Social Media Food Fight in Biblical Studies Between “Inspiring Philosophy” and “Data Over Dogma” (Part 2: Here’s How To Understand the Olivet Discourse)

In my last post, I noted a recent social media spat between Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy and Dan McClellan of Data Over Dogma. Long story short, they both got into an academic name-calling session and ended up saying very little, if at all, about the supposed reason for their feud to begin with: Did Jesus predict his second coming and the end of the age in the Olivet Discourse, and if it didn’t happen within a generation, like he stated, did that make him a failed prophet?

It’s a crucial issue and important question that, in the course of my study, has a huge impact on a whole lot of things related to Christianity. Unfortunately, when social media scholars get into an academic pissing contest, the actual important issues and questions go on the back burner as the two warring “scholars” busy themselves with showing screenshots of academic books they’ve read and calling out the supposed fallacies of each other.

I’ve never liked that sort of thing—I consider it academic masturbation. Perhaps that’s why I’m back teaching high school English. When it comes to Biblical Studies, I’d much rather actually deal with the given text and try to understand it, than force a particular agenda or “dogma” onto the text (and yes, that is what Jones was doing, and that is what McClellan always does, regardless of his “data over dogma” shtick).

So, let’s try to understand what Jesus was saying in the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21. In my last post, I laid out the setting of the Olivet Discourse. It was right after yet another confrontation with the Temple establishment, a few days before Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion. He told the disciples that the Temple would be destroyed. In response, they ask him a question. Specifically, they ask him a two-part question: (A) When is this (the Temple’s destruction) going to happen? And (B) What will be the sign that will consummate everything? (Mark) or What will be the sign of your coming and the end (or consummation) of the age?  After that, the rest of the Olivet Discourse is aimed at answering that question. So, let’s dive in for some understanding.

The Disciples’ Question
It is important to realize that while Jesus is specifically prophesying one thing (the destruction of the Temple), the disciples ask him about two things (when with the Temple’s destruction happen AND what would be the SIGN that will consummate everything/the SIGN of YOUR COMING and the consummation of the age?

The language of “consummation” or the “consummation of the age” is important to grasp. In first century Second Temple Judaism, the general “worldview” of the Jews at that time was an apocalyptic one. They viewed this current created order as so corrupt and evil that it would have to be totally destroyed before God brings about the new creation. This current created order was understood to be the old age, whereas when the Messiah came to bring about the Kingdom of God, that would signal the end of the old age and the beginning of the new messianic age. And so, the disciples’ question showed that they assumed the destruction of the Temple and the “end of the old age/beginning of the new messianic age” would happen simultaneously.

On top of that, it is extremely important to realize that the disciples were not asking Jesus when he would “come again.” They weren’t asking about the “second coming” because they weren’t expecting Jesus to go away in the first place! They didn’t even think he was going to be arrested, tried and crucified yet, let alone resurrect! For that reason alone, there is no way they would be asking about, nor would Jesus be talking about, his “future second coming.” For that reason alone, it is clear that McClellan and his “consensus of scholars” are wrong to claim Jesus was predicting his “second coming” within a generation in the first place. He wasn’t predicting that, and the disciples weren’t asking about that.

That being said, Jesus had to correct them in what they were asking about, because, as we’ll see, their assumption as to what would happen was wrong. The Olivet Discourse is aimed at correcting their wrong assumption.

Jesus’ Response (Part 1: Mark 13:5-12; Matthew 24:4-14; Luke 21:8-18)
In the first part of Jesus’ response, Jesus is clearly telling the disciples what they should expect to happen leading up to the Jewish War of AD 66-70 and the destruction of the Temple. Virtually everything mentioned (false messiahs, wars, famines, Jesus’ followers being persecuted, etc.) fits well into the context of what happened leading up to and during the Jewish War. Now, the important thing to note is in Mark 13:7, where Jesus explicitly tells his disciples that all that has to happen…but the end won’t happen yet. The Greek word here is telos, and it references the “end of the age.” In Matthew, the word consummation is a variant of telos…namely suntelos and carries much of the same connotation.

Jesus’ point here, therefore, should be obvious. If I can paraphrase: “Hey guys, the next few decades are going to be really rough, and pretty soon the Temple is getting destroyed…but the TELOS, the CONSUMMATION of the AGE won’t happen yet.”

Jesus’ Response (Part 2: Mark 13:13-20; Matthew 24:15-22; Luke 21:19-23)
It is in the second part of Jesus’ response where we find the bizarre and puzzling reference to the Abomination of Desolation. When they see that (whatever it is), they need to get out of Jerusalem and flee to the hills, because the worst kind of tribulation ever is going to come upon Jerusalem. The interesting thing with Mark is that he has the Abomination of Desolation “standing where it should not.” That’s pretty vague! Matthew (as is par for the course for Matthew) teases the ambiguous things in Mark out a bit more. Matthew explicitly makes the connection to Daniel’s vision in Daniel 9, and then identifies the place where the Abomination of Desolation would stand as “in the holy place.”

