Jesus on religious people

The abomination of desolation is one of the hardest passages in the entire gospel of Mark, touching on eschatology, Daniel's prophecy, and whether its fulfillment is past (70 AD) or future. Winger introduces a futurist position while acknowledging in-house Christian disagreement.

Intro to Mark 13:14-23 study; sets up the interpretive stakes

The term "abomination" in both Hebrew and Greek consistently refers to an idol or false object of worship, and "desolation" relates to the temple being made spiritually or physically desolate. The phrase "standing where it should not be" — and Matthew's "in the holy place" — point to an idol being set up inside the temple precincts.

Linguistic and textual analysis of the phrase "abomination of desolation"

Daniel's prophecies about the abomination of desolation (Daniel 8:13, 9:26-27, 11:31, 12:11) describe a specific bad actor who makes a seven-year covenant with Israel, stops temple sacrifices at the midpoint, and sets up the abomination, leading to a three-and-a-half-year tribulation period before he is destroyed.

Survey of all relevant Daniel passages; key data for futurist interpretation

Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC is the only historical event outside the Bible that uses the exact phrase "abomination of desolation" (1 Maccabees 1:54). He banned Jewish worship, erected an altar to Zeus in the temple, and sacrificed a pig on it — giving Jesus's audience a concrete reference point while Jesus still pointed to a future fulfillment.

Historical background: Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt

2 Thessalonians 2 describes the same figure Jesus warned about: a "man of lawlessness" who sits in the temple declaring himself God, whose coming is connected to satanic signs, and who will be slain at Christ's return. This harmonizes with Daniel and Mark, and the self-worship element connects to Revelation's description of the Beast demanding worship.

Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2 as parallel to the abomination of desolation

The preterist view that identifies the abomination of desolation with Roman soldiers carrying standards into the temple court in 70 AD has several problems: the event occurred when the temple was already on fire and the war was essentially over, making it impossible to flee; it was not in the temple's holy place; and it doesn't fit the three-and-a-half-year tribulation framework of Daniel.

Evaluation and critique of the preterist 70 AD interpretation

The futurist interpretation requires a rebuilt temple in Israel, a seven-year covenant halted at midpoint, and a specific person who demands worship — all still future events. Winger holds this view while acknowledging it is an in-house Christian discussion and not a salvation issue.

Winger's own futurist position and how it integrates the Daniel/Paul/Revelation data

Some skeptics argue that the gospel of Mark has a "low Christology" — presenting Jesus as a mere messianic figure without full divine identity. Winger argues Mark's trial narrative (14:53-72) is actually a theological climax demonstrating the opposite: high Christology is central to the earliest gospel.

Framing the apologetic argument against low-Christology claims about Mark

Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin was procedurally corrupt: it occurred at night, at the high priest's house rather than a court, began with the council soliciting witnesses rather than witnesses bringing a case, and no consequences were imposed on the false witnesses — violating Deuteronomy 19:16-19.

Analysis of the illegality of Jesus's trial; the court was weaponizing law to oppress

Peter following Jesus "at a distance" is a literal physical description, not an allegory for halfhearted discipleship. Allegorizing clear narrative details damages biblical literacy and leaves congregations unable to handle false interpretations they will encounter later. Peter's actual situation shows a man confused by suffering he couldn't reconcile with his vision of the Messiah.

Warning against allegorizing historical narrative; proper interpretation of Peter's presence

The false witnesses couldn't even agree on what Jesus said about destroying the temple — showing the trial was seeking a pretext, not justice. Jesus actually said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it," referring to his body (John 2:19). Mark doesn't explain the pretext; John does, creating an undesigned coincidence that supports historicity.

The false testimony about the temple; undesigned coincidence between Mark and John

When the high priest asks if Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed," Jesus responds "I am" and quotes two Old Testament passages: Daniel 7:13-14 (the Son of Man receiving all dominion) and Psalm 110:1 (sitting at the right hand of God). Both are deity-laden claims — riding the clouds is a divine prerogative in the OT (Psalm 68:4; Deut. 33:26), and the Son of Man receives eternal worship from all nations.

The high Christology embedded in Jesus's self-disclosure at his trial

Isaiah's four Servant Songs (Isa 42, 49, 50, 53) form a unified prophetic arc pointing to Jesus. Isaiah 50:6 — "I gave my back to those who strike me, my cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover my face from humiliation and spitting" — is fulfilled in the mocking scene at Jesus's trial, showing the OT and NT are deeply integrated, not incidentally connected.

