The Great Tribulation of Matthew 24: Past or Present?

The following brief study of the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21) was put together by Dr. Fred Long. For the past seven years, Dr. Long has taught at Bethel College in Mishawaka, IN, and this summer is joining the staff of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY. This study basically asks "What was Jesus talking about in the Olivet Discourse?" For instance, is the "great tribulation" described here a past or future event? Does Matthew 24 teach that there will be a rebuilt temple? Is the Antichrist referenced here? Read and feel free to add your comments.

General Structural Observations on the Olivet Discourse
Dr. Fred Long, 10-2002

I. The Matter of Setting is Clear: the Temple and its Buildings will be destroyed

Note the Chiasm in Mark’s account:

A Mark 13:1 And as He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him,
B "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones
C and what wonderful buildings!"
C 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings?
B Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down."
A 13:3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately,

II. The Matter of Questions: The First is clear, the second not as Clear

A. The First: “When will these things be?” (i.e., the temple being destroyed)

B. The Second Question:
1. In Mark and Luke:
a. I believe the second question is simply an elaboration of the first, “What will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled (about to take place)?”
b. I believe implicit in the disciples’ thinking is this, “When the temple is destroyed, surely this is when Jesus returns for good, to judge and set up his eternal kingdom.”
c. Matthew makes this question/assumption explicit.

2. In Matthew:
a. The second question in Matthew is this: “What is the sign of your coming (parousia) and the end (sunteleia) of the age?”
b. I believe this refers to Jesus’ final coming in Judgment and to set up his eternal kingdom and/or New Heavens/New Earth.
c. In the disciples’ thinking according to Matthew the assumption
might still be that the destruction of the temple, since it is so cataclysmic, must correspond with Jesus’s final coming and judgment and eternal kingdom.
d. Some see three questions behind Matthew’s account: 1) When will the Temple be destroyed? 2) What is the sign of your coming? and 3) What is the sign of the end of the age?
po,te tau/ta e;stai kai. ti, to. shmei/on th/j sh/j parousi,aj kai. suntelei,aj tou/ aivw/nojÈ However, in the Greek “coming” and “end” share a definite article, so really, these belong to the same question.

III. The Matter of Answers: How does Jesus answer these questions (or other
implicit questions)? Four Options:

Option A. He doesn’t answer their first question, but rather goes to the “meat and potatoes” implicit question for Mark/Luke or the explicit second question in Matthew. He answers the question, “What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?”

1. This is a futurist interpretation, very popular among evangelicals. All of the Olivet discourse is happening now or will yet happen. It is basically a checklist for us to keep looking for today.

2. The strength of this position is that certainly the beginning of the Olivet discourse (Matt 24:3-34) contains many “signs” which culminate in “the sign of the Son of man” (24:30).

3. The weakness is that Jesus ignores the first question(!). Also there are other notable difficulties with the passage, among which are 1) Jesus says “this generation will not pass away before these things take place” (“this generation” always refers to Jesus’s contemporaries, e.g.,
Matt 11:16; 12:41-45; 23:36*) and 2) the tension created by Jesus giving all “these signs” in Matt 24:4-34, yet then later saying “no one knows the day or hour” in the remainder of Matthew 24, where Jesus also emphasizes the suddenness of his coming.

Option B: Jesus answers the first question first, then the second question. He then gives a corresponding “time tables” for each in ABAB pattern. This is a Partial Futurist position.

A Matt 24:4-28 Jesus describes Temple destruction
B Matt 24:29-31 Jesus describes His Second Coming
A Matt 24:32-35 Time Table for Temple Destruction: One generation
B Matt 24:36-39 Time Table for Second Coming: No one knows

1. The strengths are many: 1) It takes the first question seriously; 2) It resolves the tension of how certain things could happen within “this generation”, and yet others when “no one knows.”

2. There are some weaknesses, however. First, do the events in Matt 24:4-28 really only relate to the destruction of the Temple? Second, it seems as if Jesus sees the events of vv.4-28 as “immediately” preceding Jesus’s second coming (see v.29). This did not happen.

3. Third, would Jesus’s hearers have understood the alternation between ABAB (i.e., temple, second coming, temple, second coming)?

Option C: A third position is similar to B above, except that it sees the description of the Second Coming (parousia) not at Matt 24:29-31 but at 24:36ff. This is called a Partial Preterist position.

1. Matt 24:29-31is rather a description of Jesus “coming in judgment” upon Israel/Jerusalem.

a. It employs apocalyptic and poetic language from OT passages. For example, the sun/moon/stars language (Matt 24:29) is found in the OT referring to the fall of a nation. For the falling of Babylon, see Isaiah 13:9, 10, 13. For the capital city of Bozrah in Edom, see Isaiah 34:3-5. See also “the day of the Lord” in Joel 2:1-10 (a locust army); cf. Micah 1:3-4.

b. “The nations of the earth” (Matt 24:30b) actually refers to the “tribes (fule) of the land (of Israel).” This limits the description to the destruction of the temple.

c. Jesus “coming with the clouds” (Matt 24:30c) indicates that Jesus is acting with kingly authority in judgment on Israel (see Dan 7:13-14). Jesus told the high priest Caiaphas that he and others (you pl.) would see “The son of man coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt 26:64).

d. The gathering of the “elect” by the angels refers to the protected (Jewish) Christians, who, by way of the destruction of the Temple are legitimated as the “elect” of Israel in the purposes of God. “Four Winds” is language of extent, i.e., what is taking place is far reaching (Zech 2:6; Ezek 37:9); cf. Rev 7:1-8.

2. Note the transition at 24:35. The Final (Second) Coming of Jesus is described as “unknown” (24:36); thus, we must be ready at all times.

3. There are some difficulties. First, the description of the Son of Man on the Clouds in 24:29 sure sounds like the second coming to me (cf. Acts 1:11; Rev 1:7)! Is the language really so poetic/apocalyptic? Second, can we be certain that at Matt 24:36 Jesus indeed takes up the final second coming? This may not convince all.

Option D: The last position is basically a combination of all the above in that there may be dual fulfillment, first, in AD 70 and then in the future. The problem with this is, how can we be sure of this? I would call this the Typological Position.