“The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”1 — Stephen Covey
In our last post, we identified the Olivet Discourse as the starting point for constructing our prophetic model. Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; and Luke 21:5–35 record this exchange between Jesus and his disciples.
We will lay the foundation for our model with an assertion that will guide our efforts: the destruction of the Temple2 is the subject of the Olivet Discourse.
Our application of Covey’s principles is simple. The “main thing” for our work at this point is to keep this subject as the “main thing.”
Temptations to swerve from the subject arise from several sources. This post will list the major causes of deviation and address some of them. The remaining ones will be the subject of future posts.
The subject of the Olivet Discourse
Mark’s3 introductory paragraph establishes the subject of the Olivet Discourse as the destruction of the Temple:
And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? (Mark 13:1–4)
We should not introduce another subject unless the text compels us to do so.
The rest of the Olivet Discourse fits into a simple three-part outline. All three deal with Jesus’ response to the disciples’ two questions. They first heard his answers to their request for a sign of the Temple’s destruction (Mark 13:5–28). Jesus then responded to their question regarding when it would occur (Mark 13:29–33). In his conclusion, he exhorted them to watchfulness regarding this catastrophic event (Mark 13:34–36). Each section relates to Jesus’ prophecy of the Temple’s destruction and the disciples’ questions it provoked.
At this high-level overview, Jesus appears to restrict his remarks to the announced subject. The destruction of the Temple was his single focus.
Common challenges to the subject
Concerns about this single-subject thesis arise from several sources. We will here list the major objections. This post will provide a brief answer to two of these. The remaining objections will serve as subjects of future posts.
Challenges from outside the Olivet Discourse
The first example comes when we come to the Olivet Discourse with a strong commitment to an existing prophetic model. This is quite natural. Our adopted model predetermines how we interpret certain terms and concepts. When we find them in the Olivet Discourse, we understand them in light of what we already believe.
For example, if we believe the darkening of the physical sun (Matthew 24:29) will occur at the end of history, we will find it hard to associate this sign with the Temple’s destruction. We should give great care to identify assumptions like this that influence our thinking.
I once took part in an exercise that showed the power of pre-existing assumptions. The exercise leader showed half of our group a picture of a beautiful princess. He presented the other half with a picture of an old hag. He then showed the entire group the image shown here 
and asked what we saw.4 Almost everyone saw the image they had seen before. Our two groups looked at the same image but saw different things. The differences of perception came from pre-existing assumptions.
The same phenomenon can occur regarding the subject of the Olivet Discourse. If we look at it with unbending pre-existing beliefs, we may see subjects Jesus did not intend for us to see.
Our plea is this. Let us put aside, to the greatest extent possible, our pre-held ideas about Jesus’ subject. Let us allow the text itself, not our assumptions, to dictate the subject.
Besides guarding against objections arising from previous assumptions, we must also address objections that arise from within the Olivet Discourse itself.
Challenges from within the Olivet Discourse
We will make a promise to go with our plea. As we study the Olivet Discourse, we will deal fairly with all texts that appear to introduce additional subjects. We will be open to expanding the subject beyond the destruction of the Temple if we encounter compelling reasons.
Objections arise from two sources within the body of the Olivet Discourse. The first involves apocalyptic imagery. As we observed in our last post, the Olivet Discourse contains a relatively small number of apocalyptic images. This was a strong reason for choosing this place to start construction of our prophetic model. The images occur in the following section:
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:29–30)
These images also occur in the accounts of Mark and Luke. We must reserve a full examination of them for a future post. For now, we will observe Israel’s prophets had used these figures to depict God’s destruction of other cities and nations. We cannot assume, therefore, that Jesus meant for the disciples to associate these images with anything other than the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.
The second source of objections is a judgment passage at the conclusion of the Olivet Discourse. Mark and Luke do not contain an equivalent account. It occurs only in Matthew 25:31–46. This judgment results in some people entering everlasting punishment and others life eternal. This is a difficult passage to reconcile with our thesis. To do it justice, we will examine its relationship to the Temple’s destruction in a future post.
We have an immediate need to address a source of objections found in the opening paragraph of the Olivet Discourse.
From the introductory paragraph
Matthew’s introduction to the Olivet Discourse impacts how we view Jesus’ subject. His record of the second of the disciples’ two questions differs from that of Mark and Luke. Matthew says, “and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matthew 24:3).
In the other gospels, the disciples’ second question is simpler: “what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?” (Mark 13:4) and “what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?” (Luke 21:7). Matthew breaks this question into two parts: “what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matthew 24:3; emphasis added).
We can easily account for one of Matthew’s parts to the second question. Jesus was not speaking about the end of the world, meaning the kosmos, or created universe. He was speaking about the end of an age. He used the Greek word aiōn, from which we get the English word “eon.” It means “an age or time in contrast to kósmos.”5
Most modern translations recognize this meaning. The English Standard Version, for example, translates the question as “what will be the sign . . . of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3; emphasis added).
[The Jews of Jesus’ generation divided history into two ages.These ‘two ages’ are mentioned in many Jewish apocalyptic writings, and also in the teachings of some rabbis. . . . For Jews, ‘the age to come’, or ‘kingdom of God’, was in the future, perhaps a far distant future. But Jesus had announced its arrival, and claimed it was present in his own life and ministry, for he himself was the Messiah and Son of God. He told his disciples that ‘there are some here who will not die until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power’ (Mark 9:1).6
We will often refer to the first of these as the “Mosaic Age” and the second as the “Messianic Age.” The former began with the Exodus under Moses. The latter began with the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus. Other names, especially for the second, will prove beneficial in later discussions.]7
The Temple served as an important symbol of the Mosaic age. Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of that symbol led the disciples to inquire about the termination of the age for which it stood—the Mosaic age with its priesthood, sacrifices, and other rituals. We should, therefore, avoid thinking this question somehow extends the subject being discussed to the end of time. The disciples associated the destruction of the Temple with the end of the Mosaic age (aiōn). They were not asking about the destruction of the created universe (kosmos).
