In an earlier post I noted that there are four major approaches to the Olivet Discourse. (1) It refers entirely or primarily to the events of AD 70. (2) It refers entirely to eschatological events. (3) It refers to events that span from the first century through the present to the eschatological return of Christ. (4) It refers to AD 70 as the type of the Day of the Lord and to the eschatological Day of the Lord itself.

The interpretation of Matthew 24:9-14; Mark 13:9-13; Luke 21:12-19 verses deals with an apparent chronological discrepancy between Luke and Matthew. Resolving this seeming discrepancy provide support to the thesis that the Olivet Discourse refers to AD 70 as the type of the Day of the Lord and to the eschatological Day itself.

---

These verses turn to the issue of persecution. There is a seeming discrepancy between Matthew and Luke at this point. Mathew begins this section with “then,” whereas Luke begins with “But before all this.”

Luke’s time reference is clearest. Before the false messiahs, wars, earthquakes, famines, and heavenly signs, Jesus’s followers would be persecuted by both Jews and Gentiles. Acts recounts that this persecution began as soon as the church was formed. Acts even uses the words of Jesus’s prophecy to describe this persecution:

“Lay hands on you” (Acts 4:3, 5:18; 12:1; 21:27); “persecute” (Acts 9:4–5; 22:7–8; 26:14–15); “hand over” (Acts 8:3; 12:4; 21:11; 22:4; 27:1; 28:17); “to synagogues” (Acts 6:9; 9:2; 19:8–9; 22:19; 26:11); “jails” (Acts 5:19–25; 8:3; 12:4–17; 16:23–40; 22:4, 19; 26:10); “kings” (Acts 9:15; 12:1; 25:23–28:28); “governors” (Acts 23:24, 26, 33; 24:1, 10; 26:30; see also 13:7; 18:12).[1]

Luke’s account of the discourse affirms that this persecution will be an opportunity to bear witness to the gospel—which Acts also recounts (4:5-12, 33; 7:1-60; 23:11).[2] Divine empowering to present this witness without forethought may be exemplified by Stephen (Acts 7).[3] These verses, then, clearly describe the persecution of the church as described in Acts before the events leading up to the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

Mark’s account is similar to Luke’s. He adds that the followers of Jesus would be beaten in synagogues, which also occurred in the earliest days of the church (Acts 5:40; 22:19; 2 Cor. 11:24).[4]

Matthew’s account is significantly different from Luke’s. In both Matthew and Luke, Jesus’s followers are delivered up, hated for his name’s sake, and put to death. But the wording is different, and Matthew doesn’t mention the Jewish features (sanhedrin/councils, synagogues) as Mark and Luke do. The Matthean parallel to these verses Mark and Luke occurs in in Matthew 10:19-21, not in the Olivet Discourse.

The parallel between Matthew 10:19-21 and Mark and Luke’s account of the Olivet Discourse can be accounted for by the fact that Jesus, as he traveled from place to place, probably often said similar things on different occasions.[5]

It may be that because Matthew had already presented his readers with the content found in Mark and Luke’s version of the Olivet Discourse, he omitted that material here. The omission also allows Matthew to emphasize the eschatological aspect of the discourse. While Luke emphasized the first century aspect, Matthew presented readers with a part of the discourse not fully represented in Mark and Luke.

In Matthew’s account Jesus indicated that in conjunction with or following the initial birth pains, persecution will come.[6] This persecution will be exacerbated as people “fall away” from the faith and then “betray” believers. Paul interpreted this part of the discourse eschatologically: “In 2 Thess 2:3 (built on the Olivet Discourse) this becomes the ‘apostasy’ or ‘rebellion’ that accompanies the appearance of the ‘man of lawlessness.’”[7]

 Contributing to this apostasy are false prophets. There were certainly many of these in the first century: “Acts 20:30: Gal. 1:7–9: Rom. 16:17, 18: Col. 2:17–end: 1 Tim. 1:6, 7, 20; 6:3–5, 20, 21: 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:6–8; 2 Pet. 2 (and Jude): 1 John 2:18, 22, 23, 26; 4:1, 3: 2 John 7.”[8] But the work of false prophets culminates in the false prophet  (Rev. 13: 11-16).[9] In contrast to the apostates, those who endure throughout the day of the Lord will be saved (24:13 || 13:13).

