The Olivet Discourse

The Olivet Discourse is Jesus’ address to the Disciples concerning the things to come. For some, the text of Matthew 24 (along with the parallels of Mark 13 and Luke 21) are considered to be the backbone of End Times Prophecy.

Having first looked at some of the background to the subject in Daniel and elsewhere, we find it expedient to look at this prophecy and look to see what it says.

The Questions

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 24:1-3

The questions asked by the disciples are the context for the entire dialogue in this and the next chapter. They are recorded slightly different in each of the three Gospel accounts, but they are essentially the same. For those interested in drawing a parallel of these accounts, it is interesting that both Matthew and Mark record that they sat on the Mount of Olives for the discussion, but Luke’s account omits this detail. Clearly, they are all the same discourse, with Luke’s account missing the detail that discussed it outside of the temple.

But, it is the discussion of the then visible buildings that this discourse is in reference. Contextually, one has to break break several customs to make several of the leaps that futurists do in interpreting this passage. Particularly, Matthew’s Gospel records these questions:

When shall these things (the destruction of the Second Temple then visible) be?
What shall be the sign of thy coming?
And of the end of the world (or age)?

Now, the whole of the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24-25, comprises one literary unit, and no one is suggesting that it be broken apart at will. What is clear, however, is that multiple questions are asked. In that, it shall be seen that in this one text Jesus addresses each of these things in turn.

End of the Age

Now, regarding the “end of the world” or “age”, the phrase is “sunteleia tou aionos”. The word “suntelia” is the equivalent of the word “telos” with the prefix “sun-“. Both suntelia and telos both mean “end” or “conclusion”, but “sun-” supposes a “coming together”, a synthesis if you will, or “combining”. Many have supposed that the “end of the age” here would refer to the Jewish “age” or “dispensation”, but the specific application of those words finds no textual merit here.

And He said to them, Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life.

Luke 18:29-30

Here, however, Jesus explained what He meant by the “age to come”–Eternity. Further, the application of “sunteleia” indicates a summing together of the age. Some go so far as to question which “age” the Jewish temple represented, but they miss the point entirely. The definition of “age” would solely determine whether the Jewish Temple or any other thing could represent it. But, it seems simple enough that the specific use of “sunteleia” here indicates the world that was created in the same week as Adam. The world that will be destroyed at Christ’s Second coming by fire, as described by Peter.

What is Being Answered

But, first, let us look and see what the futurist generally concludes concerning this chapter. The problem is that vv1-3 set the reference to be the then standing buildings, and there is no getting around that. What the futurist generally does, then, is claim,

Matthew’s and Mark’s account answers questions 2-3.
Only Luke’s Gospel addresses question 1.

But, this has no textual basis, nor were the Gospel’s originally intended to be “combined” in this fashion, except, maybe by God Himself. Now, God’s providence aside, the original readers of Matthew would have read Matthew. Luke’s readers would have read his. We have the benefit of multiple witnesses, but they were not written with that original intent.

However, because of the very clear indications of the text, despite their obvious similarity, Luke’s account is considered largely historic, if for no other reason, than for it’s reference in v24 to Jerusalem being trodden by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles being fulfilled. Since this theologically and historically can only have a reference to the historic, 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, many attribute to Luke 21’s account to history. However, when one looks at Matthew’s account, nearly everything there could be construed to have occurred, except for the Second Coming of Christ. For this reason, the entirety of it is put off into the future.

Now, to us, the extents that interpreters have gone to are extreme to the utmost, almost painfully so, except for the extreme need in the context. The need is that nearly all of the events in Matthew 24 have occurred, except for the obvious Second Coming ones. For most reading the traditional interpretation, this has been the only way to stay true to the text and still attempt to interpret these passages in a way other than what many Preterists falsely do in saying that the Second Coming events also pertained to 70 AD in this passage. This is, indeed, the “ditch on the other side of the road”, but, without some recourse in the subject, we ourselves would most likely have had to conclude with the futurists that that would be the only plausible explanation, without disregarding the text.

However, we are left with just a recourse. In the course of studying this out, what began to appear as a mere possibility has come to now stand out as the clear and understandably original intent of the passage. That is, read what is presented here, and study it out, and you should be able to see that the burden of proof lies upon those who would say that the Discourse should not be interpreted as such.

The Problems

Remember, this passage is one literary unit, but is answering multiple questions. Suppose you asked someone in high school when their last class would be, and what they would do right before they went to bed, they would then proceed to answer both questions in a single conversation, but, at some point, they would switch from one topic to the next. This is precisely what we see here.

While most would agree that there could be plenty and ample explanation for many of the events in Matthew 24:4-22, the outstanding issues for many people are as follows:

v14 says the Gospel will be preached to every nation and then the end will come.
v15 lists the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel as the sign to watch for.
v29-31 indicate that “immediately after” the Great Tribulation (v21) of those days comes the Second Coming.

Now, our contention is that all of the events leading up to v22 are past, and completely historically fulfilled. In Luke’s account, the preliminary signs are listed but v12 changes things up, saying “before all this”. Luke’s account then inserts a parenthesis into his account that the others do not have, which apparently ends at Luke 21:19, where it then continues with the outcome of Jerusalem.

