When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
What was that “abomination of desolation”? When we read “let the reader understand” we surely are right to think that it is some sort of mystery to be decoded or explained to us.
The following explanation comes from Der Weg Jesu by Ernst Haenchen (1968). Since it is in German I have had to resort to a machine translation. Fortunately, though, Ken Olson on the Biblical Criticism and History Forum set out the main argument to enable me to get started. I recommend reading his post for more detail than I will provide here.
To begin with Jesus is addressing an inner circle of his disciples, Peter, Andrew, James and John, “in private”. So it is secret teaching that we are reading.
As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?” Jesus said to them . . . .
For whom is Mark recording this warning?
Haenchen pulls us back from immersion in the story and confronts us with the question: Who was “Mark” writing this for? Was he writing a warning for Christians who were caught up in the Jewish war of 66 to 70 CE? If so, what was the point? The warning was recorded too late for them.
Further, the warning is for those who “see”, not “hear about”, the abomination of desolation. So was the abomination of desolation something that could be seen by all and sundry “in Judea”, not just in Jerusalem?
Common explanations suggest the abomination was something set up by the Roman army in or near the temple in Jerusalem. But if that were the case then what was the point in telling people throughout Judea to run for the hills at that point? If the Romans were already inside Jerusalem then they had already swept through Judea. Why wait to run until after the enemy has occupied your homeland?
Haenchen’s solution resolves such problems.
“Then the king’s officials came to the town of Modein”
Compare the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. Symbolic language is used, arguably to protect those who treasure the writing. It is proposed that explicitly anticipating the fall of Rome was not something to shout out about so Babylon was substituted for Rome. Those “in the know” knew the coded language. The Book of Revelation also speaks in its thirteenth chapter of a terrifying moment when God’s chosen would face an image of a beast and be ordered to worship it or be killed.
What situation in these early days of Christianity, in the days when the Gospel of Mark and the Book of Revelation were being written, would arouse such fear that the only way out was to drop everything and run immediately into the wilderness and hide in the hills?
The answer: the visit to one’s town of an imperial official setting up an altar and calling on all inhabitants to sacrifice to the emperor. Penalty for refusal was death. The mere possibility of such a moment was enough to generate fear.
Mark was not writing a warning for the people of Judea long after any danger facing them had passed. The war was over. What he was doing was couching (or coding) a warning to his readers in Italy, Syria, anywhere throughout the Roman empire, in the language of Daniel the prophet.
Haenchen writes, p. 446
Nun kommt es nicht darauf an, ob der römische Staat damals tatsächlich derartige Pläne erwogen- hat. Entscheidend ist, daß jene Christen, für welche die Offb geschrieben wurde, ihm tatsächlichetwas derartiges zugetraut haben, wie es die Offb beschreibt. Damit haben wir das Recht, nun auch – versuchsweise – in Mk 13 eine ähnliche Erwartung vorauszusetzen: Rom wird mit Gewalt die Anbetung des Kaisers zu erzwingen versuchen – was sollen die Christen dann tun?
which Google Translate renders:
Now it does not matter whether the Roman state actually considered such plans at the time. What is decisive is that those Christians for whom the Rev. was written actually credited him with something of the sort described by the Rev. In this way we have the right to presuppose a similar expectation in Mk 13: Rome will try by force to force the worship of the Emperor – what should Christians do then?
Delay could prove fatal. Such a visit meant one had to flee immediately.
Mark appears to have had such a situation related in 1 Maccabees in mind. In chapter 2:15-31 (GNT),
Then the king’s officials, who were forcing the people to turn from God, came to the town of Modein to force the people there to offer pagan sacrifices.
Many of the Israelites came to meet them, including Mattathias and his sons.
The king’s officials said to Mattathias, You are a respected leader in this town, and you have the support of your sons and relatives.
Why not be the first one here to do what the king has commanded? All the Gentiles, the people of Judea, and all the people left in Jerusalem have already done so. If you do, you and your sons will be honored with the title of Friends of the King, and you will be rewarded with silver and gold and many gifts.
Mattathias answered in a loud voice, I don’t care if every Gentile in this empire has obeyed the king and yielded to the command to abandon the religion of his ancestors. My children, my relatives, and I will continue to keep the covenant that God made with our ancestors. With God’s help we will never abandon his Law or disobey his commands. We will not obey the king’s decree, and we will not change our way of worship in the least.
Just as he finished speaking, one of the men from Modein decided to obey the king’s decree and stepped out in front of everyone to offer a pagan sacrifice on the altar that stood there.
When Mattathias saw him, he became angry enough to do what had to be done. Shaking with rage, he ran forward and killed the man right there on the altar.
He also killed the royal official who was forcing the people to sacrifice, and then he tore down the altar.
In this way Mattathias showed his deep devotion for the Law, just as Phinehas had done when he killed Zimri son of Salu.
Then Mattathias went through the town shouting, Everyone who is faithful to God’s covenant and obeys his Law, follow me!
With this, he and his sons fled to the mountains, leaving behind all they owned.
At that time also many of the Israelites who were seeking to be right with God through obedience to the Law went out to live in the wilderness, taking their children, their wives, and their livestock with them, because of the terrible oppression they were suffering.
