Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.
Try Tabletalk NowAlready receive Tabletalk magazine every month?
Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.
Matthew 24, often called the Olivet Discourse or the Little Apocalypse, is one of the most significant passages in the Scriptures on the subject of the signs of the times and the end of the age. It is also, however, one of the most difficult passages in Scripture to interpret.
In the modern period, many critical scholars have argued that Jesus’ prophecy mistakenly linked the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 with His coming and the end of the age. Dispensationalists interpret the passage in a largely futurist manner, arguing that it refers to the destruction of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem during a seven-year “great tribulation” that will follow the “rapture.” Some Reformed theologians interpret Matthew 24:1–34 in a preterist manner and maintain that Jesus is prophesying exclusively about what transpired in the period before and during the time of the temple’s destruction. Only in verse 36 and thereafter does Jesus speak of events that will follow the temple’s destruction. Still other Reformed theologians interpret Matthew 24–25 to describe the entire period of redemptive history between Christ’s first and second comings. In their estimation, Jesus’ discourse, even in Matthew 24:1–34, is describing not only the destruction of the temple in AD 70 but also the character of this present age until the final coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead.
Because of the complexity of the Olivet Discourse, the interpretation offered here is presented in the awareness that it may leave some questions unanswered. While we may affirm the clarity of Scripture, we need not insist that every passage is “alike plain” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7).
a twofold question: an interpretive key
The key to the interpretation of Matthew 24–25 lies in the two-sided question that the disciples asked Jesus after He prophesied that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed. Upon hearing Jesus’ prophecy, the disciples came to Jesus privately and asked, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3; see also Mark 13:4). The question put to Jesus focuses on two distinct matters: (1) the time of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and (2) the events or circumstances that will signal His coming and the close of the present age.
While it is likely that the disciples’ question assumed that the temple’s destruction and the coming of Christ at the end of the present age were coincident events, they are nonetheless distinct. The importance of this cannot be overstated. When reading the discourse in Matthew 24–25, it is always necessary to ask: Is Jesus addressing the first part of His disciples’ question regarding the temple’s destruction? Or is He addressing the second part of the disciples’ question regarding His coming and the close of the present age?
The discourse of Matthew 24–25 can be divided into three parts: Matthew 24:4–14 describes the signs of the times that will mark the present period of history between the time of Christ’s first and second advents; Matthew 24:15–25 describes a period of “great tribulation” that will come upon Israel and includes the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem; and Matthew 24:26–25:46 focuses especially on the coming of the Son of Man at the end of the age and includes a summons to keep watch until He comes.
signs of the times and the interadvent period
The first section of the discourse (24:4–14) describes various signs that will mark history before the coming of Christ: false christs (v. 5), wars and rumors of wars (v. 6), famines and earthquakes (v. 7), tribulation (v. 9), apostasy (v. 10), false prophets (v. 11), lawlessness (v. 12), and the preaching of the gospel to all the nations (v. 14). Preterists argue that all these signs preceded the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. They are past events and do not refer to circumstances that will occur during the entire period between Christ’s first and second comings. Futurists argue that even though some of these circumstances may characterize the interadvent period, they refer particularly to “end time” events immediately before Christ’s second coming.
Neither of these views is correct. Throughout these verses, it seems evident that Jesus is answering the second part of the disciples’ question regarding His coming and the end of the age. One of the recurring themes in the opening part of the discourse is that the disciples should expect considerable time to elapse before the “end” comes. The circumstances that Jesus identifies are “but the beginning of the birth pains” (v. 8; see also Rom. 8:20–25). His disciples should not be “alarmed” when they occur (Matt. 24:6). Nor should they prematurely conclude that the “end” is near. “The end will come” only after the gospel of the kingdom is “proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations” (v. 14). The likeliest interpretation of this section of Jesus’ discourse, therefore, is that He is providing a panoramic view of redemptive history before His coming at the end of the age.
the temple’s destruction
In the second section of the discourse (vv. 15–25), Jesus shifts His attention to the first part of the disciples’ question: When will the temple be destroyed? Although futurist (dispensational) authors maintain that Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction refers to a future event that will take place after Christ’s coming and the “rapture” of the church, the context of Jesus’ prophecy and a parallel passage in Luke 21:20 conclusively argue against this view. The obvious context for this section of the discourse is the disciples’ question regarding when the temple would be destroyed. The language that Jesus uses, including His appeal to the prophecy in Daniel 9:17 (Matt. 24:15), is too specific and graphic to be understood in any other way than as a prophetic description of what transpired at the time of the temple’s destruction in AD 70. Furthermore, when Jesus says in verse 34 that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (emphasis added), He does so shortly after His vivid description of the destruction of the temple buildings. For this reason, Reformed interpreters have uniformly taken this part of the discourse to be Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question about the timing of the temple’s destruction.
the coming of the son of man: a question of timing
The most difficult part of the Olivet Discourse to interpret, however, is found in what I have termed its third section. In this section of the discourse, Jesus returns to the second part of the disciples’ question: “What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?”
In respect to this part of the discourse and its relation to what follows in the remainder of Matthew 24 and Matthew 25, Reformed interpreters have taken two quite distinct views. Some argue that “the coming of the Son of Man,” especially as it is described in 24:27–31, refers to Jesus’ coming in judgment on unbelieving Israel at the time of the temple’s destruction in AD 70. In their view, all of Matthew 24:4–34 is a prophetic description of what would happen at that time. Only after verse 34 does Jesus begin to speak of His second coming. Others argue that Jesus at this point is returning to the second part of the disciples’ question. In their opinion, there are adequate reasons to view the coming of the Son of Man at this point (as in the remainder of Matthew 24–25) to be the second coming of Christ. At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, two arguments favor the second interpretation.
First, the language used to describe the coming of the Son of Man in 24:27–31 parallels many biblical passages that refer to the second advent of Christ. The coming of the Son of Man in these verses is a public event, like lightning that flashes from east to west (v. 27). It will be witnessed by “all the tribes of the earth,” who will “see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (v. 30). Jesus expressly identifies this coming with “the sign of the Son of Man,” clearly an allusion to the second part of the disciples’ question in verse 3. Furthermore, the events that accompany this coming—the sending of His angels to gather the nations, the sounding of a loud trumpet call, cosmic signs of the sun’s light failing and the shaking of the heavens, the mourning of the nations (vv. 29, 31)—parallel common New Testament descriptions of Christ’s final coming and the judgment of the living and the dead (e.g., Matt. 13:40–41; 16:27; 25:31; 1 Cor. 11:26; 15:52; 16:22; 1 Thess. 4:14–17; 2 Thess. 2:1–8; 2 Peter 3:10–12; Rev. 1:7).
Second, the contrast between Matthew 24:34 and 24:36 argues for a sharp distinction between the time when the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed and the timing of the second advent of Christ. Consistent with the twofold focus of the disciples’ question, verse 34 affirms that the destruction of the temple would occur within the lifetime of the generation to whom He was speaking, while verse 36 teaches that no one knows the time of “that day” when He comes at the end of the age. As John Murray observes regarding these verses:
It is a capital error to overlook the sequence of verse 36 and to fail to construe verse 34 accordingly. This would have made clear to the disciples the distinction between the destruction of Jerusalem and correlative events on the more proximate horizon, on the one hand, and the day of his advent, on the other.
Though questions may remain regarding the best reading of the Olivet Discourse, one thing is certain: Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction was fulfilled, and His warning that we should be prepared for His coming again must be heeded.