← Back to sermon library

Matthew chapter 24. That's awesome. Matthew 24. I'll begin reading in verse one. 
Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple and his disciples 
came up to show him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said 
to them, Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, 
not one stone shall be left here upon another that shall not be 
thrown down. Now as he sat on the Mount of 
Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, Tell us, 
when will these things be? And what will be the sign of 
your coming and of the end of the age? And Jesus answered and 
said to them, Take heed that no one deceives you. For many 
will come in my name saying, I am the Christ, and will deceive 
many. And you will hear of wars and 
rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled, 
for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against 
nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, 
and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of 
sorrows. Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill 
you, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will be offended, 
will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many 
false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness 
will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures 
to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom 
will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, 
and then the end will come. Therefore, when you see the abomination 
of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the 
holy place, whoever reads, let him understand. Then let those 
who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on 
the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And 
let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But 
woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing 
babies in those days. And pray that your flight may 
not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great 
tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the 
world until this time. No, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, 
no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those 
days will be shortened. Then if anyone says to you, look, 
here is the Christ, or there, do not believe it. For false 
Christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and 
wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told 
you beforehand. Therefore, if they say to you, 
look, he is in the desert, do not go out. Or, look, he is in 
the inner rooms, do not believe it. For as the lightning comes 
from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming 
of the Son of Man be. For wherever the carcass is, 
there the eagles will be gathered together. Immediately after the 
tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the 
moon will not give its light. The stars will fall from heaven, 
and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And the sign 
of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes 
of the earth will mourn. And they will see the Son of 
Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And 
He will send His angels with the great sound of a trumpet, 
and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, 
from one end of heaven to the other. Now learn this parable 
from the fig tree. When its branch has already become 
tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 
So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is 
near at the doors. Assuredly, I say to you, this 
generation will by no means pass away till all these things take 
place. Heaven and earth will pass away, 
but my words will by no means pass away. Amen. Well, let us 
pray. Our Father in heaven, we thank 
you for the written word, and we thank you for the prophet 
Christ, and we pray now that you would give us ears to hear 
and hearts to receive your truth. We ask, Lord God, that your Spirit 
would be at work in this place, that you would indeed be helping 
the people of God to grow in grace and in the knowledge of 
the Lord Jesus. And for those, God, who are not 
yet your people, we pray that conviction of sin would come, 
that as our beloved brother Cam has reminded us, may they hear 
Christ. May they hear that One who speaks 
with absolute authority because He is the God-Man. And we would 
pray that today would be the day of salvation, that sinners 
would leave their idols and come to the true and the living God, 
knowing the joy of being found in Him, not having their own 
righteousness which is from the law, but that which is given 
by you through faith in Christ Jesus. Even now, God, we pray 
that you would wash us and purify us and forgive us for all of 
our sins and all that does darken our understanding. And we pray 
these things through Christ our Lord. Amen. Well, we've come in our studies 
in Matthew's Gospel to the Olivet Discourse, the fifth of five 
discourses in Matthew's Gospel. We saw the Sermon on the Mount 
in chapters 5 to 7. We see his instructions to his 
disciples in terms of missions in chapter 10. We see the parables 
of the kingdom in chapter 13. And then community relationships, 
specifically dealing with discipline in the life of God's people in 
chapter 18. So, this is the fifth discourse in Matthew's Gospel. Some have seen a correspondence 
here between Moses in the Old Covenant and Jesus in the New 
Covenant. The five books of Moses, the 
five discourses of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, just by way of reminder, 
because it's been some time since we've been here in Matthew's 
Gospel, we are still dealing on the particular day in the 
Passion Week, which is Tuesday. On Sunday of the Passion Week, 
we see the triumphal entry. That's recorded in chapter 21, 
when Jesus comes triumphantly into the city of Jerusalem. And then on Monday, He cleanses 
the temple. Remember, things were not good. 
Things were not well religiously in Israel at that time. And Jesus 
cleanses the temple, showing His disapproval for the conduct 
of Israel in the temple of God. As well, He curses the fig tree 
on that Monday. He pronounces that curse and 
He says that no fruit will ever grow on you again. We saw there 
that fig tree does in fact represent Israel as the nation. And then on the Tuesday, the 
disciples ask Him about the fig tree and Jesus teaches them about 
faith. He teaches them about prayer 
and praying in faith. And then on Tuesday as well, 
He confronts, or He is confronted by the religious leaders. Specifically, 
they ask Him, by what authority do you do these things? And then 
Jesus puts them on the horns of a dilemma, and then He tells 
three parables to indicate that Israel, its religious leadership, 
and ultimately its people, are under the wrath of God. They 
will be judged. Their city will be destroyed. 
Their temple will be destroyed. That then sets off various confrontations. There are a series of questions 
posed to Christ concerning taxes, the resurrection, and then the 
law itself. And Jesus ends that portion of 
their confrontation by asking them concerning the identity 
of Messiah. Whose son is he? And then in 
chapter 23, Christ warns His disciples and the multitudes 
against the religious leaders. He does that in chapter 23, verses 
1 to 12. And then in chapter 23, verses 
13 to 33, He pronounces woes upon the religious leadership. 
These scribes and Pharisees are hypocrites. They are blind leaders 
of the blind, and both will ultimately fall into the pit. So that's 
the larger context, and that brings us to the Tuesday evening. 
