end time judgment or verdict of “acquitted” has broken into the present life through justification. Jesus has indeed been installed as king, and is seated at the right hand of God, but we find that not all things are yet subject to him. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. Jesus has defeated evil but has not yet eradicated evil. Jesus has bound the strong man, but not yet destroyed the strong man. Tares still grow along with wheat. The kingdom, which has come, will continue to progress and grow as more and more people from every tribe and nation submit to King Jesus, and yet in the continuation of this age the people of God will find themselves in the historic ebb and flow, being persecuted, tested, and sometimes seemingly defeated.
This period of the “here, but not yet here” of the kingdom extends, in effect, the “last days” which were thought of as the latter part of “this age” and as occurring right before the end of the age. Yes, it is in the “last days” that God will pour out His Spirit (which He did at Pentecost and continues to do into the present). But it is also in the “last days” in which there will be great conflict and difficulty for the people of God. “There will be terrible times in the last days.” And so, the coming of the kingdom marked the beginning of the end of the last days, but not the final end. “This age” or “this present age” continues. We still look forward to the “end of the age” and to the “last day,” even as important aspects of the end of the age have broken into the present age.
As we bring together the neat progression of Jewish thought and the less neat reality of the “here but not full here” of the kingdom of Jesus, we can understand better some of the difficulties in interpreting and understanding Mark 13. For the Old Covenant Jew, events leading up to and surrounding the destruction of the temple by Rome could not have been more cataclysmic. His world was over. In fact, Jesus, by announcing the kingdom and himself as messianic king, was also announcing the end of an era. The coming of the kingdom and the king, as this was taught and presented by Jesus, was indeed to result in the end of the Old Covenant Jew’s world as he understood it. Israel would in fact be “redefined” around the person and ministry of Jesus. Because Jesus would provide the once for all sacrifice for sin, the temple was to be redundant. With no temple there would be no cleanliness rites, no food or dietary laws, no warnings against eating with Gentile sinners. Circumcision of course would no longer be needed. Because faith in Jesus and the coming of the Spirit would be the signs of membership in the New Covenant family, the people of God would look radically different than they had before. Because the people of God would no longer be coextensive with one nation, and no longer equal to national Israel, the people of God could anticipate living in other nations and living under the civil authority of other nations. This would not be an evil but an opportunity for the good news of Jesus to advance.
I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that it was the end of their world as they knew it. For them, the world was being turned upside down. “The end,” which they thought would include the judgment and destruction of their Gentile overlords and vindication for their temple was turning out very differently. Judgment was falling on them for their covenant unfaithfulness and wickedness, and for their rejection of the true king. Indeed, for Old Covenant Judaism, the end had come. This is why Jesus can use this language of the “end,” as he does in Mark 13, to refer to the coming destruction of the temple and utter defeat of the Jews in their war with Rome.
Yet, because there are certain ongoing conditions of life in the “here but not yet here” of the kingdom of God, some of what Jesus says in Mark 13 can be understood as “suggestive of” or “typical of” the kinds of things that will happen all through history until the kingdom is consummated. No, Jesus does not suggest that Israel will have to be reconstituted so that the temple can be destroyed again, but the sufferings described in Mark 13 may be repeated by the people of Jesus throughout the “gospel” era. Indeed, it may well be the case that prior to the consummation of the kingdom, prior to Jesus’ return, their may be a particularly bad period of tribulation for the church of Jesus Christ, which can be said to be “typified” in the sufferings of Israel in verses 5-23 of Mark 13.
Finally, we perhaps need to have a broader view of the “coming” of Jesus in the clouds mentioned in Mark 13:26. Though I believe that the image of the cloud speaks of the presence of the glory and power of God, our view of this “coming” must be informed by the Old Testament passage of which it is a direct allusion, that is, by Daniel 7:13 (you should reread this passage if you haven’t already). In Daniel 7:13 the “coming” of the son of man in the clouds is really a “presenting” of the son of man before the Ancient of Days. In this scene the son of man is enthroned, is given kingship, is given a kingdom, is given authority and dominion. Indeed, the Danielic son of man is worshipped by people of all nations and languages! Likewise, and in fulfillment of this great scene, Jesus, the son of man, himself was enthroned at the right hand of God. He also was given authority and dominion. He also, lamb upon the throne, was, and is, worshipped by every creature under heaven. Jesus has been seated high above all power and authority. Only the last enemy -- death -- awaits final defeat. Because Jesus has already been enthroned and given power and dominion (i.e., Ephesians 1:20-23), we can imagine that the “coming” in Mark 13:26, because it is an allusion to the enthronement of the son of man in Daniel 7:13, might also have an element that is, historically, past tense for us. However, this past aspect cannot exhaust the meaning o this coming, as this “coming in the clouds” is also associated with the final and very public coming of Jesus in judgment and power at the consummation of the kingdom at end of the age. We can see then that the “here but not fully here” of Jesus enthronement and rule as king leaves open the possibility that verses 24-27 of Mark 13 have, for us, a past, a present, and a future aspect.
