The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25
The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25
(avg. read time: 19–38 mins.)
The challenges that come with interpreting Jesus’s Olivet Discourse, his discourse in which he foretells the destruction of the temple and his disciples are prompted to ask questions, are substantial. Quite apart from the interpretive challenge posed by each version in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are the challenges that come with the variations between them. For all that the various versions are identifiable as concerning the same subject matter, there are enough differences between them that are not easily accounted for by any simple application of one of the theories of Synoptic relationships. As such, what I aim to do, though not in consecutive posts, is to treat each version separately before any sort of more integrated reading can be done. I will start with Matthew’s version, in line with my overall approach of working through the NT this year.
I must state from the outset that I am not entirely satisfied with attempted comprehensive solutions to the interpretive problems provided by any interpretation. I am not sure that there is any solution that is without problems. I think it is simply a matter of which solution has the most tolerable problems. One will find that I do align the most with a particular view, and not the most popular one, but I am not entirely in line with it. With that said, let’s get into it.
There are a number of interpretive issues that we must outline 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 (in this case, signified by παρουσία)? 6) What did Jesus mean when he said that “this generation” will not pass away until “all these things” happen? 7) What does the lack of knowledge about the day or hour and the instruction to be watchful apply to? 8) How does the judgment of Matt 25:31–46 relate to the larger discourse? I will return to the last passage for another interpretive issue, particularly concerning who the “brothers and sisters” are, and for other reasons at other times, but here I only raise the last one as one I will explore here. Most of the other issues apply to all versions of the Olivet Discourse, but they must be responded to individually by each version before we can attempt any sort of integrative response. I have laid out these issues in such a way that I can, generally, go through the passage in its textual order to address them.
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, at the beginning of ch. 24 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 (12:1–14, 22–45; 15:1–20; 16:1–12). Chapter 21 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. Chapter 22 opens with 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. Chapter 23 portrays a culmination of heated rhetoric aimed at undermining the Pharisees as a sect of hypocrites who have missed the forest of godly righteousness for the trees of their traditions. Given such a build-up, including a symbolic destruction of the temple, and 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 ch. 24 only makes sense.
From a distance from Jerusalem, the disciples point to 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 disciples’ question about “when these things will happen” (24:3). 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.
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?
This will be an interesting issue to track across all three versions because there are variations in the questions posed, but Jesus’s response does not vary as widely as the varied questions might imply (the answers follow much of the same structure and share much of their contents, after all). In this case, one of the reasons posed for seeing Jesus as referring to two different timeframes, one concerning the destruction of the temple and one concerning a coming of his and the end of the age, is in separating out what the disciples ask him into distinct questions. Grammatically, we have one imperative of request followed by an interrogative “when” (πότε) and the verb “will happen” (ἔσται) that is gapped in the next clause, which is begun with an interrogative “what” (τί). Thus, it is grammatically possible to divide this up into two questions, but unless the disciples raised the latter question apropos of nothing (or one wants to posit that Matthew has committed an anachronism here), the verbless clause makes the most sense as something connected with the previous clause it is syntactically dependent upon. As such, it is better to take this as one question with two parts, one concerning when what Jesus said will happen and the other concerning his coming and the end of the age.
This raises a further question of why the disciples perceived a link between Jesus’s “coming” and the end of the age. Matthew is the only Gospel that uses the term παρουσία to refer to Jesus’s coming, and this is the only context in which the term appears at all in Matthew (vv. 3, 27, 37, 39). Its basic sense is that of “presence” as opposed to “absence” (ἀπουσία), but it and its associated verb could be used as well for an arrival of a royal or dignitary figure and of a theophany (among other things).2 As such, it might be better to think of this term in the more suggestive sense of either “arrival” or “appearance.” It has often been treated as a reference to the Second Coming, not least because biblical scholars and others often use “parousia” as a technical term to refer to the same thing that Christians today more generally use “Second Coming” to describe. But there is no clear indication, as such, that the term had attained such a technical sense in the first century (cf. 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 7:6–7; 10:10; Phil 1:26; 2:12; and 2 Thess 2:9), despite the popular acclaim of the scholarly construct of the “delay of the parousia” as a/the major impetus of the development of NT Christianity. (I plan to write more on this eventually, but for now, see my post on 2 Cor 4:13–5:10.)
