CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem Statement

Scholars have varying views on how the “Olivet discourse” should be interpreted.1 Irving L.

Jensen argues, “How you interpret this discourse is determined largely by how you view

prophecies of the Bible concerning the Millennium.”2 Frederick D. Bruner suggests that one

pivotal factor in the interpretation of this passage is the explanation of Jesus’ reference to the

“abomination of desolation.”3 Other scholars argue that “the abomination of desolation” refers to

the desecration of the Jewish temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.4 Bruner and Hare suggest that
1
Frederick D. Bruner explains concerning Jesus’ comments in Matthew 24, “He wants to teach them not
only about the end of the world (the implication of the disciples’ second question) but also about the destruction of
Jerusalem (the disciples’ first question, v. 3).” Frederick D. Bruner, Matthew A Commentary, Vol. 2: The
Churchbook Matthew 13-28 (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2004), 495.
Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 2002), 235. Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew: Interpretation A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching (John Knox Press: Louisville, Kentucky, 1993), 274. Irving L. Jensen refers to Jesus’ message in
Matthew 24 and 25 as the “Olivet discourse.” He explains that the discourse is “so named because Jesus and His
disciples were on the Mount of Olives at this time.” (See Irving L. Jensen, Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament
(Moody Press: Chicago, 1981), 126.
2
Jensen, 126. Thomas D. Ice states that there are three major views of eschatology in relation to the
millennium: premillennialism, amillennialism and postmillennialism. He describes the premillennialist view as, “an
interpretation that the Second Coming of Christ will occur before His literal reign of one thousand years on earth.
After His victorious intervention into history, Christ will personally reign from Jerusalem producing a time of peace,
prosperity and righteousness.” He describes amillennialism as a view “that Christ’s millennial kingdom extends
from His Resurrection from the tomb to the time of His Second Coming on the clouds at the end of the age. At no
time will Christ reign on the earth in Jerusalem.” Thomas Ice defines postmillennialism as “the view that Christ will
return at the end of an extended period of righteousness and prosperity (the millennium). Like the amillennialist, the
post-millennialist sees the current age as the kingdom of God. However, they see the reign of Christ not just in the
hearts of believers today, but as impacting society.” Thomas D. Ice, “The Unscriptural Theologies of
Amillennialism and Postmillennialism,” Article Archives. Paper 54 (May 2009): 3,
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/pretrib_arch/54. Commenting on the amillenarian interpretation of the prophecy of
Daniel 9:24-27, John F. Walvoord states: “The amillenarian views…all have the problem of not explaining the
prophecy in its normal, literal sense. No specific fulfillment can be found for major elements of the prophecy.” John
F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (Victor Books: Wheaton, Illinois, 1990), 253,256.
3
This is a reference to the prophetic message of Daniel 9:27. Bruner comments that “The Abomination of
Desolation has its seed in the book of Daniel, it’s ‘blade’ in the Olivet Discourse…its ‘ear’ in 2 Thessalonians 2, but
the ‘full grain’ is to be found in what is pre-eminently the Apocalypse [the book of Revelation].” Bruner, Matthew A
Commentary, Vol. 2: The Churchbook Matthew 13-28, 499.
4
According to Daniel R. Schwartz, Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a Seleucid king that reigned in the 2nd
century B.C. Daniel R. Schwartz, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” Historical Perspectives: From the
Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol 37 (January 2001): 46,
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047400745_007. Commenting on the work of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Leon Morris
states: “he built an altar to Zeus in the temple and offered swine and other unclean animals on it as sacrifices.” Leon

1
“it may have been given a new application when Caligula attempted to have a statue of himself

set up in the Jerusalem temple.”5 Leon Morris posits that the abomination of desolation may refer

to the idolatrous standard of the Roman army 6. The varying views espoused in the scholarly

community indicate that, there is controversy as it pertains to the interpretation of this discourse.

