The Olive Garden Discourse

Per the request of a friend and an acquaintance from a Facebook group, I’ve compiled several insights on the Olivet Discourse, which are helpful for accurately interpreting this challenging text.

I’ve organized these insights into sections based on their general category, working primarily from Matthew 24. Relevant parallel texts from Mark 13 and Luke 21 are discussed as necessary.

The Preceding Literary Context

The chapter division between Matthew 23 and 24 is unfortunate. Observations from chapter 23 are crucial for correctly interpreting this text but are often overlooked if we adhere too strictly to the chapter division. Thus, we will first examine chapter twenty-three.

Chapter twenty-three of Matthew’s gospel is the infamous “woe” chapter. Two key observations are important.

First, Jesus pronounces judgment on the people, reminiscent of the prophets’ judgment before the exile and destruction of Solomon’s temple. Jesus assumes the role of prophet, announcing judgment on the people for rejecting him and their ungodliness. Just as pre-exilic Israel had rejected YHWH, so too did Jesus’ contemporaries reject him. In a poignant manner, Jesus tells them they are just like their ancestors (Matt. 23:29-36). This point is emphasized repeatedly within the gospel narrative.

Secondly, just as God judged the people of Israel by sending them into exile and allowing the temple’s destruction, Jesus now tells them that their house will be left “desolate” (ἔρημος). It is noteworthy that the judgment Jesus pronounces on the people of that “generation” is the temple’s destruction (the very building in which he stands during the pronouncement). It’s also significant that Jesus’ pronouncement of judgment is the ἐρήμωσις (desolation) of their “house” (οἶκος), the same word used to describe the temple in Matt. 21:13. Jesus, standing within the temple itself, pronounces its forthcoming destruction.

Two key points are notable: Jesus is functioning as a prophet, pronouncing impending judgment on his immediate audience, and that judgment is associated with the temple’s destruction. It will be left “desolate.”

Immediately after this pronouncement, Jesus and his disciples leave the temple grounds. His disciples point out the temple buildings, and Jesus reaffirms what was previously communicated to his audience within the temple. The temple will be destroyed (Matt. 24:1).

Thus, on two occasions prior to the disciples’ questions, Jesus foretells the temple’s destruction. In response to these two pronouncements of impending destruction, Jesus’ disciples ask two questions.

The first of these questions is “when will these things be.” The second question is “what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age.”

As has been noted by others, both a “when” question and a “what” question are embedded here. When will this happen, and what will be the signs of their coming?

Carson, I believe, rightly points out that these two events (the destruction of the temple and the end of the age) were fixed in the disciples’ minds as occurring simultaneously. They assume that the destruction of the temple will coincide with the end of the age. Jesus’ response clarifies that this is a misunderstanding.

In the disciples’ minds, they are asking one question (as they assume these events are linked) and are expecting one set of signs to be associated with these linked events. Jesus’ response is carefully crafted to clarify for the disciples that these two events are not linked and the signs for each are not necessarily the same. Instead, the two events must be considered independently of each other. As a result, the accompanying signs may be distinct.

Jesus’ response aims to clarify for the disciples the distinction between these two events, emphasizing that they can predict one event based on signs but not the other.

In light of the disciples’ two questions, Jesus’ previous prophetic act, and his foretelling of the temple’s desolation, we should assume that Jesus’ response concerns these things—the timing of these events and the signs concerning these events. The Olivet Discourse is, after all, an answer to these questions.

Our analysis then must start with the assumption that Jesus is responding to their inquiry—when will this foretold destruction occur, when will he return (assuming they aren’t connected as the later text will confirm) and what will be the signs of each. These questions will guide our examination of the text.

The Subsequent Literary Context

Not only do preachers and commentators isolate Matthew 24:1-31 from both the preceding literary context (Matt. 23) but they also isolate it from the subsequent literary context (Matt. 24:32 – 25:46).

Understanding the content following Matthew 24:1-31 is as crucial for grasping the most challenging aspects of this text as understanding the preceding text is.