As for the first supposed problem, it turns out to not be a textual problem, whatsoever. The reason is, Paul clearly indicates this was completed, more or less, by the time he wrote the letter to the Colossians.

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Colossians 1:23

Now, for those who would desire to be contentious and say that Paul was, here, using a figure of speech, the same argument would be applied to the Olivet Discourse. However literal or figurative you wish to take this statement is simply how literal or figurative you can take the other. To the point, that, there is no discrepancy here. Whether it meant the civilized Roman empire, we can be assured that Paul knew what he was speaking about. Or, if it meant the literal entire globe, certainly, God, as with Phillip in Acts 8, could have simply translated missionaries around the globe through the Spirit. Regardless, Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, indicated that this task had indeed been accomplished in his earthly ministry. It is, of course, a noble task to attempt to bring the Gospel to every people group, as missions organizations are today. It is right, and it should happen. But, it does not have to be in the context of Matthew 24:14 to make it happen, but, rather, Matthew 28:19. The command is there, and elsewhere, regardless.

The Abomination

Now, the abomination presents an issue. There is no clear Biblical definition of this term, the Abomination of Desolation, or the Abomination that makes desolate. The references in Daniel are Daniel 8:13; 11:31; 12:11. Some make Daniel 9:27 into another reference, we do not recognize this as a reference to this at all. First, the word “temple” appears to be completely supplied by the translators. Second, the grammar does not seem to support this. Compare any version other than the NIV and you do not see the phrase. As the majority of translations we compared do not even translate this verse in any such manner, we find no need to either. We will examine Daniel 9 in more depth later, but, for the present, only the other three references to the abomination will be considered.

The biggest problem with the reference in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 is that the portion of Daniel 8 and 11 that referred to the Abomination had a clear historical fulfillment already in Jesus’ day. Historically, Antiochus Epiphanes erected a statue of Zeus in the Most Holy Place of the temple and desecrated it and the historical events concerning this leader so astoundingly fulfill this prophecy that it is hard to conceive that this was not the total completion of this event.

Since the text indicates Jesus prophesied this as a future event, we have one of three choices:

Despite the strikingly accurate fulfillment of the previous instance with Greece (the third empire of Daniel), it was not actually the real fulfillment, and we should expect to see the apparently fulfilled portions of Daniel 8 and 11 completely fulfilled again.
The concept of “Dual Fulfillment”. That is, although the prophecy was fulfilled historically, it will, either in part and in full, happen again. Many have taken this approach, and use this very verse as the primary justification for the theory of dual fulfillment of prophecy.
“Something Else”.

The first seems hardly likely, at least to us, but it is supported by a large number of people. The interesting thing is, however, if that you take this approach, you cannot really use the Antiochus event with the statue in the temple as a descriptor of what will happen. The fact that number of days coincided was merely coincidence, and so one would still have no interpretation of what the abomination would look like. This pushes the entire thing into a completely futurist approach.

The second sounds plausible, but it has its own difficulties. The problem is that dual fulfillment is not clearly spelled out or justified throughout Scripture. What we have a fulfilled prophecy that is referenced as being yet in the future. Nearly all Jews would have known of this fulfillment, as it is what is celebrated in Hanukkah, or the festival of lights. So, we have to ask, how much is to be “dually fulfilled”? Is it merely the abomination? Is it the whole chapter (remembering chapters were invented many centuries after Christ)? If it is dually fulfilled, how similar to the first event must it be, and must the abomination be recognizable as the first? None of these really have any precedent or corresponding answers in Scripture, as this is the only real, identifiable instance of dual fulfillment. We ,do present this as an option, however, but, we offer another possibility, simply by way of thought.

What we see has certainly developed over time, but what we see is two Abominations in Daniel’s text.

We will develop this in greater detail in the chapter dealing with Daniel 11 & 12, but what we see is that the prophecy of Daniel 11 begins in antiquity, clearly in the second kingdom of Daniel. It then progresses forward through several kings of Greece, specifically hilighting Antiochus Epiphanes again with the Abomination in Daniel 11:31. Up to v35, most commentators agree that a historical fulfillment is fine, but then there are disagreements.

What we find, however, is that vv40-43 clearly depict the Battle of Actium between Octavius and Marc Antony in 31 BC, which marked the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire. This, then, is the transition from the third beast to the fourth.

While it is not necessarily entirely clear directly from the text, the case can clearly be made through history that the last few verses of Daniel 12, vv11-12, refer to the time of 66 AD when the daily sacrifices to Caesar (not the Jewish ones) were stopped. At this time, in the unrest caused in this short span, Roman soldiers breached the temple and took out 17 talents of gold (roughly $35 million by our current estimate), thus accomplishing a “second abomination”, and defiling the temple with the presence of these Romans.

