The Olivet Discourse in Mark 13
(avg. read time: 14–28 mins.)
Previously, we addressed Matthew’s Olivet Discourse, the longest version of this speech in the Synoptic Gospels. This time, we will be examining Mark’s. As with my analysis of Matthew’s version, I will begin with outlining the number of interpretive issues concerning this text. 1) How is Jesus’s initial declaration of what will happen to the temple related to the rest of the discourse, especially his coming? 2) Are the disciples asking separate questions (and, if so, how many), or are they asking one question with multiple parts that are assumed to be related? 3) Does Jesus answer the disciples and, if so, when does he answer what? 4) This discourse is clearly shaped by drawing on expectations and imagery from the OT, but how does this text use those texts? 5) What is the nature of his coming? 6) What did Jesus mean when he said that “this generation” will not pass away until “all these things” happen? 7) What does Jesus’s lack of knowledge about the day or hour and the instruction to be watchful apply to?
1) How is Jesus’s initial declaration of what will happen to the temple related to the rest of the discourse?
Although Jesus’s conflict with the Jewish leadership will ultimately result in his crucifixion, at the beginning of ch. 13 he points beyond that to a time when judgment will be executed on the leadership in Jerusalem. Such a declaration serves as a culmination of the conflict that has been brewing particularly over the last few chapters, but which has been in place for a while (2:23–3:6; 3:22–30; 7:1–23; 8:11–21). Chapter 11 involves Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem and trip to the temple in which he made the clearest demonstration of the subversive nature of his message in relation to the Jewish hierarchy and common Jewish beliefs concerning the temple. Chapter 12 opens with a parable that features a two-level use of judgment imagery, and the rest of the chapter features further confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish hierarchy over issues of politics/economics, resurrection, interpretation of the Torah, and the identity of the Messiah. Jesus then harshly rebukes the scribes in 12:38–40 for their love of pomposity and their exploitation of the widows, described in terms of devouring their houses, and promising them that they will receive a greater condemnation. This is immediately followed by the story of the widow who puts two lepta in the temple treasury, and Jesus says that she put in more than anyone else, for she gave all that she had out of her poverty (12:41–44). Given such a build-up, including a symbolic destruction of the temple, and the undermining of popular standards of holiness as well as what it means to be a follower of the God of Israel, the explosive start to ch. 13 only makes sense.
From a distance from Jerusalem, one of the disciples points to the temple complex as something impressive. But Jesus says that a time is coming when a stone will not be left on another here. This phrasing is reminiscent of Hag 2:15 where “stone upon stone” signified construction. As such, Jesus’s description represents its reversal in taking apart and throwing down (cf. 2 Sam 17:13; Jer 51:26). There is an element of hyperbole here, as often in prophecy, as the Western Wall (a.k.a. the Wailing Wall), a retaining wall for the temple complex, was not completely taken apart, as these rocks weigh tons. But his prophesied destruction of the temple many Jews thought to signify God’s presence among them came to pass in 70 CE.1
This prediction at a minimum links the discourse to the relatively near future, one which his audience could live to see happen, provided that their lives were not cut short. That is, it is not concerned with a far-flung future in which “these things” that they see would not exist and instead be replaced by similar structures in the same place. It is this prediction that inspires the disciples’ question about “when these things will happen” (13:4). Nothing indicates that Jesus ignores this question while addressing something else or that the timeframe completely changes in the disciples’ question or in Jesus’s answer.
2) Are the disciples asking separate questions (and, if so, how many), or are they asking one question with multiple parts that are assumed to be related?
As noted in the entry on Matthew’s Olivet Discourse, there are variations in the questions posed, but Jesus’s response does not vary as widely as the varied questions might imply (the answers follow much of the same structure and share much of their contents, after all). In Mark’s case, it is more difficult to build an argument that we are dealing with two completely different timeframes. Grammatically, we have one imperative of request followed by an interrogative “when” (πότε) and the verb “will happen” (ἔσται) that is gapped in the next clause, which is begun with an interrogative “what” (τί). Thus, while it would be grammatically possible to divide v. 4 into two questions, this is unlikely to work pragmatically, as the second part asks about the sign when “these things” (also in the first clause) are about to be accomplished (or consummated). As such, it is better to take this as one question with two parts, one concerning when what Jesus said will happen and the other concerning the sign that the denouement of all these things is about to happen. There is no implied distinction in content between “these things” in the first part and “these things” in the second part.