To close out this section, Jesus said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (24:14; cf. 13:10). With regard to the type, this prophecy refers to the spread of the gospel throughout the known world of that day.[10] For instance, Paul could say that the gospel was prospering “in the world” (Col. 1:6) and even that it “has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven” (Col. 1:23).

Paul was probably indicating, with expansive language, that the Gospel had gone to all the nations and was continuing to spread among them.[11] The expansive language was used because Paul was stating that “the gospel had in principle already been preached world-wide” even though in practice it is still in process of spreading worldwide.[12]

However, the typological fulfillment of this saying does not exhaust its significance. The ultimate end in view is the one mentioned in 24:6–the end of the day of the Lord when the Son of Man returns to earth. Alford argues that despite the typological fulfillment, “in the wider sense, the words imply that the Gospel shall be preached in all the world, literally taken, before the great and final end come.”[13] The Old Testament prophets looked forward to the day when then nations would be gathered to worship God, and there may be an allusion to that here.[14] Hays says, “One suspects that Isaiah hovers somewhere in the background (passages such as Isa 2:2-4, 49:6, 57:6-8; 60:1-3; cf. Ps 22:27-28).”[15] Revelation also predicts the world-wide proclamation of the gospel (Rev. 5:9-10; 7:9; 14:6), and the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy will come to pass during the Day of the Lord predicted by Revelation.

Matthew 10:17-22, which parallels Mark and Luke’s accounts of the Olivet Discourse, is part of a discourse that began as instruction for the Twelve as Jesus sent them out on a preaching and healing mission to the Jews. However, by verse 17 the discourse looks beyond that initial mission.[16] In verse 5 Jesus instructed the Twelve to limit their mission to the Jews, but by verse 18 the Gentiles are in view as well.[17] In addition, the persecution envisioned in 10:17-22 goes far beyond anything that occurred during Jesus’s earthly ministry.[18] By verses 22 and 23 “the end” and the “coming” are in view. Thus this passage culminates on an eschatological note.[19]

The phrase “you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” is obviously not true if it refers to the Twelve’s evangelistic mission during Jesus’s earthly ministry. There are two plausible interpretations that both have a long pedigree. Hilary of Poitiers proposed,

In order to show that the pagans were going to believe in the apostolic preaching, while the rest of Israel would believe only at the occurrence of his [second] advent, he said: You will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes. In other words, once the full number of pagans is added, the rest of Israel will be placed in the Church at the future advent of his glory in order to complete the number of saints.[20]

Many modern commentators have similarly concluded that these verses indicate that the “mission to Israel” will not be complete before the Second Coming.[21]

Another option is that these words “do not denote the mission but the flight of the disciples. This is clear from the beginning of this verse, ‘When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another.’”[22] Something similar to this can be found in the Incomplete Commentary on Matthew.[23] This reading may parallel Revelations 12:13-17. In either case this passage is ultimately eschatological.

The eschatological nature of Matthew 10 casts the parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21 in another light. Though Luke certainly emphasizes the typological fulfillment in his presentation, the eschatological element should not be thought to be entirely absent in Luke and Mark. Mark in particular has two eschatologically oriented parallels with Matthew in this section: the gospel will be preached to all the nations (13:10), the one who endures to the end is the one who is saved (13:13).

---

[1] Garland 2012: 830, n. 11; cf. Stein 1992: 516-17.

[2] Garland 2012: 831.

[3] Edwards 2015: 600.

[4] Strauss 2014: 574.

[5] Wright 1992: 422-23; cf. Carson 1984: 248.

[6] Meyer 1884: 131-32.

[7] Osborne 2010: 875-76; cf. Wilkins 2014: 99.

[8] Alford 1976: 237-38.

[9] Osborne 2012: 876.

[10] Witsius 1837: 407-8 (4.15.13); Alford 1976: 238; Blomberg 1992: 356.

[11] Davenant 1627: 265; O’Brien 1982: 71.

[12] Wright 1986: 89.

[13] Alford 1976: 238.

[14] Nolland 2005: 967.

[15] Hays 2016: 95.

[16] Blomberg 1992: 174; Davies and Allison 2004a: 179, 181-82; Luz 2001: 89.

[17] Carson1984: 242.

[18] Davies and Allison 2004: 179.

[19] Davies and Allison 2004: 182; Nolland 2005: 425.

[20] Hilary of Poitiers 2012: 119.

[21] Blomberg 1992: 176; Bock 2002: 573; Davies and Allison 2004: 190; Wilkins 2014: 97-98.

