Mark 13:11-13
Before I kick off this chapter; I want to revisit a bit of information that I'd just recently encountered which would be more closely related to "the earth wears out like a garment"; as part of this end times anthropic… decline.
I recently watched an interview on SGT Report with a Dr. Ana Mihalcea who's main finding was that now people who have not taken the Covid "vaccine" are showing up with the same blood abnormalities that those who'd had the shots have. (Blood clotting and what looks like nano technology assembly within the body; coupled with the formation of some sort of silicon rubbery matrix forming in the veins and arteries.) In the interview, it was stated that everyone is suffering this disease course; as these particles are in our air, food and water.
Undoubtedly there has been impacts on us from "accidentally" released chemical spills from factories, fertilizers, pesticides, bioengineered weaponry and even intentional deployment of agents in the atmosphere through what's commonly called "chem-trails".
Dr. Mihalcea's assertion is that issues are not about spike proteins. It's "trans-humanism agenda" trying to create cyber infused human "zombies". Allegedly the goal is control of the masses through nano technology that's externally programable once assembled within the body.
Now I'm certainly not shocked that things like this would be attempted. Yet doctors like this researcher seem to loose track of the fact that God is still the one who controls the breath of life and regardless of intent of who designs the technology; it can't steal one's soul.
Obviously though, one consequence of what's going on with all of this; is that of what ever this "end game" is for these "scientists"; they are killing a lot of people in the process. This aspect being stated as part of their plan. (Population reduction.)
So in light of this alleged occurrence; (I can't confirm whether or not what Dr. Mihalcea is saying is actually true; though it appears to be that the nano technology is spreading to those who did not receive any shots.). Yet, is there any evidence in Scripture that we should expect this type of thing?
Other than passing statements about "plagues"; I'm not aware of anything specific. There's nothing in Scripture that says "Look out for nano technology." Yet in the light of the reality of "the earth shall wear out like a garment"; it does seem plausible to human logic, that things like this would be attempted.
Is this part of the "mark of the beast" that the dispensational narrative suggests? In the sense of the "imparted (passive) mark"; that could be plausible. Yet how could the individual be accountable to something that most aren't even aware would be happening in the first place; if this "shed spread" is even the case?
Thus it would be erroneous to accuse those who'd taken the shots (even for whatever reason they'd decided to) that they'd indeed "received the mark of the beast". Even if this was to be a self assembling nano technology intended to be used in some sort of "bio engineered banking system"; it still would not meet the Scriptural criteria of the ability to condemn someone based on individual choice to "take the mark". Besides the point that at this time; the only thing this appears to be accomplishing, is killing people.
Thus, I'd conclude that this type thing would rather fall into the larger category of "earth wearing out like a garment". Just like the push for "green energy"; this seems to me to be another almost "Tower of Babel" type of event. An encoding of a "unified language" for the sake of constructing an idol to human engineering. Thus kind of like Noah's flood; it's wicked hubris that strikes down humanity.
On the other side of this question though; if one were to calculate the potential death toll due to Covid "vaccines" and the subsequent fall out of energy and economic collapse; the global death toll will be high and potentially could be catastrophic. 7.7 billion people in 2020 to 1.5 billion people by 2030. Is that what's going to happen? (I have no idea.) But if Dr. Mihalcea is correct about nano particle spread; this would also impact the global animal population too. Thus accelerating the "earth wears out like a garment" "pollution" affect death toll.
We'll see where we are in a decade.
Continuing on with Mark / Matthew comparison:
As stated in the last chapter; we have a bit of divergence between the order of the verses in Matthew compared to Mark.
Verse 10 in Matthew 24 states "many will be offended and shall betray one another and hate one another." The second half of Mark 13:11 states the Holy Spirit will speak for the persons "delivered up".
These two verses have similar "contextual application" though they are not precisely the same wording. The word "offended" in Matthew comes from the Greek root meaning to bow. An "add on" to the root means "to stumble"; thus they are "offended" because they are "stumbling" at the message. Matthew also says they "betray" and "hate" these others; but the immediate context says nothing about "mothers", "fathers", "brothers", "sisters"; as is the case with the verses in Mark. Which is interesting.