The disciples ask for a sign in both Matthew and Mark, but in the former instance it is the sign of his coming/arrival and of the end of the age, while in the latter instance it is the sign that these things are about to be accomplished/consummated. The answers to the questions in each Gospel may imply significant similarity in the questions, but they need not be considered completely overlapping. After all, Jesus never points to a “sign” with the vocabulary of a “sign” (σημεῖον) in the discourse, unlike in Matthew. There, the “sign” of his parousia was simply his parousia in the heavens. But here, the “sign” simply concerns all these things, not an event that is assumed to be connected with them.
3) Does Jesus answer the disciples and, if so, when does he answer what?
Jesus’s answer to the disciples is, in some ways, a more straightforward answer to the question than in the Matthean version, not least because the question is simplified, although Jesus does give both more and less than the disciples asked for. He gives “more” in the sense that the question as presented did not ask about his coming (here used with the simple verb ἔρχομαι, rather than the noun from Matthew), but he relates it to “all these things” in any case. He gives “less” in the sense that he does not directly answer concerning the matter of “when,” except with general statements and one sign that is not explicitly identified as such. While he does broadly answer the question—thereby undermining an entirely futurist reading of this text, lest Jesus be avoiding the question or giving the disciples a conflicting answer—he still operates consistently with the statement from Acts 1:7: “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has set by his own authority.”
In fact, when Jesus begins his response, he does not directly answer the “when” question at all. Instead, he begins with an imperative that the disciples are to see that none of them is deceived. After all, there will be many who come in his name saying, “I am,” and will deceive many others (13:5–6). Then he provides some rather generic indications—wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, and famines—that could fit any time period (13:6–8). He tells them not to be troubled, since these things must happen, and the disciples are to endure them, because the completion of what he is talking about has not yet come (13:7). In fact, though these things and other more spectacular events are designated as signs of an expected time in other Second Temple literature (Sib. Or. 2.154–173; 3.796–808; 6.11–28; 9.1–13), Jesus does not designate them as signs. These things are only the beginning, and the disciples are not to get swept up in them.
Even vv. 9–13 are not a direct answer to the “when” question. Rather, Jesus warns his disciples of the affliction they will face on his behalf. But he promises that the one who perseveres to the end, to the completion of trials, will be saved (13:13). The only temporal indication the disciples are given is in v. 10, as the gospel of the kingdom is to be proclaimed to all the nations. This statement could be read as more open-ended than Matthew’s οἰκουμένη, or it could be read as an equivalent, which seems reasonable without any positive reason working against it. To reiterate, by 70 CE, the indications are that the Gospel had indeed spread across the Roman Empire and even beyond. Even from the beginning in Acts 2, the pilgrims the apostles evangelized to were from as far away as Parthia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Pontus, Libya, Rome, and other places besides (2:9–11). Philip evangelized to a eunuch from Ethiopia in the early years of the movement (Acts 8). It had already reached Rome by the end of the 40s CE, as Aquila and Priscilla (at the least the former of whom was from Pontus) had been banished from there along with other Jews (Acts 18:2). All this statement would need to mean is the proclamation throughout the empire. This could indicate that the timeframe of fulfillment for this text is still future, but one should remember that the term for “end” (τέλος) in v. 13 is by no means a technical term for the eschaton or for any point in time related thereto. More generally, it has the sense of “end” as in “completion,” “conclusion,” or “goal” (when purpose is more pronounced). It is not used again after v. 13, which seems to indicate that τέλος in the context of these events refers to the completion of these things, which arrives in v. 14 (cf. Heb 3:14; 6:11; Rev 2:26).
Indeed, it is in v. 14 that Jesus gives the disciples the sign that the foretold destruction of Jerusalem is about to be accomplished, since this is the thing that they see that has an actionable response. That is, “whenever” they “see” the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, that which was spoken of through Daniel (cf. Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), that is when it is time to flee (13:14–18). But there is still some ambiguity here, as Jesus says to pray that the flight does not happen in winter, as he is not guaranteeing that it will not happen in winter.