If such were the case, one would have to wonder where such a question came from, unless (again) one wishes to claim that it is an anachronism on Matthew’s part. Why would the disciples be asking about a Second Coming if they had not come to grips with Jesus’s predictions that there would be a “going” in the first place? If the disciples had a hard enough time believing that Jesus was going to suffer and die despite the predictions in 16:21–28 and 17:22–23; 20:17–19, how likely is it that they actually believed that Jesus would come again after his death (even when they were surprised enough by his resurrection in 28:1–10, 16–17)? It would also fit with the rest of the Gospel portrayal of the disciples that they had not yet grasped such a point so as to imagine another arrival or appearance of his in line with what Paul would later say of the parousia (cf. Matt 14:22–31; 15:15–20; 16:5–12, 21–28; 17:14–21; 19:13–15; 20:17–28).
What, then, do we say about the “end of the age” (συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος)? The relevant noun only appears in Matthew, once in Hebrews, and only in connection with the term for “age.” In the latter case, it refers to the present time as the consummation of the ages (Heb 9:26; cf. 1:2). In Matthew, “age” is only in the singular. In ch. 13, it is used with reference to the final judgment and the gathering for the same (13:39–40, 49). In the last verse of the book (28:20), it is a similar reference to the eschaton. If we look at the verb form, it has a less specific sense in the NT, as it does not appear in a fixed phrase like this, though it has similar connotations of “accomplish” or “consummate” in Mark 13:4 and Heb 8:8. The terms have a sense comparable to “denouement,” the resolution of the story at which everything is brought together (hence the συν element). That is, it is the point at which the object reaches its completion.
But it is notable that, just as we cannot assume two authors using a term or phrase meant the exact same thing without further argument—since context is king—we also cannot assume that two speakers using the same term or phrase meant the same thing without further argument. Jesus uses the key phrase in every instance besides 24:3. Without an established belief in the Second Coming, since they could not yet accept that Jesus would be killed and then resurrected, we cannot simply assume that this end of the age corresponds with the coming of the Son of Man at the final judgment or with the other eschatological events associated therewith. They appear to assume that an event as momentous as the destruction of the temple would mean Jesus’s ultimate exaltation and completion/denouement of the age. That age would be the present age (cf. 12:32), but it is unclear in what terms they meant it. Is it the age of the old covenant? Is it the age of exile? Is it simply the age of the second temple? Or is it deliberately vague, simply to convey their expectation of eschatological significance? The last option is the simplest and does not require too much undue inference, but the other options cannot be ruled out altogether, simply because we do not have enough information on what they could have meant.
Of course, given the connection between these events implied in the question, it is notable that Jesus does not go on to correct the disciples explicitly. It is part of Jesus’s typical practice to challenge the disciples’ preconceived notions of what it meant for him to be Messiah, what the restoration of Israel would look like, and what it meant to be the follower of the Messiah, among other things. But does the lack of explicit correction mean that he is taking their assumptions for granted? I am not sure that this is the case. Sure, Jesus often does explicitly correct the disciples after they have somehow gone amiss. Yet it does not seem that we can necessarily infer that a lack of explicit correction means a lack of disagreement any more than we can infer that a lack of reference to the disciples not understanding or accepting something Jesus said or did meant that they did understand or accept it. We will need to return to this point later, but it is notable for now that we do have reason already for inferring both the union and the distinction of the events in question, which highlights the difficulty in engaging this text.
3) Does Jesus answer the disciples and, if so, when does he answer what?
We have seen that there is a possibility that Jesus answers the disciples’ question in a way that challenges what they have asked. It is also true that he only hints at the answer to the question of “when” with general statements and only one sign that indicates timing. But in general, it seems that while he does 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 from 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 the Christ/Messiah,” and will deceive many others (24:5). Then he provides some rather generic indications—wars, rumors of wars, famines, and earthquakes—that could fit any time period (24:6–8). Here, the imperative is reiterated with another verb for “sight,” indicating that they are to act insightfully in light of the fact that these things must happen, and the disciples are to endure them, because the completion of what he is talking about has not yet come (24:6). In fact, though these things and other more spectacular events are designated as signs of an expected time in other Second Temple literature (particularly 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.