The following verses in Matthew say:
11: False prophets arise and deceive many.
12: Iniquity abounds and love of many grows cold.
13: He that endures to the end shall be saved.
The following verses in Mark say:
12: Brother (father, son, children) will betray and cause to be "put to death".
13: Shall be hated of all men for my name's sake; but he who endures to the end the same shall be saved.
So two other details are added in Matthew that aren't in Mark. (False prophets and iniquity that causes the love of many to grow old.)
Now it's interesting that the notation of false prophets aren't mentioned in Mark. The compilation of Greek words that form this word "prophet" is a string that means "he from long ago, who came forth to show the light of the fire" This is probably a reference to "a prophet shall rise like unto Moses" I.E. Moses and the burning bush. (The fulfillment of that prophecy was Jesus Christ) and the coming of "one in the spirit of Elijah" who was the predecessor to the appearance of the Messiah. (Which this was John the Baptist.)
So why does this happen in Matthew (1st century) that doesn't happen in Mark (bitter end)?
Could the factor of "knowledge shall increase" be the historical difference between the 1st century and the bitter end? As a time comparison; in the 1st century, we have the end of the Old Testament system. Whereas in the "bitter end" the OT system has long been extinct (never to return again)! This makes contextual sense in the comparison between the "last days" commencing at the tale end of the OT system. Peter makes the statement about the "last days spoken by Joel" in relation to Pentecost. (Acts 2:16-17) The "last days" commenced with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. in 33 AD.
Compare this to post completion of the canon of Scripture. At this point in time, all of Christendom understands there is not another Messiah to come. All the wack-a-doodle cults (like Jim Jones or David Koresh) that surfaced post 1st century; their "messiahs" all claimed to be Jesus Christ. Even Islam and Mormonism understand Mohammad and Joseph Smith as a "prophets" not "the Messiahs". Which is interesting, because historically both Islamic doctrine and (Mormonism = through the Masons) came out of Rabbinic Judaism. Was it intentional for Rabbinic Judaism to hold out "Messiah" (or at this point "messiah" = political) for their own belief system?
Note too the difference between "all men" (Mark verse 11) and "all nations" (Matthew verse 9). It's a common theme in the OT for "nations" to rise against "Israel". Assuming that has some application to "global Messiah for all humanity" coming from "the Jews". Thus the "you" (specifically Jewish apostles) "will be hated of all nations for my name's sake".
Compare this to the "all men" in Mark; which is more likely to be a reference to the non elect; seeing how the revelation to the nations is that the "Jewish Messiah" atones for the sins of all manner of humanity from all kindreds, tribes, tongues and nations.
Men don't hate Christians for the "racism" of Christ. That's obvious as all cultures have their own ethnically created representations of Jesus; as well as Christians come in all manner of ethnicities and nationalities. Of all other revered human historical figures; there's no "white" or "Asian" depictions of Martin Luther King or "black" depictions of Abraham Lincoln. But all cultures around the world have ethnic depictions of Jesus Christ; despite historically Jesus was ethnically Jewish.
Although the irony of "ethnic Jew", is that the blood line of Christ incorporated many women of multiple ethnicities and likely across the broad spectrum of human racial characteristics; from African to Asian to Northern European. Thus why I conclude that both Jesus and Adam / Eve likely incorporated the gambit of "racially mixed" physical characteristics.
Now compare this to the Rabbinic Judaism's current understanding of "messiah". Their messiah is a political figure who will vindicate them as a people group above all other nations. This is a racist / ethnocentric belief system of superiority over all the "goyim". Also apparent in their belief that only Jews are descendants of Adam and Eve and all the other nations are Satanic descendants of Lilith.
Granted there's racism in all ethnicities. I've seen a form of racism in African descendants in America who've lived here for generations; that I've generally not found in African immigrants. I've also seen racism among different groups of Muslims. Yet I'd even venture to say most; (though not all) Rabbinic adherent Jews (as opposed to average secular "ethnic Jews") are some of the most racist people I've ever encountered.