Of course, vv. 19–20 are indications that are often taken to refer to something beyond the scope of the First Jewish War with Rome and the siege of Jerusalem. After all, we are told that there will be tribulation or suffering such as has not happened from the beginning of the world until that time, nor will there ever be one like it again. While it is hardly a conclusive point one way or the other for someone to argue that events like the Holocaust could be considered worse than this destruction, it is also beside the point. This is rather like statements from Ezek 5:9 and Joel 2:2, the former of which has a more clearly identified historical context that people would also suggest was not “the worst ever.” One might suggest that this text is more like Dan 12:1, where the statement of climactic suffering is followed by the eschatological promise of final salvation and resurrection for contrasting everlasting fates (Dan 12:2–3; implying judgment, although there is no judgment scene). However, that text is differentiated from Mark 13:19 and the other OT examples by the fact that it only says that there will be nothing like it before “since a nation has existed,” while Matthew and the other texts say there will not be another like the tribulation described, which indicates an expectation that there would be other tribulations, but the significance of this one is being highlighted as part of standard prophetic rhetoric. The same point applies to v. 20, where the phrase “none of all flesh” or “no flesh” as the subject of survival is often taken to indicate a sort of universal calamity. In fact, this phrase, too, can refer to “all flesh” within a local restriction, as fits with the local focus of this prediction (cf. Jer 12:2; 45:4–5). Finally, Jesus reiterates the warning from the start of his response about false messiahs and false prophets who will arise to deceive (13:21–23).
Although Jesus has answered the question at this point, he goes on to add that “in those days after that tribulation,” these cosmic events will happen, and the Son of Man will be seen (13:24–26). And, as in Matthew, after the Son of Man comes with great power and glory, he sends the angels to gather the elect throughout the world (13:27). The rest of the teaching is then concerned with matters of timing and how to conduct oneself while awaiting the time to come. We must explore more about the nature of this coming below, but first we must consider another issue that suffuses this teaching.
4) This discourse is clearly shaped by drawing on expectations and imagery from the OT, but how does this text use those texts?
As Jesus sits on the Mount of Olives opposite (κατέναντι) the temple to proclaim this teaching, he also sits before a great mountain range of prophetic tradition, with some peaks being more prominent than others. These prominent peaks include Isa 13–14; Jer 50–51; Ezek 4–7; Dan 7; 9; and Zech 13–14. I have already noted the use of the last text in published work on this passage, as well as some additional connections here for the Matthean version. The others are also readily noted in any detailed commentary on the Olivet Discourse. The variety of intertextual connections is especially dense around the sections about the tribulation that comes with the abomination of desolation and about the coming of the Son of Man.
These texts are not the only OT connections, as noted before, but they are the most prominent sources thereof. The texts from Isaiah and Jeremiah concern the judgment of destruction that comes upon Babylon. The Ezekiel text concerns the first destruction of Jerusalem that came with the destruction of the temple. The connections to Daniel are the most apparent, in that the abomination of desolation evokes Dan 9 and the reference to the Son of Man’s arrival in the clouds is directly drawn from Dan 7. In both texts, there is also a context of suffering for the faithful that is followed by judgment. The same applies to Zech 13–14, which also shows its influence particularly on the description of the Son of Man’s arrival as being like the coming of God.
With such different texts being used as reference points, the question arises as to how these texts are being used. Different views tend to accentuate different texts. For example, those who say that the coming in this text is a heavenly arrival or appearance of sorts may argue that this text should be read line with Dan 7, so that Jesus is essentially saying, “this is when that vision will come to fruition.” On the other hand, in Paul Sloan’s dissertation that I referenced previously, he argues against what he calls the “temple only” view of the timeframe for this coming on the basis of the fact that the Zechariah allusion leads the reader to expect the salvation of Jerusalem after this coming. But is one indeed expected to follow such logic given how Jerusalem has now taken the place of Babylon, and how Jerusalem’s own initial destruction is evoked here?