Even vv. 9–14 are not a direct answer to the “when” question. Rather, Jesus warns his disciples of what he had previously warned them particularly in ch. 10 of the affliction the disciples will face on his behalf. But he promises that the one who perseveres to the end, to the completion of trials, will be saved (24:13). The only temporal indication the disciples are given is in v. 14, as the gospel of the kingdom is to be proclaimed in all the world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will arrive. This could indicate that the timeframe of fulfillment for this text is still future, but two things need to be borne in mind here. First, the term for “end” (τέλος) is by no means a technical term for the eschaton or for any point in time related thereto. We have seen a similar use to 24:13 in 10:22. It is also used to refer to an outcome in 26:58. More generally, it has the sense of “end” as in “completion,” “conclusion,” or “goal” (when purpose is more pronounced). It is not used again after v. 14, which seems to indicate that τέλος in the context of these events, aside from the more general/proverbial reference of v. 13 (cf. Mark 13:13; Heb 3:14; 6:11; Rev 2:26), refers to the completion of these things, which arrives in v. 15.
Second, we must consider the word Matthew uses for “world” (οἰκουμένη). This is the only occasion on which Matthew uses the term, but it appears several more times in the NT. It essentially has the sense of the “inhabited world” and so it could theoretically have an expanding sense. But it was also used more specifically to refer to the Roman Empire, or that part of the world under the authority of Rome that included client kingdoms (cf. Luke 2:1; 4:5; Acts 11:28; 17:6; 19:27; 24:5). By 70 CE, the indications are that the Gospel had indeed spread across the empire and even beyond. Even from the beginning in Acts 2, the pilgrims the apostles evangelized to were from as far away as Parthia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Pontus, Libya, Rome, and other places besides (2:9–11). Philip evangelized to a eunuch from Ethiopia in the early years of the movement (Acts 8). It had already reached Rome by the end of the 40s CE, as Aquila and Priscilla (at the least the former of whom was from Pontus) had been banished from there along with other Jews (Acts 18:2). All this statement would need to mean is the proclamation throughout the empire. Again, a more expansive meaning could be inferred (cf. Acts 17:31; Heb 2:5), and there is no reason to argue that Jesus would be suggesting, “once you have gone throughout the empire, stop!” But such an expansive meaning is better seen as a continuing application of this prediction, since it is tied to a particular “end” and not the “end of all things” per se.
Verse 14 thus provides a transition to the definition of that “end” in v. 15, whereby Jesus also tells the disciples when these things will happen. That is, “whenever” they “see”—the third time we have seen a verb of “seeing” here, but now with a definite object—the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, that which was spoken of through Daniel (cf. Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), that is when it is time to flee (24:16–20). But there is still some ambiguity here, as Jesus says to pray that the flight does not happen in winter or on the Sabbath, as he is not guaranteeing that it will not happen in winter or on the Sabbath.
Of course, vv. 21–22 are yet more indications that are often taken to refer to something beyond the scope of the First Jewish War with Rome and the siege of Jerusalem. After all, we are told that there will be great tribulation or suffering such as has not happened from the beginning of the world until that time, nor will there ever be one like it again. While it is hardly a conclusive point one way or the other for someone to argue that events like the Holocaust could be considered worse than this destruction, it is also beside the point. This is rather like statements from Ezek 5:9 and Joel 2:2, the former of which has a more clearly identified historical context that people would also suggest was not “the worst ever.” One might suggest that this text is more like Dan 12:1, where the statement of climactic suffering is followed by the eschatological promise of final salvation and resurrection for contrasting everlasting fates (Dan 12:2–3; implying judgment, although there is no judgment scene). However, that text is differentiated from Matt 24:21 and the other OT examples by the fact that it only says that there will be nothing like it before “since a nation has existed,” while Matthew and the other texts add that there will not be another like the tribulation described, which indicates an expectation that there would be other tribulations, but the significance of this one is being highlighted as part of standard prophetic rhetoric. The same point applies to v. 22, where the phrase “none of all flesh” or “no flesh” as the subject of survival is often taken to indicate a sort of universal calamity. In fact, this phrase, too, can refer to “all flesh” within a local restriction, as fits with the local focus of this prediction (cf. Jer 12:2; 45:4–5). Finally, Jesus reiterates the warning from the start of his response about false messiahs and false prophets who will arise to deceive (24:23–25).
