CHAPTER SIX
THE OLIVET DISCOURSE CONTROVERSY
The disciples were understandably shocked by Christ's prediction. After leaving the temple area, Jesus and the apostles stopped to rest on the Mount of Olives. “No sooner than the chance came many of the disciples (the inner circle-Peter, James and John--plus Andrew, Peter’s brother, Mk. 13:3) asked Jesus a multi-faceted question relating to the prophecy. It is likely that all the disciples had discussed Christ’s prediction and that the four agreed to ask the Lord privately about the prediction while the others waited apart for the relayed response. Mark and Luke record the question as having two parts: when will these things occur and what are the signs that tell us these things are about to happen. Matthew writing to a Jewish audience adds a third clause regarding the finishing of the age.
The first century apostolic understanding of the “end of the age” is reflected in the biblical phrase “the last days.” Due to Bible many modern Christians have so been conditioned that about prophecy books to think that we alone of all generations are living in the last days or at the end of the age. A study of the New Testament, however, reveals that the apostles themselves were living in the last days. Peter said, on the day of Pentecost, Peter applied the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that had just occurred saying “It shall come to pass in the last days, says God” (Ac. 2:17). Their question regarding the end of the age in Matthew 24:3 must apply to something that occurred in their own generation.
The context and the manner in which the New Testament uses this terminology prove that they wanted to know when the temple would be destroyed and the Mosaic economy would end.
Such matters seem inconsequential to modern Christians, but to the disciples the destruction of the temple, the end of the sacrificial system and the end of Israel as a special covenant nation was exceedingly radical. From the time of Moses the true covenant religion was organized around one central sanctuary (Dt. 12:5 ff.). Jesus continues his Discourse with a “lesson from the fig-tree” that teaches about the nearness of the end “when you see all these things.” (Mt 24:33; cf. Mk 13:29; Lk21:31) Though it is then near, only the Father knows about the hour. (Mt 24:36, Mk 13:32) Jesus then points to the certainty of his words: “I tell you this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Mt 24:34f. Mk 13:30f.; Lk 21:32f.) In Matthew, Jesus compares the time “at the coming of the Son of Man” with the days of Noah. People will not expect Jesus’. These words naturally lead to a call for alertness in Matthew that is also emphasized in the last verses of the Discourse in Mark and Luke. To sum up, Jesus’ teaching in his Olivet Discourse covers a period of various trials, the abomination of desolation, a time of unequalled distress and his Second Coming. He taught his disciples that the end is still to come despite ‘such things’ (Mt 24:6; Mk 13:7; Lk 21:9), yet they should be alert because it is near “when you see all these things.” (Mt 24:33; cf. Mk 13:29; Lk 21:31) This tension is recognized in all accounts. Besides, the three gospel passages slightly but not ably differ in structure and wording. Luke differs most, especially in regard to the desolation passage. Matthew is the lengthiest account among them. His additional teachings about alertness.
Firstly, the question that introduces the Discourse asks for immediacy to some extent. The disciples sit on the Mount of Olives with the Temple in view and Jesus’ prediction about its destruction in mind. An answer in which Jesus points to something yet remote and irrelevant for the disciples had been rather deceptive than helpful. (Carson 1984, 492) The events Jesus described as ‘the beginning of birth pains,’ on the other hand, designate a process that requires some time until the consummation of the age would come. It is difficult to imagine that such an extensive teaching about the end-time period would cover only a few decades. In particular, we do not follow the preterits viewpoint that the Gentile mission had been fulfilled before 70 A.D.
Whose view is most acceptable?
The key term of the whole Olivet Discourse to analyze, however, is the ‘abomination of desolation’ the prophet Daniel spoke about. Preterists say this refers to the defilement of the Temple by the Zealots or the Romans during the Jewish war in 70 A.D. Futurists say this would be a certain event that is still to take place in the future. The preterist-futurist approach combines both viewpoints. Whereas Jesus indeed talks about the sign of the end of the age,
Yet he also speaks to his contemporaries with the Temple destruction in view and warns them to flee when the time comes. In this sense, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. can be seen as a token of things yet to come. (Turner 1989, 13). In comparison, scholars agree that the prediction in Daniel 11:31 refers to the ‘abomination of desolation’ set by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 B.C., yet Jesus cites Daniel with a future fulfillment in mind. If we take the fulfillment of Daniel as a token of the prophetic sign Jesus spoke about, we underset and more about the nature of this ‘abomination.’
Epiphanes erected an altar to Zeus over the altar of burned offering and sacrificed a swine on it. (Carson 1984, 500) With this in mind, Randall Price defines the phrase ‘abomination of desolation’ as “a technical reference to the introduction of an idolatrous image or an act of pagan sacrilege within the Sanctuary that produces the highest level of ceremonial impurity, Temple profanation.” (Price 2003).
Lastly, Jesus’ teaching about ‘this generation’ causes much controversy. Some scholars – especially preterists – interpret the phrase referring to Jesus’ contemporaries, others – mostly futurists – maintain the viewpoint that Jesus talks about the coming generation which will experience ‘all these things’ within their life time, an interpretation that derives from the context of the passage. (Price 2003; Ice 2006; Leifeld 1984, 1023; Walvoord 1972, 24) We tend to agree with those who refer to the past generation of Jesus’ time. However, even if ‘this generation’ did not pass away until those things (such as the Jewish war) had happened, the following generations are not excluded to see such things, too. (Carson 1984, 507; Wessel 1984, 751.
Certainly we, too, should take serious the numerous exhortations our Lord gave ‘this generation’ in anticipation of his Second Coming and the consummation of the age. In summary, though the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. is clearly a token of things to come, Jesus primarily speaks about the end of the age and only secondary about this token. Only Luke allows a clearer reference to the Jewish war.