Of course, readers generally recognize that Jesus and the Gospel authors use Scripture in a variety of ways. This passage itself is evidence of that, as Jerusalem is now in place of Babylon, the language and imagery of the initial destruction is now reapplied, and the elect are not gathered to Jerusalem. Jesus’s discourse itself leads us to expect that these texts and others are being applied in what may be unexpected ways. This fits with how the gospel story itself sheds new light on Scripture, including through fulfillment in unexpected ways. Likewise, what I have observed about the christological center of gravity that affects how the Zechariah text in particular applies is also applicable here to the other texts. The many sins of the leadership in Jerusalem are expected to be reckoned to them, and so the Ezekiel text is a natural reference point for referring to the second destruction. But this is also done in a context where the Jerusalem leadership has rejected Jesus. The place of this text after the series of controversies when Jesus came to Jerusalem accentuates the christological significance of the coming judgment. The Daniel texts have a more direct application to Christology, as Jesus identifies himself with the Son of Man. These texts do provide a framework for understanding Jesus’s teaching, but only in respect to how he applies them. And in this case, he applies the allusions to the Zechariah text primarily in reference to himself, not to Jerusalem. After all, there is no indication that the temple is destroyed in Zechariah, so it is not clear by what means the disciples would be expected to make such an inference as Sloan suggests.
5) What is the nature of his coming?
Unlike in Matthew, the term “Parousia” is never used here. But that hardly prevents people from conflating the description with the term from Matthew and of conflating Matthew’s term with the Second Coming. This is certainly an understandable way of reading the text, but is this necessarily the case?
Although there were, in fact, phenomena in the heavens around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, as both Josephus and Tacitus attest (Josephus, J.W. 6.289–299; Tacitus, Hist. 5.13), it would not need to be so for this description to apply to that event, any more than the apparent lack of signs in the sun and moon on Pentecost in Acts 2 meant that Joel 2:28–32 could not be applied there.2 Moreover, one ought to consider the main point that gravitationally draws the aforementioned texts to Jesus’s teaching, which concerns a divine reckoning—even an appearance in some fashion—wherein judgment is executed, with the result of vindication for the faithful. This is especially poignant in Jesus’s case, as he will invoke the same imagery from Dan 7 (as well as Ps 110) in his trial to refer to his coming vindication over his accusers.
Verses 21–23 contrast the messianic claimants and false prophets with Jesus, as Jesus tells them to watch out for them. While Matthew made the point about visibility more expressly than Mark, that contrast is nevertheless an implication of what Mark keeps of the heavenly portents of Jesus’s coming. This is one of the pieces of evidence that seems to most intuitively fit the Second Coming interpretation. But what about the judgment/vindication view that could apply to the Second Coming or not? The coming in judgment would be much more visible than the comings of the messianic claimants and false prophets, since they would be the ones who suffer judgment while Jesus would be the one who pronounced it and would take part in it. This would clearly set him apart from them. In terms of a coming in vindication, the destruction of Jerusalem would vindicate the one who set himself against the temple, yet still claimed to be the Messiah. This fulfillment of his prophecy would thus vindicate what Jesus said, meaning that the temple and the hierarchy that opposed him were in the wrong while Jesus was in the right. More specifically, the royal and divine dimensions would shine through in Jesus’s claims to be the harbinger of the kingdom and, in fact, the incarnate representative of YHWH himself becoming vindicated when his opponents are shown to be wrong. The destruction of Jerusalem would be a sign of Jesus’s coming in vindication in the heavenly court—properly crowned in majesty as the one through whom God brought his kingdom—and a sign that the end of the age of exile has come, since the bringer of the kingdom and the age of restoration had come. Though the arrival and the end of the age had occurred before Jerusalem fell as far as Jesus and the Christians were concerned, this particular sign of it would not appear in the specific context of Jesus’s opposition to the temple until 70. This would be similar to the overlap in ages of Israel’s history when it had undergone the exodus but would not truly realize its exodus until it came into the promised land forty years later.
As for vv. 24–26, two points in this immediate context tip the scales in favor of seeing here a judgment/vindication coming separate from the Second Coming. One, the description, “in those days after that tribulation/suffering,” in v. 24 connects what follows with what preceded in a close chronological bond (note “those days” in vv. 17, 19 and “tribulation/suffering” in v. 19). Second, as in the trial scene, Jesus invokes Dan 7 as an image for his vindication, though now it is over the leaders who rejected him (particularly those in Jerusalem) and not only over gentile kingdoms, as one might have expected. According to this interpretation, after the destruction of Jerusalem, but still in the scope of “those days,” would come the realization that Jesus had been vindicated in his claims against the temple and in general (note that there is no clear subject for the third-person plural in v. 26, which indicates we are dealing with an impersonal construction here).
