The Olivet Discourse in Luke 21
(avg. read time: 11–23 mins.)
Now that we have explored the versions of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew and Mark, it is only natural that we proceed to explore Luke’s version. As with my analysis of the other two versions, I will begin with outlining the number of interpretive issues concerning this text. 1) How is Jesus’s initial declaration of what will happen to the temple related to the rest of the discourse, especially his coming? 2) Are the disciples asking separate questions (and, if so, how many) or are they asking one question with multiple parts that are assumed to be related? 3) Does Jesus answer the disciples and, if so, when does he answer what? 4) This discourse is clearly shaped by drawing on expectations and imagery from the OT, but how does this text use those texts? 5) What is the nature of his coming? 6) What did Jesus mean when he said that “this generation” will not pass away until “all these things” happen?
1) How is Jesus’s initial declaration of what will happen to the temple related to the rest of the discourse?
Although Jesus’s conflict with the Jewish leadership will ultimately result in his crucifixion, in ch. 21 he points beyond that to a time when judgment will be executed on the leadership in Jerusalem. Such a declaration serves as a culmination of the conflict that has been brewing particularly over the last few chapters, but which has been in place for a while (6:1–11; 11:37–54; 12:1–12; 13:31–35; 16:14–18; 18:19–14). Chapter 19 involves Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem and trip to the temple in which he made the clearest demonstration of the subversive nature of his message in relation to the Jewish hierarchy and common Jewish beliefs concerning the temple. This chapter also uniquely features a lament over Jerusalem prior to his entrance to the temple and how it has failed to recognize “the things that make for peace.” What Jesus foretells about what will happen to Jerusalem is precisely judgment executed on the historical plane in its destruction at the hands of enemies. This is all a consequence of the fact that they did not recognize the time of God’s visitation. The term used here (ἐπισκοπή), is related to judgment, at least in this context, in that it has the sense of investigating, inspecting, or looking upon. When God investigated them and their response to the coming of the Messiah, their response was emblematic of how they failed the investigation (even as the fig tree in the parable of ch. 13). Thus, the time for cutting down in judgment is coming.
1) How is Jesus’s initial declaration of what will happen to the temple related to the rest of the discourse?
Although Jesus’s conflict with the Jewish leadership will ultimately result in his crucifixion, in ch. 21 he points beyond that to a time when judgment will be executed on the leadership in Jerusalem. Such a declaration serves as a culmination of the conflict that has been brewing particularly over the last few chapters, but which has been in place for a while (6:1–11; 11:37–54; 12:1–12; 13:31–35; 16:14–18; 18:19–14). Chapter 19 involves Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem and trip to the temple in which he made the clearest demonstration of the subversive nature of his message in relation to the Jewish hierarchy and common Jewish beliefs concerning the temple. This chapter also uniquely features a lament over Jerusalem prior to his entrance to the temple and how it has failed to recognize “the things that make for peace.” What Jesus foretells about what will happen to Jerusalem is precisely judgment executed on the historical plane in its destruction at the hands of enemies. This is all a consequence of the fact that they did not recognize the time of God’s visitation. The term used here (ἐπισκοπή), is related to judgment, at least in this context, in that it has the sense of investigating, inspecting, or looking upon. When God investigated them and their response to the coming of the Messiah, their response was emblematic of how they failed the investigation (even as the fig tree in the parable of ch. 13). Thus, the time for cutting down in judgment is coming.
Chapter 20 opens with Jesus’s authority being questioned, followed by a parable that features a two-level use of judgment imagery, and the rest of the chapter features further confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish hierarchy over issues of politics/economics, resurrection, interpretation of the Torah, and the identity of the Messiah. Jesus then harshly rebukes the scribes in 20:45–47 for their love of pomposity and their exploitation of the widows, described in terms of devouring their houses, and promising them that they will receive a greater condemnation. This is immediately followed by the story of the widow who puts two lepta in the temple treasury, and Jesus says that she put in more than anyone else, for she gave all that she had out of her poverty (21:1–4). Given such a build-up, including a symbolic destruction of the temple, after foretelling such destruction for Jerusalem, then the undermining of popular standards of holiness as well as what it means to be a follower of the God of Israel, the explosive start to the discourse in ch. 21 only makes sense.