The further warnings of vv. 26–28 then transition the audience to the answer to the second part of the inquiry. The sign that applies to both Jesus’s arrival/appearance and the end of the age is the sign of the Son of Man in heaven (24:30), which is said to appear “immediately after the distress of those days” (24:29). This sign is simply the Son of Man himself (24:30) and his parousia is as manifest as seeing lightning in the distance (24:27). 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 sits on the Mount of Olives to proclaim this teaching, he also sits before a great mountain range of prophetic tradition, with some peaks being more prominent than others. These prominent peaks include Isa 13–14; Jer 50–51; Ezek 4–7; Dan 7; 9; and Zech 13–14. I have already noted the use of the last text in published work on Mark 13, 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 tribulation that comes with the abomination of desolation and about the parousia 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 abomination of desolation evokes Dan 9 and the reference to the Son of Man’s arrival in the clouds is directly drawn, in part, from Dan 7. In both texts, 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.
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 παρουσία 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 παρουσία 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.
5) What is the nature of his coming (in this case, signified by παρουσία)?
Not least because of how Jesus’s Second Coming has often been referred to in NT scholarship as the “parousia,” the nature of this event is frequently assumed as being in line with expectations of the Second Coming. That is, it is thought that Jesus comes physically from heaven to earth. 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 literal signs in the sun and moon on Pentecost in Acts 2 meant that Joel 2:28–32 could not be applied there.3 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.
Verses 26–28 contrast the messianic claimants and false prophets with Jesus, namely concerning visibility. This is one of the pieces of evidence that seems to most intuitively fit the Second Coming interpretation. But what about the judgment/vindication view that could apply to the Second Coming or not? The coming in judgment would be much more visible than the comings of the messianic claimants and false prophets, since they would be the ones who suffer judgment while Jesus would be the one who pronounced it and would take part in it. This would clearly set him apart from them. In terms of a coming in vindication, the destruction of Jerusalem would vindicate the one who set himself against the temple, yet still claimed to be the Messiah. This fulfillment of his prophecy would thus vindicate what Jesus said, meaning that the temple and the hierarchy that opposed him were in the wrong while Jesus was in the right. More specifically, the royal and divine dimensions would shine through in Jesus’s claims—i.e., to be the harbinger of the kingdom and in fact the incarnate representative of YHWH himself—becoming vindicated when his opponents are shown to be wrong. The destruction of Jerusalem would be a sign of Jesus’s coming in vindication in the heavenly court—properly crowned in majesty as the one through whom God brought his kingdom—and a sign that the end of the age of exile has come, since the bringer of the kingdom and the age of restoration had come. Though the arrival and the beginning of the end of the age had occurred, in a sense, before Jerusalem fell as far as Jesus and the Christians were concerned, this particular sign of it would not appear in the specific context of Jesus’s opposition to the temple until 70. This would be similar to the overlap in ages of Israel’s history when it had undergone the exodus but would not truly realize its exodus until it came into the promised land forty years later.
As for vv. 29–30, two points in this immediate context tip the scales in favor of seeing here a judgment/vindication coming separate from the Second Coming. One, the phrase, “immediately after the distress of those days,” in v. 29 connects what follows with what preceded in a close chronological bond (whatever timeframe “immediately” allows, it is certainly implying some measure of proximity between events). Second, as in the trial scene, Jesus 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, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem would come the realization that Jesus had been vindicated in his claims against the temple and in general. As such, even though this event meant judgment, it is also an opportunity for restoration for those who recognize Jesus for who he is.
