The Olivet Discourse: An Apocalyptic Timetable

By George C. Fuller

Northwestern College, Minneapolis, Minnesota

There are facets of Jesus’ sermon from the Mount of Olives that speak with clarity to the heart of every Christian. One of them is that no one knows the time of the Messiah’s coming. The second is that the Christian therefore ought to be ready at all times. The words in the Olivet Discourse which relate most directly to the Christian’s life are these: “take heed”, “watch”, “be ready”. On these issues all Christians can find a meeting ground, as they proclaim together the significance of Jesus’ parousia.

There are other subjects in the Olivet Discourse about which Christians disagree, sometimes sharply. Primarily these are to be found in the time-structure of the Discourse. Long hours have been devoted to the search for answers to such questions as: How did Jesus view the future and what is the relation between the fall of Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah? It is to questions such as these that our attention is to be turned in this study.

It might be well at the outset to note several “ground rules” for such an inquiry. One is that, although these parts of the Olivet Discourse may be of greater interest, the heart of its message is to be found in its imperatives. The consideration of the Discourse’s time-structure demands less from us with reference to our living; the imperatives demand everything. A second matter worthy of note is that sincere Christians differ widely in their interpretation of this passage. We ought therefore to be generous with regard to the opinions of others. Perhaps not until the day that God chooses to reveal more of his truth to our finite minds will the interpretation of any of us be confirmed as correct, possibly not even then.

That view of the Olivet Discourse which appears as most simple and accurate to many Christians holds that Matthew 24:29 (Mark 13:24, Luke 21:25) marks a point of division between Jesus’ prediction of the fall of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:4–28) and his prophecy with regard to his coming (Matt. 24:29–31). In the following paragraph he relates these two events to each other (Matt. 24:32–36), and then gives directions concerning the proper Christian attitude and posture in the light of the absolute certainty of his coming (Matt. 24:37–25:46). This is not a new view of the Olivet Discourse; it has been presented and defended by many Christians and refuted by others. In this study we will examine several features of the Olivet Discourse that relate specifically to this interpretation.

Jesus appears to have believed that in his coming the end-time process had begun and that after his departure the next significant events in that “holy history” were to be the fall of Jerusalem and then the parousia of the Messiah. Apart from these two events none other is to be regarded as of great. eschatological significance. There may be little that. is revolutionary in this proposition, but it is of interest to test it against some of the details of the Olivet Discourse.

The Gospel of Matthew, it would appear, was written to people of Jewish background. We would therefore expect its author to be precise in his choice of words bearing apocalyptic significance, for his readers would have been most conscious of the meaning of such terms. In this account of Jesus’ Discourse there is what may be a most precise alternation between two words, συντέλεια and τέλος.

When Jesus announced the destruction of the temple, his disciples immediately related to that event several others (“these things”, Matt. 24:3), including his “parousia” (whatever that word meant to them). It was current Jewish belief that the consummation would involve not a single event but a complex of events, perhaps extending over a long period of time. This is made evident in the Testament of Levi 10:2–4, where Levi is reported to have said: “And behold I am clear from your ungodliness and transgressions, which ye shall commit in the end of the ages (ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων), deceiving Israel, and stirring tip against it great evils from the Lord. And ye shall deal lawlessly together with Israel, so he shall not bear with Jerusalem because of your wickedness; but the veil of the temple shall be rent, so as not to cover your shame. And ye shall be scattered as captives among the Gentiles, and shall be for a reproach and for a curse there”. Here the “end (συντέλεια) of the ages” includes at least the considerable amount of time that would be consumed by the “scattering of Israel”.

Out of this there arises the suggestion that συντέλεια refers to the whole complex of the last days, from the ministry of Jesus until his parousia. The τέλοςmay then be regarded as the absolute end of this process (συντέλεια). That these words bear this interpretation in apocalyptic literature cannot be fixed with certainty, but several considerations may be of significance.

It is not possible to find consistency in the force that Greek prepositions have when they are compounded with simple verbs. In the case of some compounds made with συν, however, it is clear that the action of the compounded verb is “completed” only when all of the “subjects” fulfill the action of the simple verb. Greek verbs formed in this manner mean “suffering together”, “dwelling together”, “bearing witness together”. In Matthew 18:19, where there is reference to people agreeing (συμφωνέω), the implication is that each party involved individually says (φωνέω) the same thing. Is it not then possible that συντελέω (σιμτέλεια) maintains the same relationship to τελέω (τέλος), in that it involves the “end” of several things taken together before it can be said that its meaning is fulfilled? Thus the end (τέλος) will have arrived only when the various parts that unite to make that end have all “run their course” (συντελέω).