A few key observations are necessary, but Jesus’ point is simple. No one knows when he will return; it cannot be known. This is the lesson of the servants, the virgins, and the talents, each of which emphasizes the unknowable timing of Christ’s return and the need to be ready at any moment. The timing of the second coming is unknown; there are no clear signs. Regardless, his disciples must be ready. This is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

So then, in light of the disciples’ inquiry concerning the hour in which the temple’s destruction would occur and the hour in which he would return would occur, and knowing that these things are not linked, we should not be surprised that Jesus’ response addresses the signs of two separate events, emphasizing that while the timing of his return cannot be known, the timing of the temple’s destruction can be discerned by observing the signs.

The task then of the interpreter is to rightly understand which portions of Jesus’ response to the disciples’ questions are associated with the respective events. When the text is approached with these categories, in light of the literary context, it is not difficult to determine which section speaks to each event.

Textual Consideration

In light of these literary observations, we’ll proceed to examine Matt. 24:1-51, section by section, and ask if it concerns the destruction of the temple or the second coming. Additionally, we will consider what signs are associated with the event in question.

Matthew 24:4-14 —

“And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:4-14 ESV)

Second Coming or Destruction of the Temple?

Matthew 24:4-14 describes a period of tribulation and suffering. However, the primary event in question is very clearly the end of the age (Christ’s return). This can be observed through Jesus’ statements, “and then the end will come.” Moreover, several of the signs point to the intra-advent period, particular events described in verses in which Jesus appears to be speaking not to his immediate disciples but to his broader followers who would come after the twelve.

Moreover, Jesus makes clear that these signs are merely “birth pains.” They precede the climax but the “end is not yet.” While the signs accompany the event, Jesus makes it clear that the signs don’t indicate the event is imminent. Instead they are are a normal part of the life between his first and second coming. They are merely birth pains and the disciples should not be tricked into believing that the end has come as a result of having endured (or heard of) suffering between his Advents. Rather, they must endure to the end.

What will be the accompanying signs?

Several signs are normative during this period. Wars, false christs, famines, earthquakes, persecution, false prophets, betrayal, global evangelism, and lack of love within the church all become commonplace. As such, it is a bit of a misnomer to refer to them as “signs” of the end. In reality, they are merely everyday experiences leading up to when “the end will come” (Matt. 24:14).

So then, this section addresses the time period between Jesus’ first and second comings. Suffering, war, famine, disease, false prophets and christs, and natural disasters are normative. They are not signs of the second coming but are everyday and normative (albeit unfortunate) experiences for people living between Christ’s first and second coming.

Matthew 24:15-28 —

““So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” (Matthew 24:15-28 ESV)

Second Coming or Destruction of the Temple?

In the previous section, we indicated that Jesus is addressing two separate events and that one of those events (the destruction of the temple) could be roughly predicted on the basis of observation of signs but the the end of the age cannot be predicted. In this section, Jesus describes the “abomination of desolation” and its associated events. While the identity of the abomination is an interesting question, the timing of the abomination of desolation is more easily answered and should be addressed first. By addressing first the timing of the event, it is significantly easier to address the identity of the abomination of desolation. Moreover, if the timing of the abomination of desolation is past, instead of future, it’s significantly less important to know the exact identity of the abomination of desolation.

First, we must note the distinct cultural and geographical descriptions that isolate the event to a particular people, a particular time, and a particular place. That is to say, much of the descriptions and warnings do not apply to an end-times / second coming event. Jesus notes the relevance of the Sabbath in which fleeing would be inappropriate, a flight to mountains from Judea, and a cloak. These elements seem more apt to describe a particular people, at a particular time, within a particular geographical region rather than the world-wide Christian church at the end of the age. This is what we’d expect if Jesus is describing an event that will be relevant for “this generation” within Judea.

While these hints encourage us to see these events as being most relevant for Jesus’ immediate audience, determining the exact timing of the events of the abomination of desolation from only the Matthean text is difficult. That said, we are not left only to the Matthean text. As we consider the Olivet Discourse, we must be mindful of the other Gospels. It would be reckless to adopt an interpretation of Matthew’s account that is contradictory to Mark and Luke. Luke, especially, can help us determine more about the identity and timing of the abomination of desolation described here than the Matthean text alone.