From a distance from Jerusalem, someone comments on the temple complex as something impressive. But Jesus says that a time is coming when a stone will not be left on another here. This phrasing is reminiscent of Hag 2:15 where “stone upon stone” signified construction. As such, Jesus’s description represents its reversal in taking apart and throwing down (cf. 2 Sam 17:13; Jer 51:26). There is an element of hyperbole here, as often in prophecy, as the Western Wall (a.k.a. the Wailing Wall), a retaining wall for the temple complex, was not completely taken apart, as these rocks weigh tons. But his prophesied destruction of the temple many Jews thought to signify God’s presence among them came to pass in 70 CE.1
This prediction at a minimum links the discourse to the relatively near future, one which his audience could live to see happen, provided that their lives were not cut short. That is, it is not concerned with a far-flung future in which “these things” that they see would not exist and instead be replaced by similar structures in the same place. It is this prediction that inspires the question from “them” (probably the disciples, but Luke is not as explicit on this point) about “when these things will happen” (21:7). Nothing indicates that Jesus ignores this question while addressing something else or that the timeframe completely changes in the disciples’ question or in Jesus’s answer.
3) Does Jesus answer the disciples and, if so, when does he answer what?
As with Mark’s version, Jesus’s answer to the disciples is, in some ways, a more straightforward answer to the question than in the Matthean version, not least because the question is simplified, although Jesus does give both more and less than the disciples asked for. He gives “more” in the sense that the question as presented did not ask about his coming (here used with the simple verb ἔρχομαι, rather than the noun from Matthew), but he relates it to “all these things” in any case. He gives “less” in the sense that he does not directly answer concerning the matter of “when,” except with general statements and associations. While he does broadly answer the question—thereby undermining an entirely futurist reading of this text, lest Jesus be avoiding the question or giving the disciples a conflicting answer—he still operates consistently with the statement the same author will quote in Acts 1:7: “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has set by his own authority.”
In fact, when Jesus begins his response, he does not directly answer the “when” question at all. Instead, he begins with an imperative that the disciples are to see that none of them is deceived. After all, there will be many who come in his name saying, “I am,” and “the time has come near,” and will deceive many others (21:8). Then he provides some rather generic indications—wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, and plagues—that could fit any time period (21:9–11). He tells them not to be troubled, since these things must happen, and the disciples are to endure them, because the completion of what he is talking about has not yet come (21:9). In fact, though these things and other more spectacular events are designated as signs of an expected time in other Second Temple literature (Sib. Or. 2.154–173; 3.796–808; 6.11–28; 9.1–13), Jesus does not designate them as signs. These things are only the beginning, and the disciples are not to get swept up in them. However, one difference here from the other versions is the anticipation of v. 25 with the reference to great signs from heaven in v. 11. This, too, could fit a variety of times depending on what is meant by “signs,” but we see that the meaningful signs do not appear until v. 25.
Even vv. 12–19 are not a direct answer to the “when” question. Rather, Jesus warns his disciples of the affliction they will face on his behalf. But he promises that the one who perseveres will gain their life (21:19). This is also an occasion at which Jesus presents teaching that the other Gospels place elsewhere about how even family will betray them, and they will be hated on account of his name, as well as the promise that God will preserve their everlasting lives.
Then it is with v. 20 that Jesus gives the disciples the sign that the foretold destruction of Jerusalem is about to be accomplished. Luke’s version makes more explicit than the others what will be seen. He makes no reference to the abomination of desolation from Daniel. Rather, this is more direct to the point that armies will encircle Jerusalem. And while the other versions had cryptic statements calling for understanding, this one says that this is how one will know that the desolation is near, whereas there is no similar statement of knowledge in the others, just calls to action. Of course, since this is just describing the same sequence of events from a different angle, the response is still the same as Jesus makes clear that this is the time to flee (21:21–22). There is still no precise declaration of time, just a further reaffirmation that this is the time when judgment against Jerusalem will be fulfilled (21:22–23), which we have seen brought up elsewhere in Luke (note also 23:28–31).