In fact, Luke highlights that Jesus in the temple was there 
during the day, Luke 21, 37, but at night he withdrew to Bethany. This is where the Mount of Olives 
was. And so this discourse, this fifth 
discourse, is called the Olivet Discourse because it was conducted 
at Olivet, on the Mount of Olives. Now, I'd like to suggest that 
we look at the setting of the Olivet Discourse in our study 
this morning. So, we're only going to focus 
on the first three verses, and we're going to focus on that 
under three considerations. First, the departure from the 
temple, verse 1. Secondly, the declaration concerning 
the temple, in verse 2. And then thirdly, the discourse 
regarding the temple. That essentially takes up verse 
3 to the end of the discourse, but as I said, we're only going 
to focus on the questions posed by the disciples. But note, in 
the first place, his departure from the temple. We cannot separate 
this from what has preceded. The last thing we saw in our 
studies together was Jesus' lamentation over Jerusalem. Notice in 23, 
37, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and 
stones those who are sent to her, how often I wanted to gather 
your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her 
wings, but you were not willing. C. Your house is left to you 
desolate. Jesus is sitting in the temple 
or standing in the temple. The house has already been described 
in chapter 21 as my house. And here in terms of judgment, 
he calls it your house. There has been a radical departure 
on the part of Israel, and that leads to the departure of Jesus 
from their presence. Notice in verse 1 of chapter 
24, then Jesus went out and departed from the temple. Now, many have 
seen this as an act of judgment or as a visible representation 
of judgment. The departure of Christ from 
the temple and from the people are to be interpreted in a way 
that reminds us of things that had gone on in the prophets. 
But just consider in this passage, two verbs are used. He doesn't 
just say he left the temple. He went out and departed from 
the temple. Matthew wants us to understand 
that this was a decisive thing. He doesn't just change his venue. 
He has said, and he has pronounced in verse 38, your house is left 
to you desolate. Now he is indicating that by 
his own departure. Remember that in Matthew 1, 23, 
Jesus is identified as Emmanuel, which translated means God with 
us. So God with us is present in 
their temple. He pronounces that it's now become 
desolate, and God with us leaves the temple. We ought not to miss 
the significance of the symbolism that is in view in this particular 
place. Previous departures by our Lord 
in context of judgment. Notice in Matthew 16. Matthew 
16, specifically in verse 4, he says, A wicked and adulterous 
generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to 
it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them and departed. Again, we may be reading too 
much into this, but I hope to show you in a moment that it 
is reminiscent of the prophet Ezekiel and Yahweh's departure 
from the temple itself. Notice as well in 21.17, Christ's 
departure. After he has this sort of confrontation, 
or after the cleansing of the temple rather, in 2117 it says, 
Then he left them, and went out of the city of Bethany, and he 
lodged there. And then remember, the house 
has been identified as my house, it's now called your house, As 
well, the place that was indeed to be a house of prayer, Matthew 
21, 13, had become a den of thieves, all of this reminiscent of the 
prophet Jeremiah. The place had proved to be fruitless 
like the fig tree that he cursed, so Jesus now symbolically pronounces 
his judgment upon it by leaving it. It's just like we see in 
the book of Revelation, when Jesus withdraws his lampstand, 
that indicates that things are not well. We see in the very 
beginning chapter that Jesus is in the midst of the lampstands. 
So when Jesus removes those lampstands, we ought not to conclude that 
all is well for that particular church. In the same token, when 
Jesus, God with us, stands in the temple and then he leaves 
or he departs, And then he makes this pronouncement in verse 2, 
we ought to see the judgment symbolism utilized by our Lord. But notice, as I've already mentioned, 
we ought to look at Ezekiel's prophecy. We did look at this 
several weeks ago in our last study in Matthew 23, but it bears 
repetition. Notice in the prophet Ezekiel, 
specifically chapter 8, Not everybody's turning there. You have great 
minds and ears and I'm sure you can follow all that I say, but 
I would encourage you to follow along. There's a whole lot of 
difference of opinion on the Olivet Discourse. I guarantee 
you by the time we finish chapter 25, some of you, perhaps many 
of you, are not going to agree with me. We need to be charitable 
in understanding that there are several disagreements concerning 
this Olivet Discourse. It's a tough passage. Climbing 
Mount Olivet is no easy task. Even after spending time in the 
text, oftentimes you know there's some areas, there's some issues 
that you just... You're limited, infallible, and 
it's difficult. So I'm going to offer a particular 
interpretation as we move through this section of Scripture that 
you may not agree with. So you ought to follow along 
to at least legitimize or see how it is I arrived at this interpretation. This is not a question of orthodoxy. It's not the case that if you 
don't agree with Jim Butler or I don't agree with you, we're 
going to go to hell. Now, this isn't the Trinity, it's not the 
deity of Christ, it's not the doctrine of justification by 
faith. It is usually classified in that category described as 
eschatology, or the study of last things. Now, thankfully, 
post-millennialists, amillennialists, and premillennialists all sit 
at the marriage supper of the Lamb. And those who disagree 
on their specific interpretation of Matthew chapters 24 and 25 
They too will sit at the marriage supper of the Lamb. But nevertheless, 
it is important that we follow the thrust of Jesus' words and 
His actions. And I think Ezekiel, I think 
so much of the prophets serve as backdrop for what our Lord 
is doing at all of that. But notice in Ezekiel 8, specifically 
in verse 6. It says, furthermore, he said 
to me, son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great 
abominations that the house of Israel commits here, to make 
me go far away from my sanctuary? Now turn again, you will see 
greater abomination. So God is in the sanctuary of 
Israel. And he says to Ezekiel, have 
you seen what they are doing? Do you see the great abominations 
that the house of Israel commits here to make me go far away from 
my sanctuary? That's precisely the context 
in Matthew 24. He departs because of the abominations 
that have been conducted in the house of God. And we can trace 
this departure of the glory of the Lord in Ezekiel's prophecy. If you notice in chapter 9, verse 