In particular, the parallel passage in Luke 21:20-24 makes it clear that the desolation of the temple is a first-century event, for which we can look back and see the accuracy of Jesus’ prediction.

““But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”

(Luke 21:20-24 ESV)

Luke describes the scene. Jerusalem is “surrounded by armies”, the enemy is literally “at the very gates” (Matt. 24:33) of Jerusalem. Consequently, its “desolation has come near.” This is the very thing Jesus predicted in Matt. 23:38 when he indicated that their “house is left to you desolate.” In light of this, while we may not be able to identify the particular identity of the abomination of desolation, we can be extremely confident that it accompanied the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple just after it was surrounded by Roman armies in 70 A.D.

What will be the accompanying signs?

Once again, we observe that Jesus helps us see that while his second coming cannot be predicted with signs, the destruction of the temple can be expected on the basis of observable signs. He lists several. The most notable is the abomination of desolation. As we consider this sign, we must be mindful that Matthew has very recently used the adjectival form of this word (ἔρημος) in his denouncement during the woes and his prediction of the destruction of the temple. He said, “See, your house is left to you desolate” (ἔρημος). Now we encounter the noun form (ἐρήμωσις) as Jesus warns of the “abomination of desolation.” As a result, we should assume that the desolation that is being discussed here is the very desolation he just pronounced moments earlier, not some end-times desolation of a yet-to-be-built temple. This is further confirmed by Luke who also uses the word in conjunction with Jerusalem’s siege, saying that when armies are observed to be surrounding Jerusalem they may be sure its “desolation” has come near. In other words, the abomination of desolation is not the event itself. The abomination of desolation is the sign of the predicted event.

Secondly, Jesus also draws attention to the false prophets and false christs who will appear at this time. However, because we already observed that these specific signs are also commonplace between the Advents, they are not useful for us in determining the exact identity of the abomination of desolation or the timing. The other signs (fleeing, pregnancy, etc.) have already been discussed in conjunction with our attempts to discern the event concerning Jesus’ teaching. However, it would not surprise us (and has been documented for us by Josephus) that war with the Romans provided ample opportunities for would-be messiahs.

In summary, the signs described here (in conjunction with Luke’s account) indicate that Jesus is referring to a specific event—the destruction of the temple, which occurred during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Matthew 24:29-31 —

““Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matthew 24:29-31 ESV)

Second Coming or Destruction of the Temple?

We now turn our attention to Matthew 24:29-31. The events are described as being “Immediately after the tribulation of those days.” This statement has introduced ample confusion since there is common (albeit not universal) agreement that the previous section refers to the destruction of the temple. Occasionally commentators (primarily preterist commentators) have affirmed the use of apocalyptic language here as a means of describing the destruction of the temple. Other commentators (primarily dispensational commentators) have assumed that since this clearly describes the return of Christ the previous section must describe an end-times temple. I believe both of these approaches are wrong.

Taken as plainly as possible, it is clear that this section is describing the second coming of Christ. While it is true that apocalyptic language can be used to describe temporal events there are several aspects to this section that exclude this understanding. It is said that the Son of Man will appear in heaven, the nations will see him, and he will come on great clouds (language used elsewhere to describe the second coming).

Recalling that Jesus is responding to two questions concerning the end of the age/the parousia as well as the destruction of the temple and the associated signs of each, we simply are able to take the text at face value. This section describes the “end of the age” as questioned by the disciples. We need not force the language to apply to the period of time associated with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

So what “tribulation” then is Jesus speaking of when he says “immediately after the tribulation of those days”? I propose that Jesus is speaking of the tribulation he described in Matt. 24:4-14. It is after the tribulation of the intervening time between his Advents that he will return.

What will be the accompanying signs?

The associated signs of the second coming are described here in dramatic language that is consistent with other descriptions of the parousia. Jesus is said to be seen coming on the clouds, cosmic disruptions accompany his return, the elect are gathered at the sound of a trumpet (cf. 1 Th 4:15–18). 

Matthew 24:32-34 —

““From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:32-34 ESV)

Second Coming or Destruction of the Temple?

