The Olivet Discourse (part 1 of 2)

Disclaimer: This is not the standard eschatology of the group known as “Concordant believers.” Most “Concordants” believe that the Olivet Discourse, and the rest of the prophecies in the New Testament are yet to be fulfilled. Although I believe that this view is wrong, I don’t pretend to be infallible or 100% sure of anything I publish on this blog. Please take what I write here with a large grain of salt.

    Jesus’ discourse recorded in Mark 13, Matthew 24-25, and Luke 21, commonly known as the Olivet Discourse, is very important for understanding New Testament eschatology. Apart from the book of Revelation itself, the Olivet Discourse is the longest prophecy in the New Testament. Despite the importance of this discourse, there is disagreement among commentators about whether this prophecy was fulfilled in the past, if it will be fulfilled in the future, or if a combination of these two views is correct. Since the Olivet Discourse has a direct and significant bearing on the overall eschatology in the New Testament, this is a fairly important issue. In this post, we will begin to look at the Olivet Discourse in context to try to determine the extent (if at all) of its past fulfillment.

    Pre-Olivet Parables

    Although the Olivet Discourse is often discussed on its own, this discourse is set in the larger context of a series of parables against the Pharisees, which may be important for understanding the discourse itself. Therefore, we will begin by examining these parables. The first two parables can be found in Matthew 21, and involve a proclamation of judgment upon the hypocritical Pharisee sect.

“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same, and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”

They said, “The first.”

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him, and even after you saw it you did not change your minds and believe him.” (Matt. 21:28-32)

    This first parable is fairly straightforward. Jesus is pointing out that the Pharisees are hypocritical, because they claim to do God’s will and require others to follow their written and oral Law, but do not themselves do the will of God by following Jesus (cf. Matt. 23:3-5). Because of this, those who did follow Jesus — even the tax collectors and prostitutes — will enter the kingdom of God before the Pharisees.

“Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went away. When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other slaves, more than the first, and they treated them in the same way. Then he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’ So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.”

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.”

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. (Matt. 21:33-45)

    This parable adds more detail regarding the punishment of the Pharisees. They and their ancestors persecuted the prophets, and they now rejected (and murdered) the Son of God. Therefore, they would now be punished severely. Their punishment would involve the kingdom of God being taken away from them, as mentioned in the previous parable, but it would also involve their “miserable death.” Moreover, this punishment will fall upon the first-century Jewish aristocracy (high priests and Pharisees).

    The third parable adds another crucial detail, which allows us to identify this punishment in history:

Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.

“Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad, so the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matt. 22:1-14)

    According to this parable, the punishment on the first-century Jewish aristocracy would not only involve their “miserable death,” but the destruction and burning of their city (Jerusalem). This took place during the First Jewish-Roman War (AD 66-73), when in AD 70 the Roman Empire besieged and burned the city of Jerusalem; for an eyewitness description of this event, see Josephus’ account in Wars books 5 and 6. The parable goes on to state that, after the burning of “their city,” there would be a wedding banquet for the king’s son; this must refer to the ‘marriage’ of the Son to the true Israelite remnant (cf. John 3:28, 29; Rev. 19:6). This corresponds to the kingdom of God being “given to another” in the previous parable (Matt. 21:43).

    For the rest of Matt. 22, there is a digression into other topics, including the morality of taxation (vv. 15-22), the bodily resurrection (vv. 23-33), the greatest commandment (vv. 34-40), and the Lordship of the Messiah (vv. 41-46). As these do not have any direct bearing on our study, we will skip ahead to chapter 23, where Jesus again deals with the punishment of the Jewish aristocracy. After outlining the hypocrisy of the high priests and the Pharisees, he says:

“Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape the sentence of Gehenna? For this reason I send you prophets, sages, and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you, desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’“ (Matt. 23:31-39)

    Like in the second and third parables, Jesus here blames the Pharisees for the deaths of the prophets at the hands of their ancestors (Matt. 21:34-36; 22:6). Because of this, he states that they will undergo “the sentence of Gehenna.” Although this is often translated as “the judgment of hell,” which implies that it refers to a postmortem punishment, the word used is geenna, which refers to the Valley of Hinnom. In the Old Testament, this valley was used for child sacrifice (2 Kgs. 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35). Later on, it became associated with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, during which the dead bodies were buried in Gehenna (Jer. 7:32; 19:1-9). Therefore, “the sentence of Gehenna” in Matt. 23:33 likely refers to the same AD 70 siege and burning of Jerusalem which Jesus predicted in Matt. 22:7.