While readings of this text that are oriented to what is yet in the future do not have the typical grounds to appeal to that they had in Matthew and Mark, they still may find an out in v. 24. After all, we are told that Jerusalem will be trampled by the gentiles until the time of the gentiles is fulfilled. That seems to indicate an interval before the rest of this foretelling is fulfilled. While this is a possible reading, provided one makes similar moves we have seen previously to differentiate between the time of the Son of Man’s coming and the time of “this generation,” it is by no means obvious. In fact, there is no indication of separation in time for these events, unlike in Matthew and Mark, where there are statements of temporal proximity. In this case, Luke simply has, “and there will be” to begin v. 25.
Verse 25 itself presents some ambiguity regarding our interpretive issue here. The disciples ask for a singular sign, but here Jesus refers to multiple signs in the heavenly bodies. That would seem to be a response that the disciples were not necessarily looking for with the question as it is phrased. At the same time, it would appear that v. 20, despite not being referred to as a sign, is the answer to the question for a sign of when these things are about to happen. We made a similar observation with Mark’s version. But it may well be that v. 25 is meant to be an extended answer to the same second part of the question, as he is pointing not only to a sign on earth but also to signs in heaven. Like in Mark, he is giving the disciples more than they asked for, but the precise manner in which does so is different, due to the slightly different verbiage.
As in the other versions, it is at this point that Jesus refers to his coming that these signs portend (21:25–27). Though now this is followed up with an encouragement to look up for his disciples’ redemption is drawing near (21:28). The rest of the teaching is then concerned with matters of timing and how to conduct oneself while awaiting the time to come. We must explore more about the nature of this coming below, but first we must consider another issue that suffuses this teaching.
4) This discourse is clearly shaped by drawing on expectations and imagery from the OT, but how does this text use those texts?
As Jesus declares this teaching, he also draws on the teachings of the great prophetic tradition before him, as he makes clear in referring to the fulfillment of what has been written (21:22). Some texts have more prominent influence than others, such as Isa 13–14; Jer 50–51; Ezek 4–7; Dan 7; and Zech 13–14. I have already noted the use of the last text in published work on this passage in Mark, as well as some additional connections here for the Matthean version. The others are also readily noted in any detailed commentary on the Olivet Discourse. The variety of intertextual connections is especially dense around the sections about the time of judgment for Jerusalem and about the coming of the Son of Man.
These texts are not the only OT connections, as noted before, but they are the most prominent sources thereof. The texts from Isaiah and Jeremiah concern the judgment of destruction that comes upon Babylon. The Ezekiel text concerns the first destruction of Jerusalem that came with the destruction of the temple. The connections to Daniel are the most apparent, in that the reference to the Son of Man’s arrival in the clouds is directly drawn from Dan 7. Since the reference to abomination of desolation is not present, the link to Dan 9 is not so apparent, but the connection may still be implied through the reference to desolation, and one could argue that the latter half of Daniel in general has an influence on vv. 20–24 (particularly 8:11–14; 11:33–35). In both Daniel and here, there is also a context of suffering for the faithful that is followed by judgment. The same applies to Zech 13–14, which also shows its influence particularly on the description of the Son of Man’s arrival as being like the coming of God, as well as in the gathering of armies against Jerusalem and their prevailing against it.
With such different texts being used as reference points, the question arises as to how these texts are being used. Different views tend to accentuate different texts. For example, those who say that the coming in this text is a heavenly arrival or appearance of sorts may argue that this text should be read line with Dan 7, so that Jesus is essentially saying, “this is when that vision will come to fruition.” On the other hand, in Paul Sloan’s dissertation that I referenced previously, he argues against what he calls the “temple only” view of the timeframe for this coming on the basis of the fact that the Zechariah allusion leads the reader to expect the salvation of Jerusalem after this coming. But is one indeed expected to follow such logic given how Jerusalem has now taken the place of Babylon, and how Jerusalem’s own initial destruction is evoked here?