In response to this, then, we see Luke’s sign also fulfilled, as Cestius Gallus was then dispatched to put down the rebellion in Israel. He reached as far as the walls of the upper city, but, after only a few days, decided to turn and flee. Thus, Jerusalem had her abomination, and was temporarily surrounded armies, fulfilling the signs required for departure, but giving the Christians ample time to make their hasty flight to the place in the wilderness prepared by God for them, the city of Pella to the North East of Jerusalem.

Does Daniel in fact prophesy two Abominations? It appears so. We see that the abomination in Daniel 8 & 11 were specifically in the third kingdom. In the prophecy in Daniel 12, while it is not as clearly laid out, we see evidence that it is corresponding to the time that the power of the Holy People is totally shattered. As Daniel 12 starts with the fourth kingdom, it would follow that the Abomination contained therein is a reference to that time period, and not the prior, third-kingdom abomination.

Let the Reader Understand

Additionally it is useful to call to attention the “disclaimer” contained upon both references to the Olivet Discourse mention of the Abomination. In both of these cases, the writer of the Gospel has included the phrase, “Let the reader understand”.

In no other Old Testament reference to prophecy does the Gospel writer find the need to qualify the the reference, so, why here?

In both Matthew and Mark’s accounts, the abomination is referenced, but in Luke’s, the sign to watch for is Jerusalem surrounded by armies. These signs are almost apparently used simultaneously.

First of all, the references to Daniel’s abomination should not come at any high level of obscurity to a Jew. The Daniel 8 & 11 abomination was very well known, historic events from 168 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes set up a statue of Zeus in the temple. The reconsecration of the sanctuary was still celebrated by the Jews then (and now) as the festival of lights, Hanukkah.

So why, when referencing a very well understood and even celebrated event does the Gospel writer feel the need to qualify his reference to this particular Old Testament event? Possibly because they were so well known.

The ambiguity of the prophecy can be as much by design as by anything. The concealment of the two abominations could be just as much of an intent of the original prophecy as anything, and it’s prophecy by Jesus, despite it’s apparent historical fulfillment, appears as if it could be speaking of the Daniel 12 abomination, to the exclusion of the clearly fulfilled Daniel 8 & 11 one.

What is clear is that Roman soldiers breached the sanctuary, followed very quickly by Jerusalem being surrounded for a short time by the armies of the Roman general Cestius Gallus.

After Cestius’ retreat, the Jews would have had ample time to depart the city, relatively unnoticed, as the rebels turned and attacked the retreating twelfth legion. As many rushed out in arms, the Christian’s fled in the ensuing chaos. Had there not been such a diversion, in the state of the city then, either the rebels could have detained the fleeing Christians to attempt to conscript them, or they could have fled along with them in awareness of some of the Christian prophecies, or simply to “wait it out and see” what the Romans might do. As it were, the rebels were encouraged by their apparent defeat of the Roman troops, and set all the more on rampage to create Jewish independence.

Now, all along, the Gospel writers are referencing Old Testament prophecies, so why do they feel the need here to explain “let the reader understand”? The reference is well-known, and the instructions to the reader are not given anywhere else. We cannot say this is, nor do we have anything other than supposition. But, remember that these were written in the ten years, or so, before the fall of Jerusalem. These documents would have been circulated widely, and read aloud to the hearers. What is understood is that before the Roman Siege which sacked Jerusalem, it was first surrounded by the Roman General Cestius Gallus. Cestius indeed fulfilled Luke’s account exactly, surrounding Jerusalem, and then, for no apparent reason, turned around, and fled towards the Mediteranian, while the Jewish rebels followed, inflicting heavy casulaties. This is the sign that Luke had prophesied, Jerusalem surrounded by Armies, and seeing this, the Christians fled the city, relocating to a town to the North called Pella. It is recorded that probably no Christians suffered in the siege that was shortly to come.

The Answer

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Matthew 24:29

The question first asked was “When?” Then, they asked what the signs are. So far in this discourse, Jesus has not apparently focused on the “when” of the first question. This will come, but first let us look at the structure of what we have seen.

In Matthew 24:1-3, the discourse is set up with the then visible temple and the questions. In Matthew 24:4-22, Jesus describes the signs leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. This is, in fact, the beginning of telling them “when”, because, by their signs, you will know the times. But, v22 ends with the destruction of the city. So, this section describes the signs leading up to and the fall of Jerusalem. So far, Jesus is only relating details concerning the first question, the coming destruction, but has not directly answered it.

After v22, Matthew 24:23-28 then begins to transition. He begins contrasting what He has just been talking about with what is coming. Whereas before, when talking about the coming fall of Jerusalem, He instructs people to flee to the mountains to escape what will befall the city, He now says, “at that time”, meaning after the fall of the city, He begins talking about what the situation will be like at the Second Coming. In the Second Coming it will no longer matter where you are. Rather, like lightning in the east is seen in the west, so it will be at His coming. So, here, He is contrasting the conditions before the fall with those after.

Eutheos De Meta

And, this leads us to Matthew 24:29-31.

The traditional reading of this text read “Immediately after the tribulation of those days…” The connotation that this evokes is that there is little or no time between the fall of Jerusalem (the Great Tribulation) and the Second Coming. Indeed, this is what the English word “immediate” means–without middle.

