Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Read – Luke 21:1-38 With Jesus’ question regarding how the Messiah could be both David’s Lord and David’s son the dispute between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem comes to an end. While we have noted that Luke has basically been following Mark there are a few things that we should note about how Luke has edited his source. First of all Luke has transferred the responsibility for the dispute squarely upon the religious establishment in Jerusalem and away from the Pharisees. Jesus has disputed with the Pharisees in the past but Luke has characterized that dispute as at least somewhat friendly. Jesus has eaten with many Pharisees. Once the scene moves to Jerusalem the Pharisees disappear and the far more hostile religious establishment of the chief priests, scribes, and principle men of the city are the antagonists. Secondly, Luke has transformed the dispute to demonstrate that what is really happening is that Jesus is reclaiming the turf. Jesus is not against Jerusalem but only against the religious establishment and he “takes back” the main site of Jewish faith. Third, along with this is Luke’s transforming the story in such a way that the Temple remains a positive place. For all intents a purposes Mark’s Jesus comes to destroy the Temple – it has become irrelevant – Luke’s Jesus knows that the Temple will indeed be destroyed but that will be a great tragedy. Luke’s Jesus deeply laments the rejection of Jerusalem and the consequent destruction that will result. All of these differences might be rather subtle but they do shade the story – and they probably provide part of the answer to why Luke decided to write an “orderly account” in order to proclaim the truth as he understood it. Luke is not critical of Mark – he just knows that another voice is needed. Both Mark and Luke are right in their proclamation. Once the controversy has come to silence Mark provides his readers with a great contrast between the religious leaders who love to appear as righteous and of high standing but actually devour widows through their self-righteousness and a poor widow who actually fulfills true righteousness by giving all she has into the Temple treasury – the very institution that is devouring her. For the most part Luke simply follows Mark with little change. Mark had a way of lifting up many of the “unnamed” people as worthy examples of true discipleship. That technique has been less important for Luke – but this woman certainly is such a character for him too. Luke has told stories of wealthy people who are invited to “sell all they have, give to the poor, and come and follow Jesus” – this woman does exactly that. She and Zacchaeus are Luke’s prime witness about how to handle wealth. Luke has actually dealt with some of this material regarding the woe against the religious establishment earlier in his gospel in the chapter 11. There he weaved bits of material from here in Mark’s gospel with more material he found in “Q” – at this point in Matthew’s story he presents and extended discussion of the woes against the Pharisees that sounds a lot like Luke 11. One of the most important events that happened in the last two thirds of the first century was the Jewish revolt and subsequent war against the Romans – 66-70 AD. That war was the result of a long period of frustration for the Jewish people that had been brewing since at least the reign of Herod the Great. Herod was the puppet of Rome and deeply despised. Following his death and the emergence of his sons as rulers and eventually the Roman governors of Judea the situation did not get better but rather became worse and worse. Eventually something had to happen and the Jewish War was the final straw. It was a foolish move on the part of the Jews – they had no chance to win – however their resolve was fed in some ways by “messianic fervor” on the part of some who thought that if they acted God would deliver them. It was a desperate time. The material that is sometimes referred to as the “synoptic apocalypse” which is found in the thirteenth chapter of Mark, the twenty-first chapter of Luke, and the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew is all about this event. In fact, a good case can be made that the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was one of the catalysts that spurred Mark to write his gospel – it may not have been the main motivation for Mark but likely was one of them. The Jewish War and its outcome which resulted in the total destruction of the Temple caused a great crisis within Judaism. What does it mean for Judaism to have lost its center? How is the faith to go forward? The aftermath of the Jewish War saw the annihilation of the religious establishment in Jerusalem – the Sadducees disappear from history as do the rebellious Zealots. The Chief Priests and the High Priest no longer have any power. Only the Pharisees and the Christians remain – and we do need to remember that at that time Christianity was still at heart a form of Judaism. Mark’s answer was to make the claim that the most important event in the first century was not the Jewish War but the death and resurrection of Jesus that happen about thirty years before that war. For Mark, the crucifixion of Jesus marked the end of the Temple – the curtain is torn in two and God is set loose in the world through the risen Jesus. Each of the gospel writers needed to deal with the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple. For the most part John simply ignores it. But Mark addresses it squarely in chapter thirteen and as a consequence Luke and Matthew who use Mark as their main source must also address it. Of course Mark cannot tell the story as a “current event” within the “storyline” of his gospel. So the event it told as a prediction of what is to happen – and there is every reason to believe that Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. That Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem is not much in question – anyone could see that coming. How to explain what happened and why is a deeper issue and Mark is the first to take it on. It is likely that Mark wrote his gospel during or just shortly after the Jewish War and that Mark seems convinced that the war and the destruction of the Temple was a sign of