Of course, readers generally recognize that Jesus and the Gospel authors use Scripture in a variety of ways. This passage itself is evidence of that, as Jerusalem is now in place of Babylon, the language and imagery of the initial destruction is now reapplied, and the elect are not gathered to Jerusalem. Jesus’s discourse itself leads us to expect that these texts and others are being applied in what may be unexpected ways. This fits with how the gospel story itself sheds new light on Scripture, including through fulfillment in unexpected ways. Likewise, what I have observed about the christological center of gravity that affects how the Zechariah text in particular applies is also applicable here to the other texts. The many sins of the leadership in Jerusalem are expected to be reckoned to them, and so the Ezekiel text is a natural reference point for referring to the second destruction. But this is also done in a context where the Jerusalem leadership has rejected Jesus. The place of this text after the series of controversies when Jesus came to Jerusalem accentuates the christological significance of the coming judgment. The Daniel texts have a more direct application to Christology, as Jesus identifies himself with the Son of Man. These texts do provide a framework for understanding Jesus’s teaching, but only in respect to how he applies them. And in this case, he applies the allusions to the Zechariah text primarily in reference to himself, not to Jerusalem. After all, there is no indication that the temple is destroyed in Zechariah, so it is not clear by what means the disciples would be expected to make such an inference as Sloan suggests.
5) What is the nature of his coming?
Unlike in Matthew, the term “Parousia” is never used here. But that hardly prevents people from conflating the description with the term from Matthew and of conflating Matthew’s term with the Second Coming. This is certainly an understandable way of reading the text, but is this necessarily the case?
Although there were, in fact, phenomena in the heavens around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, as both Josephus and Tacitus attest (Josephus, J.W. 6.289–299; Tacitus, Hist. 5.13), it would not need to be so for this description to apply to that event, any more than the apparent lack of signs in the sun and moon on Pentecost in Acts 2 meant that Joel 2:28–32 could not be applied there.2 Moreover, one ought to consider the main point that gravitationally draws the aforementioned texts to Jesus’s teaching, which concerns a divine reckoning—even an appearance in some fashion—wherein judgment is executed, with the result of vindication for the faithful. This is especially poignant in Jesus’s case, as he will invoke the same imagery from Dan 7 (as well as Ps 110) in his trial to refer to his coming vindication over his accusers.
As noted previously, there is no indication of a time gap for signs appearing, as if this will only happen after the “times of the gentiles are fulfilled.” While this could allow for more ambiguity than the Matthean and Markan versions as to the relationship of the events in question, there is no positive reason for favoring such massive temporal gap between v. 24 and v. 25. While v. 24 looks to some endpoint for the times of the gentiles to trample Jerusalem, there is no sense of “and then” at the beginning of v. 25. Rather, it seems that we are resetting at a given point with the main timeline. When Jesus says they will see the Son of Man coming, as in the trial scene, he invokes Dan 7 as an image for his vindication, though now it is over the leaders who rejected him (particularly those in Jerusalem) and not only over gentile kingdoms, as one might have expected. According to this interpretation, at some point in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem, there would come the realization, at least for those with eyes to see, that Jesus had been vindicated in his claims against the temple and in general (note that there is no clear subject for the third-person plural in v. 27, which indicates we are dealing with an impersonal construction here).
Such an interpretation also makes sense of v. 28, which is unique to Luke’s version: “Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift your heads, because your redemption.” This is the only time the term for “redemption” (ἀπολύτρωσις) appears in Luke, and it is not likely that we should see here some sense of the final, eschatological redemption. Rather, the redemption consists in deliverance from the sufferings mentioned in vv. 12–19 and in terms of sharing in the vindication of Jesus. In fact, the reference to when these things “begin to happen” further signifies the close temporal link between the coming and the judgment on Jerusalem.
Naturally, a problem that remains with this reading is how anticlimactic it feels to those of us who read this text so many centuries after Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE. It does not seem as compelling, as impressive as what would justify the descriptions Jesus gives. No doubt, one might say the same of many texts in the Prophets about coming judgments on this or that city or nation. And again, the impression is also a product of working on the assumption that this text serves as a reference to the Second Coming. It is well enough implied elsewhere in the Gospels, but it is not really something that comes to the fore until the events of Acts 1 with Jesus’s ascension and the promise spoken through the angels. That helps the disciples to reconcile those aspects of Jesus’s teaching that speak of his involvement in the eschatological judgment and other eschatological promises with the fact that he ascended into heaven after his resurrection before doing all of those things.