But, the text of the Greek reads “Eutheos de meta ten thlipsin ton hemeron ekeinon…” These first three Greek words become the focus of our debate.

“de meta” is a simple enough phrase to translate, and means “but after”. The first word “eutheos”, however, comes from the Greek word “euthus” meaning “straight”. This is sometimes translated as “immediately”, but also as “straightway”, “directly”, “at once”, “next”, or “soon”. This word, and its variants, is used many times in the Gospels, especially during the miracles of Jesus where they were said to happen “immediately”.

But, the particular wording here has led most translators to translate this as “immediately”, even in some translations where nearly all other uses of the word were more directly translated as “straightway”. This is presumably due to the grouping with “de meta”, as to say “straightway but after” becomes a bit cumbersome in English, and so the more generic “immediately after” was used, simply to sound more natural to the native speaker.

However, what is lost in this translation is precisely the nuance that is applied.

What profit is there, in English anyway, to say “but after” after saying “immediately”. The entire thing has been building on a sequence of events, and so the use of the terms seems a bit redundant. What is really going on, here, is something altogether different, however.

Looking at the Louw-Nida Lexicon, it describes the words eutheos and euthus as describing “a point of time immediately subsequent to the previous point of time (the actual interval of time differs appreciably, depending on the nature of the events and the manner in which the sequence is interpreted by the writer).”

What eutheos (and euthus) is not is “immediately”. Immediate means no middle, and eutheos describes a straight line, which could be more aptly put as “directly”, but always includes a middle. What is apparent through a casual look through of the New Testament usages of this word is that Eutheos demands a middle, the duration of which could be a few moments to hours, days, and even months or more!

For example, consider the boat ride of John 6:21, where the boat “immediately” reached the other shore. This has a parallel account in two other Gospels (Matthew 14:34; Mark 6:53), but in that account, it says they rowed. Additionally, as pointed out by Ted Noel (author of “A Brief Primer on Revelation”), all other miracles in John’s account were clearly identified as such. Even more telling, the boat is the subject of the verb. In all of John’s accounts of miracles, God is always the active subject in any miracle, and not the boat. Had this been a miraculous crossing, the verse would have read that God moved the boat, not that the boat simply arrived immediately. It is clear from the context that there was a period of hours in the rowing in this instance, and that this was the writers intent of the use of the word eutheos.

A second example, using Euthus, is Mark 1:21, where Jesus “immediately” began preaching on the Sabbath. They had been out fishing. We know that synagogues meet during the day, and not on a Friday night (Saturday being the Sabbath). So, we know for certain Jesus had to wait at least overnight, and, in fact, it could have been a few days. Yet, this is also often translated as preaching “immediately” on the Sabbath. Some translations catch this, and render it to the more understandable English, that Jesus began preaching on the “next” Sabbath, that is, as soon as Saturday’s service came around.

In that example, the meaning of the text is plain enough, but what begins to become clear is that “eutheos” is apparently more concerned with sequence of events, rather than with timing. This is indeed what is the case throughout the New Testament usage of the Word, and “immediately”, as is commonly understood by an English reader is an unfortunate translation at best, probably, again, used because of its more comfortable language with the “de meta”, or “after”.

A few other examples of Eutheos implying a time gap are as follows: Matthew 13:5 and Mark 4:15,
where the seed “forthwith” (eutheos) sprang up, Luke 6:49, the house built on sand falling “immediately” (eutheos) when it might have lasted for some time in the storm before failing, and 3 John 1:14, John is writing in a letter
that he trusts he shall “shortly” (eutheos) see them, not “immediately”.

In the boat ride (John 6), we could say that the disciples rowed directly to shore, that is, without side trips. In the case of the Mark 1 Synagogue, we could read that as Jesus went to teach on the next Sabbath. So, too, when we come to the interpretation of Matthew 24:29, we must consider that Eutheos here merely means “next”, “directly”, or “straightway”, but does not convey timing. This, then, is exactly what Jesus is getting at–He is beginning to answer the first question “When?”.

Next, but after… Not Immediately After

So, consider the proposed translation of “Next, but after the tribulation of those days, …” in the place of Matthew 24:29. What Jesus has been doing so far is describing the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem (vv4-22), and then He begins to contrast the conditions before that fall with those after (vv23-28).

Now, in v29-31, He introduces the concept topic of the second and third questions, His Coming and the End of the Age (or World). He describes His glorious appearing, visible to everyone at every place at the same time. He has spent the first part of the chapter, thus far, describing the first, and now briefly describes the second (He will pick this theme back up in v37 and following). But, He blocks clearly blocks out both sets of events from each other with His introduction of them with “Eutheos de meta”. That is, they will occur in sequence next, but they will positively follow “after” the first.

vv32-33 describe in short a parable of a fig tree that they should be able to discern the signs of His coming. They will know it because of the signs they see.

And, then, in v34-36, comes the actual answer to the first question.

