The following chapters in Matthew 24-25 form one of the most comprehensive overviews of identifying Jesus’ coming in the gospels. The Olivet discourse deals with the eschatological outlook from the perspective of our Lord Jesus directly. Many have interpreted the following scriptures as having as its primary focus the 2nd coming at the end of history while others see a mixture of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 along with the 2nd coming. With that said, the majority of interpreters today traditionally construe these texts into our future while acknowledging that some could be pertaining to the destruction of the temple but only minimally. In this review, I will explore the idea that the discourse is fulfilled in A.D. 70 ( Matthew 24:4-35) while the latter part will be fulfilled in the 2nd coming (verse 36 and forward).
TEARING DOWN THE TEMPLE STONES (Matthew 24:1-2/ Mark 13:1-2/ Luke 21:5-6)
Let’s begin with the two first verses in chapter 24:
Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matthew 24:1-2).
After the end of His encounter with the religious leaders, the Lord Jesus “came out” and “was going away” from the temple. His entrance was one that sent a message to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Their long-awaited Messiah had arrived but now was going away. His exodus from the temple pointed to their rejection of Him by those who refused to have Him as their Messiah. Their house was left to them desolate! The presence of God in the person of the Son left the temple and in return judgment would fall upon the structures of the great city much in the same way the glory of Yahweh leaving the temple in the days of old and stood over the mountain which is to the east (Ezekiel 10:18-19; 11:22-23).
The disciples admired the stones and the buildings from afar (Mark 13:1). It’s beauty and grandeur were remarkable to the human eye. This was the place where men came to worship the true God. His presence dwelt among those walls for centuries and it was a sign of the legitimacy of being the covenant people. The structure was a marvel of the world. Josephus describes it as:
Now the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men’s minds or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun’s own rays. But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceeding white[1].
The Lord Jesus then makes a shocking prediction. He states that “not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down”. This was undoubtedly a perplexing declaration keeping in mind the strength and beauty of the temple as well as their understanding of the presence of Yahweh[2]. The stones were incredibly large, and the structure would have seemed impenetrable. To think that all these stones would be demolished and the city with its constructs destroyed was simply unimaginable. Yet, the historical fact of its demise is unquestionable. The Roman Armies under general Titus destroyed Herod’s temple in A.D. 70 and desecrated it to the extent that today there is little left of the structures. Josephus writes of this event:
Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay, or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury: (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done:) Cæsar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city, and temple: but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency, that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne: and so much of the wall as inclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison: as were the towers also spared in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valour had subdued. But for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground, by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to, by the madness of those that were for innovations. A city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.[3]
Not only would the destruction of the temple be a travesty, the downfall of the temple also meant the cutting-off of the centrality of Jewish worship and life. It meant that sacrifices could no longer be offered and the presence of God leaving the temple and its city. It represented a true devastation to their entire way of life! How shocking must it have been to receive this proclamation! The message was clear enough however, that the followers of Christ were also preaching a similar message of coming judgment to the crowds which became one of the primary charges to condemn them to death (Acts 6:13-14).
THE QUESTIONS FROM THE DISCIPLES (Matthew 24:3/ Mark 13:3-4/ Luke 21:7)
While sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to inquire of Jesus about His disturbing statement [4]. They ask: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” The context of their question came from His earlier comments surrounding the temple and its desolation. It’s important to remember that the temple that they were referring to is not a temple in the future but the temple standing before their eyes on that day. This probing fits into two categories mainly upon “when” will those things happen and “what” will be the sign of His coming and the end of the age. They are looking for a timing and an indicator that He was on His way. In Mark’s gospel, the final part of the question is focused upon when “these things” will happen rather than the coming at the end of the age, while Luke’s rendition is more inline with Matthew. Keeping in mind the previous context (Matthew 21-23), we know that a judgment was issued upon the religious leaders. They would be the ones on whom would fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah. We also know that something was coming in the form of a judgment against the temple and the city. It was their house which would be left to them desolate and Christ’s lament was for “Jerusalem”. The disciples were obviously surprised by these statements (Mark 13:1) which prompted them to ask two questions to clarify the timeframe of the desolation of the house and the signs of the end of the age. If this symbol of their religious life was truly going to be destroyed, surely this had to be the end of the age and surely it would come with signs and wonders!