the impending end of all things and the promised return of Jesus in the clouds of heaven. Interpreters of Mark have long sought how to deal with the words of Jesus recorded by Mark in which Jesus says, “This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Mark 13:30). Did Jesus get it wrong? Or, did Mark? What did Jesus mean? We will get to Luke’s dealing with this issue later. In fact, now that we have set the stage for the discussion, it will be helpful to look more closely at how Luke edits Mark’s story to make it his own. Actually Luke had already begun to deal with this matter earlier in his gospel. In the seventeenth chapter Luke told us that the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming and Jesus told them “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:20-21). These words are found only in Luke! He is already dealing with what he found in Mark 13. At that point in the story Luke tells us that Jesus goes on explain further to his disciples about all of this warning them about those who say of the coming Son of Man, “Lo, here!” or “Lo, there!” since the coming of the Son of Man will as obvious as “the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other” (Luke 17:24). Luke does not share Mark’s perception that the destruction of the Temple is a sign of the promised coming of the Son of Man. As we return now to Mark 13, the first thing to observe is that while Luke is obviously using Mark as his source he also makes significant changes. First of all Jesus makes his declaration within the Temple itself and not from the Mount of Olives as Mark has it (Mark 13:3). This has more to do with Luke’s appreciation for the Temple but it already says something about what Luke intends. The disciples are not the audience for Jesus’ words in Luke – an unspecified group within the Temple is. This is no private speech to the insiders as it is in Mark but for all to hear. To be fair to Mark he does warn against listening to false prophets who will lead many astray – Mark sees these things as the “beginning of the suffering” and not the end itself (Mark 13:6-8). Significantly though, Luke does not see these things as the beginning of anything! – he leaves out Mark’s words about that (Luke 21:8-11). When Mark arrives at was for him the crux of the matter – the “desolating sacrelige” – Luke changes to a description of Jerusalem “surrounded by armies” (Mark 13:14 compared to Luke 21:20). The “desolating sacrilege” was a code word that linked back to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC which led to the Maccabean Revolt. While that story is not found directly in our Bible we hear of it in the vision of Daniel which are about that very event in 168 BC (Daniel 9:27 & 12:11). Mark saw this as a clear sign that the end was about to happen. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was almost certainly what Mark is referring to as the “desolating sacrilege” – and Luke certainly takes it that way by making it even more evident – but Luke also removes the destruction of Jerusalem as a sign of the end – it is just part of what happens in this world! While Mark tells us that the tribulation will be so great that if God had not shortened those days the whole world would be lost (Mark 13:19-20), Luke sees the destruction of Jerusalem as the outpouring of God’s wrath which will lead to the unspecified “time of the Gentiles” – a time that Luke likely envisioned as lasting for awhile (Luke 21:23-24). Of course Luke would be amazed that almost 2000 years have gone by! – but his subtle dealing with Mark does demonstrate that he is not willing to view the destruction of the Temple as the sign of the end. Luke omits Mark’s further warning at this point not to be led astray by false prophets (Mark 13:21-23). When he picks Mark up again, Mark is speaking of the radical events in nature that mark the coming “Day of the Lord” which Mark used to bring that whole tradition from the OT into his account. This language sound a lot like Luke’s contention that the coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning lighting up the sky. These signs are the genuine ones that will be evident to all that the promised coming of the Son of Man is indeed being fulfilled. One could make an argument that this is what Jesus actually said when questioned by his disciples and that Mark is the one who mistakenly associated the destruction of the Temple with the immediate end. A case can be made that this is what Luke has done. That Jesus will return as promised is not in question either for Luke or for Mark – Jesus did promise exactly that. It is the perception of the meaning of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that is at question. Because Mark had now moved to the “day of the Lord” material, Luke can retain Mark’s declaration of Jesus that “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Mark 13:30-31 = Luke 21:32-33). Perhaps Mark was also leaving a way out since his final comments are “of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father in heaven” (Mark 13:32). Luke omits Mark’s “parable” of the owner of the house who leaves his servants in charge and commands them to watch for his return (Mark 13:33-37). This is one more subtle way in which Luke has moved away from thinking of the return of Jesus as immediate – Luke would not be opposed to watching, but the need in not immediate. Luke has used some of this material from Mark 13:32-33 elsewhere in his gospel (Mark 13:33-34 = Luke 19:12-13; Mark 13:35 = Luke 12:40; and Mark 13:36-37 = Luke 12:38). The point is that Luke envisions at least a somewhat longer period of time elapsing before the promised return of Jesus that Mark does. As if in anticipation of the lengthened time, Luke sums up this section by warning his readers not to be “weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, that the day come upon you suddenly, like a snare for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth” (Luke 21:34-35). Only those who expect an extended time need such a warning. Luke has modified Mark’s view but he has retained the fact that an end will come. That is what is most important! Luke concludes with words that bring us back to the present time. He tells us that Jesus spend every day in the Temple teaching the many who came to hear (Luke 21:37-38).