Luke is completely different. Given the fact his audience is more Gentile and wouldn’t understand many of the allusions to the Old Testament, Luke just has Jesus say, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, flee to the hills, because wrath is coming upon the land!” This actually helps us understand the allusions to the Abomination of Desolation in Mark and Matthew, for Luke clearly situates it with…you guessed it…the Jewish War of AD 66-70, when the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and eventually destroyed the Temple.

A lot can be discussed about Daniel 9 and the Abmoniation of Desolation, but for our purposes, we need to see that it is associated with the profaning and desolating of the Temple in some way. In the original context of Daniel 9, it referred to when Antiochus Epiphanes IV profaned the Temple. So, here, Jesus is using that imagery to say that when the disciples see the Temple being profaned again, it will be time to flee the city, because Rome was about to come and destroy the Temple. Scholars debate as to precisely what this profaning of the Temple might have been, but the Jewish historian Josephus laments that the Jewish zealots that sparked the war with Rome, once they took over Jerusalem, they proceeded to perform abominations in the Temple. Given that historical context and testimony from someone who witnessed the Jewish War, it seems obvious to me that that was what Jesus was warning his disciples about. The fact that both Mark and Matthew add an editorial “…the reader should understand,” tells me they fully expected their first century readers to know exactly what they were talking about.

Jesus’ Response (Part 3: Mark 13:21-27; Matthew 24:23-31; Luke 21:24-28)
After warning the disciples about the eventual profaning of the Temple, the way he describes the coming destruction of the Temple is one that employs standard apocalyptic imagery used all throughout the Old Testament that signals God’s wrath and judgment. All the talk about the “sun being darkened,” the “moon not giving its light,” and the “stars falling out of Heaven” is not a claim that these things would literally happen. It is apocalyptic/metaphorical language that basically says, “When God shows up to bring wrath and judgment…it’s going to be an earth-shattering event!” In this case, Jesus is saying that when His wrath and judgment come upon Jerusalem, it’s going to be a complete upheaval and the “end of the world” as they know it. It’s important to realize, though, that he is not saying it is going to be the “literal end of the world.”

But then comes the big thing. Jesus then says when that (all that apocalyptic language) happens, then they will “see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory!” Then the Son of Man will send out his “angels” to gather His elect from throughout the world. McClellan and company (and yes, Jones as well) seems to think this statement is about Jesus predicting his “second coming,” descending from the clouds from heaven to earth. But we’ve already seen that that cannot be the case because the disciples had no idea he would be leaving in the first place. They weren’t asking, “Hey Jesus, when are you going to come AGAIN?”

If you look back to their question, they ask Jesus: (A) when will the Temple be destroyed? (B) what will be the “sign of your coming?” and (C) when will be the consummation/end of the age? Then, in the first part of Jesus’ answer, he makes it clear that the destruction of the Temple would not be at the same time as “the end/consummation of the age.” Those are two different events. But when it comes to “his coming,” Jesus does, in fact, tie it in with the Temple’s destruction—when they see the destruction of the Temple, they will see “the Son of Man coming in the clouds….” So, what does that mean?

That reference to “the Son of Man coming in the clouds” is an allusion to Daniel 7, where Daniel sees four beasts coming out of the sea, then on the fourth beast, an arrogant “little horn” grows upon the fourth beast and “makes war with the saints.” Daniel then sees “one like the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” up towards the Ancient of Days. He then is given all authority, and the little horn (and beast) is destroyed. In the original context, the “saints” were understood to be the Jews, the “little horn” was Antiochus Epiphanes IV, and the “Son of Man” figure was a hoped-for Messiah who would be given all authority by God and who would defeat the little horn. The thing to realize is that in the image of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, the Son of Man isn’t descending, but rather ascending up to God to be given all authority.

It is also worth noting that a few chapters later, when Jesus is on trial before the Sanhedrin, immediately after they accuse him of destroying the Temple, when the high priest asked him if he is the Messiah, Jesus basically says (Mark 14:62; Matthew 26:64), “Yes, I am! And YOU (O chief priest and Sanhedrin!) are going to see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven and seated at the right hand of God!” So, was Jesus telling the chief priest, “Hey, at some point in the future, I’m going to come again!”? Of course not. He was alluding to Daniel 7 and basically saying, “Yes, the Temple be destroyed, and YOU, just like the “little horn” Antiochus Epiphanes are going to see that I do have the authority of God! I’ll be vindicated when God’s wrath comes on you and the Temple is destroyed.” Jesus equating the chief priest with Antiochus Epiphanes would be scandalous…it would be like equating him with Hitler.