So, again, though my purpose in expositing Mark 13 is not to try to make it fit into one of the millennial schemes, I can understand how different possible readings of the chapter (the futurist and full preterist being not possible), and different possible ways of understanding the passage in light of the more complete revelation of the New Testament, can lead to different conclusions which would fit, respectively, into the various millennial schemes – amillennial, premillennial or postmillennial.
Reflections on Israel and the people of God
When I use the word “Israel” in the title above, what I mean is something very specific. I mean that entity, that group of people, with whom God made covenant at Sinai. The “torah, or the “law,” served as the covenant document or constitution for this people. It described Israel’s obligations as a people in covenant with YHWH, and His promises to bless or curse her according to her loyalty to Him as covenant Lord. This group of people was constituted as a theocratic nation in covenant with her God. Her laws were “civil” and “religious.” They looked toward both individual and corporate obedience. This is the Israel I am referring to as Old Covenant Israel. Thought the prophets who spoke of the coming New Covenant (e.g., Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31) themselves likely envisioned the New Covenant people as also a national entity, as a renewed and revitalized and obedient national Israel, Jesus filled out the meaning of this New Covenant in his own teaching, as did the apostles in their writings.
1. One can’t legitimately conceive of Old Covenant Israel without the temple, which was its focal point, and one can’t conceive of the temple after Christ, who fulfilled its purpose. Redefining the purpose of the supposed rebuilt temple as for only “memorial” sacrifices only is a weak way out of this huge problem.
2. There is no way to conceive of national Israel without the covenant at Sinai which defined it. To have Israel is have this covenant, which is to have the Torah, or the law of Moses. To have Torah is to be under the curse of Torah. But the people of God are no longer defined by Torah, but by faith in Christ and the presence of the Spirit.
3. The language used in the Old Testament to describe the restoration of Israel is taken up by NT writers and applied either to Jesus or to coming of the Spirit or to the church. God’s covenant people would become a different – indeed a bigger and better reality – even than the prophets could have foreseen. To get a sense of this just read the first few chapters of the book of Acts. Or, read Hebrews chapter eight, and note how the writer of Hebrews takes up and applies Jeremiah’s promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31.
4. Key aspects of Old Covenant Israel are seen by the New Testament as “types” or “shadows” looking forward to greater glory of Christ. The temple is a “type” of the heavenly temple, where Messiah reigns. The animal sacrifice is a “type” of the sacrifice of Christ. Life in the land is a “type” of life in Christ. See Hebrews 8:5ff.
5. Jesus’ teaching over and over points to the redefinition of Israel. Now that the anointed king has come, loyalty to YHWH means loyalty to YHWH’s anointed king. The New Covenant people of God will be a redefined Israel, an Israel expanded if you will. There are many examples of this new definition. Jesus appoints twelve disciples, not eleven or thirteen, who are meant to make up the foundation of the new Israel, with Jesus himself being the cornerstone. Jesus includes gentiles and tax collectors and all who would respond to and be loyal to Him. He is now the center of the new people of God.
6. The coming of the kingdom was to Jesus the awaited event for Israel. This was the great news: the kingdom is here! This is the long waited event foretold by the prophets. This kingdom was announced and proclaimed, not “offered.” What was “offered” was the chance to repent, the possibility to be included in the new people of God centered around Jesus the Son of God and Messiah.
7. The rest of the New Testament teaching regarding the new people of God picture Jew and Gentile united as one people, defined by faith in Christ and not under Torah, with the wall of partition, Torah, torn down. This reality is celebrated at some length through Paul’s letters – see particularly Ephesians 2:11 - 3:13. Old Covenant Israel has morphed if you will into a new thing organically connected to the old, but a blessed and beautiful and better and long awaited new reality. The prophets pictured the Gentiles pouring to the temple in the last days for instruction and worship. Jesus redefined this. The Gentiles would come alright, but to Jesus, the new center, to Jesus, of whom the physical temple was a shadow or type.
8. The defining covenant of God turns out not to have been that given at Sinai, but that given to Abraham 400 years before. This covenant speaks of a great people who would come forth from Abraham. This covenant speaks of a seed or descendent of Abraham, through whom blessing would come to the whole world. This seed was understood to be Israel, and then, representing her, Jesus. Through Israel, the seed of Abraham, the blessing of God would come to the world. How did this end up happening? By Jesus, representing Israel, defeating evil on the cross and rising victorious from the grave. By Jesus, as a real human being, living a life of perfect obedience to God, fulfilling God’s purpose for humanity and for Israel. The New Testament unambiguously presents the covenant with Abraham as being fulfilled in this Christ. Thus, the true “seed” of Abraham are not descendents of Abraham after the flesh, nor are they simply the people of Old Covenant Israel. Rather, all of those who are in Christ are now descendents of Abraham, the covenant people of God. The people of God, that group which knows the blessing of relationship to Him, has become bigger and broader than one little nation on little piece of real-estate in Palestine.
9. Old Covenant Israel and her Torah, is shown to have had a definite and a necessary, but a limited role, in the flow of God’s plan for history, and that role has now been fulfilled in Christ (see Galatians 3:15-25).
10. The church, made up of those who have believed in Jesus, is now called the “Israel” of God. God continues to have a special place for Israel after the flesh. He has and will further graft a remnant of them back into Messiah.
|
 |
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