    This is supported by Matt. 23:36, in which Jesus states that “all this will come upon this generation.” Throughout the synoptic gospels, the phrase “this generation” (hē genea tautē) consistently refers to Jesus’ own contemporaries, especially the corrupt Jewish aristocracy (Matt. 12:41, 42, 45; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32, 50, 51; 17:25; Acts 2:40). Thus, by referring to “this generation,” Jesus is pronouncing that the aforementioned “sentence of Gehenna” would be a judgment on the corrupt first-century Jewish aristocracy. This appears to confirm that Jesus is describing the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

    At the very end of the chapter, Jesus switches from talking about a judgment on the Pharisees to a judgment on the city of Jerusalem, in which its “house” (the Temple) would be “left desolate.” This must refer to the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem, during which the Second Temple was also burned to the ground. As far as I am aware, there are no commentators that disagree with this interpretation. Therefore, this confirms that the judgment described in the previous verses, “the sentence of Gehenna,” also refers to the fall of Jerusalem.

    In summary, the parables which precede the Olivet Discourse all deal with the punishment of the first-century Jewish aristocracy (especially the Pharisees) because of their rejection and murder of the prophets and the Son of God. This punishment involved the destruction of both Jerusalem and the Temple, which took place in AD 70 (Matt. 22:7; 23:36-38). 

    The Disciples’ Question

    Now that we have finished studying the parables that precede the Olivet Discourse, we can begin to exegete the discourse itself. Immediately after Jesus pronounces a judgment upon Jerusalem and its “house” (Matt. 23:37-39), we read the following:

As Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. Then he asked them, “You see all these things, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” (Matt. 24:1, 2)

Compare this to the Markan and Lukan accounts:

As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” (Mark 13:1, 2)

When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.” (Luke 21:5, 6)

This account is obviously a prophecy of the destruction of the Second Temple complex, which occurred after the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. As far as I am aware, there are no interpreters that disagree with this view, as Jesus is explicitly talking about the destruction of “these great buildings” which the disciples were pointing out to him.

    Later, the disciples come to Jesus privately to ask questions about what he has just said. However, their second question slightly differs between the three synoptic accounts:

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of your coming and the conclusion of the age?” (Matt. 24:3)

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?” (Mark 13:3, 4)

They asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be? And what will be the sign that these things are about to take place?” (Luke 21:7)

    The disciples first ask Jesus “when will this be?” (Gk: pote [oun] tauta estai) In the Markan and Lukan accounts, they then ask about the sign that will precede “these things” (Gk: tauta), i.e., the destruction of the Second Temple, whereas in the Matthean account, they ask about the sign that will precede “your coming and the conclusion of the age”. Because “the sign” (Gk: to sēmeion) is singular and articular in all three accounts, it must refer to the same sign. Thus, for the author of Matthew, the destruction of the Temple would take place at the same time as “your coming and the conclusion of the age” — perhaps even being the same event. [x]

    But how can Jesus’ “coming” (Gk: parousia) have occurred in AD 70 at the destruction of the Temple, when he did not return to earth at that time? Although there will be a future visible, bodily return of Jesus from heaven (Acts 1:9-11; 3:21), at which the dead will be raised (1 Thess. 4:13-18), not every mention of a “coming” of Jesus must refer to his Second Coming (e.g., Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:3). The nature of the “coming” in the Olivet Discourse is elucidated in Matt. 24:30:

...at that time, all the tribes of the Land will mourn, and will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

The statement that “the Son of Man” would be “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” is a quote from Daniel 7:13-14. This passage, however, does not describe the Messiah’s return to earth, but the Messiah coming to God in heaven to receive power and glory and a kingdom.

    Notably, at his trial, Jesus tells the Sanhedrin that “from now on, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). Since this is an event that would occur “from now on,” and because the members of this Sanhedrin died in the first century, Jesus cannot be speaking of his Second Coming. Instead, it must refer to his exaltation, when he sat at the right hand of God (Acts 2:32, 33; Heb. 1:3). Therefore, “seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” does not mean literally, visually observing Jesus on a cloud, but perceiving the fact of his exaltation.

    In addition, the ‘cloud-coming’ of Matt. 24:30 alludes to similar ‘cloud-comings’ in the Old Testament. When the Hebrew prophets spoke of Yahweh “coming on a cloud” or “riding a cloud,” this often described God’s judgment against a nation (Psa. 18:7-15; Isa. 19:1; Nah. 1:2-6; cf. Dan. 7:9-14). This aligns with the context of the Olivet Discourse, which deals with the judgment of the corrupt first-century Jewish aristocracy (Matt. 21:31, 41-45; 22:7; 23:30-39). Therefore, “the Son of Man coming on the clouds,” and the “coming” which the disciples asked about, deals with Jesus’ enthronement and the national judgment on corrupt Israel, not his bodily Second Coming.

    In fact, Jesus’ “coming” in the Olivet Discourse cannot refer to the Second Coming, because the disciples did not know about the Second Coming until after Jesus’ death and resurrection. They didn’t even believe that he would die, much less that he would ascend to heaven and leave them (Matt. 16:21, 22; Luke 24:18-27; John 16:16-18), so they certainly would not have known or asked about Jesus’ return to earth. Thus, when the disciples asked about “your coming” in Matt. 24:3, this must refer to the previously revealed coming of the Messiah to God in Dan. 7:13-14, not the Second Coming, which was first revealed in Acts 1:9-11.