[22] Ridderbos 1962: 509; cf. Nolland 2005: 427.

[23] Oden and Bray 2010: 179

In an earlier post I noted that there are four major approaches to the Olivet Discourse. (1) It refers entirely or primarily to the events of AD 70. (2) It refers entirely to eschatological events. (3) It refers to events that span from the first century through the present to the eschatological return of Christ. (4) It refers to AD 70 as the type of the Day of the Lord and to the eschatological Day of the Lord itself.

The interpretation of these verses largely determines whether an interpreter will adopt view 3 or view 4 (the two most likely interpretive options).

Matthew 24:4-8; Mark 13:5-8; Luke 21:8-11

These verses were clearly fulfilled typologically in the years between Christ’s ascension and the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Many commentators document these historical fulfillments:

Various messianic pretenders arose, most notably Theudas (Acts 5:36; Josephus, Ant. 20.97–99, 160–72, 188, who describes other false claimants as well). The war of Israel against Rome began in A.D. 66–67 and was preceded by the growing hostility incited by the Zealots. Famine ravaged Judea, as predicted in Acts 11:27–30, datable to ca. A.D. 45–47 by Josephus, Ant. 20.51–53. Earthquakes shook Laodicea in A.D. 60–61 and Pompeii in A.D. 62 (cf. also Acts 16:26).[1]

However, as is common when type is followed by its anti-type, the type only foreshadows the fuller fulfillment of the type. Luz observes that, “we should understand their ‘I am the Christ’ as a way of identifying with Jesus Christ and not as a general messianic claim.”[2]  And even if the claim is understood as general, Meyer observes,

We possess no historical record of any false Messiahs having appeared previous to the destruction of Jerusalem (Barcochba did not make his appearance till the time of Hadrian); for Simon Magus (Acts 8:9), Theudas (Acts 5:36), the Egyptian (Acts 21:38), Menander, Dositheus, who have been referred to as cases in point …, did not pretend to be the Messiah.[3]

Thus the first century shadows point toward a fuller, future fulfillment.

Many interpreters understand these verses to describe the entire inter-advent period.[4] Even some who in general see later parts of the discourse as concerning both AD 70 and the future, see these verses as exclusively focused on the entire inter-advent period.[5] These interpreters think that Jesus’s statement “but the end is not yet/immediately” (24:6 || 13:7 || 21:9) indicates that this section cannot present the events of the day of the Lord. Blomberg even proposes that parallels between this section and Revelation 6 confirm this (on the supposition that the eschatological tribulation period cannot begin until the seven seals are broken).[6]

However, it is best to understand these verses as referring typologically to the first century and ultimately to the ultimate day of the Lord.[7] In terms of the type, the end in view is the destruction of the temple.[8] There is a definite first-century referent to “the end” as far as the type is concerned. Regarding the anti-type, the end “must be taken as referring to the end of the dolores Messiae,” that is the end of Messianic pangs (see v. 8), which signify the time of great trouble that precede the Son’s return to earth.[9] Vos observed,

As an infant cannot be born without pains, so too the rebirth of the entire earthly creation, which coincides with the end, will occur under terrible labor pains. The beginning of those pains consists of wars, sicknesses, famines, and earthquakes. In itself all of this would not yet be something special, but Luke 21:11 tells us that this will be accompanied by “terrible things and great signs from heaven,” thus by something absolutely extraordinary, so that it will be easy to distinguish them from ordinary disasters and distresses.[10]

Carson provides some helpful information about the “birth pains”:

“Birth pains” (v. 8) in this context (elsewhere in the NT in Acts 2:24 [“agony”]; 1 Thess. 5:3) stems from such OT passages as Isaiah 13:8; 26:17; Jeremiah 4:31; 6:24; Micah 4:9-10. By this time it was almost a special term for “the birthpangs of the Messiah,” the period of distress preceding the Messianic age.[11]

Though most of the Old Testament passages cited by Carson refer to Israel writhing under historical judgments, Isaiah 13:8 links the image with the eschatological day of the Lord (cf. Isa. 13:6). Significantly, Paul alludes to the birth pains of the Olivet Discourse in his description of the onset of the day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5:3.[12] Thus Paul interprets that these verses as referring ultimately to the final day of the Lord.

