Chapter 7 The Return of the Shepherd: Zechariah 13:7–14:6 as an Interpretive Framework for Mark 13 Paul Sloan This study offers a paradigm by which to understand afresh a passage well- worn with debate. Discussions of Mark 13 range from its literary integrity and unity with the rest of Mark, to the historicity of the discourse as a teaching of Jesus. Naturally space and the nature of this volume do not allow pursuit of each of these topics. Instead, this essay explores the arrangement of the discourse, some of its allusions to Zechariah, and the consequent interpreta- tion of Mark 13:26, ultimately arguing that it refers to Jesus’ second coming. Though the majority of scholars indeed take this verse to refer to Jesus’ fu- ture parousia,1 a growing number have challenged this traditional position and proposed alternatives, and their position invites further dialogue.2 Moreover, 1 For the classic history of interpretation on Mark 13, including a defence of the traditional “second coming” interpretation, see George Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993). See also Larry Hurtado, Mark (NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 211–227; Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 336–350; Robert Stein, Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 584; idem, Jesus, the Temple, and the Coming Son of Man: A Commentary on Mark 13 (Downers Grove: IVP, 2014). 2 Among the challengers of the traditional view are G.B. Caird and L.D. Hurst, New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 365–367; N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 339–368 (hereaf- ter JVG); Thomas Hatina, “The Focus of Mark 13:24–27: The Parousia, or Destruction of the Temple?” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 43–66; Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGCT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 532–542; Michael Bird, “Tearing the Heavens and Shaking the Heavenlies: Mark’s Cosmology in its Apocalyptic Context,” in Cosmology and New Testament Theology (ed. J. Pennington and S. McDonough; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 56. I should clarify that by defending that Mark 13 depicts Jesus’ “second coming,” I do not also defend a rapture and/or an “end of the space- time universe.” On the unnecessary conjoining of such interpretations, see Dale Allison’s cri- tique of N.T. Wright’s reading of “apocalyptic,” and Wright’s response: Dale Allison, “Jesus and the Victory of Apocalyptic,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel (ed. C. Newman; Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 126–141, and Wright, “In Grateful Dialogue: A Response,” in the same vol- ume, 261–268. One can, and I do, believe that Mark 13 describes the fall of Jerusalem and the temple, the second coming of Jesus, and the restoration of the people of God, all without © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004383371_007 The Return of the Shepherd 129 the history of interpretation of the discourse demonstrates a consistent crux interpretum, namely the question as to why Mark’s Jesus would answer a ques- tion about the destruction of the temple (13:4) with reference to his second coming (13:24–27). These events—the destruction of Jerusalem/the temple and the return of Jesus—are seemingly unrelated, and thus their collocation within the single discourse demonstrates, so the argument goes, both the com- posite nature of the discourse and the weakness of the author’s editorial savvy. Solutions to this purported dilemma include claiming that Mark conjoined the events because each was of eschatological import,3 or, alternatively, claiming that “the coming of the Son of Man” does not refer to Jesus’ second coming but to the temple’s destruction.4 The former solution is not necessarily wrong, though it certainly lacks precision and a satisfactory explanation. The latter solution and its expositors are ingenious, but the proposal contains many in- terpretative flaws that preclude an unqualified acceptance. In light of these persistent dilemmas, and in keeping with the present volume’s theme of read- ing strategies and the reuse of scripture, I propose that Mark 13 be interpreted in the light of Zech 13:7–14:6. More specifically, I suggest that Mark 13 exhibits an eschatological scenario influenced by the events and sequences of Zech 13:7–14:6, evident by numer- ous allusions to the latter text throughout the discourse.5 Zechariah 13–14 pres- ents a scenario in which God’s “shepherd” is stricken (13:7), the sheep of that shepherd scatter (13:7), the land of Israel experiences tribulation (13:8), God’s covenantal people are refined (13:9), Jerusalem is attacked by Gentiles (14:1–2), houses are ransacked, women are defiled, and half of the city-dwellers are ex- iled (14:2), the route of safety for God’s people is flight through the mountains (14:5), and finally, the Lord comes with his angels in the midst of failing light (14:5–6). These events are paralleled in Mark 13–14, evident by lexical and fig- ural parity, in the form of Jesus as the stricken shepherd (14:27), the disciples as the scattered sheep (14:27), and the tribulation that follows Jesus’ execution (Mark 13). In Mark 13, the tribulation follows the sequence of Zech 13–14 above, namely: the land experiences tribulation (Mark 13:7–8), the people of God are refined (13:9–13), Jerusalem is attacked by Gentiles, with explicit reference to disunity, and all without resorting to a rapture and/or material collapse of the space-time universe. 3 See e.g. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34b; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 292; Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 336–42; Stein, Mark, 599 n.8. 4 See note 2. 5 The discourse alludes to many other texts, including Daniel, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. This essay does not suggest that Zechariah is the sole influence of Mark 13, but rather a very sig- nificant one among many..