Now, keep in mind, Jesus has just explained in some detail the coming destruction in 70 AD, contrasted it with what was about to come, and then briefly describe the final day of His appearing. Generally speaking, though the explicit phraseology does not hold in Mark’s account, it can be used as a good rule of thumb to say that the phrase “these things” applies to the “when will all these things happen?” of Matthew 24:3, and “that day” would generally refer to the Second Coming.

The Time Texts

So, you have Jesus’ answer. As simple as it may appear, many people get caught up on the first verse here, and fail to see v36. For that reason, we have quoted v34 & v36, and omitted v35 here to demonstrate what is being said.

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. … But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Matthew 24:34, 36

What He said was, “this generation won’t pass away until the events of v4-22 are fulfilled, but of that day, the v29-31 ones, no man or angel, but only the Father knows the timing of.

So, there you have it, in plain speech which is only confused by an imprecise translation in Matthew 24:29 and an interposed verse of Matthew 24:35. While many people contend that the “all these things” must include the v29-31 ones, they are explicitly excluded by the v36 clause. “These things” will all happen within a generation (and they did 37 years after He said it), but, and excluding “that day”, no one knows the hour.

So, consider the hypothesis we have proposed with “eutheos”, which throughout the New Testament often implies a time gap of some duration (and, yes, this also imposes a possibility of some kind of small time gap on the miracles of Jesus). We already have demonstrated that the use of this word can indicate a gap of hours, days, and possibly even months (3 John 1:14), so, we must ask ourselves, what is the limit for this time gap? Concisely, there isn’t one, except in normalcy of speech. But, we must ask ourselves, still, can it justify a near 2,000 year gap? Well, keep in mind v36, above. The actual timing of the second event, the Second Coming, is completely unknown here. The Lord Himself didn’t even know the day. What is indicated, however, is merely that “in a direct course from here to there”, things are progressing, but after the fall of Jerusalem. Hence, while some may consider it to be a stretch to describe two millennia as “eutheos”, it falls directly into the ambiguity expressed by the Lord Himself regarding His Second Coming–no one knows the day or hour.

An Overview

This, then, is the breakdown of the passage. Jesus describes both events, one in detail (v4-22) and one in summary (v29-31), first contrasting them (v23-28), and then specifically and emphatically indicating their sequence (eutheos de meta, v29). Only then, after relating both topics, does He continue to answer their questions to the best of His own knowledge–the one will happen within a generation, say 40 years, v34, but the timing of the other event is completely unknown (v36). From here on, v37ff, and on into Matthew 25, Jesus then only describes the Second Coming.

This understanding not only fits perfectly with the other accounts (especially with Luke’s account where the “time of the Gentiles” is clearly interposed between the two sets of events), but it also solves the riddle of v34’s use of the term “genea”, or generation. It simply meant what it appeared to mean, the generation of Jews alive while Jesus spoke it. Further, it avoids the need to juggle the texts in order to avoid the appearance of answering the first question, because Jesus clearly did. This is a text that even CS Lewis defaulted on, claiming it to be quite embarassing to see Jesus wrong–but He wasn’t! And, it keeps one completely out of the turbulent and heretical waters of full preterism, which claims that the Second Coming of Matthew 24:29-31 already occurred (which, it hasn’t).

The most notable, to us, aspect of this all is that it does it without any injustice to the text, unless you disagree with the specific use of Eutheos to imply as long as a gap as we see, in consideration of the uncertainty. What is clear is that Eutheos can support a gap, and it seems that mere convenience of language has been the steering force behind the use of “immediately after”, rather than the more literal “straigthway but after”. It is, after all, a simple matter of defintions, and, while not all lexicons may list “next”, “directly”, or “straightway”, many of them, in fact, do.

The Immediate Ramifications

This, of course, is a blow to futurism, if adopted. Take note the following,

For then shall be Great Tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Matthew 24:21, emphasis added, including cannibalization

What the immediate outcome of this is, if correct, is that the Great Tribulation is positively in the past (while the Second Coming is future). We will see that this, indeed, appears to be the case as well when we look at Daniel 12’s description of what appears to be the same. There, Daniel 11 appears to end with the Battle of Actium in 31 BC in vv40-44, which corresponds to the beginning of the Roman empire, the fourth empire of Daniel. This places the beginning of Daniel 12, and Daniel’s Great Tribulation, precisely at the same point, in the time of Christ.

For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Luke 21:22

Luke speaks of these days as the “days of vengeance” and fulfilling all the things that were written. And, of course, context is everything. Luke is clearly speaking of Jerusalem, and, unless this is the end of all history, this cannot be speaking of anything other then the fulfillment of all things which are written concerning Jerusalem. Further, although some still postulate that this must be the ultimate fulfillment of everything ever prophesied, it fails its own prophecy, because there are events written, in this very chapter, which happen, by some translations, “immediately after”. What is clear is that, by whatever interpretation of Matthew 24:29 you take, that the events of Matthew 24:29 must occur at some interval distant from the Great Tribulation. That is, the Tribulation must end, and “after”, whether soon or later, there must be a gap, and then the Second Coming. Since the Second Coming is certainly “written”, Luke 21:22 can only be seen to be pertaining to those things written concerning the present context, Jerusalem. These were, then, the days of Vengeance.