This distinction between the initial birth pangs and “the end” reveals that the final day of the Lord is not an instantaneous event coterminous with the return of Christ.[13] Instead, these verses indicate that “the eschatological tribulation extend[s] over time.”[14]

Luz captures the meaning of this section of the discourse well when, while acknowledging first century applicability, he states, “Thus begin the ‘pangs’—that is, the tribulations of the last days…. Thus all of that is not yet the end, but it does deal with the beginnings of the end.”[15]

---

[1] Blomberg 1992: 356; cf. Aquinas 2012: 764-65; Alford 1976: 236-37; Edwards 2002: 391-92

[2] Luz 2005: 191.

[3] Meyer 1884: 128.

[4] Carson 1984: 497; Osborne 2010: 874.

[5] Turner 2008: 565.

[6] Blomberg 1992: 353-54; cf. Cranfield 1959: 396.

[7] Cf. Aquinas 2012: 764-65; Nolland 2005: 962-63; Blaising 2010: 41, 45, n. 39.

[8] Garland 2011: 829.

[9] Meyer 1884: 129.

[10] Vos 2016: 285.

[11] Carson 1984: 498; cf. Blaising 2010: 45-46. Note, however, that Carson understands these verses to refer to the entire inter-advent period.

[12] Milligan 1908: 65; Morris 1984: 94; Best 1986: 208; Green 2002: 234; Beale 2003: 137; Davies and Allison 2004b: 340, 342; Shogren 2012: 204.

[13] As in Beale 2003: 144.

[14] Davies and Allison 2004b: 341.

[15] Luz 2005: 192.

Yesterday I noted that there are four major approaches to the Olivet Discourse. (1) It refers entirely or primarily to the events of AD 70. (2) It refers entirely to eschatological events. (3) It refers to events that span from the first century through the present to the eschatological return of Christ. (4) It refers to AD 70 as the type of the Day of the Lord and to the eschatological Day of the Lord itself.

In this and subsequent posts I plan to provide a brief exposition of the first part of the Olivet Discourse according to the fourth approach.

---

When Jesus left the temple for the last time, judgment may have been an implication of this departure. As Yhwh left the temple in Ezekiel 10, so now the Messiah left the temple.[1] Since all three Gospels note that Jesus had pronounced judgment on the Jewish leaders, the judgment aspect of this departure may have been apparent to the disciples. Matthew records that Jesus had proclaimed “your house is left to you desolate” (23:38). The disciples’ praise of the temple buildings may have been a response to this saying. Perhaps they wished Jesus to affirm their view of the temple’s splendor—a visible sign of God’s presence and splendor.[2] At the very least their response shows them to be out of step with Jesus’s viewpoint of the temple.

Jesus responded to their praise of the temple by predicting, “There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down” (24:2 || 13:2 || 21:6). This statement provoked questions from the disciples. All three Gospels record the disciples asking, “when will these things be?” (24:3 || 13:4 || 21:7). They were clearly asking Jesus when the temple destruction he spoke of would take place.

Matthew pairs this question with another, given in two parts: “and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3). Here the disciples link the destruction of the temple with an eschatological advent of Christ. The same thing occurs in Mark, though with less clarity: “and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?” (13:4).[3] This phrase alludes to Daniel 12:6-7,[4] a passage describing “a time of trouble” for Israel “such as never has been since there was a nation till that time” (12:1). In the course of this vision someone says, “How long shall it be till the end of these wonders?” (12:6). The response is that “it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished” (12:7) (bold italics indicate parallel wording in the Greek text of Daniel and Mark). When Daniel inquired further, he was told, “the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end” (12:9). According to Luke, as Jesus was leaving the temple, the disciples asked Jesus, “and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” (Luke 21:7). The plural “things” may indicate that more than just the temple is in view,[5] though it may just indicate that Luke is more focused on the temple destruction in his account of the discourse.[6]

When the Gospels are compared Luke’s presentation focuses the reader’s attention on the typological fulfillment in AD 70 whereas Matthew’s presentation focuses on that anti-typical fulfillment in the final day of the Lord.[7]

Clearly the disciples linked the destruction of the temple and the Son of Man’s coming at the end of the age. They expected these things to happen as a single event, and Jesus, who in this discourse states that he did not know the timing of these events (and thus whether or by how much they are separated), treats them together (24:36 || 13:32). It was appropriate for him to link the two events: “the events accompanying those judgments upon the guilty city will be the foreshadowing of the Final Judgment at His second advent.”[8]

Perhaps this is fitting because the temple was microcosm of the cosmos. The judgment on the one symbolized the judgment on the other.