    But what about “the conclusion of the age” (Gk: sunteleias tou aiōnos), which the disciples also asked about in Matt. 24:3? In the Septuagint (LXX), which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used by the New Testament authors, the Old Covenant and its statutes are repeatedly described as “eonian” or “age-during” (Gk: aiōnios). [1] Consequently, the New Testament authors viewed the period of the Old Covenant as an “age” (Gk: aiōn). This period was already “passing away” when the epistle to the Hebrews was written (Heb. 8:13), but finally reached its end when the physical Temple, the last vestige of the Old Covenant, was destroyed in AD 70 (cf. Heb. 9:1-14). The end of the Old Covenant in AD 70 had immense redemptive-historical significance, especially for the Jewish Christians of the first century. [x]

    In summary, a comparison of the disciples’ questions in the Markan and Lukan accounts with their counterpart in the Matthean account shows that the destruction of the Second Temple, in AD 70, took place at the same time as Jesus’ “coming and the conclusion of the age” (Matt. 24:3; cf. Mark 13:3, 4; Luke 21:7). Although the Second Coming did not take place in AD 70, this doesn’t mean that Matthew made an error, because the “coming” in Matt. 24:3 refers to the ‘coming’ of the Messiah to God to receive power and judgment (Dan. 7:9-14; cf. Matt. 24:30), not Jesus’ bodily return to earth. As the disciples’ questions are clearly about the fall of Jerusalem, this suggests that the Olivet Discourse is likely about the events surrounding AD 70; otherwise, the disciples’ questions would be left unanswered.

    This Generation

    Later in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus provides some confirmation that the events which he prophesied took place in the first century, not in the distant future:

“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:32-35)

In this passage, Jesus states that “all these things” — the events predicted in the discourse — would take place before “this generation” (Gk: hē genea autē) passed away. Throughout the synoptic gospels, “this generation” always refers to Jesus’ contemporaries, especially the corrupt first-century Jewish aristocracy (Matt. 12:41, 42, 45; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32, 50, 51; 17:25; Acts 2:40). This strongly suggests that the events of the Olivet Discourse took place in the first century.

    Despite the consistent meaning of “this generation” throughout the synoptic gospels, other interpretations of “this generation” in Matt. 24:34 have been proposed by futurist commentators, who do not believe that the discourse was fulfilled in the first century. The most common futurist view is that “this generation” refers to the generation which “sees all these things.” [x] However, this reduces Jesus’ statement to a meaningless tautology; of course the generation which “sees all these things” will not pass away until “all these things” take place. Moreover, if this were Jesus’ meaning, then it would be more accurate for him to speak of “that generation” (Gk: hē genea ekeinē) rather than using the near demonstrative “this generation” (Gk: hē genea autē).

    Others have suggested that “this generation” refers to the Jewish people, because genea can also mean “race.” [x] However, it is very rare for genea to mean “race”; in fact, there is no other place in the New Testament where it carries this meaning. Moreover, Jesus has already said that “this people” (Gk: tō laō toutō) will be present during these events (Luke 21:23), so it would be pointless for him to repeat the same thing using a rare definition of genea. The same problem exists for those who claim that “this generation” refers to the ‘race’ of evil and corrupt individuals [x], as Jesus has already stated that there will be evil people during these events (Matt. 24:5, 9-12), although admittedly this meaning of genea is attested elsewhere in the New Testament (Phil. 2:15).

    Because all other interpretations of “this generation” in Matt. 24:34 suffer from serious deficiencies, the best interpretation is that this phrase refers to Jesus’ contemporaries, just as it does elsewhere in the synoptic gospels (without exception). This meaning seems to be confirmed by Matt. 23:36, in which Jesus states that “all these things will come upon this generation,” where the context confirms that “all these things” refers to the fall of Jerusalem and “this generation” refers to the first-century Jewish aristocracy (Matt. 23:30-39). Likewise, in Matt. 24:2-3, “all these things” refers to the destruction of the Temple.

    In summary, Matt. 24:34 confirms that the Olivet Discourse took place in the first century, as Jesus states that the events prophesied in the discourse would be seen by “this generation.” Elsewhere in the synoptic gospels, “this generation” refers to Jesus’ contemporaries, specifically the first-century Jewish aristocracy. Moreover, when Jesus makes a similar statement in Matt. 23:36, the context confirms that he is speaking of the fall of Jerusalem. Because Jesus did not finish saying “all these things” until Matt. 26:1, it is implied that the entire Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25) was fulfilled in the first century.

    In the next post, we will take a look at the specific prophecies in the Olivet Discourse to see whether they were fulfilled in the events surrounding the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem. If not, then something must have gone wrong in our exegesis of the passage thus far.

______________________________

[1] LXX Exod. 12:14, 17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:16, 17; Lev. 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 16:29, 31, 34; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3, 8, 9; 25:34; Num. 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10, 21; 25:13.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Primeval History (Genesis 1-11): The Flood of Noah

     So far in this series, we’ve seen how the biblical account of the garden of Eden (Gen. 2-3) and the antediluvian world (Gen. 4-6) are c...