But the point is that the language of “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” is vindication language. The world will know that Jesus is vindicated as both prophet and Messiah when the Temple is destroyed and God’s wrath is brought upon Jerusalem, just like he prophesied it would happen here in the Olivet Discourse. In fact, as soon as Jesus enters Jerusalem on the donkey, look at how everything during that last week is focused on the destruction of the Temple and Jesus’ identity as Messiah. This Olivet Discourse re-emphasizes all of that.

But still, the basic point is that this is not talking about some yet-in-the-future “second coming.” It is Jesus’ prophecy that when the Temple is destroyed, he will be vindicated as prophet and Messiah, and that will show he has all authority in heaven and earth. It is worth noting that Jesus says after all that (Temple’s destruction and Son of Man’s vindication) that the Son of Man will “send out his angels” to gather the elect throughout the world. The word “angel” essentially is “messenger.” Yes, in the cosmic imagery of apocalyptic language, we might think of literal angels, but I think he is emphasizing that after the Temple’s destruction, his followers (i.e. angels) would be busy taking the Gospel out to all the nations. And indeed, even though Paul started doing that before AD 70, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple marked a watershed moment in Church history. Whereas before Christianity was a Messianic movement within Judaism that was starting to reach out to Gentiles, after AD 70, its focus was turned almost entirely to the Gentile world.

Jesus’ Response (Part 4: Mark 13:28-37; Matthew 24:32-51; Luke 21:29-36)
Given all that, Jesus ends the Olivet Discourse by telling the disciples that when they see these things (i.e. the buildup to the Jewish War) happening, that the Temple’s destruction would be near—“at the gates” (literally, the Roman armies were at the gates). It is here that Jesus says, “this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened” (Mark 13:30). What are “all these things”? Everything regarding the buildup to the Jewish War that culminated in the destruction of the Temple, of course.

Everything else, from the warning to stay alert, to no one knowing when the Lord of the house would be coming, to the examples of the sudden disaster coming like Noah’s flood, all fits in with the circumstances and events leading up to and including the Jewish War.

Conclusion
So, there you have it. And, despite what Dan McClellan says, this explanation of the Olivet Discourse is not an attempt to “sidestep” anything. It’s not motivated by any concern to maintain any kind of “dogma.” It is simply based on a competent reading of the text within its literary and historical contexts. Furthermore, despite the “consensus scholars” in McClellan’s crowd, the notion that the “Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” is a reference to some yet-in-the-future “second coming” makes no sense, given the historical setting of Jesus on the Mount of Olives with his disciples around AD 30, shortly before his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection. Anyone who thinks the disciples would be asking Jesus at that time about when he would “come again,” when they had no clue he would ever “go away,” let alone “resurrection,” because they weren’t expecting him to die in the first place—anyone claiming that needs to have his head examined. I don’t care if that person is trying to inspire people with philosophy or insisting on data over dogma. Such an interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is a really, really bad interpretation that makes no sense.

You might be asking, “But what about the second coming then?” That takes us into other waters, and this post is long enough as it is. Bottom line, though, in the Olivet Discourse: (A) Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple, (B) links its destruction with “the Son of Man coming on the clouds,” and yet (C) insists that the “end/consummation of the age” wouldn’t happen yet at that time. All of that shows that Jesus was not a failed prophet—what he prophesied happened within that generation.

That is why the Gospel writers put in in their Gospels—it was testimony that what Jesus prophesied about had indeed come true. And that is why, three centuries later, in Eusebius’ History of the Church, after quoting extensively from Josephus’ account of the Jewish war and the horrors that those in Jerusalem endured, said the following: “Such was the reward of the Jews’ iniquitous and wicked treatment of God’s Christ. It is worthwhile to set alongside [Josephus’ account] our Savior’s absolutely true prediction, in which He reveals those very things in this prophecy…” and proceeds to quote from Matthew 24 and Luke 21. He then concludes, “Anyone who compared our Savior’s words with the rest of the historian’s account of the whole war could not fail to be astonished, and to acknowledge as divine and utterly marvelous the foreknowledge revealed by our Savior’s prediction” (Book 3.7).

So, if the historical and literary contexts of the Olivet Discourse point to Jesus prophesying the Temple’s destruction, and equating that with the apocalyptic imagery of “the end of the world” for Jerusalem and “the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds,” and if in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus clearly says, “These things will happen within a generation, but the end is not yet,” and if we get in the first history of the Church and acknowledgement that the Olivet Discourse was all about the Temple’s destruction and the Jewish War…

…maybe, just maybe, that’s how we should understand it.

Maybe Michael Jones is wrong to concoct his very problematic excuse as to why Christ’s second coming hasn’t happened yet. Maybe McClellan’s “scholarly consensus” that Jesus predicted his second coming within a generation but was wrong is also wrong. Maybe they’re both reading the text wrong.

Strike that…no “maybe.” THEY ARE READING THE TEXT WRONG because they are imposing on the text a certain DOGMA onto the text that isn’t there and have thus missed the entire point of the passage.