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the view I am inclined to favor is v. 27. It is true that ἄγγελος could be translated as “angel” or “messenger,” but the former seems to be the most appropriate in this context, not least because of the similar teaching in 8:38. As the other text fits the context of the Second Coming and final judgment, it would seem that the implication here is that this gathering will be for judgment and vindication of the elect. It may not be that straightforward, though, as this gathering only refers to the elect, and thus could still have a connection with evangelization. As also is the case with Matthew, this text could be read as referring to what will happen in the Second Coming, but it still makes sense in the context of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem as something of an advance sign of the final judgment, rather than of the initiation of the final judgment itself.
Naturally, a problem that remains with this reading is how anticlimactic it feels to those of us who read this text so many centuries after Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE. It does not seem as compelling, as impressive as what would justify the descriptions Jesus gives. No doubt, one might say the same of many texts in the Prophets about coming judgments on this or that city or nation. And again, the impression is also a product of working on the assumption that this text serves as a reference to the Second Coming. It is well enough implied elsewhere in the Gospels, but it is not really something that comes to the fore until the events of Acts 1 with Jesus’s ascension and the promise spoken through the angels. That helps the disciples to reconcile those aspects of Jesus’s teaching that speak of his involvement in the eschatological judgment and other eschatological promises with the fact that he ascended into heaven after his resurrection before doing all of those things.
6) What did Jesus mean when he said that “this generation” will not pass away until “all these things” happen?
There are actually three issues packed into this one. First, what is “this generation”? Second, what does Jesus refer to when he says, “all these things”? Third, in what sense should we understand the verb for “happen”?
On the first issue, we have what appears to be the strongest statement in favor of linking the Olivet Discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem and not to a still future coming of Christ. Indeed, it was statements like this that have led many scholars over the years—perhaps most famously, Albert Schweitzer—to claim that Jesus—or the disciples attributing these words to him—was actually wrong in his prediction, since he did not return within a generation. The majority of commentators and other scholars who have written extensively on this passage that share some kind of split-reference perspective—wherein part refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the rest refers to the time of the Second Coming—do so on the force of the point that Jesus says this generation will not pass away before these things happen. One cannot easily avoid the force of the statement about “this generation” considering that every time the phrase appears in the Gospels, it is in reference to Jesus’s own generation. There are only two other cases here in Mark (8:12, 38), in addition to what we have seen from Matthew, but there are no counterexamples.
Of course, various attempts have been made to find an alternative understanding, particularly for the sake of preserving the Second Coming interpretation of this text. One idea, as represented by John Chrysostom, despite his interpretation favoring the reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, is that “this generation” is to be identified as the Church. But there is no evidence of such a usage by Jesus. One of the more popular alternatives historically has been to interpret the term for “generation” (γενεά) as meaning something like “race.” But this proposal is put forth absent any clear NT example of such usage; it is simply a convenience to uphold an interpretation held on other grounds. Somewhat related to this is the idea that γενεά refers to a “kind” of person that will not pass away until this time. But this view has as little in its favor as the previous one. What also works against all of these interpretations is the fact that v. 30 comes in the context of vv. 28–30, which emphasizes timing and understanding the times. As such, a chronological sense of “this generation” is expected here. A further alternative is self-referential, meaning that “this generation” is “the generation that will see all these things come to pass.” But if that were the case, one would wonder why this one use of the phrase is exceptional to the other uses or why Jesus was not clearer in saying “that generation.”
On the second issue, there is often an attempt here to use this phrase (ταῦτα πάντα) as a justification for partitioning the unit about Jesus’s coming from the rest of the teaching to this point. This partitioning is also then used to connect that unit to Jesus’s statement about no one knowing the day or the hour. But this comes with a vain attempt to connect “all these things” to v. 4 and thus only with the destruction of the temple without any reference to the events surrounding the coming, which ignores the force of the “in those days” combined with the “after.” This is also an odd way to process discourse, as in every case this phrase or a similar one is used outside of this text and its parallels, there is never any indication that something that preceded “all these things” in the context, much less something that immediately preceded the unit, should perforce be excluded when it is not intuitive to do so (cf. Matt 13:34, 51, 56; 19:20; 23:36; 24:2, 8; 26:1; Mark 7:23; 10:20; 13:4; Luke 1:65; 2:19, 51; 7:18; 12:30; 16:14; 18:21; 21:12, 36; 24:9, 14; John 15:21; Acts 7:50; 24:18; Rom 8:37; 1 Cor 12:11; 2 Cor 5:18; Col 3:14; 1 Thess 4:6; 2 Pet 3:11). Even if one could argue that this case in the Olivet Discourse is exceptional because Jesus himself may provide some qualification in placing “all these things” before the “he” or “it” that is near (13:29), whereas none of these other examples have such potential qualifications in the immediate context, the fact remains that “these things” are sources of knowledge for the subject being “near.” As such, this description would reinforce the “in those days, after that tribulation” in v. 24.
