An axiom of biblical interpretation is that if something is new it is not true; and if
something is true it is not new. It appears that most conservative bible students agree
with this idea as does the present writer. It is true that one ignores the opinions of the
majority of serious bible scholars at the expense of one's scholarly reputation.
It also is important that if the grammatical-historical method of exegesis is used in an
effort to explain the prophecy, that same method should be used throughout the chapter.
Two different methods should NEVER be used in one chapter. For example, if one uses
the above method of exegesis in the first part of the Discourse, that is, from vs. 1 to 22;
that same method should be used, from v. 23, throughout the chapter. One should not
"switch horses in the middle of the stream." In fact, it appears that the MAJOR
PROBLEM with the Preterist explanation of the Discourse is the use of two separate and
distinct exegetical methods in its "explanation."
The clear RESPONSE of history to the first part of Matt. 24:1 to 22 is very apparent to
those who are familiar with the history of ancient Israel. That part of the prophecy took
place over a period of about 39 years. It culminated in the tribulation of v. 21, which was
the historical event of the Roman/Jewish war of AD 66-70. The present writer knows of
NO ONE who disagrees with this interpretation.
However, almost every writer to the present date (2002) seems to lose their senses in
trying to explain the second half of the prophecy, that is, from Matt. 24:23 to the end of
the chapter. Preterist doctrine uses a "spiritual" method of exegesis in their efforts to
explain the second half of the Discourse. Thus they utterly ignore the 'times of the
Nations' of Luke 21:24. That period began after Titus burned Jerusalem. It ended 1897
years later when that same city was captured by the Jewish army of the new State of
Israel in 1967.
Elements of Past and Future
Because of the long time period above, there clearly are elements of the past as well as
the future in the Olivet Discourse. However, it seems clear, the way it was intended to be
understood is by the response of history to it. For example, Jesus referred (in AD 31) to
the future fall of Jerusalem which He mentioned in Luke 21:24. However, no human
could know the date of that fateful event until the fall of that city in AD 70. Then, and
only then, could history be meshed with the prophecy. That is the pattern of all
apocalyptic prophecy in both Daniel and the Revelation as well as the Olivet Discourse.
Most writers have explained the first part of the prophecy in a literal, grammatical-
historical manner. It is clear that the prophecy from v. 3 through 22 has been fulfilled by
historical events. The present writer knows of no one who denies that history has proven
this fact.
The problem of understanding the Olivet Discourse lies with the last halves of Matt. 24
and Mark 13. Most writers appear to know not how to explain the remainder of these
chapters after the first tribulation to the end. Thus most writers, including Preterist's,
switch to a "spiritual" interpretation after the first tribulation of both chapters. This is a
pitiful state of affairs and has gone on for centuries. Then to add to the confusion, most
of these writers appear to switch back to a grammatical-historical method of
interpretation after the mention of the second tribulation and the second Advent. These
writers, and there are many of them, regard the second tribulation of Matthew and Mark
as the second mention of the first tribulation. This is the major problem in the correct
interpretation of the Discourse. This is, indeed, the crux of the matter.
Was Jesus Mistaken?
C.S. Lewis wrote in his essay, "The World's Last Night," that Jesus was "wrong" when
He made the statement recorded in Matt. 24:34. "Verily I say unto you, this generation
shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled." Lewis called this the "most
embarrassing verse" in the New Testament for a Christian to explain. His reason was the
presence of the word "this" in the above verse. That word appears to refer to the
generation to whom Jesus was speaking. The time was about AD 31. "All these
things..." (of the Discourse) were clearly NOT fulfilled during or at the end of that
generation. That is, there has been NO historical event telling of the second Advent of
Christ since the "tribulation" of Matt. 24:21. That is why C.S. Lewis was so sure that
Jesus "was wrong." This appears to be the really overwhelming problem of a correct
explanation of the Discourse.
Jesus, however, was NOT referring (in v. 34) to the generation of men to whom He was
speaking. It is because of the apparent chronological structure of the prophecy, that most
NT scholars apparently believe that He was referring to His contemporaries in that verse.
Such an idea is impossible if the prophecy is interpreted according to all pertinent
scripture. Jesus was referring, instead, to the very last generation of men on earth. And
the world now "lives" (in 2002) in that last generation.
C.S. Lewis was a giant among Christians and a brilliant bible scholar. During his life he
was a great defender of the faith. His many books indicate his great learning and literary
ability. But he was emphatically wrong when he said that Jesus made an error by His use
of the word (this) in Matt. 24. That is easily proven by a close study of Luke 21 and that
is exactly what Lewis failed to do in trying to explain the prophecy.
Two Apparent Sections
At first glance, Matthew 24 appears to be divided into 2 sections or divisions. The first
section of Matt. 24 extends from v.1 to v. 22. This section includes the first tribulation in
v. 21. The same thing obtains in Mark 13. The first section or division in Mark extends
from v. 1 thru 20. The very same tribulation of Matt. 24:21 also is seen in Mark 13:19.
Luke 21:22 refers to the tribulation of Matthew and Mark as the 'days of vengeance.' As
mentioned above, this 'tribulation' was the Roman/Jewish war of AD 66/70. There is no
doubt that this is the first section of all three accounts. Matthew and Mark have an
apparent second section. Both mention a second tribulation. However, Luke does not
appear to have a second section. The reason is that Luke does not mention a second
tribulation. However, instead of a second tribulation, Luke inserts a time period he labels
the 'times of the Nations' between the fall of Jerusalem and the second Advent of Christ.
Luke uses the STATUS of the city of Jerusalem to delimit or define the length of this
period. He wrote that this time expanse would end when Jerusalem was no longer
trodden down of the Nations. It is only now, during the very ending decades of human
history, that one can know the 1897 years length of the 'times of the Nations' that Luke
referred to.
The problem of understanding the Olivet Discourse hinges on the fact that this time
expanse of the 'times of the Nations' MUST be inserted, for example, between Matt.
24:22 & 23. This centuries long time period is a matter of history. It MUST be included
in the explanation of the Discourse.