No deep investigation is needed to discover that the writers of the New Testament believed that they were already living in the last days. But it is significant to note two appearances of the word συντέλεια in the New Testament. In the book of Hebrews, like Matthew a markedly Jewish work and one that would therefore be especially precise in its use of such terms, συντέλεια occurs at 9:26: “… but now once at the end (συντέλεια) of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”. Here it is clear that the author regarded Jesus’ life and death as part of the συντέλεια. Matthew 13:39, 40 and 49 suggest a terminus ad quem for the same word. These several passages open a wide vista for this expression, suggesting that it may include the whole of the interadvent period. Jesus made it clear in the Olivet Discourse, however, that some events which are in this period (the συντέλεια) will take place before the τέλος comes (Matt. 24:6, 14).

There is slight, but interesting, evidence in the Old Testament regarding the possible distinction between these words (συντέλεια and τέλος) and the concepts they may possibly embody. The Hebrew word חּ frequently in the Old Testament and is translated in the Septuagint by some sixteen different Greek words. But the surprising feature is that from Daniel 8:19 to the end of that book only συντέλεια is found for חּ. We must combine the fact that συντέλεια is so used in the apocalyptic sections of Daniel twelve times, although nowhere else in the Old Testament as a translation of חּ, with the fact that τέλος appears elsewhere (eight times) for חּ but not at all in these particular sections of Daniel.[1] It would appear therefore that in this part of the Old Testament (the section that has most in common with the Olivet Discourse) the translator of the Septuagint observed what seems to be a careful distinction between συντέλεια and τέλος.

Although it is admitted that no sufficient mathematical proof has been offered, at least we may hope that several doors have now been opened through which this distinction between συντέλεια and τέλος may be regarded as possible. But even if this distinction is not valid, our original thesis may be useful in studying the Olivet Discourse. That thesis involved the fact that for Jesus in the Olivet Discourse the end-time process had already begun and that the next significant events in that process were the fall of Jerusalem and his own parousia. In the light of what has so far been said, we turn to some of the details of the Discourse itself, especially to those that may give hints of the underlying time-structure.

During the earlier portion of the Discourse Jesus warned his disciples not to become unduly alarmed at the appearance of certain things. Although the temptation might be great to regard “wars and rumors of wars”, “famines and earthquakes” as signs of the near approach of the end (τέλος), these things are but the beginning of the “death-agony” of this age or of the “birth-pangs” of the age to come (Matt. 24:8). They are indeed signs, but only in a limited sense are they indications that the end-time process has begun. For their comfort the disciples were also to know that sometime before the end (τέλος) actually arrived, the Gospel would be preached “in the whole world”.[2]

The one significant sign for which Jesus’ disciples were to look was the appearing of the “abomination of desolation”.[3] For the benefit of first (and twentieth?) century readers who were not steeped in Jewish apocalyptic expression and could not therefore understand the import of this phrase, Luke translated it into “Jerusalem surrounded by armies”. Jesus warned his disciples that the proper time for them to take action would be when the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the spiritual desolation of the temple were impending. At that time there would be special danger from false reports of the coming of the Messiah. These they should not heed, however, for everyone would know of the Messiah’s coming (whenever it might be) without being told, in the same way that vultures are gathered to a carcass (Matt. 24:28).

In Matthew 24:29–31 Jesus spoke of his parousia, that is, his second coming.[4] This is to take place “immediately after the tribulation of those days”. The thesis with which we commenced this study suggested that Jesus was giving in the Olivet Discourse an accounting of the significant events of “holy history”. Accordingly therefore he is here recorded as telling his disciples that “immediately after” the fall of Jerusalem there will occur the parousia of the Son. This viewpoint is not far different from that of an airline schedule. A jet plane travelling from New York to Los Angeles may be scheduled to land only in Chicago. According to the schedule Los Angeles comes “immediately after” Chicago; it is the next stop. So in Matthew’s account of the Olivet Discourse, which is uniquely set forth in terms of Jewish apocalypticism, Jesus gives an “express” (“heilsgeschichtliche”) timetable of significant events: the fall of Jerusalem and then, next, the appearing of the Son. Many other events may intervene (as indeed our plane flies over Denver and Salt Lake City) but these are of little importance to the schedule.

Matthew’s “immediately” cannot be easily dismissed. That he used it in a somewhat unusual (technical) sense is supported by a study of Mark’s account of the Discourse. At Mark 13:24 instead of “immediately” (εὐθέως) there appears “but” (ἀλλά). Matthew uses “immediately” (εὐθώςor εὐθέως) nineteen times. In fifteen of these instances it is found in the parallel passage in Mark. In two cases (Matt. 14:31; 25:15) there is no parallel passage. Once (Matt. 27:48) Matthew introduces the word into a narrative passage where Mark’s abrupt style is virtually equivalent (Mk. 15:36). The only exception to this consistent picture is in Matthew 24:29. A comparison with Mark’s Gospel therefore opens the door for the possibility that Matthew may have had some unique or uncommon purpose in mind in his choice of the word “immediately”. That purpose may have been to give an “eschatological time-table”.