---

[1] Oden and Bray 2010: 370; Aquinas 2012: 762; Calvin 1996: 115; France 2002: 495; Strauss 2014: 568; Robertson 2004: 297; Köstenberger, Stewart, and Makara 2017: 35.

[2] Swete 1898: 295; Bolt 2004: 92.

[3] Cranfield 1959: 393-94.

[4] Edwards 2002: 390; Adams 2007: 140.

[5] Marshall 1978: 762; Bock 1996: 1663.

[6] Garland 2011: 828; Edwards 2015: 595.

[7] Bock 2016: 206.

[8] Geldenhuys 1951: 523.

Interpreters have understood the Olivet Discourse in at least four major ways.

View 1

Some limit the referent of Jesus’s teaching exclusively to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70[1] or almost exclusively to the Fall of Jerusalem (with the eschatological coming entering only after Matthew 24:36 || Mark 13:32).[2] The validity of this view hangs on an interpretation of Matthew 24:29-31 || Mark 13:24-27 || Luke 21:15-27 which I find untenable. I hope to explain why in a future post.

View 2

At the opposite extreme are interpreters who hold the discourse to be entirely eschatological. Luz identifies this as the oldest view, linking it to the Didache (16:3-7), Irenaeus (AH 5.25.2), Hippolytus, Hilary, and Cyril of Jerusalem.[3] However, given the limited nature of these citations, it is difficult to decide whether these writers held that the discourse was exclusively eschatological. Clear exponents of the completely eschatological view are Schlatter and Zahn.[4]

It is difficult, to exclude the destruction of the temple in AD 70 from the discourse, since it was Jesus’s statement about its destruction that gave rise to the discourse.[5] This approach thus does not best account for all of the data.

View 3

A common view takes part of the discourse to be historical (referring to the events of AD 70 and to the entire era from the destruction of Jerusalem to the return of Christ) and part of the discourse to be eschatological. These interpreters differ, however, upon where to draw the line between the historical and eschatological sections. The patristic author of the Incomplete Commentary on Matthew said he knew of an interpreter who divided the sermon at the abomination of desolation. What happened before that verse referred to the events of AD 70, but what occurred after referred to the eschatological coming of Christ.[6] For Calvin, Matthew 24:1-8 and 24:15-22 refer to the events of AD 70, 24:9-14, 23-28 refer to the entire period from the fall of Jerusalem to the end, and 24:29-31 refer to the eschatological tribulation and coming.[7] Lange proposed that the first part of the discourse unfolded in three cycles: from the apostles to the eschaton (Matt. 24:4-14), from “the approaching destruction of Jerusalem” to the final judgment (Matt. 24:15-28), and a final cycle restricted to the end (Matt. 24:29-44).[8] Carson and Blomberg both take Matthew 24:4-28 to refer to the whole inter-advent period with verses 15-21 focusing on the fall of Jerusalem. Verses 29-31 concern the eschatological coming, and verses 32-35 again cover the entire inter-advent period.[9]

This approach is superior to the preceding two, but it suffers from several defects. First the lack of agreement as to what is historical and what is future casts some doubt on this approach. Second, Blaising observes that this approach “renders the discourse somewhat confused.” Jesus is supposed to be addressing questions about the temple’s destruction and his return at the end of the age. But for Carson and Blomberg the discourse “begins instead with general remarks about the church age, abruptly returns to the intended agenda with the abomination of desolation, and then rockets forward to the topic of the parousia.”[10] Third, these interpretations tend to neglect connections to the Old Testament passages which locate the entire discourse with the framework of the eschatological day of the Lord.[11]

View 4

A fourth approach takes the discourse to refer to both the events of AD 70 and the the events of the eschatological day of the Lord. The events of AD 70 are a type of the eschatological day of the Lord, so Christ could speak of them together.

This view reaches back to the early church (Luz identifies Augustine, in a letter to Hesychius, as the originator of this view).[12] The patristic author of the Incomplete Commentary on Matthew observed,

the Lord does not say distinctly which signs pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem  and which to the end of the world, namely, so that the same signs may seem to pertain both the manifestation of the destruction of Jerusalem and to the manifestation of the end of the world because he did not explain to them in order like a history how the things were to be done, but in a prophetic manner he predicted to them the things that were to be done.[13]

This view has commended itself to other interpreters throughout the ages. It was noted by Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Matthew. Thomas is not entirely clear whether it is his view because he lists various interpretations without specifying his preference, but it may be his view.[14]