The Scope of the Disaster

A common argument that the trial of Jerusalem in 70 AD could not have been the Great Tribulation is that the Nazi Germany killed some six million Jews in the 1940s, and that in the 70 AD, only about 1.1 million Jews were killed. But, we find this to be a bit disingenuous. Consider the widow’s mite–it was not the quantity, but the portion of the whole, as well as the degree of sacrifice–it was all she had to live on. Which one gave more?

With WWII, most modern people have seen at least several hours of documentaries in their lives of the horrors of the concentration camps of the Third Reich. What no one has seen is direct photographic and video footage from the siege of the Romans around the capital of Israel. This is what makes the above argument seem plausible. But, consider the following facts.

There were over one million killed 70 AD for the simple reason that the siege walls were erected during the annual feast of Passover. Nearly the entire nation was gathered together in the city for this required Mosaic feast. The percentage of Jews killed was phenomenal, although not complete. Second, the degree of suffering of the Nazi death camps was unthinkable, but how do they compare with the Romans? During the last months of the siege, Titus crucified 500 Jews daily outside the city to discourage the rebels. While we are rightly horrified with thoughts of firing squads, gas chambers, and mass graves, how does that every compare to emperor Nero tying living Christians to poles, lighting them on fire, and using them as street-lights for his parties?

An entire nation compacted together in one city, with even their food supplies set fire by one of their own rebel leaders to force them to fight. The starvation, the stench, the suffering, the murder, and the boiling wrath of God poured out upon one small patch of earth. Had God not ended it, not any flesh would have been saved.

In fact, as unthinkable as these acts are, the very fact that they are so unthinkable, and that a Nazi Germany couldn’t even out-do the crazed violence of Rome shows the effect of Christianity on the world in the past 2,000 years. Men are capable of great evil, and even the horrible evils of Auschwitz, but, historically, and Biblically, you’ve never watched the Jersualem documentary on a historical channel. Thank-God you never will.

Some have objected to this reasoning, citing the Jews own testimonies of the atrocities committed against themselves. I will never diminish the suffering and hostility committed wrongly against this people, over and above what they deserved, but I will appeal that it is not to another people group that this claim is applied, but to the sufferer’s own forefathers. Let their arguments come face to face with that of their own ancestors who suffered, and let them compare lash for bullet.

Jacob’s Trouble and the End

Some have also made the case that a time of trouble immediately followed by the Messiah’s Kingdom is further supported throughout other texts in the Old Testament. Some take the end of Isaiah 26 and the beginning of Isaiah 27 to be speaking of this.

In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Isaiah 27:1

In the last verses of the preceeding chapter, the prophet talks about hiding from the wrath of God. Here, we see the Leviathan, or the dragon, is slain in the sea. Some have equated this to Christ’s return and the establishment of His Kingdom in Revelation 20:1-6. This, however, does not appear to be that time, for the simple reason that the dragon is thrown alive into the pit, not slain.

Other similar arguments from other diverse places are used to pull together a case for such, but, in direct Scriptural evidence, it relies almost entirely upon the texts of the Olivet Discourse, as we discussed here, and that of Daniel 11-12 to establish the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming in concrete concordance with each other. Further than that, it is specifically only Matthew 24:29’s translation of “eutheos” as ‘immediately’ which supplies us with the direct time connotation that one must follow the other with little pause.

As we have seen through our analysis, however, the New Testament case that the Tribulation must be followed without significant delay by the Second Coming is at least suspect, if not altogether in not supported by the text.

It is our belief, here, that this breakdown of the Olivet represents the case in the most straight-forward manner, and that, once understood, represents the plain reading of the text. If one can agree that (a) “eutheos” often implies a time gap which can be significant (3 John 1:14, for example), and (b) due to the nature of the timing of the second event being completely unknown it can therefore substantiate a roughly 2,000 now year gap, then the rest of the reading of the text follows most directly and plainly, in all three accounts, as described above, in perfect accord with the questions.

The fact that this can be established, outside of the need for discussing many of the periphery items, including directly addressing the “genea” of v34 which has been the debate of many preterists and futurists, the burden for finding a more simple, genuine reading of the text falls, in our opinion, on both the traditional preterists and furturists. The preterists, must support a 3 1/2 year tribulation followed by historical Second Coming of Christ after some durable gap, and the furturists, on their attempt to extricate v4ff from the questions in vv1-3.

Paul’s Argument

A striking corollary of this is found in an unexpected place, Paul’s “Man of Lawlessness”, 2 Thessalonians 1-2.

In this book, Paul deals with these same two events, but in reverse order. In 2 Thessalonians 1, Paul is speaking of the Second Coming. As he turns into 2 Thessalonians 2, he appears to be using the same argument as Matthew 24:29, that the Second Coming must come after the trial of Jerusalem.

