Sandy,

Thanks for this post - it’s something that’s been ringing around my head lately too! In our lectures with Peter Bolt, there is much to commend the passage towards a cross-event focus - especially in Mark.

But, I’m not quite convinced this view does justice to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew - especially with reference to the Isaianic references (Is 13) and in light of the ‘return’ thrust of the following parables in Matthew. 

Thanks for the good post though - i’m keen to hear what your next thoughts are!

Your brother,
Mark

Sandy,
Great post and some good questions raised, I know what it’s like to oscillate on this issue. I enjoyed Peter Bolt’s book on the Cross in Mark’s Gospel, but I just can’t follow him on Mark 13. More likely IMHO is option # 2 and the reference to Jerusalem’s destruction. I find it strange that the disciples would ask Jesus about the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus responds by way of reference to his second coming! That said, Holtzmann argued that the judgment on Jerusalem marks the beginning of the final judgment itself so there is a link between 70 AD and the end of the age. I strongly recommend Andrew Perriman’s book “The Coming Son of Man” as an excellent theological defence of preterism and the illustration at the end is worth the price of the book! If interested, my own thoughts can be found here: http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2007/01/jesus-and-parousia-six-theses.html.

Also, I love the blog. On my first road trip with my wife, I taught her the five solas of the reformation.

I’m sorry I missed this when it was happening a couple of months ago!

Sandy said “Option 2 fits within the lifetime of that generation and the initial context of verses 1-2, and the “holy place” reference of verse 15. A problem is that it gives enormous theological weight to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which appears to be marginal in the rest of the New Testament.”

But it is not marginal if large parts of the book of Revelation are about the destruction of Jerusalem (and the Cross, for that matter) rather than the merely futurist interpretation that it is all about the period before Christ’s return. And Hebrews is also indirectly about that, in that it is about the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in Christ and the doing away with the shadows of Temple sacrifices and priesthood.

I would argue that whatever is true of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 is true of Revelation. And like Justin Moffat, I’m not convinced it has to be an either/or choice. In the Olivet discourse the disciples are actually asking two questions but they think they are asking one. Jesus answers both when the Temple will be destroyed and when the end of the Age will happen. Or possibly three - the destruction of Jerusalem, the Cross and Resurrection, and the Parousia, are all rolled up together.

But (assuming Peter is right about the “Age” meaning the Old Covenant Age, when is the End of the Age? Is it with the inauguration of the New Covenant in His blood? Or is it with the destruction of the Temple? Is it not possible that there is an overlap of the ages, of one generation, during which the New Testament was written? That is, that the Old Covenant does not end at the Cross, even though the New Covenant has begun. I think a lot more thinking needs to be done in that area.