⁶ And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. ⁷ For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. ⁸ All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.
— Matthew 24:6–8 —

A few years ago I read a book about Mark’s Gospel, The Cross at a Distance. In it, Peter Bolt argued that Mark 13 was not an eschatological vision of the future, despite its world-shaking imagery. Rather, he showed that in the context of Mark’s Gospel, the Olivet Discourse was an apocalyptic explanation of the cross. That is to say, that when the Olivet Discourse is read in the context of Mark’s Gospel it functions as explanatory of what was going to happen on the cross.

In another blogpost on Mark 13 I have captured his arguments in 16 points. (Until this blogpost is completed, you can see why I think the Olivet Discourse should be read historically and not futuristically). In this blogpost I want to offer a similar reflection on Matthew 24.

From the start it should be clear that if Mark uses Jesus’s Olivet Discourse in Mark 13 to prepare the way for the cross, then Matthew 24 is most likely to do the same. The same could be said for Luke 21, but we will leave Luke be for now. Certainly, these three “synoptic” Gospels rely on one another, and while each has its own focus and particular details, it would be highly unlikely for Jesus’s message to his disciples about the destruction of the temple to have a different interpretations in each Gospel.

Rather, if Bolt is correct about the way Mark 13 functions in his Gospel, then it follows that Matthew 24 is more than likely related to events forthcoming in the life of Jesus and not just events that remain to be set in the future—as these passages are often read. Thus, in what follows I will make the case from Matthew 24 for a partial preterist reading of this passage that highlights the reality of Christ’s ascension.[1]

This reading stands against the popular Dispensational interpretation that puts all of these events in the future. It is different than the view of someone like D. A. Carson who takes an eclectic approach to the passage—some of these things are fulfilled in the first century and some are future. It is similar to that of R. C. Sproul, who argues that Matthew 24 is all about the destruction of the temple. Yet, for all the ways that Matthew 24 does find fulfillment in the events of A.D. 70, I believe the treatment of the Son of Man coming on the clouds is an explicit reference to his ascension (see Matt. 24:29–31).

So, in the remainder of this blogpost, I offer a partial preterist reading of Matthew 24 in 16 points. My interpretation will highlight the events of the cross, the ascension, and the coming destruction of Jerusalem. This reading does not deny the forthcoming return of Christ and his judgment on the last day. In fact, unlike Mark 13, I believe Matthew does include a description of this final judgment in Matthew 25. But like Mark 13 and Luke 21, the primary focus of the Olivet Discourse is related to events that will occur during the generation that lives between Christ’s crucifixion and the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.

Perhaps, this will be a fresh way of reading Matthew 24 for you. But I assure you that it is not novel. Rather, it has many advocates in church history, including most recently men like Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Brian Orr, and others. Take time to consider, therefore, the exegetical points made below and then draw your conclusions from the best reading of Matthew 24, even if it stands against the popular versions of Left Behind theology that sees this chapter as one that speaks about some yet-future cataclysmic event.[2] Continue reading →