Moreover, there is controversy in the scholarly community as it pertains to the occurrence of

the abomination of desolation. Bruner states: “Something like the abomination of desolation in

Daniel’s time did recur in Jesus’ time (the Roman destruction of the temple); and (according to

many interpreters) something like the abomination of desolation in Jesus’ time may happen again

at the end of time.”7 While mentioning a possible eschatological implication for the abomination

of desolation, this view emphasizes that the abomination of desolation occurred originally in the

time of Daniel and was simply a recurrence in the time of Jesus. This is at variance with the

school of thought which states that the abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel was

fulfilled at the time specified by Jesus’ prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem.8

Problem Statement

Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1992), 603. Frederick D. Bruner explains that Antiochus Epiphanes built a pagan altar atop the altar of burnt
offering in 168 BC or 167 BC. Bruner, Matthew A Commentary, Vol. 2: The Churchbook Matthew 13-28, 279.
5
Hare, Matthew: Interpretation A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 278. According to
Sam Wilkinson, “The Emperor Gaius, otherwise known by his nickname Caligula (‘little boot’), came to power at
the age of 24 in March AD 37…The name Caligula is synonymous with vice, depravity and even insanity.” Sam
Wilkinson, Caligula (New York: Routledge, 2005), 1, Google Preview PDF. Bruner states: “Some commentators
think that Mark’s and Matthew’s references to the abomination may also (or only) be meant to recall Emperor
Caligula’s attempt to put his statue in the temple in AD 40, an attempt frustrated first by Petronius’s skill and then
by Caligula’s assassination in January of 41.” Bruner, Matthew A Commentary, Vol. 2: The Churchbook Matthew
13-28, 498.
6
Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 603.
7
Ibid.
8
J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and
Their Fulfillment (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996), 388. Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (,
603. Hare, 278.

2
 A consideration of the arguments above shows that there seems to be variance as it

pertains to the nature of the eschatological implications of the destruction of Jerusalem. Some

areas of contention include: the interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, the

interpretation of the “abomination of desolation” and its eschatological underpinnings, as well as

the manner in which these prophetic messages relate to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Purpose and Significance of the Study

The purpose of this study is to discover the eschatological implications of Jesus’ prophecy

concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. The significance of this study is to aid the Christian

community to understand the possible eschatological underpinnings of Jesus’ prophecy of the

destruction of Jerusalem.

Scope and Delimitation of Study

This study shall focus on Jesus’ prophetic statement in Matthew 24:2 relating to the

destruction of Jerusalem. In order to appreciate the eschatological implications of this statement,

this paper will also focus on the “abomination of desolation” that Jesus referred to in Matthew

24:15 and its relation to the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.

Methodology

This research paper will employ the Historical Grammatical Method as the hermeneutical

principle. It will include six chapters. Chapter one will present the introduction of the paper,

chapter two will focus on the historical background to the book of Matthew while chapter three

will emphasize the prophetic background to the destruction of Jerusalem and the fulfillment of

3
the destruction of Jerusalem, chapter four will present the eschatological implications of this

event and chapter five will provide the summary and conclusion of this paper.

CHAPTER TWO

4
 The historical background to the book of Matthew gives perspective to Matthew 24:2.

Matthew’s gospel was written in close proximity to the date of Jerusalem’s destruction by the

Romans. While several scholars agree that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies

occurred in AD 70, they have differing views on the date in which the book of Matthew was

written.9 Notwithstanding these variations, the dates suggested for the writing of Matthew’s

gospel generally lie within a twenty-year time period either before or after AD 70.10 On the

condition that Matthew wrote his composition before the destruction of Jerusalem, his record of

Jesus’ prophetic message would have served as a warning of the impending doom of the Jewish

nation. Had he written after the event, his work would have proved to explain the cause and

nature of such a calamity and its significance in relation to the Jewish nation and the Christian

church. Rudolf Schnackenburg suggests that, at the time of the composition of Matthew’s gospel,

there was a break between Jewish Christians and Judaism.11 Hence, Matthew may have written

this work in response to the conflict with Judaism, to emphasize the fulfillment of Israel’s

messianic expectations in Jesus, and to proclaim the establishment the Christian church as a new