3, chapter 10, verse 1, chapter 10, verse 4, chapter 10, verses 
18 and 19, you see the glory of Yahweh gradually departing 
from the sanctuary of the Lord. It culminates in chapter 11, 
verse 22. It says, So the cherubim lifted up their wings, with the 
wheels beside them, and the glory of the God of Israel was high 
above them. Now note 23, And the glory of 
the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood on the 
mountain, which is on the east side of the city. Intriguingly, 
that's where Jesus is at Olivet. And so he is paralleling, he 
is just like this withdrawal of the presence of Yahweh from 
the sanctuary during Ezekiel's time. This presence of God, this 
glory of the Lord, goes up from the midst of the city, stands 
on the mountain which is on the east side of the city. We ought 
not to miss the significance in the parallel thought. Jesus 
does the self-same thing. And we need to understand that 
in Ezekiel's day, the great tragedy wasn't the destruction of Jerusalem, 
it wasn't the destruction of the temple, it was the departure 
of the glory of Yahweh. And the same thing is true in 
the first century context. Yes, the destruction of the city 
would occur in AD 70. Yes, the temple would be destroyed, 
as Jesus states very clearly in verse 2. But the reality is 
that Old Covenant Israel had been shut down. No longer would 
the glory of Yahweh dwell in their midst. They had refused 
and rejected the Messiah Himself, and as a result they call down 
the wrath and fury and judgment of God which He dispatches via 
the Roman armies. So the departure of our Lord 
is significant. That brings us to consider in 
24.1b the action of the disciples. It says, after Jesus departed 
from the temple, His disciples came up to show Him the buildings 
of the temple. In fact, Mark records it this 
way. They say, see what manner of stones and what buildings 
are here. There's no commentary as to why 
they do this. There's no indication as to why 
they say this, but let me offer up a suggestion. They understood 
Jesus' words in 2338. They understood that when He 
says, your house is left to you desolate, they would suggest 
to Him, but don't you see the marvel? Don't you see the glory? Don't you see the pomp? The disciples 
understand what our Lord is discoursing concerning, or what our Lord's 
actions symbolize, and what His statement in 23 38 specifically 
mentions. And it also indicates to us that 
the disciples were more savvy than we are in this particular 
reality. They understood the significance 
of the Temple in Jewish religious and political life. You see, 
I think the offer or the interpretation that I'm going to offer up to 
you this morning and as we proceed, it doesn't mesh with us because 
we don't understand how important the temple in Israel was. Not 
only from an aesthetic point of view. I mean, it's described 
as one of the wonders of the world. The pomp and the beauty 
and the majesty and the glory and the excellence of the building 
itself. But think of temple in Jewish 
religious life. This is where the God of Israel 
dwells. So you see, when we go through 
this discourse and we see the destruction of the temple, we 
go, oh yeah, that's a first century event. But it's packed, it's 
riddled with covenantal significance. The fact that Old Covenant Israel 
has been shot down, and that the Church of Christ is the New 
Covenant Israel. The apostles, these disciples, 
understood something of the significance, again, not only in religious 
life in Israel, but in political life. I mean, the country was 
judged, the nation was judged by that standing temple, and 
they often associate it in the same way. Micah rebukes the people 
in his day, and they say, but the Lord is among us, probably 
with an eye on the temple. In other words, Micah, what you're 
saying can't be true, because the temple's here. As long as 
the temple's here, then Yahweh is here. So you see, it's a very 
significant event, and these disciples, as they are with Jesus, 
they say to Him, they show Him the buildings, they show Him 
the temple site, and they say to Him, isn't this marvelous, 
isn't this beautiful? C. H. Spurgeon says, to them 
the appearance was glorious, but to their Lord it was a sad 
sight. His Father's house, which ought to have been a house of 
prayer for all nations, had become a den of thieves, and soon would 
be utterly destroyed. So that's the particular setting 
in terms of where Jesus and his disciples, or what they're speaking 
about. Notice in verse 2, the declaration concerning the temple. 
Jesus said to them, do you not see all these things? He's talking 
about the temple. Talking about the very same things 
they themselves just pointed out. And we need to realize that 
there was a temple standing. In fact, when Jesus had his physical 
eye, his eye according to his humanity, along with his disciples, 
and he said to them, do you see these things? There were actually 
things there. In other words, there was a then-standing 
temple that was the target or the subject of the discourse. 
They're not talking about a future temple. They're not talking about 
a temple in our future. They're not talking about a revived 
Roman Empire. There is a Roman Empire presently 
at the time of Jesus. There is a temple that had both 
religious and political significance. And when Jesus says, do you not 
see all these things? He is speaking about the then-standing 
temple. It's a concrete, objective reality. It's not ethereal. It's not mystical. He's not talking about a spiritual 
temple. He's talking about the physical location in Jerusalem 
where Jews went to worship. So the things of the buildings 
of the temple and the question that he asks provides the foil 
for his declaration. Now note his declaration, underscored 
by Amen. Our translation renders it assuredly, 
verse 2. He says, assuredly, I say to 
you, not one stone shall be left here upon another that shall 
not be thrown down. You see, again, if we ask the 
question, what does the rest of the Olivet Discourse talk 
about, we would be fools not to see it in the slides. He's 
talking about that temple. And he's talking about it crumbling. 
He's talking about it being destroyed. I mean, the argument that I offer 
this morning shouldn't be difficult. You shouldn't go, where's he 
getting this? He's getting it from verse 2, because that's 
what our Lord says. Do you see these things? He asks 
his disciples. Assuredly, I say to you, the 
prophet Christ Not one stone shall be left here upon another 
that shall not be thrown down." Now, I want to bring out a few 
observations concerning this. In the first place, this is a 
pronouncement concerning the destruction of the temple. Some 
say, well, there are still stones present. So therefore, Jesus' 
words in verse 2 cannot be interpreted literally. He's talking about 
the temple. He's not talking about the substructure. 