Jonathan Edwards held this view:

In this chapter respect is had especially to two events, one the destruction of Jerusalem and the works of God that accompanied it, the other the end of the world. And some things are most applicable to one, and others to another, as is common in those parts of Scripture that have respect to various events.[15]

It was also the view of nineteenth-century Baptist commentator John Broadus, who observed,

Every attempt to assign a definite point of division between the two topics has proved a failure. Place it after v. 28, saying that up to that point only the former topic is meant, and after that point only the latter, and at once we see that v. 34 must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Place it after v. 34 or 36 or 42, and we cannot resist the persuasion that v. 30f. (and v. 36) must refer to the final coming for judgment (comp. 12:41-43; 2 Thess. 1:7-10). But if the destruction of Jerusalem was itself in one sense a coming of the Lord, why may we not suppose that the transition from this to the final coming is gradual?[16]

The English expositor Henry Alford agreed: “it must be borne in mind that the whole is spoken in the pregnant language of prophecy, in which various fulfilments are involved…, the destruction of Jerusalem and the final judgment being both enwrapped in the words.”[17]

The Dutch Reformed theologians Geerhardus Vos, Herman Ridderbos. and Anthony Hoekema also take this view. Vos said, “In the answer of the Savior a sharp division is not made between what belongs to the one and what belongs to the other, and it is very difficult for us to make the division.”[18] Hoekema observed,

As we read the discourse, however, we find that aspects of these two topics are intermingled; matters concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (epitomized by the destruction of the temple) are mingled together with matters which concern the end of the world—so much so that it is sometimes hard to determine whether Jesus is referring to the one or the other or perhaps to both. Obviously the method of teaching used here by Jesus is that of prophetic foreshortening, in which events far removed in time and events in the near future are spoken of as if they were very close together.[19]

Craig Blaising defends this approach by observing that Christ himself did not know the day or the hour of his return (Matt. 24:36). Thus, “Jesus, by his own admission, does not know whether the AD 70 destruction and the parousia will be one and the same or two different events.[20] In Matthew 24:4-35 sets out a “pattern” that links “Daniel’s time of the end” with the Day of the Lord. “The whole pattern is the parousia. However, just as was the case in the Old Testament, it is possible for a type of the eschatological day of the Lord to appear in history in advance of the antitype.”[21] Blaising concludes,

In the case of the Olivet Discourse, the narrative structure which is itself a synthesis of the prophetic patterns—the day of the Lord and Daniel’s time of the end—references both the AD 70 destruction and the future parousia with language that may be wholly applicable to one, wholly applicable to another, or equally applicable to both at the same time.[22]

The major weakness of this view is that interpreters do not always agree in their identification of the near and far fulfillments of specifics within the discourse. The patristic interpreters tended to allegorize the far fulfillments.[23] Even later interpreters, who avoid allegorical interpretation, do not always agree on the particulars. Nonetheless, this view has a good heritage and seems to avoid the problems of the other views while incorporating their strengths.

---

[1] Owen 1812: 138-39; Wright 1996: 339-66.

[2] France 2002: 500-46; France 2007: 890-947.

[3] Luz 2005: 185.

[4] Noted in Ridderbos 1962: 489-91; Carson 1984: 492.

[5] Strauss 2014: 565.

[6] Oden and Bray 2010: 381.

[7] Calvin 1996: 118-51. Calvin commented on a harmony of the Gospels, The Matthew references above include the parallels to Mark and Luke.

[8] Lange 2008: 418.

[9] Carson 1984: 495; Blomberg 1992: 353-64.

[10] Blaising 2010: 38.

[11] Blaising 2010: 39.

[12] Luz 2005: 187. Aquinas, however, distinguishes Augustine’s view from this one. Aquinas 2012: 763.

[13] Oden and Bray 2010: 372-73.

[14] Aquinas 2012: 764-90.

[15] Edwards 2006: 864.

[16] Broadus 1886: 480.

[17] Alford 1976: 1:235.

[18] Vos 2016: 285. Though in a later writing Vos did distinguish between (a) the signs of the destruction of Jerusalem (vsss. 14-20); (b) the signs of the parousia (vss. 24-27).” Vos 2001: 33.

[19] Hoekema 1979: 148; cf. Ridderbos 1962: 477-95.

[20] Blaising 2010: 39.

[21] Blaising 2010: 40.

[22] Blaising 2010: 41.

[23] Oden and Bray 2010: 373.