Isaiah's Servant Songs as OT prophecy fulfilled in Jesus's suffering

Richard Bauckham's thesis in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" is that names appearing in Mark's gospel identify living witnesses known to the community receiving the text. When Mark names Simon of Cyrene "the father of Alexander and Rufus," and Paul greets a "Rufus" in Rome (Rom. 16:13), this likely connects to the same family — confirming these are not invented characters but real people vouching for the account.

Named eyewitnesses in Mark as evidence of historical reliability; Bauckham's thesis

Salome is present at the death scene and the empty tomb, but absent from the burial scene (only the two Marys watch where Jesus is laid). This inconsistency would have been smoothed over in a fabricated account. The simplest explanation is she wasn't there for the burial — a subtle but significant mark of historicity.

The inconsistency of Salome's appearances as evidence of historical accuracy rather than legend

Mark uses consistent "witnessing verbs" (looking on, saw, looking up, behold the place) as the women observe Jesus die, watch where he is laid, and discover the empty tomb — signaling to the reader that these women are functioning as formal eyewitness testimony in a legally significant sense, not merely as background characters.

The pattern of seeing/witnessing verbs applied to the women in Mark 15-16

The claim that Jesus was never buried in a known tomb (made by scholars like Bart Ehrman) is a minority position that, if true, would undercut the empty tomb argument for the resurrection. Winger's goal is to show the burial is historically well-supported and that Ehrman's case relies on selective use of sources.

Why the burial of Jesus matters for the resurrection argument; Ehrman's challenge introduced

The Digesta (summary of Roman law, ~500 AD appealing back to Augustus) states that "the bodies of those condemned to death should not be refused their relatives" for burial — and this was the general rule, not the exception. Ehrman presents a selective picture by quoting only sources showing executions without burial, ignoring Roman legal provisions that allowed it.

Roman law (Digesta) as evidence that burial of crucified persons was permitted and practiced

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 required that anyone executed by hanging be buried the same day so as not to defile the land. According to Dr. Craig Evans, the Sanhedrin was specifically tasked with ensuring proper burial of executed persons in Jerusalem to maintain ritual purity — meaning even the enemies of Jesus had religious motivation to bury him promptly.

Jewish law and Sanhedrin practice as evidence for burial; Deut. 21:22-23 and the purity argument

Pilate demonstrably cared about Jewish sensitivities — he removed Roman standards from Jerusalem when Jews protested, and Rome generally allowed subject peoples to maintain their customs (Josephus, Against Apion 2.73). The argument that Pilate would ignore Jewish burial customs for crucified victims contradicts the historical pattern of Roman governance in Judea.

Pilate's demonstrated sensitivity to Jewish customs undermines Ehrman's argument

Philo's "Against Flaccus" (§83) records a Roman governor in Egypt allowing crucified persons to be taken down and given to relatives for burial during a festival — showing there were documented exceptions to any general policy of leaving bodies on crosses, and that burial was sometimes permitted on special occasions across the Roman world.

Philo's "Flaccus" as evidence of Roman burial exceptions for crucified persons

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel — a created being, not eternal God. They deny both his full deity and his bodily resurrection, teaching instead that his body dissolved in the tomb and he rose as a "spirit body." Hebrews 1 and Colossians 1 directly refute the created-being view by saying everything was made through Jesus, which means he cannot himself be a created thing.

Core JW theology on Jesus: created being, Michael the Archangel, no bodily resurrection

JW salvation requires four things: (1) taking in the "knowledge" of God and Jesus as defined by the organization, (2) obeying God's laws (works-based), (3) belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, and (4) demonstrating loyalty through door-to-door witnessing. Their own source says "the ransom given by Jesus does not give or guarantee everlasting life" — grace through Christ alone is explicitly denied.

JW soteriology: four requirements for salvation; works-based, organization-dependent

The JW claim that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 — after failed predictions of a visible return — directly contradicts Matthew 24:27 where Jesus explicitly warns that if anyone says the Christ has returned in a secret room, don't believe it, because every eye will see his return. Scripture anticipated and pre-refuted this JW doctrine.

The invisible 1914 return of Christ: JW teaching and its direct refutation by Matthew 24

Hebrews 1:1-2 opens with a declaration of continuity: the same God who spoke through the prophets in many times and ways now speaks through his Son. This compacted theology establishes Jesus as the culmination and continuation of God's revelation — not a replacement or contradiction of it.

Hebrews 1:1-2: the continuity of divine revelation from OT prophets to the Son

The Transfiguration (Matt. 17 / Mark 9 / Luke 9) visually enacts Hebrews 1:1-2: Moses and Elijah appear representing the Law and the Prophets, but God's voice from heaven says "This is my Son — hear him." The old revelation is present and honored, but the new word is through Jesus. This is "Hebrews 1 in living illustration."