He's talking about utter decimation or destruction of that temple 
complex. In fact, France describes it 
in this language. He says, the Roman destruction 
of Herod's temple in A.D. 70 was so complete that all that 
now remains is part of the substructure of the temple precincts. Not 
of the temple buildings themselves, that's specifically what he's 
talking about. There's a parallel usage of the 
language in Luke 19. Luke 19, this stone upon stone 
language being brought down or being destroyed. Notice in Luke 
19, specifically at verse 41, now as he drew near, he saw the 
city and wept over it. Why do you think Jesus wept over 
it? Because according to his humanity, as the prophet of God, 
knowing what was coming upon these people, it caused him to 
weep. It promoted from him a response 
of pity and compassion. He wept over the city saying, 
notice verse 42, If you had known, even you, especially in this 
your day, the things that make for your peace, but now they 
are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when 
your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you, and 
close you in on every side, and level you and your children within 
you to the ground. And they will not leave in you 
one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of 
your visitation. And interestingly enough, both 
of these statements sort of reverse Haggai 2.15. In Haggai 2.15, 
that phraseology is used in terms of stone upon stone with reference 
to the building of the temple. Remember, Haggai is a post-exilic 
prophet along with Zechariah. And what Haggai and Zechariah 
are doing are preaching to the post-exilic Jews, telling them 
to build the temple. And so what Haggai says is that 
the temple has now been built. They're rejoicing, they're praising, 
they're using as a means as well to exhort the people to faithfulness 
in light of this reality. But the same language is used 
in Haggai 2.15 specifically. And now carefully consider from 
this day forward, from before stone was laid upon stone in 
the temple of the Lord. In Haggai, the temple was being 
rebuilt. In Matthew, in Luke, the temple 
is going to be destroyed. Stone upon stone, not one stone 
will be left. So the pronouncement concerns 
the destruction of the temple. Secondly, we need to see it as 
the prophetic equivalent to chapters 21 to 23. You can't just take 
24 out and put it in the 21st century. That's what happens. We read 
this passage. In fact, as I read it in your hearing, you're thinking, 
those are the signs of the times. Those are the wars of the rumors 
of wars. Those are the famines and the 
pestilences that are happening all over the globe. I will argue 
that Jesus is talking about the first century, when these things 
occurred, that the Great Tribulation happened in the first century, 
when God the Lord visited Israel with punishment from on high 
because of their covenantal unfaithfulness. It's not dealing with our future, 
it's dealing with what was future to them at the time that Jesus 
spoke it. But it is the prophetic equivalent 
of all that has proceeded in chapters 21 to 23, the cleansing 
of the temple. What's he showing there? His disapprobation with 
the people of Israel. He curses the fig tree and he 
says, no fruit will ever grow on you again. He doesn't say 
it's going to be temporarily suspended, and when you're regathered 
into the physical land of Palestine, then the fig tree will start 
bearing fruit again. That's not what he says. He says 
in terms of an ethnic future for Old Covenant Israel, there 
is no more. The fig tree is cursed never 
to bear fruit once again. As well, the parables concerning 
the judgment to come. There are several places that 
we see this. The parable of the vineyard. 
What does Jesus say is going to happen to those who have rejected 
the prophets, and it's culminated in the death of the great prophet, 
the Lord Jesus. He will destroy their city. And Jesus says, absolutely. Therefore, 
the kingdom of God is taken from you, or kingdom of heaven as 
Matthew refers to it, and is given to a nation that will bear 
fruits consistent with it. in the parable of the wedding 
feast in chapter 22. What does the king do when his 
proffer of mercy is rejected? He destroys their city with his 
armies. You think that what Jesus is 
doing here in chapter 24 is the prophetic equivalent of chapters 
21 to 23, where he has pronounced judgment. Consider chapter 23, 
specifically in verse 34. Therefore, indeed, I send you 
prophets, wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and 
crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues 
and persecute from city to city. Is that on you? What's he talking 
about? 21st century? No, on you may 
come all the righteous blood shed on the earth from the blood 
of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah. Now that works 
out A to Z very nicely in English. It doesn't work out that way 
in Greek or Hebrew. It works out that way in terms 
of old covenant canon. Abel is in the book of Genesis. 
Zechariah is in the book of 2 Chronicles, the last book of the Hebrew canon. 
So from first to last, your history has been to destroy the prophets. to kill them, to despise them, 
to stone them. The idea being, in the book of 
Hebrews, chapter 11, it says that some were sawn in two. History 
tells us, or tradition suggests, that that was Isaiah. I mean, 
the people that will saw the prophet Isaiah in half with a 
saw are people that are fit and right for the judgment of God. 
Now, I'm not suggesting we're not fit and right for the judgment 
of God either, but we have to ask, what does the text in its 
context mean? What does the text in its setting 
mean? And I believe that Jesus is speaking prophetically in 
chapter 24, verse 2, all the way to chapter 25, verse 46, 
concerning the same things that he's already dealt with in several 
places in the previous context. So he says, from the blood of 
righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, 
whom you murdered between the temple and the altar, assuredly, 
I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. So we see, with reference to 
the declaration concerning the temple, the pronouncement concerning 
the destruction of the temple, secondly, the prophetic equivalent 
of chapters 21 to 23, that the consistency, thirdly, with Old 
Testament prophets. When Jesus comes into Jerusalem 
in chapter 21, the men from Galilee identify him as the prophet. Christ is speaking as a prophet 
here. In fact, He sits down. He does that in the Sermon on 
the Mount. That's the authoritative position 
for a rabbi. If this was a Jewish synagogue, 
I wouldn't be standing behind a pulpit, I would be sitting 
on a chair. That was the position that was assumed for authoritative 
discourse. That's what Christ does. He's 
speaking as a prophet, consistent with the prophets who have gone 
before Him. Let's notice several passages in the Old Testament. 
Notice 1 Kings 9. 1 Kings 9. This is after the dedication 
of the temple under Solomon. And God the Lord warns the nation 
of Israel what unfaithfulness will mean unto them. Notice in 
1 Kings 9, beginning in verse 6. But if you or your sons at all 
turn from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and 
My statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve 
other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from 
the land which I have given them. And this house which I have consecrated 
for My name I will cast out of My sight. Israel will be a proverb 
and a byword among all peoples. And as for this house, which 
is exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and 
will hiss and say, Why has the Lord done thus to this land and 
to this house? Then they will answer, Because 
they forsook the Lord their God, who brought their fathers out 
of the land of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, and worshiped 
them, and served them. Therefore the Lord has brought 
all this calamity on them. Do we really need more commentary 
on what's happening in Matthew 24? Do we really need to fill 
out more blanks? I think it's evident that what 
Christ is doing is standing in the succession of Israel's prophets 
to bring the wrath of God upon the people of Israel. But in 
case we do, look at Micah the prophet in chapter 3. Micah chapter 
3. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 
Micah. Micah chapter 3. Notice specifically, beginning 
in verse 8, But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the 
Lord, and of justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, 
and to Israel his sin. Now hear this, you heads of the 
house of Jacob, and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor 
justice and pervert all equity, who build up Zion with bloodshed, 
and Jerusalem with iniquity. Her heads judge for a bribe, 
her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money. 