Iniquity abounding causes love to grow cold:
Now this is an interesting phrase that undoubtedly is specific to the 1st century. The word "iniquity" comes from the root "to be without the law". And obviously "to be without the law" is a direct reference to the written revelation of the Old Testament.
The other tie to Scripture is the Greek word used here for "love". It's the word "agape"; which is specific to the intrinsic valuation God has for His creation. He expects this valuation to be observed particularly from humans. The word "agape" did exist in the Greek language prior to it's presence in the New Testament; but it wasn't as particularly widely used word and it's not clear historically if it is a word adopted from Persian, Aramaic, or a more ancient form of Hebrew? Greek culture was widely acceptable to adopting ideas from other cultures. So it is possible that the idea of "agape love" came from Aramaic, Hebrew or even Arabic culture. As they all come from the same Semitic language base. There are also Hebrew words that make their way into the Persian language too. So the word "agape" may have been "passed around' through multiple cultures. Its popularity though, as well as main usage and understanding comes from the New Testament.
So "agape" is somewhat of a "culturally specific" term. Which, though this word may not have a direct transcription from the Old Testament; certainly its conceptualization can be found in the Old Testament, as many descriptions of "agape" love are present in the Old Testament. Also, the word is specifically connected to "law" as applicable from Old Testament written Scripture.
As for the word "abound". This is another interesting word because it's rooted in the root that means "to come to the fullness of". It's akin to "in the fullness of time Christ came…." Both the word "fullness" and "abound" come from the same root. So the "iniquity" that "abounds" does so because of what is "fulfilled" in its appointed time. And that can only have application to the time of the writing of the New Testament. And that is because Christ is the "fulfillment" of the "law" and the prophets.
Now the phrase / word "grow cold"? It's only used once in the entire Scripture and the "wax" or "grow" is a derivative of "blow"; such as in "wind". When the Holy Spirit was poured out; the presence of such at Pentecost came as a "mighty wind". Which this adds interesting application to this "wax cold". The concept is similar to Scripture being a "two edged sword". Those that are "divided" unto redemption as opposed to those who are "cut off" as chaff. (Hebrews 4:11-12) Hebrews gives a warning to this. The Word (and "word") is "sharper than any two edged sword…" The warning (verse 11) is "lest (one) falls into unbelief".
This was part of the judgement passed upon the unbelieving nation. Jesus warned the people about this coming judgement. And the internal workings of the heart pertaining to this judgement is the "waxing cold" of "agape". So this phrase also has very specific application of passing of Old Testament to New Testament.
… but he that endures to the end the same shall be saved:
Here we have a "re-convergence" of phrases that are consistent between both Mark and Matthew. The phrase and all its words and tenses are exactly the same in both books.
The predeceasing phrases though are different. In Matthew it's "iniquity abounding" and in Mark it's the "hated of all men for my name's sake".
We already looked at Mark's "hated of men" in relation to Matthew's "hated of all nations"; but what does it mean "for my name's sake"?
It's not the same phrase as in Matthew's "many being offended". "Name's sake" isn't "name" as in "Jesus of Nazareth". It's actually literally "the (source) of (your) joy". Which I believe that application has to do with the indwelling Holy Spirit. The "byproduct" of the atonement post ascension being the permanent cleaving of the Spirit to the soul of the believer.
Comparing Matthew 24:9 and Mark 13:13. The same words are used but not quite in the same combination. In Matthew the "joy" of the "knowledge" of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament law and prophets is implied in the reference to the "offended" "waxing cold". We see this because of the direct reference to the law as expressed in the penning of the Old Testament.
But in Mark; the "all men hating" has no contextual reference to the Old Testament. And this is because the Old Testament law has no direct connection to the revelation of God received by the "all men". And this is because "all men" were not placed under that Old Testament system. The typology of the system of "the law" was imparted to the nation of the 12 tribes, whose elect of that nation would become the first "recognized formally law encoded" Israel of God.