Apparently with additional revelation from the Spirit, Paul says that the Second Coming cannot occur until the after the rebellion occurs. Many have interpreted this to be a future End-Times antichrist, but what appears to fit the case better is that Paul is speaking of the apostasy, or rebellion, of the then living Jews in what would be the great apostasy and rebellion that led to the destruction of the city. The Man of Lawlessness was likely one of the rebel leaders of that rebellion, and the restrainer of their madness was the Jewish Priesthood. They set up their headquarters in the temple itself, and, once they had killed certain of the priests, they sealed their own destruction from the hands of the Romans.

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

2 Thessalonians 2:8

Consider, then, this man’s two-fold destruction. He is first consumed with the spirit, or breath, of his mouth, and then, additionally, he shall be destroyed with the brightness of his coming.

In the first place, the spirit overthrew the man at the fall of the city. In the second, he shall be eternally destroyed on the Second Coming, which was the topic in the previous chapter.

Hence, the prophecy is literally fulfilled, but the text never specified that they must happen conjunctively, but just that both will occur.

Many, of course, will object to the lifting of this verse out of the context of a future antichrist, however, as we will detail a little later, there remains no substantive evidence of a specific, end-times “super-villian”, if you will, other than the evil leaders that have come up. Of course, this does not preclude in the slightest that there will not be someone worse than Hitler, Stalin, or some such evil leader (again, it seems for the most part, American culture can envision no greater evil than what they have watched on TV. The fact is, there have been much more evil men than these, but perhaps, these others simply lacked the significant industrialization to accomplish what these men did in their day).

Be that as it may, there fails to be any need to connect this passage, and many other passages, together into the framework others have described. If what we have been presenting is sound, and continues to be so, these, and the other texts often associated with an end-times antichrist leader each have had their place on individuals throughout history, and we are yet commanded to be on the lookout for the wiles of the enemy in our day.

Reflections

Of all the atrocities of history, none have compared to Nero’s insanity. While Hitler gassed, gunned, and burned hundreds of thousands, he never tied Christians to poles, lit them on fire, and used them as street lamps for his parties. As gruesome as history demonstrates itself, the Romans, at the height of the siege, were crucifying 500 a day outside the walls. On top of that, the overcrowding, the famine, the warring factions, and the other factors pressing on Jerusalem were the worst judgment the world has ever seen, or will ever see, on any city.

This is the punishment for the city who forgets God. As gruesome and as horrible as it is, which the modern pupil can not usually even begin to understand, it stands in history as a marked reminder of both the goodness and the severity of God.

In Romans 5:8, it says that God demonstrates His love for us in this, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Yet, at the same time, we are reminded that great and horrible destructions await those who continually, willfully, and obstinately turn and harden their hearts when they hear His voice.

The greatest devastation and resulting desolation came because the Jews rejected Jesus. As John’s Gospel records, He came unto His own, but His own received Him not (John 1:11). He came unto His city, but He Himself said they had missed the time of their visitation.

God had prepared the prophecies of Daniel to show them the time of His visitation. Jesus appeared on the scene and said that that time was fulfilled, and that the promised Kingdom was here. He demonstrated the presence and superiority of the Kingdom through His signs, wonders, and miracles, such that all the people said, “He does all things well.” Yet, the one thing required to see the spiritual Kingdom, repentance that leads to faith and the new birth, was the one thing the proud heart of man could not do.

Faith as a Mustard Seed

Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Cyril of Alexandria noted that the Greek for ‘camel’ was ‘kamelos’ and the word for ‘rope’ was ‘kamilos’, a difference of only a letter. But, what appears to be in view is that Jesus is intentionally making use of the play on words, the Greek pun as it were, to illustrate His point. This is indeed impossible with man, but with God, all things are impossible. Not only was a rope an impossibility, it was that much more of a possibility as that of a camel.

It is only through the faith of a simple child that we truly come into the Kingdom, as Jesus said, unless you humble yourselves, you never will. If Jesus only came to save sinners, then who are you, oh man, to stand and claim innocence. You will only find yourself unable to receive.

But, I found myself one time in ‘envy’, if you will, of the woman who kissed Jesus’ feet. I was disturbed at the thought that those who were forgiven much would love much, and that those who were forgiven little would love little. I eventually set out to make a thorough list of things to repent of, hoping that, in my young understanding, that being forgiven of many little things would result, as well, in loving much. What I failed to realize, however, was the depths of my sin.

In my zeal, right or wrong, I found that I, in all honesty, was the one truly in need of a deeper work of Grace. As James writes, there is a greater grace, and the way to it is humility. And, true to what I desired, as I have discovered my own forgiveness more and more, and come to know and believe the Father’s love for me, I indeed have begun to love more and more, forgive more and more, and to live, and that abundantly.

Walking in Love

Ultimately, if we get nothing else right, let us walk in love. Not the love you hear on the radio in a song, but the love of God from the heart that makes your insides warm. Not passion, but peace. At the end of the day, let us have Kingdom hearts as well as Kingdom teaching, and thereby grow up in all things in to Christ, who is our head.

God won’t much care if you get Matthew 24 right, if you don’t love Him. I am sure, through the course of this book, I have made at least a few blunders in my own interpretation. What I am sure of, I have tried to indicate, and what is opinion, I have tried to leave as such. But, my hope is for more than simply right understanding, although it is that. But, my hope is that right understanding of God’s Kingdom would be preached, released, and established.