Yet they lean on the Lord and say, Is not the Lord among us? 
That's the passage I referenced earlier, the idea being, the 
temple's there, isn't Yahweh among us? You see, they had treated 
it as a holy horseshoe or as a lucky charm rather than as 
a visible symbol of God's presence. God had been or would withdraw. 
Notice, specifically, no harm can come upon us. Verse 12, Therefore, 
because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem 
shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the temple 
like the bare hills of the forest. Turn back to the prophet Jeremiah. 
As you turn back to the prophet Jeremiah, realize that Jeremiah 
lived about a hundred years later than Micah. The structure of 
the placement of the books do not obviously suggest that, but 
it's that prophecy in Micah 3.12 that gets Jeremiah off the hook 
from being executed as a subversive man. But note a few passages 
in the prophet Jeremiah. Notice in chapter 7 at verse 
8, Behold you trust in lying words that cannot profit, Will 
you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to 
Baal, and walk after other gods whom you do not know?" See, I 
think we ought to appreciate, as we survey these prophets and 
as we survey the Olivet Discourse, the Lord God's not into us abandoning 
Him. The Lord God does not take it 
lightly when we prefer Baal over Him. The Lord God does not just 
turn a blind eye when we're lazy, apathetic, wretched professors 
of religion. This is what they were judged 
for. This is the whole premise of Revelation 2 and 3. If you 
don't repent, I will withdraw your lampstand. So don't take 
any comfort by suggesting that Will Butler sees Matthew 24 as 
having had its application in the first century. Yes, in terms 
of that particular context. What are the implications for 
us? We better live consistently with the profession that we make. 
If we dare say that Yahweh is our God, that Christ is our Lord, 
Christ is our mediator, and we give our hearts to Baal, or we 
are tempted to go and follow other gods, or we engage in the 
sexual immorality that Israel is upbraided for in the prophets, 
or if we engage in the kinds of things that the prophet Micah 
was targeting the nation of Israel in, that same judgment will come 
upon us, It's not the case that we can sin with impunity and 
get away with it. No, there's a lesson to be learned, 
and this is what's happening. Specifically, this is where Jesus 
or Matthew's texts are coming from. It was supposed to be a 
house of prayer, but you made it a den of thieves. That den 
of thieves language comes specifically here from Jeremiah 7. Behold, 
will you trust in lying words that cannot profit? Will you 
steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to 
Baal, and walk after other gods whom you do not know? And then 
come and stand before me in this house which is called by my name 
and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations." In 
other words, they kind of claimed a king's axe. Well, we're your 
people, so we can do whatever. No, it doesn't work that way. 
It doesn't work that way as the professing people of God in the 
New Covenant either. Well, Jesus is my Lord and Savior, so I can 
go out and commit adultery, and He'll forgive me. It's a blessed 
arrangement. You know, Jesus loves to forgive 
sin, and I love to commit sin, so we're just right for each 
other. That's not what the glory of the Gospel is about. Those 
who are justified freely by His grace pursue righteousness as 
a manner of life. They take seriously Paul's words 
in Hebrews 12, pursue holiness without which no one will see 
the Lord. So you can't ever conclude, he 
loves to forgive, I love to sin, blessed union. No. That's what's 
happened in Old Covenant Israel. They think that they are immune. 
They think that no bad things will ever happen to them. They 
think their temple will be forever. They think that the Jewish age 
is going to continue indefinitely. Notice, verse 11, "...has this 
house, which is called by my name, become a den of thieves 
in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, 
says the Lord. But now go to my place, which 
was in Shiloh." That's the place where the house of God, or rather 
the tabernacle, was located before Jerusalem. Go to Shiloh, where 
I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it because 
of the wickedness of my people Israel." You see, this is why 
in Matthew 24 they're even more culpable. They had these words. They knew what happened to Shiloh. 
They knew what happened in the Assyrian captivity. They knew 
what happened in the Babylonian captivity. They had Micah, they 
had Jeremiah, they had Ezekiel, and yet they continue in their 
incorrigibility, resisting God, rejecting His Messiah, and carrying 
on according to their own dictates. Brethren, we could say the same 
thing for us. We have not only Assyria and 
Babylon and Shiloh before them, in A.D. 70, how is it that we 
continue to do the same sorts of things that they did? Why 
does the Church so often look like Old Covenant Israel? Lazy, 
apathetic, it's like a chore to get people to actually show 
up and do what they're supposed to do. You have to coax the people 
of God to pray? You have to coax the people of 
God to come to the table? Brethren, these things ought 
not to be. The people of God are the people 
of God because the salvation wrought by God, and they want 
to do what their Master commands. And certainly God uses means 
and nagging preachers like me to remind you of what you're 
supposed to do. But brethren, we don't look a whole lot different 
than Old Covenant Israel. So before we start to say, well, 
you can't ever judge us, hear the language of the prophet Christ 
in Revelation 2 and 3, I will withdraw your lampstand. Notice, the prophet goes on to 
say, Go now to my place, which was in Shiloh, where I set my 
name at the first, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness 
of my people Israel. And now, because you have done 
all these works, says the Lord, and I spoke to you, rising up 
early and speaking, but you did not hear. And I called you, but 
you did not answer. Therefore, I will do to the house 
which is called by my name, in which you trust, and to this 
place which I gave to you and your fathers, as I have done 
to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of my 
sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, the whole posterity 
of Ephraim. Now, we don't have time, but 
notice one other portion in Jeremiah 7. Look at verse 20. Just like 
Jesus, cursing the fig tree. You see, Jesus isn't doing anything 
new in Matthew 21-24. He is doing what Jeremiah did 
prior. He is doing what Micah did prior. 