Those elect are elect because Christ, who is the (singular) "seed of Abraham" (Galatians 3:16) is the fulfillment of the promise given to those elect of that nation. Keep in mind Christ is the only Messiah for any elect from "every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation". He is the promise to "Israel". "Israel" are the elect (from every kindred tribe tongue and nation) because they are bought by the blood of Christ who secured their atonement. The true eternal "Israel" doesn't "replace" the earthy Israel; because the earthly Israel were the children of the bond woman; not the children of the promise; despite the elect out of that Israel are the children of promise. Those elect were the commencement of the collection of "all" of "Israel" as (the eternal) "Israel"!
This is why dispensationalism is wrong. There's only one redemption plan that applies to all elect from every kindred, tribe, tongue and nation. Some of Jacob's biological descendants were part of that number; but they were' the only ones! The promise was given to Abraham; whom also produced Ishmael by a "bond woman". Yet there are Arabs who are the elect of God; bought by the blood of Christ. The material representation presented to Abraham was a type of an eternal truth.
Application summery:
Just yesterday, I was listening to a podcast on how Christ fulfilled the Old Testament and preacher in the podcast made a very interesting statement. He quoted Matthew 5:17-18. Not one jot or tittle of the law will pass from the law until all is fulfilled. (vs 18) In verse 17 though, Jesus states that he has come to fulfill the law and prophets. The thing that caught my attention is that the preacher pointed out that Jesus didn't say that he came to OBEY the law and the prophets. No, he said he came to FULFILL the law and the prophets.
We see this in some interesting phraseology Paul uses about being under "the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). The difference between the law of Christ and the "law of sin and death" is made reference to in Romans 7, 8 and 10; as well as Galatians 2, 3 and 5. Jesus states that to love God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself; for on these two precepts hang all the law and the prophets. That ultimately is to "live in the law of Christ"; which can only be done through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (Because God can't deny Himself.)
The "law of sin and death" which is made known to men by the written testimony of "the law and the prophets"; is not the same thing as "the law of Christ". There is moral overlap obviously. But the purpose of the writing of the Old Testament "law and prophets" was to point to the fulfillment of how the atonement applies to the redemption of sinners through Christ.
Now the outcropping of the application of the atonement / redemption of sinners, is made manifest in the moral exercise of justice and mercy. This is why the elect are not doctrinally morally "antinomian"; though they are non-legalistic in regards to the practice of "religion". This is why Paul says "some honor one day and others see all days alike" and "some eat meat while others only eat vegetables." This can apply to a whole host of things. Some drink alcohol, some don't. Some are selective about the secular entertainment they consume and some don't consume secular entertainment at all. Thus all believers are all called to be "in this world" but "not of it". We do participate in our nation(s)' secular societies.
When I heard what this preacher said about Jesus "fulfilling" the law and prophets as opposed to "keeping" the law and prophets; suddenly it clicked. Of course Jesus would not have to bring sin offerings (because he didn't sin); but of course "free will offerings" or offerings of gratitude would have been appropriate. We know he celebrated Passover in the capacity of application that was relevant to him. Yet there are also some interesting verses about how he "ate with publicans and sinners" and how he actually "broke" the Sabbath by healing people. (He "worked" on the sabbath.) Note that in none of these passages does Jesus ever deny "breaking" these laws. He only declares that he is Lord of them.
Very interesting "flipping of the script" so to speak. Yet the moral fulfillment of justice and mercy, absolutely could be seen in Jesus's behavior; despite what ever "personality quirks" he would have actually had. Which is obvious from certain passages in the gospels that Jesus "had a temper".
So did he follow all these "Niddah" / "Mikvah" / "Kosher" etc; (Jewish (what's now called "family purity") and dietary laws)?
Only so much as they applied to the fulfillment of prophecy. Thus why he tells cousin John to baptize him. (Unto the "baptism of repentance"; which is interesting because Christ having no sin, had no need to repent.)
Which raises some interesting questions in relation to "eating with publicans and sinners". Did Jesus eat pork chops while in the company of gentiles? (Being "Lord of the regulation"; he'd have no prohibition against doing so.) After all, he does make some pretty profound statements about not being defiled by what one eats!
Now next chapter, I'll pick up in both Matthew and Mark with verse 14.