The explanation of the other part of the disciples’ second question—“what shall be the sign of thy coming”—is much less straightforward. We must reserve our discussion of it for future posts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our attempt to keep the “main thing” as the “main thing” in the Olivet Discourse encounters several challenges. For convenience we will list the ones we identified here and provide a brief “status report” of our analysis of them:
- Pre-existing prophetic models. We should take care to not let our preconceptions alter the subject of the Olivet Discourse without textual necessity.
- Apocalyptic imagery. These do not force us to expand the subject beyond the destruction of the Temple. This will become evident as we move through the passage.
- The judgment passage. A formidable challenge to our thesis that will require an explanation in future posts.
- The “end of the world.” This refers to the end of the Mosaic age, a sense associated with the destruction of the Temple.
- The coming of Christ. Future posts will examine how this part of the disciples’ question relates to the subject of the Olivet Discourse.
A clear understanding of the subject of the Olivet Discourse is important to our future prophetic model. The opening verses announce the destruction of the Temple as that subject. This subject should stand unaltered unless we encounter compelling reasons in the passage itself for changing it.
We have addressed two of our list of five possible reasons for expanding the subject. The remaining three will occupy future posts.
Footnotes
- Stephen Covey. BrainyQuote.com, Xplore Inc, 2016. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/stephencov110198.html accessed December 20, 2016.
- Please see our Pinterest board “Themes in Biblical Prophecy” for information about the painting.
- Luke’s account (21:5–7) is very similar.
- This drawing (here) is My Wife and My Mother-in-Law by William Ely Hill (1887–1962). It is in the public domain (PD-US).
- Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).
- John William Drane, Introducing the New Testament, (Oxford: Lion Publishing plc, 2000), 375.
- I added this paragraph on August 4, 2017 at the suggestion of Luke Crocker, who suggested the need for it.
5 comments
Bro. Mike,
It has occurred to me rereading this post that you may have jumped the gun in one of your points. Particularly in the section: “From the introductory paragraph,” the paragraph after “… of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3; emphasis added),” you introduce the concepts of “Mosaic age” and the like without explaining what they mean and without proving that this two-age system was common thinking during that day. This could leave readers wondering where you got that idea from and feeling like you yourself are reading a presupposed system into the text.
As it is currently worded, that section doesn’t quite resolve the objection: A critic from another eschatological viewpoint could still acknowledge the different Greek word, but state that it is referring to the end of the age of time. He could appeal to passages like Luke 20:34-36 which seem to him to teach that the two-age system which Jesus taught is the Temporal State followed by the Eternal State, not the Mosaic Age followed by the Messianic Age as perceived by the Jews at that time. Jesus redefined what the Jews thought what the Messiah and His Kingdom would be like, our critic argues, so why wouldn’t He redefine what the age to come would be? Plugging back in the Olivet Discourse, he could argue that the disciples were confused by this redefinition and assumed that the end of time would occur at the Destruction of the Temple; Jesus apparently decided not to correct it, not knowing as a man the day and the hour, and played along with their assumption and gave the signs for both events together in order to encourage them in the spirit of watchfulness.
I suggest that you, between those afore mentioned paragraphs, insert a paragraph in brackets (to indicate a update) with perhaps a link inside to a article that proves that your two-age system is what the first-century Jews thought and is what Jesus and the Apostles taught and expected. Other than that, this is a well-written post!
Thank you, Luke. I will review the points you make and consider ways to improve the post. I appreciate your insights!
Luke, I inserted the explanatory paragraph as you suggested.Thank you, once again.
>We should not introduce another subject unless the text compels us to do so.
Just a question for now, as I am still working through these introductory posts:
The image of the Temple stands for the body in Jesus’ prophecy in John 2:18-22. I have discerned multiple prophetic senses of the body: the sensible body of the “first man;” the body of doctrine (which grows through metabolic induction of spiritual milk, bread, and meat); the church body (composed of all believing that Jesus is Lord and God raised Him from the dead); and the body of customs and practices.
Can you link to any posts where you deal with these analogical “bodies,” as they connect to the image of the temple?
Is it safe to entertain the possibility that Christ used his sensible body and the temple as prophetic figures for the story of the church body and the doctrinal body (which might be regarded as the “soul” of the church body)?
Jimmy,
Thanks for your comments and questions! Your sincerity regarding the Word of God refreshes my spirit.
Yes, the “body” imagery is rich and deep in Scripture. Sadly, I can’t point you to particular posts where I’ve focused on this topic but it crops up in posts on other subjects (e.g., resurrection, judgment, etc.).
Regarding your “is it safe” question, I think we should treat prophetic images with great care. The safest approach is to ensure we have a biblical precedent for any interpretation we give them. For example, we are on solid ground when we interpret the cosmic collapse imagery in the Olivet Discourse as God’s judgment of Israel. We have specific OT examples where the prophets applied it to Babylon, Idumea, Egypt, etc.
I’m a Calvinist and appreciate preaching that exalts God as sovereign. However, I think a preacher is carrying his imagery too far when he says the five stones in David’s bag as he fought Goliath represented the five (TULIP) points of Calvinism. He’s on his own in doing this and that is unsafe.
Please keep me posted on your progress as you learn the words of God and do them. I will appreciate your prayers for me to do the same.
Yours in Christ,
Mike