He is doing what Moses commanded prior, that if the people of 
Israel continued in their unfaithfulness before the Lord God Almighty, 
according to Deuteronomy 28, 49-57, God would raise up a nation 
and drive them into exile. Christ is simply enforcing the 
covenant that was made with these people. and it will burn and 
not be quenched. You see the same sorts of things 
in Jeremiah 9, 10 and 11. Jeremiah 26. You can actually 
turn to 26. There we can see Micah's prophecy. 
Get Jeremiah off the hook there for a moment anyway. Jeremiah 
chapter 26, verse 17. Then certainly the elders of 
the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly of the people, 
saying... You see, they're disputing over Jeremiah because you know 
what Jeremiah's saying? Your temple's going to be destroyed. 
Your house is going to be left to you desolate. Israel is going 
to be significantly changed when Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar come 
and take over. And so there's a discussion among 
the people. They're saying, is he subversive? Is he a revolutionary? Is he full of treason and wickedness? I mean, think about it. The Lord 
Jesus Christ could be viewed in the same manner. I mean, after 
all, it was God who ordained and sanctioned the temple. It 
was God who put the sacrificial system in place. Is Jesus being 
subversive? Is He engaged in treason? Well, 
no. What happens here in Jeremiah 
26? Verse 16, so the princes and all the people said to the 
priests and the prophets, this man does not deserve to die for 
he has spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God. Then certain 
of the elders of the land rose up and spoke to all the assembly 
of the people saying Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days 
of Hezekiah, king of Judah, and spoke to all the people of Judah 
saying, thus says the Lord of hosts, Zion shall be plowed like 
a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins and the mountains 
of the temple like the bare hills of the forest. Did Hezekiah, 
king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death? You see the 
argument there. If we didn't kill Micah, we certainly 
shouldn't kill Jeremiah. Do you see the reason why? It's 
because it was considered treason to ever speak of the temple collapsing. Be akin to us, you know, going 
online and saying, oh, you know, Ottawa and all its public buildings 
are going to fall. I know this is going to happen. 
An American actually saying, or blogging on his blog site, 
iloveliberty.com, the White House is going to be destroyed. He's 
going to have Secret Service show up at his house that afternoon. 
How do you know? What's going to happen? Are you 
going to plant the bombs? You have C4. What is it that we can 
do to prevent it? It's the same sort of thing. 
Because of the significance of the temple in both Jewish, religious 
and political life, to offer up the prophetic word that the 
temple is going to be destroyed was akin to treason. That's why 
they're disputing and debating. Should we put Jeremiah to death 
because he has actually said that the temple is going to fall? 
So you see here, Jesus stands in a long line of prophets when 
he comes to Olivet. In fact, France says Josephus. Now, I'll refer to Josephus through 
the course of our study, but scantily. Sometimes in the interpretation 
I offer, people... cite Josephus more than they 
do Matthew, and I don't want to do that. But Josephus was 
a Jewish historian that lived from about A.D. 37 to A.D. 100. 
He wrote about the Jewish wars. He wrote about the events that 
took place in his lifetime. He lived during the destruction 
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. So his word is that of eyewitness 
testimony, and it's foolish not to consider it in part. France 
says, Josephus declares that the prophecies of Jeremiah and 
of Daniel concerning the destruction and desecration of the temple 
were also to be understood of what happened in AD 70. Josephus 
writes, in the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning 
the Roman government and that our country should be made desolate 
by them. So, Josephus seemed to trap with 
this as well. Now, all this to say that what 
Jesus is doing here is not subversion. It's not treason. It is the execution 
of the covenant curses of God upon apostate Israel, because 
they had taken what should have been a house of prayer for the 
name of God and the benefit of all men, and they had turned 
it into a den of thieves and robbers. Davies and Allison say, 
what we have here is not repudiation of a divinely founded institution, 
but a tragic forecast by Jerusalem's king of a disaster fostered by 
human sin. This is no more subversive than 
what Jeremiah prophesied. We know why Jerusalem fell when 
Jeremiah prophesied, because the people followed Baal. The 
people didn't want Yahweh. We know why Jerusalem fell in 
those days. Well, the same is the case here. 
Jesus has made it repeatedly clear He's not pleased with the 
people. He has cleansed the temple. He has cursed their fig tree. 
He has told them declaratively that their city will be destroyed. 
It really ought not to puzzle us what's happening at the Olivet 
Discourse. Davies and Allison conclude, 
the destruction of the temple is God's verdict upon the capital. 
And then I want to suggest, fourthly and finally, in our consideration 
concerning the declaration concerning the temple, this was a contributing 
factor in the trial of Jesus. This was a contributing factor 
in the trial of Jesus. Just turn over to 2661. 2661, the witness says, false witnesses 
come forward and they say, this fellow said, I am able to destroy 
the temple of God and to build it in three days. Now they're 
not false witnesses because they rehearse what Jesus said. They're false witnesses because 
they put a spin on it or they add to what the leaders already 
had in terms of their prejudice against our Lord of glory. But 
this was common understanding. The then standing temple would 
be destroyed, according to this Jesus. Notice in 2740, when Christ 
is on the cross, verse 39, and those who passed by blasphemed 
Him, wagging their heads and saying, you who destroyed the 
temple and built it in three days, save yourself. If you are 
the Son of God, come down from the cross. And intriguingly, 
Christ's holy martyr, Stephen, was on trial for much the same 
thing. In Acts chapter 6, specifically 
in verses 13 and 14, it says, They also set up false witnesses 
who said, This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against 
this holy place and the law. For we have heard him say that 
this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs 
which Moses delivered to us. So, you see, at least in the 
first century, there was a pretty good idea that what Christ's 
discourse concerning in Matthew 24 and 25 was the then standing 
temple. So, we have seen the departure 
from the temple, secondly, the declaration against 
the temple, and then thirdly, and finally, and quickly, we'll 
look at the discourse regarding the temple. I don't mean quickly 
we'll look at it, I just mean we'll look at verse 3. Verse 3, now as he sat on the 
Mount of Olives, as we've already seen, this is in Bethany, it's 
east of Jerusalem, it's a particular place where they would have an 
excellent vantage point over the city. Gil tells us the east 
wall was actually even shorter, so they would have had a great 
view of what the temple was. Now, as he sat on the Mount of 
Olives, the disciples came to him privately. Now, the privately 
probably means apart from the crowd. Mark highlights the four 
disciples in particular, Peter, James, John, and Andrew in Mark 
13, 3. But I don't think those four 
or without the rest. I think the privately simply 
means it's disciples alone. It's not the multitudes. It's 
not the religious leaders. It is specifically His disciples. That leaves Ryle to suggest that 
matters concerning prophecy and eschatology are best for the 
church and shouldn't be published to the world at large. I don't 
know if I fully agree with that, but I understand the sentiment. 
