Things to bear in mind before coming to any conclusions about the Olivet Discourse (Matthew ch. 24; Mark ch. 13; and Luke ch. 21).
1. The Greek New Testament uses two words in reference to the Temple of God:
(a) "hieron", which refers to the temple structure in Jerusalem; and
(b) "naos", referring to the sanctuary of God that was housed inside the "hieron". *
* Following the verses talking about the tearing of the veil, the word "naos" is only used for the church and the bodies of individual saints when talking about the temple / sanctuary of God (once in the New Testament the word is used in reference to a pagan shrine).
* The word "hieron" is used in the only verse in Paul's epistles where he's talking about the temple in Jerusalem, but "naos" is used in Paul's references to the church and the bodies of saints as the temple / sanctuary of God.
* The word "naos" is used in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
2. These are the only three times tribulation is referred to as "great" [megas] tribulation in the New Testament:- *
(i) Matthew 24:22 says that for the elect's sake the days of "great" tribulation will be shortened.
(ii) Revelation 7:9-10, 13-15 talks about saints who came out from "great" tribulation.
(iii) In Revelation 2:21 Jesus tells those saints who follow Jezebel that if they do not repent, He will cast them into "great" tribulation.
* Tribulation in general is mentioned over 35 times in the New Testament as the experience of apostles or of saints. Only twice is it referring to the tribulation of those who are not Christians (Romans 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians 1:6).
* Luke 21:23 uses the word wrath [orgḗ] to describe what was to come upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem (not the word tribulation).
3. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus speaks a great deal more about the persecution and tribulation that His disciples and the saints (the living stones of the New Testament "naos") would endure - both before and after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem - than He speaks about the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20-24).
4. "'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."
Many Christians believe that the above historical event became a type of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
5. Luke, who wrote Luke's gospel, was not himself an eyewitness, but recorded eyewitnesses accounts for his gospel. Hence Luke 11:42-52 and Luke 13:34-35 record Jesus - on His way to Jerusalem - saying things that Matthew 23 & 24 record Him saying in the temple and on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
All 5 facts should be born in mind before any interpretation of the Olivet Discourse can be adopted.
In the beginning of Luke's gospel, he writes,
"Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.
So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." (Luke 1:1-4).
Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus life and ministry, so he was writing down what he had learned from those who were eyewitnesses. As a result there are discrepancies that exist in the gospels as to Jesus' location when He said certain things - but not as to the things He said.
The passages in Luke quoted below are talking about the end of the Age and the return of Christ. So is the parallel passage in Matthew 24:15-31:
THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM
AND THE OLIVET DISCOURSE
RECORDED BY:
It's important to compare the following fact with the two facts that follow it:-
Fact #1: The reason why Jesus' disciples questioned Him again regarding the temple that represented the Old Covenant, even after He had left the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, crossed the Kidron Valley and ascended the Mount of Olives, is fully understandable:
- The last Passover meal where Jesus had taken the cup and told them it represents His blood of the New Covenant was still only to take place a night or two later, and though Jesus had ALREADY told them that He would be delivered over to the Gentiles and be killed, and would rise again on the third day, they had barely believed Him, because:
- Their perception of the Messiah - a perception which had always been the expectation of the Jews - was one of a conquering king who would destroy Israel's enemies, and usher in the Messianic kingdom where Israel and the temple in Jerusalem would be exalted above all nations, and the temple would become "a house of prayer for all nations".
So Jesus' disciples had not understood - yet - about how the Temple of God of the New Covenant IS CHRIST, nor, at that point, did they understand (yet) how He was going to replace the Old Covenant and the temple in Jerusalem which represented it.
Fact # 2: Jesus pronounced THE END of the Old Covenant system and the temple that represented it BEFORE finally turning His back on the temple and making His way to the Mount of Olives:
- "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." (Matthew 23:38).
- "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19).
- "Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Matthew 24:2).
The Old Covenant was very soon to be abolished in His flesh (Ephesians 2:15). The veil in the temple that represented the Old Covenant system would be torn in two the moment Jesus died (Matthew 27:50-51):
"For this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28). ("Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." - John 2:19).
Fact # 3:
Because of the New Covenant - the new things that lay ahead - and ESPECIALLY because of what Jesus was soon to face in order to establish the New Covenant in His blood, and remembering Lot's wife, He was not interested in looking back to the old things after pronouncing THE END of the old: In order to bring in the New Covenant and the new things that lay ahead, Jesus was soon to sweat blood pleading with His Father that if at all possible, to let that cup pass from Him.
It can be easily understood why the apostles and disciples at that point still failed to understand, but today there are many Christians who have had the gospel, the New Covenant scriptures and the teaching of the apostles at their disposal - for over 1,900 years,
yet for different reasons and to various degrees, are STILL EVEN NOW obsessed with the old things in their interpretation of what Jesus said on the Olivet Discourse.
With regard to our interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and the New Testament, we should not be half-believers, with one foot in the old, and one foot in the new: Jesus Himself turned His back on the Old Covenant and just a few days later He suffered and died, and rose again from the dead, the Old Covenant having been completely abolished in his flesh, and the veil of the temple that represented the Old Covenant having been torn in two at the precise moment He died.
In all three of the synoptic gospels we find that after He sat down on the Mount of Olives, the very first thing Jesus began to speak and warn about in response to the disciples' questions, was:-
(i) Birth-pain signs of the end of the Age; and
(ii) The tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament Temple would experience; and
(iii) The end of the Age.
(iv) Signs in the heavens at the time of His return and the end of the age.
This is not guess-work: The grammar of the passages and the words "therefore" and "before" in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:12 are extremely important - but brushing aside the meaning of these words and the grammar used in each passage, is engaging in guess-work.
(1) Luke is using a Markan sandwich, where verses 8-11 is the bottom piece of bread and verses 25-36 is the top piece of bread - which are both talking about the end of the age and time of Jesus' return.
In-between the two pieces of bread Luke is speaking about the first century, where the word BEFORE in Luke 21:12 indicates that the persecution Jesus' disciples were going to endure (verses 12-19) would take place even BEFORE Jerusalem was destroyed (verses 12-24). (This WAS their experience, and Nero's persecution erupted and ended even before AD 70).
(2) Matthew does not use the word BEFORE in verse 15, but the word THEREFORE, and the conjunctive words used throughout the text of Matthew 24:9-31 do not warrant or support separating verses 15-22 from the rest of the text, for example:
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. THEREFORE when you see the abomination of desolation - spoken about by Daniel the prophet - standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains .. " etc (Matthew 24:14-16).
Like Matthew 24:9-14 & 29-31, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 is talking about the end of the age and return of Christ. That should explain what the word THEREFORE in Matthew 24:15 is referring to.
Yet way too many Christians hold onto the Old Covenant temple and want it to be about THAT temple - which ceased being the holy place the moment the veil in that once holy place was torn in two, the moment Jesus died.
In verses 10 and 13 of Mark 13, Mark ties the persecution which the disciples were warned they will endure, to the gospel first being published among all nations, and to the promise that the one who endures to the end will be saved. Matthew's account does the same thing. Then Mark speaks about the abomination of desolation (singular) standing where it ought not. Again, it follows Matthew's account (or Matthew follows Mark's account, according to some scholars).
--- ---
