It
is the spring of AD 30. The fig trees
are in bloom and Jerusalem is crowded. A rabbi is walking out of the temple with
his disciples and one of them, pointing to the temple, says to him, “Look how
great the temple is! Look at these stones!” The rabbi replies to him, “Do you
see this? I promise you, not one stone will be left upon another which will not
be torn down.” This story might seem crazy, except that this rabbi is Jesus,
the Christ, God-in-the-flesh. He doesn’t just spew nonsense, but he speaks
truth. Later, he is sitting on the Mount of Olives when his disciples came to
him and asked, “When is this going to happen? How will we know?” What follows
this question is what has come to be known as the Olivet discourse. It has been
the ammunition of many uncertain and opinionated theological debates, and
people have used it to fit whatever eschatological view they wish to promote. Thus,
it is my hope in this paper to shed some light on these controversial issues so
that the reader may at least have an idea of what to expect. For the purpose of
this short paper, I will focus on Matthew’s account since it contains a couple
pieces of information that are not found in Mark or Luke.
This discourse has two primary foci:
the signs of the end times (24:6-14), and the return of Christ. These two could
be broken down further into seven primary foci: the prophecy of the temple’s
destruction and of Jerusalem’s destruction (24:1-2), a warning of counterfeit
Christs (24:4-5, 23-28), a promise of persecution (24:9-13), a promise of
tribulation (24:6-8, 15-22), the prelude
to the Christ’s return (24:14), the return of Christ (24:29-41), and the
warning to be ready (24:42-51). Jesus spends most of this discourse speaking of
his return and warning his followers to be ready, warning not once but twice of
counterfeit Christs, while the issues of tribulation and persecution seem to be
side notes in comparison to the larger context.
There are several theological
controversies present in this discourse. The general agreement is that Jesus’
predictions were not misguided, yet evangelicals come to varying conclusions
from this passage nonetheless. Dispensationalists believe that the Olivet
Discourse vacillates between present-day (1st century) Jerusalem and
some distant future that even we in the 21st century may not see.
Their reason for this supposition is their focus on a period known as the Great
Tribulation, a time of catastrophic events which will take place just prior to
Jesus’ return to earth to establish his kingdom. In this case, the “abomination
of desolation” is speaking of some future temple which dispensationalists
believe will be built and then desecrated in a way similar to that of
Antiochus’ desecration of the temple in 168BC, in which he constructed an altar
to Zeus in the Holy Place of the temple. This corresponds with the
dispensationalist belief that Christ’s return will occur in stages coinciding
with the outworking of God’s plan for future Israel and the Church simultaneously.
The dispensationalist idea of God’s future plans for national Israel is why
they so adamantly urge people to pray for Israel; they believe that Israel is
still God’s favored nation. This idea, however, does not harmonize with the
idea of the body of Christ (both gentiles and Jews) being the true (spiritual)
Israel. [1]
Nonetheless, Dispensationalists hold
to two main “features” of Jesus’ comments: Daniel’s “Day of the Lord” (Daniel
9:24-27) as being a 70-week period in which a figure betrays national Israel
and desecrates a future temple, and the idea that Jesus is describing God’s
judgment upon earth immediately prior to His final deliverance of national
Israel. They cite Luke to say that this will be when the time of the Gentiles
is completed (which they cite as being “prophetic code” for the church age). In
other words, in some distant future that even we in the 21st century
have not yet seen, national Israel will construct a new temple to God, and some
prominent figure will betray the nation and desecrate this temple. After this,
the church age will come to a close and God will redeem national Israel for
Himself. But even regarding this, dispensationalists are torn. Some cite Jesus’
claim that all of “these things” (which He had prophesied about) would happen
within “this generation” and interpret it to mean that the Jewish people as a
whole would see it happen, while others see it as being a perpetual generation
of unbelievers throughout history. However, there are yet other
dispensationalists who believe that it means that the same literal generation
who sees the beginning of the tribulations Jesus describes will also see the
return of Christ.
There is one pressing issue to point
out in the dispensationalist view of the Olivet Discourse. If
dispensationalists believe that Jesus is talking about a literal period of
tribulation which will take place immediately preceding the παρουσια (pariousia) because of their claim that it
(somehow) fulfills some “postponed” 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27 (and
thus, according to them, lasting for 7 years) then one would have to conclude
that the Olivet Discourse’s correspondence with anything that Jesus’ disciples
(or even the early church for that matter) would know and understand is
artificial at best. In specific, I am talking about Jesus’ allusion to Daniel’s
“abomination of desolation” being taken as referring to some future temple,
which goes beyond that which the disciples and early church would have been
familiar with. In this case, Jesus’ historical backdrop must be duplicated (or
replicated). Next, we must look at inaguruated eschatology and how advocates of
that view would interpret this passage.