The report soon reached the king’s officials and the soldiers in the fort at Jerusalem that some men who had defied the king’s command had gone into hiding in the wilderness.
The Gospel of Matthew adds to Jesus’ words: Pray that your flight will not take place … on the Sabbath. (24:20) Mark was more “Pauline” about the law than was Matthew, but notice what happened when the people in Antiochus’s time fled and were caught out by the sabbath (2:32-38):
A large force of soldiers pursued them, caught up with them, set up camp opposite them, and prepared to attack them on the Sabbath.
There is still time, they shouted out to the Jews. Come out and obey the king’s command, and we will spare your lives.
We will not come out, they answered. We will not obey the king’s command, and we will not profane the Sabbath.
The soldiers attacked them immediately, but the Jews did nothing to resist; they did not even throw stones or block the entrances to the caves where they were hiding. They said, We will all die with a clear conscience. Let heaven and earth bear witness that you are slaughtering us unjustly.
So the enemy attacked them on the Sabbath and killed the men, their wives, their children, and their livestock. A thousand people died.
In Mark 13 we are reading, it may well be argued, a warning to all Christians throughout the Roman empire about a possible threat that faced them daily. The warning is nested in the framework of Daniel’s prophecy. Once a local population was called to appear before the altar to participate in sacrifice to the emperor it would be too late. If it were winter, if one were pregnant or carrying an infant, the situation would be even more intolerable.
Wir wissen heute nach den Erfahrungen der Flüchtlingstrecks nur zu gut, wie eine solche Flucht aussehen kann. (p. 447)
Today, we know only too well the experiences of refugee treks, what such an escape can look like.
Daniel is channeled once more through the pen of Mark so that Jesus is made to warn, Mark 13:19-20
Those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.
Mark 13 is depicting a situation where Christians will be required to flee for their lives without warning whenever the emperor’s representative comes in to set up the image of the emperor and requiring sacrifice. The “day x” is unpredictable. The stress is therefore constant. The escape must be made immediately, regardless of whether one is pregnant, or that it is winter, etc.
V.19 beruhrt sich so eng mit Dan 12,1, daß deutlich wird: mit diesem Geschehen wird sich fur Mk die danielische Weissagung erfullen. V.20 beschreibt indirekt das Furchtbare dieser Verfolgungszeit: wenn Gott nicht – seinen Erwählten zuliebe – die (Zahl der) Tage verkurzt hätte, würde niemand gerettet werden – auch keiner der Erwählten! Das ist freilich unlogisch: ein Erwählter, der nicht gerettet wird, ist eine contradictio in adjecto. Aber der Ausdruck soll eben die alles Maß übersteigende Größe der” Trübsal” schildern, und das gelingt ihm gut.
Wenn man sich vor Augen stellt, daß die Christen in solchem Falle von einer Minute zur andern, ohne alle Vorbereitung fluchten mussen, im Gebirge oder in der Einöde den Unbilden der Witterung ausgesetzt, womöglich von Häschern des heidnischen Staates gejagt, dann ist die Überzeugung des Mk, daß sie das nicht lange aushalten könnten, keineswegs phantastisch, sondern durchaus realistisch. Und Vorbereitungen kann man nicht treffen, weil der “Tag x” der Verfolgung eben nicht bekannt ist, sondern völlig unbestimmt!
Google translation with minimal human assistance:
V. 19 touches so closely with Daniel 12:1 that it becomes clear: With all of this happening the Daniel prophecy will be fulfilled for Mark. V. 20 indirectly describes how terrible will be this time of persecution: If God had not for the sake of his chosen ones shortened the number of days nobody would have been saved, none of the chosen would be saved.
Of course that’s illogical. An elected person who is not saved is a contradiction in terms. But the expression is just to describe the magnitude of the tribulation, and the author succeeds well.
If you imagine that in such a case the Christians’ lives are subject to change from one minute to the next, without having time to prepare, to the mountains or the wilderness, exposed to the rigors of the weather, possibly hunted by the pagans of the pagan state, then the conviction of Mark, that they could not stand it long, is not at all fantastic but quite realistic. And you cannot make preparations because “day x” of the persecution is not known, “undefined”.
To me, Haenchen’s explanation has “explanatory power”. Several curious remarks in Mark 13 make sense in view of his interpretation. The gospel becomes more relevant to its contemporary readers.
Why did Mark add “Let the reader understand”? I can’t see that such a wink would have been needed if all he meant was to remind readers that he was reminding them of the abomination of desolation set up in the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. The very expression itself, “abomination of desolation”, was all that was needed to bring Daniel’s prophecy to mind. It does seem to make sense, though, to imagine alerting his readers to translate the apocalyptic words of Jesus to his inner circle to their own situation.
Haenchen, Ernst. 1968. Der Weg Jesu. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Olson, Ken. 2018. “Let the Reader Understand… Again.” Biblical Criticism & History Forum. February 15, 2018. http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3896&start=120.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Something Light - 2020-08-13 08:28:44 GMT+0000
- “When everyone is agreed on something, it is probably wrong” — Thompson’s Rule - 2020-08-11 13:27:59 GMT+0000
- Reading the Gospels through a Roman Philosopher’s Eyes - 2020-08-05 09:18:07 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!