The parallel account of Luke cannot be overlooked at this point. At the conclusion of the preceding paragraph (Lk. 21:20–24), which speaks of the fall of Jerusalem, Luke introduces this thought: “… Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”. Those familiar with Jewish eschatology would have been aware that the fall of Jerusalem was to be followed by the “times of the Gentiles” (a period of Jewish “tribulation”). Here again it seems that Luke has “translated” for the benefit of his Gentile readers that which would have been difficult for them to understand. In place of Matthew’s technical, “immediately”, Luke introduces an extended interim, “the times of the Gentiles”, thereby interpreting Matthew’s apocalyptic language (“immediately”) for Gentile readers.[5]

After speaking of his parousia (Matt. 24:29–31), Jesus taught by means of the fig tree (Matt. 24:32–33). The point of his lesson was this: when his disciples see “all these things”, they are to know that he (his parousia, his kingdom) is near, “even at the doors”. Now obviously “all these things” cannot include his parousia, for they are signs of that event and precede it. The meaning of Jesus is that when his disciples see the destruction of Jerusalem (and the events related to it), they are to know that the next significant event will be his parousia and that he is about to come forth at any time.

We find here the key to Matthew 24:34: “This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished”. What things? The most logical answer to that question is found in verse 33, the immediate context, where “all these things” cannot include the parousia. “These things” again refers to those events that surrounded the destruction of Jerusalem. The same “things” to which Jesus here made reference are discovered at Luke 21:9 (“… for these things must needs come to pass first …”) and at Matthew 24:8 (“But all these things are the beginning of travail”) and are part of the disciples’ questioning (“Tell us, when shall these things be?”). It is rather surprising that little attention is paid to Matthew 23:38 and 23:36 (“All these things shall come upon this generation”) in regard to the study of the Olivet Discourse. Those verses help to form the context out of which the Discourse arose and ought to be of special significance in its interpretation. In Matthew 23:36 “all these things” refers to the judgment that was to fall on Pharisaic Judaism.

The theory that we have been investigating maintains that the Olivet Discourse is seen in proper perspective, only when several factors are held in view. The most crucial of these is that Jesus presented here a survey of the remaining significant events in the “consummation” (συντέλεια). Of primary importance is the fall of Jerusalem, which for the Jewish economy was accompanied by religious overtones. The next event is the parousia which comes at the “absolute end” (τέλος) of the age. It is not necessary therefore to use such words as “type”, “foreshadowing”, “picture on a small scale”, or “prophetic perspective” in describing the relationship that exists between these events.

The latter portion of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:37–25:46, Mk. 13:33–37, Lk. 21:34–36) returns us to the point at which we began. Jesus reminded his readers that no one knows the time of the parousia and that they therefore should be ready at all times for his appearing. His key words are, “take heed”, “watch”, and “be ready”, and in these words the Olivet Discourse becomes a matter of personal concern for every Christian.

Notes

1. It should be noted that there are many problems related to the Septuagint translation of Daniel. Theodotion’s translation does not always agree, even with regard to the matter at hand. And there is a possible exception to the stated generalities at Daniel 9:26. Nevertheless we have here an independent witness for what appears to be a distinctively eschatological use of συντέλεια.
2. This verse appears to have been fulfilled in the early years of church history. Note Colossians 1:6, 23. Perhaps the reason that Luke ended the book of Acts as he (lid was not that he ran out of scroll, but rather because he had accomplished his purpose, to show the dissemination of the Gospel to “the uttermost part of the earth” (Rome). If so, we have further confirmation of the early fulfillment of this prediction.
3. That this expression refers to the destruction of the temple and its sanctity seems evident for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the often overlooked parallelism between Matthew 24:15 and 23:38.
4. This appears to be a more plausible interpretation than to assume that his “coming” here was in judgment against Jerusalem (Isa. 13:10; 34:4; Jer. 4:20–27). That Jesus’ subject is changed and broadened is suggested by (1) Mark’s use of all adversative (ἀλλά) at this point, Mark 13:24, (2) Jesus’ change from second person (“you”) to third person (“they shall see”) and (3) a change in outlook from “this people” (Luke 21:23) to “nations”.
5. In any consideration of this portion of the Discourse the whole of II Peter 3:8–10 should be carefully noted.