6) What did Jesus mean when he said that “this generation” will not pass away until “all these things” happen?
There are actually three issues packed into this one. First, what is “this generation”? Second, what does Jesus refer to when he says, “all these things”? Third, in what sense should we understand the verb for “happen”?
On the first issue, we have what appears to be the strongest statement in favor of linking the Olivet Discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem and not to a still future coming of Christ. Indeed, it was statements like this that have led many scholars over the years—perhaps most famously, Albert Schweitzer—to claim that Jesus—or the disciples attributing these words to him—was actually wrong in his prediction, since he did not return within a generation. The majority of commentators and other scholars who have written extensively on this passage that share some kind of split-reference perspective—wherein part refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the rest refers to the time of the Second Coming—do so on the force of the point that Jesus says this generation will not pass away before these things happen. One cannot easily avoid the force of the statement about “this generation” considering that every time the phrase appears in the Gospels, it is in reference to Jesus’s own generation. There are eight such references in Luke (7:31; 11:29–32, 50–51; 17:25), in addition to what we have seen from Matthew and Mark, and there are no counterexamples.
Of course, various attempts have been made to find an alternative understanding, particularly for the sake of preserving the Second Coming interpretation of this text. One idea, as represented by John Chrysostom, despite his interpretation favoring the reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, is that “this generation” is to be identified as the Church. But there is no evidence of such a usage by Jesus. One of the more popular alternatives historically has been to interpret the term for “generation” (γενεά) as meaning something like “race.” But this proposal is put forth absent any clear NT example of such usage; it is simply a convenience to uphold an interpretation held on other grounds. Somewhat related to this is the idea that γενεά refers to a “kind” of person that will not pass away until this time. But this view has as little in its favor as the previous one. What also works against all of these interpretations is the fact that v. 32 comes in the context of vv. 29–31, which emphasizes timing and understanding the times. As such, a chronological sense of “this generation” is expected here. A further alternative is self-referential, meaning that “this generation” is “the generation that will see all these things come to pass.” But if that were the case, one would wonder why this one use of the phrase is exceptional to the other uses or why Jesus was not clearer in saying “that generation.”
On the second issue, there is often an attempt here to use the reference to πάντα (this time lacking the demonstrative pronoun) as a justification for partitioning the unit about Jesus’s coming from the rest of the teaching to this point. This partitioning is also then used to connect that unit to Jesus’s statement about no one knowing the day or the hour. But this comes with a vain attempt to connect “all things” to v. 7 and thus only with the destruction of the temple without any reference to the events surrounding the coming, which ignores particularly v. 28, as well as the general lack of temporal gap indicated.
On the third issue, the suggestion sometimes comes up that the γένηται in v 32 is an ingressive aorist. That is, the aorist would refer to when the action of the verb is initiated: this generation will not pass away until all these things begin to happen. This interpretation is helpful to futurist and historicist interpretations, but that appears to be the only reason to favor its use here. While this suggestion could be more probable if we were dealing with an aorist indicative, which more often indicates absolute as opposed to relative time, the aorist subjunctive can actually suggest the opposite. The subjunctive and future indicative often shaded into each other, particularly in this time, the subjunctive could be used to refer to an indefinite future, and the aorist subjunctive in particular could actually have the sense of a future perfect (as in Rom 11:27; 1 Cor 15:24–28, 54), meaning, “until all these things will have happened.” Furthermore, in distinction from the Matthean and Markan versions, we have already seen from v. 28 that Luke has a certain way of referring to when things “begin to happen” that is separate from the unadorned aorist.
For other intimations of judgment against the temple in Jesus’s day, see Craig A. Evans, “Predictions of the Destruction of the Herodian Temple,” JSP 10 (April 1992): 89–147.
Even so, the reader should take note of Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 336–37, as he does stress the literalness of the events.