Some advocates of inaugurated
eschatology, like N.T. Wright and Brian Pitre, would contend that the Olivet
Discourse is not referring to the second coming (the parousia) at all, but
rather the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. The purpose of this would
be Jesus’ desire to establish Himself as a trustworthy prophet, and as Israel’s
true Messiah. Others view the discourse as pertaining primarily to
first-century events, though commentators who hold this view will vary on which
point in the passage they believe Jesus shifts from first-century events to
parousia events. A conversation with Gareth Reese showed that he believes
Matthew 24:1-35 is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem (even verses 29-31,
which seem to clearly speak of Jesus’ second coming,), and that verses 36-41
are speaking of the second coming of Christ. He says that verse 36’s phrasing,
“But of that day and hour…” is
referring to a different event than verses 29-31, being the event of Jesus’
second coming. Yet another group sees this discourse as using first-century
events as a prophetic backdrop to tell of future events which will occur
throughout the entire church age until Christ returns (D.A. Carson, Mark Nolland,
etc.).[2]
While
I am an advocate of at least some form of inaugurated eschatology (and would
probably fall under the third “inaugurated eschatology” group I described), Reese’s
view does not seem to me to harmonize with the passage. We would vary in our
interpretation of this passage; where he believes the shift from first-century
events to parousia events occurs at verse 36, I believe the shift happens much
sooner and more gradually. My reasoning behind this is that verse 14 says,
“This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony
to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Reese believes this to be the
first-century world, whereas I believe this to mean the entire planet. I
believe that the only reference to first-century events in this passage would
be the prophecy of the destruction of the temple (and that the destruction of
the temple is synonymous with the destruction of Jerusalem). After that, what
Jesus says slowly shifts in focus from being for his disciples to being for a
future generation, and that by verse 23, He is speaking entirely of future
events. However, I truly do not know, and my speculation is as good as anyone
else’s.
Of
course there are problems with such a view of eschatology. How can Jesus be
telling of current (first century) events and future events simultaneously?
More importantly, as Everett Berry said, “advocates of this paradigm cannot
find consensus on how the events that Jesus alludes to can possibly build and
replicate themselves throughout all of church history.” [3] And
what about the “abomination of desolation” or the descriptions of persecution?
Are these events which will happen continually throughout the church age and
until Christ returns, gradually building in intensity, or is this describing
something which will happen during a final period of tribulation in a greater
form than we could even now imagine? Since there is no concrete evidence that
will allow us to piece together what will happen in the future, advocates of
inaugurated eschatology remain divided in their interpretations.
The
final eschatological viewpoint to point out here is that of preterism. Advocates
of this view believe that all apocalyptic and end-times events occurred during
the first century AD and are now ancient history. As such, the interpret the
Olivet Discourse in the same way. People like Ken Gentry believe that Luke’s
account of the discourse explicitly limits Jesus’ prophecies to the first
century. However, Gentry admits there is difficulty with this view when it
comes to interpreting Luke 21:20-36 (the description regarding the Son of Man)
because it uses abstract imagery such as that found in Daniel 7:13-14 that
seems to go beyond the first century. [4]However,
he responds to his own dilemma by stating that futurists have more difficulty,
because (he believes) Jesus was speaking to his disciples (and thus referring
to the first century) when he said that “this generation” would see his
predictions come to pass. Nonetheless, for a preterist to hold that all of the
predictions of the entire Olivet Discourse occurred within the first century,
then the section regarding the Son of Man would have to mean that when
Jerusalem was destroyed, all would see that He was indeed the risen Lord who is
empowered to “symbolically ride the clouds of judgment against them and
vindicate his church as his new covenant people.”[5]
Finally, the biggest problem with the Olivet Discourse that preterists have to
deal with is its depiction of Christ’s second return. If indeed all the events
of the Olivet Discourse occurred within the first century, then what of the
final resurrection of the dead, the final judgment of man, and the eternal
state of judgment for the wicked and new creation for the righteous? They
believe that these descriptions can be found elsewhere in the New Testament,
but that Matthew 24 was specifically talking about first-century occurrences.
As
it stands, no one eschatological camp has a perfect interpretation of the
Olivet Discourse. The fact of the matter is, Jesus uses language that could be
interpreted in a variety of ways, and this passage seems to speak of both
first-century events and future events which have yet to come to pass. It is my opinion that both dispensationalists
and preterists must ignore some truths of scripture in order to make their view
fit together, and thus one could see why I do advocate an inaugurated view of
interpreting this discourse that would lend the possibility of Jesus talking
about both first-century and future
events simultaneously. After all, history contains repetitive patterns of
events that, in my opinion, would lend
logical support my advocacy of such a view. Nonetheless, it is my honest belief
that nobody will truly know what will happen until after it happens. As a
closing thought, it is my earnest prayer that believers might focus more on
living for the glory of the risen Christ by showing His love to unreached
peoples, and less on coming up with different interpretations of passages (such
as this one) that could be nonessential to salvation.
[1]
Berry, Everett. Reflecting on the Olivet
Discourse: How do Dispensationalists Typically Interpret Its Content? December 3, 2013.
http://everettberry.com/2013/12/03/reflecting-on-the-olivet-discourse-how-do-dispensationalists-typically-interpret-its-content/
(accessed February 4, 2015).
[2]
Carson, D. A. The Olivet Discourse (Matthew
24-25) - Part 1, 2, 3 (Sermon Podcasts). 1990.
http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/the-olivet-discourse-matthew-24-25-part-3.
[3] Berry, Everett. Reflecting on the Olivet Discourse:
How do Advocates of Inaugurated Eschatology Interpret its Content? December
19, 2013.
http://everettberry.com/2013/12/19/reflecting-on-the-olivet-discourse-how-do-advocates-of-inaugurated-eschatology-interpret-its-content/
[4]
Gentry, Ken. The Great Tribulation--Past or
Future? . Kregel Academic & Professional, 1999.
[5] --. Reflecting on the Olivet Discourse: How do
Preterists Interpret its Content?
December 20, 2013.
http://everettberry.com/2013/12/20/reflecting-on-the-olivet-discourse-how-do-preterists-interpret-its-content/
No comments:
Post a Comment