The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve, and others,

I've recently listened to #11 & #12 (Olivet Discourse) of the Eschatology series. I was wondering about Mark 13:14...

Mark 13:14
14"But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

And the parallel passages, Matt. 24:15 & Luke 21:20 ...

Matt. 24:15
15"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), ...
Luke 21:20
20"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

Matthew was writing to fellow Jews so he used the Jewish idiom abomination of desolation and used the term (let the reader understand). Luke was writing to Theopholus(sp.?) who was a Gentile so he explained what the abomination of desolation was and did not use the term (let the reader understand). However, Mark was writing to a Roman audience but still used the same Jewish idiom and terms as Matthew did. Was there a reason Mark wrote that certain verse the way he did? In other words, why did Mark use the same Jewish wording as Matthew did if his audience was completely different?

Is it possible that Jerusalem will once again be surrounded by armies and that at that time there will be the abomination of desolation or must it be the 70 AD interpretation?

Roger

Is it possible that Jerusalem will once again be surrounded by armies and that at that time there will be the abomination of desolation or must it be the 70 AD interpretation

It's possible but in Matt 24.34 Jesus said "This generation will not pass away until all these things have happened" and in Matthew the previous 5 times he used the term "this generation" he meant the people he was talking to. However some people think "generation" here means the jewish race will not pass away until all these things happen in the end times.

Was there a reason Mark wrote that certain verse the way he did? In other words, why did Mark use the same Jewish wording as Matthew did if his audience was completely different?

Maybe the Christians in Rome were converted Jews, at least some of them almost certainly were.

Hi Roger,

Pertaining your question, I tend to agree with STEVE7150. I think it's possible, but I'm not sure these verses can back that claim.
Just a few verses later Jesus says ...

Matthew 24:21
21For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

I think this says that this "abomination of desolation" will only occur 1 time.

john b wrote:Was there a reason Mark wrote that certain verse the way he did? In other words, why did Mark use the same Jewish wording as Matthew did if his audience was completely different?

I would say Mark was just being accurate, were Luke gave the meaning (since he traveled with Paul, he might have just asked him)

Thanks for the responses.

The reason for asking was if both Luke & Mark were writing to a gentile audience, why did Mark expect his gentile readers to understand the Jewish idiom "abomination of desolation", where elsewhere he feels like he needs to explain Jewish customs(Mark 7:3-4).?. If Mark thinks his audience will understand Jewish terms, why not Jewish customs?.
I dont see this as a huge problem or a contradiction necessarily. Just curious. I guess I'm still alittle unsettled about it but your responses have definitely helped.

The reason for asking was if both Luke & Mark were writing to a gentile audience, why did Mark expect his gentile readers to understand the Jewish idiom "abomination of desolation", where elsewhere he feels like he needs to explain Jewish customs(Mark 7:3-4).?. If Mark thinks his audience will understand Jewish terms, why not Jewish customs?.
I dont see this as a huge problem or a contradiction necessarily. Just curious. I guess I'm still alittle unsettled about it but your responses have definitely helped.
There is also the possibility that Peter actually dictated to Mark and he heard Jesus use that phrase wheras Luke did'nt hear it directly so he paraphrased. I think Peter stayed with Mark (Acts 12.12-17) and is the real author including the ending. Note that In Mark 14.53,54,60,61,63 the phrase "the high priest" is used meaning Caiaphas. IMHO the phrase high priest means it was written during Caiaphas's reign which ended in 37AD otherwise he would have had to refer to Caiaphas by name.