9
Leon Morris states “there is little hard evidence to determine the date of this Gospel. Most modern
scholars date it somewhere from the 70s to the 90s, but there is good reason for seeing it as appearing before A.D.
70, perhaps the late 50s or early 60s.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992), 593. Richard France suggests that “Matthew’s Gospel was
written within the last twenty years of the first century.” Richard France, Matthew (William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985), 28. Schnackenburg agrees by stating “Matthew wrote after the Jewish
War and the destruction of Jerusalem.” Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew (William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2002), 6. Michael Green, The Message of Matthew (Inter-Varsity
Press: Leicester, England, 2000), 38. Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew: Interpretation A Biblical Commentary for
Teaching and Preaching (John Knox Press: Louisville, Kentucky, 1993), 277. Frederick D. Bruner, Matthew A
Commentary, Vol. 2: The Churchbook Matthew 13-28 (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 2004), 471.
10
Ulrich Luz suggests that, according to Irenaeus, the gospel of Matthew was written somewhere between
AD 50 and AD 64. He further states that early dating of this gospel is rarely advocated. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A
Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1992), 93. David Hill posits that if Matthew used the gospel
of Mark as a source then the gospel of Matthew must have been written sometime between the seventies and the
nineties. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (The Attic Press Inc.: Greenwood, S.C., 1972).
11
Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew, 6.

5
community of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles.12 The occurrence of the destruction of

Jerusalem is essential in emphasizing the aforementioned themes.

Matthew’s purpose for composing his gospel account is key to understanding Matthew 24:2.

George Knight posits that Matthew’s gospel has four purposes: to reveal Jesus Christ as the

Messiah promised in the Old Testament, to present important events in the life of Jesus, to teach

new converts of the faith of Jesus.13 David Hill adds that Matthew’s purpose is to provide Jewish

Christians with a resource from which to teach and preach, to point Jews to Jesus Christ as the

Messiah and Lord of the church, and to serve an apologetic function against Jewish antagonists.14

Michael Green states that Matthew’s gospel emphasizes the end of the world and the second

advent of Jesus Christ.15 This emphasis is clearly portrayed in Matthew 24. The record of Jesus’

prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24:2 serves the purposes for which

Matthew composed this gospel.

The timing of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:2 is pivotal in understanding the intention of

the declaration. Richard Lenski states that Jesus makes the prophetic declaration of the

destruction of Jerusalem after he pronounces the desolation of the temple in Matthew 23:38.16

Between these statements, the disciples of Christ attempt to arrest his attention with the

magnificence and splendor of the temple. His statement is therefore a direct response to the

sentiments of his disciples. As Jesus made this emphatic statement, he was leaving the temple

courts and he would never return.17 George Knight posits that Jesus’ statement concerning the

desolation of the temple is due to the fact that the Jewish leaders rejected the love of God as
12
Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew, 6.
13
George Knight, The Abundant Life Amplifier: Matthew (Pacific Press Publishing Association: Boise, Idaho,
1994), 19.
14
Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 43.
15
Green, The Message of Matthew, 48.
16
Richard Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Hendrickson Publishers: United States of
America, 1961), 927.
17
Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 928.

6
manifested through Jesus Christ.18 This is an important principle in understanding Jesus’

declaration concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus made this statement at a crucial

juncture in the history of the Jewish nation; at this time, the leaders of the nation rejected Jesus

as the Son of God.

Bibliography

Bruner, Frederick. Matthew A Commentary, Volume 2: The Churchbook Matthew 13-28.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

Green, Michael.

18
Knight, The Abundant Bible Amplifier: Matthew, 230.

7
Hare, Douglas. Matthew: Interpretation A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching.
Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1993.

Ice, Thomas. “The Unscriptural Theologies of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism.” Article

Archives, 54, (May 2009): 1-11,
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/pretrib_arch/54.

Jensen, Irving. Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.

Payne, John. Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions
and Their Fulfillment. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2002.

Schwartz, Daniel. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem.” Historical Perspectives: From the

Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 37, (January 2001):
44-56, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047400745_007

Walvoord, John. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1990.

Wilkinson, Sam. Caligula. New York: Routledge, 2005. Google Preview PDF.