Perhaps the most significant textual challenge to the view I am inclined to favor is v. 31. It is true that ἄγγελος could be translated as “angel” or “messenger,” but the former seems to be the most appropriate in this context, not least because of the similar teaching in 13:37–43, 49; and 16:27. As these texts fit the context of the Second Coming and final judgment, it would seem that the implication here is that this gathering will also be for judgment and vindication of the elect. It may not be that straightforward, though, as this gathering only refers to the elect, and thus could still have a connection with evangelization. This same verb for gathering is also used in Matt 23:37 to refer to Jesus’s desire to gather the children of Jerusalem to himself. A different verb is used for gathering in the Matt 13 context, thus the connection is less direct, but one also cannot overlook the fact that angels are the immediate agents of gathering in both cases and they do what they do under the direction of the Son of Man. This may be the strongest indication in favor of the Second Coming interpretation, but I think, on balance, it still makes sense in the context of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem as something of an advance sign of the final judgment, rather than of the initiation of the final judgment itself (for more on the various uses and complexities of judgment language in the Gospels, see my series).
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 or as impressive as what would seem to 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. That argument assumes that we are dealing with a claim of the Second Coming to begin with, which I do not accept, but it still indicates the forcefulness of the reference to “this 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 every time the phrase appears, it is in reference to Jesus’s own generation (11:16; 12:41–42, 45; 23:36). The last example before this one in 23:36 is especially indicative of Jesus’s purpose in using this phrase, as he declares that the punishment for the blood of God’s messengers will come on the generation he is addressing.
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. 34 comes in the context of vv. 32–34, 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 this phrase (πάντα ταῦτα) as a justification for partitioning the unit about the παρουσία 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 these things” to v. 2 and thus only with the destruction of the temple without any reference to the events surrounding the παρουσία, which ignores the force of the “immediately after.” This is also an odd way to process discourse, as in every case this phrase or a similar one is used outside of this text and its parallels, there is never any indication that something that preceded “all these things” in the context, much less something that immediately preceded the unit, should perforce be excluded when it is not intuitive to do so (cf. Matt 13:34, 51, 56; 19:20; 23:36; 24:2, 8; 26:1; Mark 7:23; 10:20; 13:4; Luke 1:65; 2:19, 51; 7:18; 12:30; 16:14; 18:21; 21:12, 36; 24:9, 14; John 15:21; Acts 7:50; 24:18; Rom 8:37; 1 Cor 12:11; 2 Cor 5:18; Col 3:14; 1 Thess 4:6; 2 Pet 3:11). Even if one could argue that this case in the Olivet Discourse is exceptional because Jesus himself may provide some qualification in placing “all these things” before the “he” or “it” that is near (24:33), whereas none of these other examples have such potential qualifications in the immediate context, the fact remains that “these things” are sources of knowledge for the subject being “near.” As such, this description would reinforce the “immediately after” in v. 29.
On the third issue, the suggestion sometimes comes up that the γένηται in 24:34 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.” (On these points about the aorist subjunctive, see here and my published version of the same.)
7) What does the lack of knowledge about the day or hour and the instruction to be watchful apply to?
After the ultimate affirmation of the durability of Jesus’s words in 24:35, Jesus then declares that no one knows about that day or hour, but only his Father (24:36).4 Some read this statement as being in tension with v. 34 and thus as being an indication of referring to a different time than v. 34. Of course, such a supposition seems to stem from an imagination that cannot make sense of such statements as, “I don’t know when it will be, but it will be sometime this month.” This is not a self-contradictory statement, but a statement about the lack of precision in knowledge.
The time of the παρουσία is compared to the time of Noah. People were unprepared for it, going about life as usual. When they realized what came upon them, it was too late. They were thus taken away, while Noah was left, and so it will be with the παρουσία, one will be taken in judgment, and the other will be left (24:39–41). In the OT, when something or someone is “taken,” it generally refers to the capture or conquest of a city (or the people occupying it) as in Jer 6:11 and Zech 14:2, among many others. By contrast, Noah is said to be “left” in Gen 7:23 after the flood takes the others away (cf. Isa 4:3; 11:11, 16; 37:31; Jer 50:20; Zeph 3:12; Zech 9:7). Since it is precisely the case of Noah that provides the analogy for this time, this factor supports the interpretation that those who are “taken” receive the negative outcome of judgment while those who are “left” receive the positive outcome of judgment. This would fit with the notion that the reference is to those “taken” with the destruction of Jerusalem.