If it is not already clear, I am in no way advocating a “Kingdom Now” approach. Rather, if the heart of your Kingdom teaching is not in line with the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, and all of the New Testament, as all fully binding upon the church today, it flawed. To the teacher of the law who said the two greatest commandments were loving God and others, Jesus said He was not far from the Kingdom. If the scope of your understanding does not lead one to live like Jesus lived and to love like He loved, free from bondage and manipulation, what good is it?

Kingdom Here

I prefer to call myself “Kingdom Here”. The Kingdom always has been, at least since the world has, and to call it ‘Now’ is no more descriptive than to say an hour has 60 minutes. No, Jesus said the Kingdom was here, at hand, meaning, we could touch it, enter it, and take it. In the future, it will come, with the glory of the Father and the angels of heaven. At that time, too, it will be different than it is now, and we will be received as full sons.

While there is a dominion through the realm of faith, let us never fail to remember the example of our Lord,

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.

John 13:3-5

Jesus, when He finally had everything, stripped himself of everything, and took the lowest position. In the same way, let us who are first prefer to be last, and those who are last, first, and learn to be a servant, a disciple of love.

The world shook, and nations crumbled, because a man allowed Himself to be crucified. He didn’t save the whole world by going to every nation personally, but He was faithful to the specific thing God had entrusted to Him, and was faithful with it to the end.

In the same way, likewise, let us take on the role of a servant, and serve God, and in so doing, serve others. It is only in this way that we do truly enter into the service of the King, and hence, the Kingdom. This then, is how we should live.

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death– even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11

Summary

The Olivet Discourse is found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.
The context of the discourse is the coming destruction of the visible Second Temple complex.
Jesus asked three questions: When? What are the signs of your Coming? And the end of the World?
The “end of the age” signifies the end of the cursed Earth, not the end of some supposed “Jewish age”. The “end of the world” is synonymous.
Some futurists propose that Jesus did not answer the first question at all in Matthew 24, but only in Luke’s account. This is not the clear reading of the text.
Many of the events are clearly demonstrated historically, and there is no real debate about some of them as possible fulfillments.
The main problems presented for any past interpretation are three-fold.
The problem of the Gospel to every nation in Matthew 24:14 is solved by Colossians 1:23.
The problem of the Abomination of Desolation is most likely the Romans soldiers breaching the temple. This is directly followed by Luke’s sign of Jerusalem surrounded by armies.
The problem of “immediately” is solved by a deeper study of the word “Eutheos”.
Eutheos often implies a time gap.
This gap can be hours (John 6:21), days (Mark 1:21), or even weeks or months (3 John 1:14).
Eutheos in Matthew 24:29 definately implies a gap.
The question regarding Eutheos is how long that gap can be.
v36 indicates that Jesus didn’t know when the Second Coming would be, which makes the case that the gap for Eutheos could extend for nigh on 2,000 years.
The structure of the Discourse shows Jesus first describing His the 70 AD destruction, contrasting it with His Second Coming, and then describing the Second Coming in vv29-31.
This indicates the sequence, not immediacy of these events, but begins to answer the question, When?.
The clear indication of the timing scriptures, vv34,36, shows that “these things” (v4-22) will happen within a generation, but that day (v29-31) is unknown.
The rest of the chapter, on into Matthew 25 speaks only of Christ’s Second Coming, for which are told to “Watch!”.
This definately places the Great Tribulation in the past, in 70 AD.
70 AD was the worst time in human history ever, including the future, because the Bible says it is.
WWII did not surpass the proportion nor degree of suffering of 70 AD. While WWII was bad, 70 AD was much, much worse.
Nearly the entire nation was gathered for Passover when the siege was erected.
Nearly the entire population of the nation was gathered.
The rebels burned their own food to try to provoke the Jews to fight the Romans.
Titus crucified 500 Jews daily outside Jersualem.
Over one million Jews died.
Passages such as Isaiah 27:1 do not necessarily indicate that the Tribulation must be directly followed by the Messianic Kingdom. There is enough discrepancy in the verses that this could clearly be applied to another time period, either past or future, depending on context.
Paul’s argument in 2 Thessalonians 1-2 bears striking similarity to the structure of the Olivet. The reasoning behind the Second Coming not having happened yet is that the rebellion and false leader has not appeared yet. If this was indeed part of the fall of Jerusalem, this would indicate that the reason the Second Coming could not have happened yet was exactly what Jesus said in Matthew 24:29, that it must be “eutheos de meta”, “straightway, but after”.
The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love.
If we are truly to see and understand and grasp the Kingdom, we must see it with new eyes, Kingdom eyes, in the Spirit.
Since the greatest in the Kingdom is a Servant, let us seek the low place, and humble ourselves, that He can lift ourselves up.
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given Him everything, stripped Himself, and put on a towel, and washed the disciples feet.
We can have all the teaching right, but if we fail to have His heart, we have failed at love.