The Transfiguration as a visual fulfillment of Hebrews 1:1-2's funnel from prophecy to Son

If the Old Testament is not reliably true, then Jesus — who consistently affirmed, quoted, and grounded his teaching in the OT — cannot be trusted either. Hebrews 1 frames the same God speaking through both prophets and Son; you cannot "unhitch" from the OT without also unhitching from the Jesus who is the culmination of it.

Why abandoning OT trustworthiness undermines confidence in Jesus himself

The literary alliteration of Hebrews 1:1 in Greek (poly-meros, poly-tropos, patrasin, prophetais — all P-sounds) signals this is high-level, carefully crafted Greek prose. God speaking "in many times and many ways" through the prophets contrasts with the singular, final word through the Son — a deliberate narrowing funnel from diverse OT revelation to the one person of Jesus.

Greek alliteration in Hebrews 1:1; the "many-to-one" funnel structure of divine revelation

There are two distinct groups who identify Jesus with Michael the Archangel: (1) Jehovah's Witnesses who use it to demote Jesus to a created being (heresy), and (2) orthodox Christians like Spurgeon, Calvin, and Wesley who identify Michael as a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ without denying his deity (an in-house disagreement). These require different responses.

Two types of Jesus-Michael identification; distinguishing heresy from in-house disagreement

The proof texts used to identify Jesus with Michael are weak. 1 Thess. 4:16 says Jesus comes "with the voice of an archangel" — but also "with the sound of a trumpet," which no one takes to mean Jesus is a trumpet. Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the chief princes" — not the unique chief — and inter-testamental literature (1 Enoch, Tobit) uses "archangel" for multiple beings, not one.

Evaluating the key proof texts for Jesus-Michael identification; each is insufficient

Hebrews 1:4-6 decisively refutes Jesus being an angel: (v.4) Jesus became superior to angels as a different category; (v.5) God never said to any angel "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"; (v.6) all God's angels are commanded to worship Jesus — angels do not worship other angels. Hebrews 2:5 adds that God did not subject the coming world to angels, but Jesus rules it.

Hebrews 1:4-6 and 2:5 as decisive refutation of the Jesus-is-an-angel claim

Jude 9 — Michael disputing with Satan over Moses's body and saying "the Lord rebuke you" — is the most interesting passage in the debate. If Jude alludes to Zechariah 3:2 (where it is Yahweh himself speaking those words), then identifying Michael with Jesus would actually require elevating Michael to divine status, not demoting Jesus. Either way, Jude 4 calls Jesus our "only Master and Lord" in the same letter.

Jude 9 and Zechariah 3:2: the Michael-Jesus identification actually requires exalting Michael to deity

The Book of Revelation extensively exalts Jesus as Alpha and Omega, First and Last, worthy of worship — but when Michael appears (Rev. 12:7), he receives no such fanfare. The contrast between how Jesus and Michael are treated in the same book strongly suggests they are distinct beings, with Jesus occupying an utterly different category of glory.

Revelation's contrasting treatment of Jesus and Michael as evidence they are distinct beings

David Hume's objection — that miracles are by definition the least plausible explanation because they go against uniform experience — is circular: it uses the rarity of miracles to discount all testimony to miracles, then cites the lack of accepted testimony to miracles as proof they don't happen. Paley's response: if God raises Jesus specifically to vindicate his messianic claim, we would not expect that resurrection to be a repeatable event — so non-repetition is not evidence against it.

Hume's objection to miracles and Paley's response; the circularity in Hume's argument

The Christological trilemma (Lord, Liar, or Lunatic — associated with C.S. Lewis, likely originating with G.K. Chesterton) is built on the historical evidence that Jesus made both messianic and divine identity claims. He cannot have been lying — he made his violent death by the very authorities whose power he claimed to supersede a core part of his mission, which an impostor would never do. Mark 8's double rebuke (Peter rebukes Jesus; Jesus rebukes Peter as "Satan") shows this is not a later invention.

The Christological trilemma: Jesus's self-claims were not those of a liar or madman

The "undesigned coincidence" between Mark and John on the temple statement: Mark records the false witnesses misquoting Jesus about destroying and rebuilding the temple, but never explains the original statement. John 2:19-21 records the original statement and clarifies it referred to his body. Neither account is copied from the other; they lock together in a way that supports the historicity of both.

Undesigned coincidence: Mark and John on the temple statement lock together to support historicity