In the next scene of Mark’s Gospel narrative, we find Jesus atop Mount Olives, and four of his disciples, Peter, Andrew, James and John came to him to ask him to expand upon what he claimed about the Temple (Mark 13:3-4). Immediately, one needs to ask, why only these four? Hadn’t Jesus taught the whole Twelve on many other occasions? Nothing can be set in stone, because none of the Synoptics tell us why only four disciples came to Jesus. However, we might assume there were other disciples with the Twelve, and Jesus may not have wanted others to know at that time what he would tell only the Twelve (cp. Matthew 20:17-19; Mark 4:10; 10:32; Luke 18:31). The other eight apostles may have kept whoever else was with them away from Jesus, while the four went to Jesus privately.
The four disciples asked Jesus: “when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?” (Mark 13:4). These things obviously refer to the destruction of the Temple, but one has to wonder why the disciples need a sign that would tell them when those things were fulfilled or completed. Obviously, if the Temple is destroyed, one doesn’t need a sign to tell them so. It is either destroyed or it isn’t. Therefore, the sign was needed to tell the disciples what other things, which also needed to be accomplished were, indeed, fulfilled.
Matthew records that the disciples asked: “when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matthew 24:3). Luke records: “when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?” (Luke 21:7). All three Synoptics begin with when shall these things be, which refers to the destruction of the Temple. However, both Mark’s and Luke’s second phrase seems vague. Only Matthew defines what the other things are and for which a sign was needed.
According to Matthew a sign was needed to tell Jesus’ disciples
- a) when the Lord’s coming was fulfilled, and
- b) when the end of the world / age had occurred.
These are the other things to which both Mark and Luke only vaguely refer. Why, then, did the disciples need a sign for them. Obviously, if the Messiah reigned from Jerusalem on a physical throne, as the scribes and Pharisees taught (John 6:15; 7:3-4; 12:12-13, 34; Matthew 16:12, 21-22), one wouldn’t need a sign to know it had come to pass, nor would they need a sign that they lived in a new age, and that the old age had passed away (cp. Hebrews 8:13).
The word, parousia (G3952), is often used in the New Covenant text for what has been referred to as Jesus’ second coming (1Corinthians 15:23; 1Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23 etc.). It can also refer to the coming or arrival of a man (2Corinthians 7:6-7). In the Papyri it is often used of the arrival or visitation of a king, emperor or other dignitary to a city. Knowing these things, it begs the question: if the Jewish nation were destroyed, which would have to have occurred, if the Temple were destroyed, because no Jew would stand by and permit such a thing to happen without making war with its enemy, …if both the nation and the Temple ceased to exist, what would be the sign of Jesus coming? Coming to what? Over what and over whom would he rule? A destroyed Temple simply wasn’t within the context of Jesus’ disciples’ understanding of the Messiah coming to save his people from their enemies!
Moreover, if the coming of the Messiah to power resulted in the beginning of a new age, what would be the sign that the old age was fulfill, because, obviously, if the new age begins with the coming of the Messiah, everyone and everything couldn’t be destroyed, because in that context Messiah would be King over nothing. So, were does the old age end (Deuteronomy 31:29), how does it end, and what is left for Messiah to govern?
Smoodock's Blog 