The lesson of the fig tree is very clear. Signs pointing to a forthcoming event are helpful in predicting the time of that event. This is made clearer through the contrast drawn in the subsequent paragraph (Matt. 24:36). Unlike the event that can be predicted by the observation of signs, the second coming cannot be predicted by signs (the primary point of the following parables).

What event can then be predicted by events and is in view here? If the second coming cannot be predicted by observing the signs, then this illustration clearly applies to the destruction of the temple. This understanding is further confirmed in two ways.

First, Jesus says that “this generation” will not pass away until the event occurs. Surely he is not speaking of a future generation alive at his second coming. To force this upon the text is to the uttermost violence to it. It is to make it say the very opposite of what it says. We must simply ask, by “this generation” does Jesus mean “not this generation”? If not, we must conclude that Jesus is referring to event that apply most immediately to his immediate contemporaries. 

Secondly, the event will be associated with someone/something being at the very “gates.” When understood in conjunction with Luke’s very plain language that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies, it becomes very clear that this section is associated with the destruction of the temple and the abomination of desolation, for which there will be clear signs, just as the fig tree becomes tender and puts out its leaves immediately before summer so there will be signs of the coming of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

What will be the accompanying signs?

No explicit signs are mentioned in this section as it relates to the corresponding event; they have already been communicated. Rather, Jesus states that “when you see these things, you know that [it] is near, at the very gates.” The exact identity of what is near is not made clear in the original Greek (it may refer to a person, summer, or something else entirely). So what are “these things” that point us to the impending event? Many commentators point to the signs from the preceding paragraph (vs. 29-31). However, as this text seems to describe the destruction of the temple, not the parousia, it seems best to understand “these things” as associated with the signs of the destruction of the temple that were already stated. Again, we recall that Jesus is answering the disciples’ questions and correcting their misunderstanding about the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. As a result, he points out that the signs of some events can be discerned — there will be armies at the very gates of Jerusalem. But as we’ll see in the following paragraph, unlike the destruction of the temple, the parousia cannot be predicated by signs.

Matthew 24:35-51 —

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

(Matthew 24:35-51 ESV)

Second Coming or Destruction of the Temple?

Turning now to our final section, we ask again, does this concern the destruction of the temple or the second coming of Christ? And can the event be predicted on the basis of signs?

Several key phrases point us to this section as related to the parousia. Most notable: “heaven and earth will pass away”, “so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (x2), “two men will be in the field; one will be taken” (the rapture at the time of Christ’s return), “you do not know on what day your Lord is coming”, “the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect”, etc..

This section is replete with language concerning the second coming.

What will be the accompanying signs?

The common paragraph breaks here are understandable but unfortunate. It may be the best choice. Unfortunately, however, it often obscures the flow of Jesus’ statements and the interconnectedness between this section and the previous. Jesus had just finished providing a lesson—you can predict events by observing the signs. But, a caveat must be added. While events associated with the destruction of the temple will occur before his contemporary generation passes and can be predicted based on signs, is it possible to predict when heaven and earth pass away? The answer is a clear no. Over and over again, Jesus drives home this point. You cannot know when the Son of Man is coming. Concerning the passing away of heaven and earth, no one knows (vs. 36). Rather, it will be unexpected. It will come like the flood or like a thief in the night. It will be a surprise without warning. He will appear to be delayed but will come suddenly. Therefore, be ready.

This warning leads us into the next section—Jesus will return unexpectedly, at which time he will judge the world, and everyone will receive their due: some will enter eternal life, while others will face eternal punishment.

Conclusion

In summary, the Olivet Discourse follows on the heels of Jesus’ prophetic pronouncement of judgment. He tells of a forthcoming destruction of the temple.

In light of this pronouncement, Jesus’ disciples ask about both the timing and the signs associated with the destruction of the temple and the end of the age.

In response, Jesus addresses their questions by dealing with each event separately (as the two events are not connected). He also provides them with signs for understanding when the destruction of the temple is near as well as warning them that they must remain diligent as no one can predict his return and the end of the age.

In my next post I’ll address the theological significance of the destruction of the temple.