Has Jesus already returned?

-



The Olivet Discourse (Mark 13; Matt 24; Luke 21) has puzzled interpreters for centuries. Is Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, his future return, or both? To examine this complex passage, we examine its structure, exegetical issues, and interpretive options, such as futurist (dispensationalist), preterist, and telescoping views.

The Olivet Discourse describes Jesus predicting the temple’s destruction and subsequent eschatological events, sparking questions about their interpretation and timing. It raises queries about whether Jesus refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, his future return, the destruction of a yet-to-be-built temple, or a combination of these elements.

The dilemma of “this generation.”

One of the most challenging issues is Jesus’s statement that “this generation” will not pass away (13:30). Each interpretative camp must wrestle with what “generation” refers to and what it means for it not to pass away until “all these things take place” (ESV), particularly if one understands the discourse to predict events beyond the lifetime of Jesus’s immediate hearers.

Apocalyptic language

Another critical interpretive issue involves the cosmic upheaval imagery in 13:24–27. Could these be apocalyptic descriptions of first-century events, or do they require a literal, future interpretation? The discussion highlights various hermeneutical approaches to these vivid descriptions.

Futurist (dispensationalist) view

The futurist or dispensationalist view contends that Jesus’s words pertain to future events, including a future tribulation, a future rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and Jesus’s second coming.

Proponents of the futurist view emphasise portions of the text that appear too grandiose or sweeping to refer solely to the first century. They point to cosmic imagery and “the end”, indicating future fulfilment. They also highlight that some language seems to align with eschatological events described in other parts of the Bible.

Preterist View

The preterist view asserts that Jesus’s predictions in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the first century, particularly in AD 70 with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. It emphasises that the nature of the disciples’ question pertains to the temple's destruction before them (13:1–4), which occurred in AD 70. Consequently, proponents argue that Jesus’s discourse aligns with and predicts the events of the first century.

This perspective also highlights 13:30’s reference to “this generation,” which naturally aligns with a first-century fulfilment during the lifetime of Jesus’s contemporaries. Preterists contend that the intense language corresponds with apocalyptic standards and historical records, such as those documented by the historian Josephus.

Mixed (telescoping) view

Others advocate for a mixed (or telescoping) interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. This third view suggests that the discourse overlaps the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and eschatological events concerning Jesus’s second coming. This hybrid view sees some parts of the Olivet Discourse as clearly tied to immediate first-century events while seeing others as pointing toward the second coming.

This view contends that prophetic language often embraces multiple horizons, addressing imminent and distant futures. It posits that Jesus might have “telescoped” these events, seeing them as closely related but occurring at different times.

Passage structure

It is essential to understand the structure of the passage:

  • Jesus’s prediction of the temple’s destruction and the disciple’s question (13:1–4)
  • First-century events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (13:5–13)
  • Warnings related to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (13:14–23)
  • The physical, second coming of Christ (13:24–27)
  • The parable of the fig tree relates to the discernible signs of Jerusalem’s destruction (13:28–31)
  • The parable of the owner’s return relates to the indiscernible time of Jesus’s second coming (13:32–37)

The passage’s initial verses forecast events involving or leading up to the temple destruction, followed by more profound apocalyptic visions likely referring to the second coming. According to this mixed view, this layered understanding helps to reconcile textual tensions and offers a holistic grasp of the discourse’s multifaceted nature.


Practical significance

Outside of its exegetical and theological debates, the discourse’s primary message remains clear: a call to vigilance. Jesus calls for vigilance against being led astray and vigilance in preparing for his return. Believers should live in a state of spiritual alertness and readiness for God’s unfolding plans.


Suggestions for teaching

Display humility and respect for differing opinions, encouraging thoughtful reflection and discussion.

Focus on the passage’s structure to clarify its proper interpretation and what each element predicts.

Emphasize the practical implications of vigilance and readiness in Christian life. They underscore the importance of remaining vigilant and faithful as central tenets of Christian eschatological hope.

Popular posts from this blog

Speaking in tongues for today - Charles Stanley

-
Image
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. … But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all. … And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. … Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way - 1 Corinthians 12:4, 7, 28, 30—31 The Lord Jesus Christ had come and gone. The church—newly birthed—was in a transition time. The new covenant was seen as a threat to the Jewish leaders; therefore, there was persecution for those who had chosen to follow Christ. The new religion, in its infant stages, had no Bible, few leaders, and absolutely no support from the government. Astounding that it survived, isn’t it?  How in the world did it survive with so little going for it? Power. Not just a force, but mighty, visible power. Th...
Read more

What is the glory (kabod) of God?

-
Image
2 CORINTHIANS 4:17 "This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison." Scripture places a high value on God 's glory, and it is not hard to figure out why. Since the inherent glory of the Lord is something that He will not share with others (Isa. 42:8), we know that His glory is something that He prizes highly; indeed, He prizes it more highly than anything else. We should, therefore, set the glory of God as the goal and overarching emphasis of our lives. Whatever we lose for the sake of making the Lord's glory known will be worth it when we see the dazzling light and beauty of; the divine glory (28:5; Rev. 21:23). Glory has to do with light and beauty, but those aspects do not sum up what the Bible means when it speaks of the glory of God. Interestingly, the Hebrew word kabod , which is translated into English as "glory," has the root meaning of "weight" or "heaviness....
Read more

The Holy Spirit causes us to cry out: Abba, Father

-
Image
Pentecostés. Óleo sobre lienzo, 275 × 127 cm. Madrid, Museo del Prado. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) To bring out the same truth in another way, Paul says God sent Jesus (as a Man) to live under the Law in order “to redeem those under law, that we [Jews and Gentiles ] might receive the full rights [adoption] of sons” ( Galatians 4:5).  By “full rights” or “adoption” he means entering into the privileges and responsibilities of sonship. He uses it also of the sonship of Israel (Romans 9:4). Galatians 4:1, 2 indicate that the son and heir of a wealthy family in Paul’s day would be treated as a slave until he became of age.  Then he would receive the adoption, that is, all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that belonged to an adult member of that family. Adoption was also used in the modern sense, so that Gentiles who were not sons of Abraham became true heirs, true sons of God , by faith.  Jesus died, not just to save us from the fires of hell, bu...
Read more