On the third issue, the suggestion sometimes comes up that the γένηται in 13:30 is an ingressive aorist. That is, the aorist would refer to when the action of the verb is initiated: this generation will not pass away until all these things begin to happen. This interpretation is helpful to futurist and historicist interpretations, but that appears to be the only reason to favor its use here. While this suggestion could be more probable if we were dealing with an aorist indicative, which more often indicates absolute as opposed to relative time, the aorist subjunctive can actually suggest the opposite. The subjunctive and future indicative often shaded into each other, particularly in this time, the subjunctive could be used to refer to an indefinite future, and the aorist subjunctive in particular could actually have the sense of a future perfect (as in Rom 11:27; 1 Cor 15:24–28, 54), meaning, “until all these things will have happened.” (On these points about the aorist subjunctive, see here and my published version of the same.)
7) What does Jesus’s lack of knowledge about the day or hour and the instruction to be watchful apply to?
After the ultimate affirmation of the durability of Jesus’s words in 13:31, Jesus then declares that no one knows about that day or hour, not even him, but only his Father (13:32). Some read this statement as being in tension with v. 30 and thus as being an indication of referring to a different time than v. 30. Of course, such a supposition seems to stem from an imagination that cannot make sense of such statements as, “I don’t know when it will be, but it will be sometime this month.” This is not a self-contradictory statement, but a statement about the lack of precision in knowledge.
In case one thinks, as people often think with Matthew, that vv. 33–37 apply strictly to the Second Coming because of the unknown time, presumably in contradistinction with vv. 28–29, it is important to remember that this instruction is capable of multivalent reading because of the connection between the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming. This connection does not have to do with their temporal proximity, but with other theological issues, such as the relationship of the Son of Man with the events in question, and the need for watchfulness in both cases. As in Matthew, what one watches for is not “signs” per se, as they were not the object of watching in the teaching to this point. The abomination of desolation is implicitly indicated to be the sign the disciples were asking for, but it is not explicitly designated as such. Besides the abomination of desolation, all of the other events have no direct action attached to them for the disciples’ instruction. These other events are not an indication of the time being near, even if they are often read that way. At no point are the disciples actually told to look for signs, even if they are told what to do when they happen to see the abomination of desolation.
In fact, it is only after all of these things that Jesus first instructs his disciples to “keep watch” (γρηγορεῖτε) in 13:34–35, 37. This instruction is further supported by instructions to “watch” (βλέπετε) and “keep alert” (ἀγρυπνεῖτε) that were not present in the Matthean equivalent. All of these words function similarly here, but as with Matthew we will focus on γρηγορεῖτε, since it is introduced and repeated here. The word is related to a common word for resurrection—ἐγείρω—since both terms are related to being awake. The disciples are not told to keep watch for signs here or in the previous teaching (so there is no need for contrast). In the short parable connected to this teaching, no one, not even the doorkeeper, is said to actively watch for the master’s coming. Rather, the “watching” comes in remaining vigilant in one’s conduct, being wise, faithful, and obedient, doing what the master gave one the command to do.
When we take this characteristic of Jesus’s teaching into account and recognize the judgment on Jerusalem as an advance sign of the final judgment, especially in light of the christological significance of this judgment, it is easy to see how this instruction shades into instruction about the Second Coming. The applicability of this teaching for the Second Coming is something that Paul recognized from early on, as seen in 1 Thess 5, but there it is clearer that he is talking about the Second Coming. How the disciples were to act in anticipation of this event of judgment is also how they are to act in anticipation of the final judgment.
For other intimations of judgment against the temple in Jesus’s day, see Craig A. Evans, “Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple,” JSP 10 (April 1992): 89–147.
Even so, the reader should take note of Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 336–37, as he does stress the literalness of the events.