The fact that they are caught unaware is taken as evidence that a different time is being referred to, one that is without signs. One problem with such a reading is that “signs” per se were not the object of watching in the teaching to this point. The only times the language of “signs” appear are in the disciples’ question about the sign of Jesus’s παρουσία, the signs and wonders of the deceivers, and the sign of the Son of Man, which is the Son of Man himself. The other events are never designated as signs. Besides the abomination of desolation, all of the other events have no direct action attached to them for the disciples’ instruction. These other events are not an indication of the time being near, even if they are often read that way. At no point are the disciples actually told to look for signs.
In fact, it is only after all of these things that Jesus first instructs his disciples to “keep watch” (γρηγορεῖτε) in 24:42. The word is related to a common word for resurrection—ἐγείρω—since both terms are related to being awake. They are not told to keep watch for signs. In none of the parables connected to this teaching are the subjects actively watching for someone’s coming. In fact, both the wise and foolish virgins fall asleep before the cry rings out about the coming of the bridegroom (25:5–7). Rather, the “watching” comes in remaining vigilant in one’s conduct, being wise, faithful, and obedient, as are the positive subjects in these parables.
When we take this characteristic of Jesus’s teaching into account and recognize the judgment on Jerusalem as an advance sign of the final judgment, especially in light of the christological significance of this judgment, it is easy to see how this instruction shades into instruction about the Second Coming. The applicability of this teaching for the Second Coming is something that Paul recognized from early on, as seen in 1 Thess 5, but there it is clearer that he is talking about the Second Coming. How the disciples were to act in anticipation of this event of judgment is also how they are to act in anticipation of the final judgment. Hence, the parables about vigilance in conduct eventually lead into a teaching on the final judgment in 25:31–46. That leads us to the last interpretive issue we will address for this version of the Olivet Discourse.
8) How does the judgment of Matt 25:31–46 relate to the larger discourse?
Another part of this passage that influences interpreters to see the παρουσία in terms of the Second Coming is the reference to the final judgment in ch. 25. I have noted previously the connections of this text to other teachings on judgment in Matthew and elsewhere, so this text is not easily separable from the final judgment. Some interpreters who I generally agree with on this discourse will suggest that this is not referring to a singular event of judgment but to an ongoing judgment. Given the connection between resurrection and judgment that I have noted frequently, including in the aforementioned series, given what I have observed on the question of the intermediate state in the NT, and given the everlasting consequences that come from this judgment, I think this claim is a non-starter, biblically speaking. The connection between death and subsequent judgment in Heb 9:27–28 is no more meant to imply that the judgment happens immediately after death than it implies that Jesus would come a second time immediately after his death. The immediacy of the “and then” actually fits there being no intermediate state, as, from the internal perspective of the event, there is no perceived gap.
How then could the view that I have suggested—even if it is not otherwise completely free of problems—fit with the implied link of this judgment with the events of ch. 24? I think the answer is to be found in how, even as the judgment on Jerusalem is an advance sign of the final judgment, so too is the παρουσία an advance sign of the Second Coming both in its judgment and in its demonstration of Jesus’s vindication. As such, it resembles the Second Coming that I agree is in view in 25:31. The Son of Man comes in glory in both cases and angels are involved both times, but here it is made clear that “all the angels” (in some variants, all the “holy angels” perhaps to accentuate the connection to Zech 14:5) are “with him,” as in 16:27 but not in ch. 24. Likewise, Jesus refers to being seated on the throne of his glory, as in 19:28 with its reference to judgment, but not as in ch. 24, where there is no seating referenced. Furthermore, the gathering being for judgment is explicit here, again as in 16:27 and elsewhere, but not in ch. 24. The events are analogous, not identical, and thus the previous instructions apply to the anticipation of both.
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.
For more on this term, see Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, rev. ed., trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 368–73; Albrecht Oepke, “παρουσία, πάρειμι,” TDNT 5:859–65.
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.