And notice specifically what they ask Him. They say, tell 
us, when will these things be? I'll argue they're talking about 
what he just said in verse 2, the destruction of the temple. 
When will these things be? Isn't that a curious thought? 
They have questions like we have questions. If your Lord tells 
you your temple and your city are going to be destroyed, and 
you happen to live in the city, you happen to have your livelihood 
in the city, I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that they 
would say, when is this going to happen? We'd like to know. Please tell us." So it's a legit 
question. It's one that often does plague 
the people of God. When is it going to happen? I 
don't have patience. I want to know everything. I 
don't think it's so much that way. They're genuinely curious. Tell us, when will these things 
be? And then the next phrase looks like two questions, but 
I think it's just one. The grammar suggests, and what 
will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? The 
grammar suggests that that's one question. In other words, 
they thought the sign of His coming, the coming of Jesus, 
and the end of the age were correlative. I'm not saying that destruction 
of the temple, the sign of the coming, and then the end of the 
age. It's destruction of the temple, sign of coming, end of 
age. So those two things go together. 
Now, I'll argue as we proceed that Jesus answers their questions. 
Jesus answers specifically their questions. Now, maybe not in 
the way that they would have wanted, in the way that they 
had expected, but the fact is that the bulk of the discourse 
is a response to what these disciples ask. When is the destruction 
of Jerusalem? What is the sign of your coming 
and of the end of the age? And that's how we shall proceed, 
God willing, in the coming weeks. I simply ask for you to stick 
around. If anybody wants to leave, because 
all you guys do is talk about eschatology. Those who have been 
here for a while know that this sermon took about 13 years to 
prepare. I was going to preach this. I 
think it was 13, 14, maybe 15 years ago. I set it in the context, 
chapters 21 to 23, got to the Olivet Discourse and said, we're 
not going to do this. Because there was an eschatology 
fever going on, probably my fault, creating it, you know, getting 
fired up and making a big deal out of it, and discussion with 
brethren and suggesting that, I don't want to split the church 
over this, so we didn't go through with it. I still don't want to 
split the church over this. I absolutely, positively don't. If you disagree with me, when 
we get to 2546, that's okay. You can blog about me for all 
I care. You can say, this guy... Because 
it's not heresy. Heresy is a denial of a cardinal 
truth in the Christian faith, with which or through which one 
enters hell. You're not going to enter hell 
because you disagree with me on the Olivet Discourse. And 
I hope you don't think I'm going to enter hell because I disagree 
with you on the Olivet Discourse. I will attempt to be charitable 
as we proceed with those with whom I disagree, but do not interpret 
disagreement as a lack of charity. I have a dear brother in this 
congregation, sitting here right now, who he and I disagree on 
this, and we love each other. We treasure each other. At least 
I do for him. I hope he does for me as well. 
No, no, it's not eschatology. I'm just kidding. But we can 
disagree. But I have to take a position. I have a commentary on the book 
of Revelation in my study that's very helpful. It gives the three 
different views of the book of Revelation. I don't want to be 
in Matthew 24 and 25 for the next 15 years to give the three 
views. A man's got to operate based 
on his conviction and principle. And I believe the position I 
will argue for is absolutely correct. Most absolutely correct. As I said, there's always some 
difficult portions when you consider Olivet. It doesn't all just jive 
according to some particular assumption, but the position 
I will argue for is something I hold to. So, by way of conclusion, 
by way of bringing this home, there are three methods of interpretation 
of the Olivet discourse. The first, and probably the most 
popular, is called the Futurist view. Now, as the Word suggests, 
the futurist sees most of Matthew 24 occurring in the future. Not 
Jesus and his generation's future, but our future. I don't believe 
that's an accurate reading of the text. I believe that Jesus 
and his disciples looked at a physical temple, Jesus spoke about its 
dissolution, the disciples asked him about that, and then Jesus 
responded. I don't think it would have made 
any sense to the disciples whatsoever for Jesus to have given them 
an answer that included, you know, Henry Crick Kissinger, 
or Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or whoever the major eschatological 
players have been in the modern church. It wouldn't have made 
any sense to them. He gives them an answer to satisfy 
the question posed by them. So I think futurism is incorrect. Secondly, there is what's called 
the two events view, and essentially what Jesus is doing is juggling 
between the destruction of Jerusalem and the second physical coming. 