Understanding these two questions and how the Lord answers them is crucial to the whole discourse. Many theologians are agreed that the answer is focused upon both the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd coming of Christ. Albeit, there are still some who render the discourse as exclusively fulfilled in 70 A.D[5]. while others see its fulfillment entirely at the 2nd coming[6]. The problem lies in how to divide Matthew 24 all the way to Matthew 25:46 based upon the questions posed by the disciples. Which texts are referring to answering the timing when and which address the what? While not perfect, I believe that the best way to divide the discourse is to allow 24:3-35 to speak of the coming of Christ to judge the temple which He forsook in Chapters 21-23 while letting 24:36 onward to speak of the 2nd coming of Christ. There seems to be a transition at v.36 which we will address in a future section.
Sitting on the Mount of Olives, the Lord and the disciples would have had a scenic view of the temple and its many buildings. The landscape, along with the term “these things” which identifies those things previously spoken of, render unquestionably the inquiry about the destruction of the temple. Matthew introduces the Greek term “parousia” (or coming) to identify that Jesus’ response wasn’t focused only upon the temple but His return at the end of history. We must keep in mind that there are two distinct terms that will associate themselves with the translated term “coming”[7]. But what prompted the disciples to ask about His parousia based upon the preceding texts? France believes that “perhaps we may assume an undefined sense that so cataclysmic an event as the destruction of the temple must usher in the end of the present world order”[8]. In other words, the disciples could not envision the destruction of the temple without the ultimate end to history through the return of their Messianic king. They confused the destruction of the temple with the 2nd coming of Christ and in return with the end of the world[9]. The Lord is correcting the assumption of the disciples since there would be a coming in judgment against the temple and a physical coming in judgment against the nations at the 2nd coming. The words end of the age is challenging. What age is the Lord referring to? While there are various opinions to this age that will come to an end, I will interpret this in association with the parousia in the distant future[10].
Another important observation is that the term “end” (sunteleia) is utilized in Jesus’ answer while in the rest of the discourse, the term “Telos” is used for “end”[11]. Again, much like the term “coming” has two distinct words in the discourse, so does the term “end”. It is important to distinguish these terms to interpret the following passages. We will address these as we move along the chapter. The response to the question of the end of the age is probably corrective, to show that the destruction of the temple wasn’t necessarily the end of history. The phrase is found elsewhere in Matthew (Matthew 13:39) and conveys the idea of a judgment at the end of human history when the final harvest happens, and the tares are gathered for their final judgment.
In the next segment, we will explore warnings to the disciples not to be deceived by men and signs of their time.
[1] Flavius Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5:222-223
[2] Note the similarities to the destruction of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 9:6-9; Micah 3:12; Jeremiah 7:11-14, 26:1-23 which also happened in 586 B.C.
[3] Flavius Josephus, Jewish Wars, Book VII, Chapter 1.1
[4] Mark’s rendition has Peter, James, John and Andrew posing the question to Him.
[5] Hyper-Preterists would understand the entire discourse and even the 2nd coming of Christ as fulfilled in the 1st century.
[6] Classic Dispensationalists do not believe Matthew is dealing with the first temple, but that the entire discourse is about the 2nd coming and a future temple. They believe that Luke’s rendition actually addresses the 1st century temple while Matthew ignores it.
[7] The term Parousia and the other Erchomai. We’ll note the difference between the “sign of your coming (Parousia) and the sign of the Son of Man in His coming (erchomai) in v.30.
[8] France P. 895
[9] The confusion of the disciples was not an infrequent issue. They were often confused about the Lord’s words whether on the fact that He was going to die or in regard to His resurrection.
[10] It should be noted that not all commentators agree that the end of the age is a reference to the end of history. Many able bible scholars render the expression as the end of the Jewish age. This would associate the destruction of the temple with the end of the OT era and the temple sacrifices. The argument is that until A.D. 70, the OT was simply in the process of fading away (Hebrews 8:13) until its climactic end with the destruction of the temple & city.
[11] Gentry points out that Matthew uses sunteleia only in relation to the end of the world such as Matthew 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3, 28:20. He points out that “Despite common assumptions the word telos does not necessarily speak of the end of history. In fact, its lexical meaning highlights the goal toward which a movement is being directed, end, goal, outcome” (BADG 998). That is, it speaks of the conclusion to any particular movement, not just the end of historical development…Matthew appears to distinguish sunteleia from telos by reserving sunteleia as his distinctive term for eschatological end, the goal of history.” (The Olivet Discourse Made Easy, Kenneth L. Gentry, Victorious Hope Publishing, 2010, Pages 47-48)
The Moncton Herald 