And so these particular persons or interpreters suggest that 
there's what's called prophetic shortening being utilized. In 
other words, the destruction of the temple is a type or a 
symbol of the second physical coming of our Lord. And then 
the third way of approach, there's probably other ways, but these 
are the main views. The third view is the Preterist 
view, and that's the position I will argue. Preterist simply 
means past tense. I've already said that is how 
I believe it, that what Jesus is talking about was future from 
his perspective and for the disciples, but it's past to us. Preterism 
means that we see prophecy in its context, we interpret it 
in its context, and if it's been fulfilled, then we see it as 
a past event. We're all preterists. You may 
never have heard that word. You may be suspicious of Butler 
at this point. You may have heard of hyperpreterism. I'm not a hyperpreterist, but 
that word preterism can be charged with a whole lot of things, and 
you're thinking, wait a minute, this is suspect. You're a preterist 
too. Because you believe that when 
Jeremiah prophesied concerning the destruction of the temple 
in the 6th century BC, it's already occurred. You're a preterist 
when it comes to Jeremiah, when it comes to Ezekiel. I just happen 
to be a preterist when it comes to Jesus too, and that is the 
position I will argue for. And the reason for that, in the 
second place, by way of concluding thoughts, I think there is heavy 
contextual confirmation of the Preterist view. In the first 
place, the lead-up in chapters 21 to 23. I think it is to go 
against all natural forms of biblical exegesis to forget 21 
to 23 and to jump into the Olivet Discourse and put it in our future. 
It comes on the heels of, it comes at the end of the same 
day that Jesus has just said in several places that there 
is destruction coming their way. He just said in 23.38 in his 
lamentation that your house is left to you desolate. Why would 
we not take 24 as the natural development of thought or the 
prophetic statement concerning all that has preceded it? Secondly, 
the specific question and declaration concerning the then standing 
temple, verse 2. I don't know how this couldn't 
be more decisive. He talks about stones standing 
that they see and they will fall and be crumbled. Thirdly, the 
Judean setting throughout the narrative. In other words, it's 
not a worldwide situation that's going on. Note specifically, 
these are just a few thoughts. Notice in verse 16, "...then 
let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." If it's dealing 
with the second physical coming, what about those in Chilliwack? 
Where do we flee? What about those in Abbotsford? 
Where do we go? What about those in Ontario? It's talking about 
a localized judgment. Notice specifically in verse 
17, "...let him who is on the housetop not go down to take 
anything out of his house." We don't live that way. We don't 
live on the top of our houses. The Jews did, living in this 
particular milieu or this particular landscape. That's how they lived. 
They would go up onto the top of the house, and he says, when 
this happens, don't go down and get your stuff. Forget the cat. Go. Don't take anything out of 
the house. If it's the second physical coming, 
what matter is it? Doesn't matter if you grab the 
cat, doesn't matter if you grab the dog, doesn't matter if you 
go for the pictures. But if it's a localized judgment 
wherein the Roman armies are going to occupy your city, don't 
waste your time with the cat, get out of town. You see, it's 
localized to Judea in the first century. Notice in verse 20, 
pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 
Again, suggests a Jewish audience. Why doesn't He want your flight 
to be in the winter? Because it's cold. And when you're 
living outside the city, dispossessed from your home, it can be a brutal 
way to live. And pray that it won't be on 
the Sabbath, because you're not supposed to travel on the Sabbath. If 
this was the second physical coming, what difference does 
it make if it's winter, if it's summer, if it's fall, if it's 
raining? It doesn't matter. When Jesus comes, He comes. We're 
not going to go fetch cats. We're not going to put on jackets. 
When Jesus returns in glory to judge the living and the dead, 
you're not going to don a tie. You're going to be in the situation 
you find yourself. Notice as well, 22. And unless 
those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for 
the elect's sake, those days will be shortened. Again, it's 
not speaking about the second physical coming. No flesh is 
going to be saved or spared after that. It's going to be consummation. It's going to be eternal stay. 
It's going to be judgment time. And then as well, the parable 
of the fig tree in verses 32 to 33. Intriguing. Why would Jesus tell us to look 
for these signs if, in fact, Jesus is physically returned? 
In other words, when Jesus descends from heaven in his glory with 
all of his angels, doing the things that the Bible describes 
him doing, we're not going to say, oh, wait a minute, I need 
to interpret this fig tree. That would be superfluous. William 
J. Dumbrill suggests as much. The 
coming is to occur through historical events. For if the coming were 
to take the form of the Son of Man's visible return, then the 
sign of the fig tree would be superfluous. Thus, the judgment 
to be visited upon Jerusalem is a sign that the Son of Man 
is, in fact, reigning in heaven. And then as well, the time texts. 
The time texts. Notice in chapter 23 at verse 
36. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon 
This generation, what do you mean by that, Jesus? I mean the 
people to whom I'm speaking. Notice in 24.35, or 34 rather. Assuredly, I say to you, this 
generation will by no means pass away till all these things take 
place. The usage of this generation 
underscores the people to whom Jesus is speaking. In fact, these 
two passages in many respects bookend exactly what Jesus is 
discoursing on concerning the destruction of the temple. Some 
have tried to evade the clear meaning of generation by defining 
it as race. He's talking about the Jews. 
I don't think you want to import that meaning into Acts 2.40. 
Peter says, Be safe from this perverse and crooked generation. 
You better not say that about a whole race of Jews. That wouldn't 
be very good. Not that I'm saying political 
correctness ought to dictate, but it's not being used here 
as race. The idea that it refers to those 
living at the time the fulfillment takes place is to beg the question. The idea that it refers to those 
living at the time that it is fulfilled is simply to beg the 
question. And the fact is that every time this and generation 
are utilized by Matthew, guess what it means? It means the people 
to whom Jesus is speaking. Numbers 14, Numbers 32, Psalm 
95 tell us that a generation is about 40 years. Jesus uses 
it in the very same way in Matthew's Gospel in many respects. 11, 16, 12, 39, 41, 42, 45, 16, 
4, 17, 17, 23, 36, 24, 34. This leads D. A. Carson to suggest this generation 
can only, with the greatest difficulty, be made to mean anything other 
than the generation living when Jesus spoke. You can't evade 
that. You can't run from that. You 
say, well, Pastor Butler, verses 29 to 31 indicate that Jesus 
comes in glory. I'm going to argue that that 
happened in Jerusalem at AD 70. That the language that is employed 
there, the cosmic upheaval, is right from the prophets. We read 
that when God comes to judge, or Yahweh comes to judge Babylon, 
He rides on a cloud and every eye sees Him. This is exactly 
the language employed by our Lord. And note that verse 29 
says immediately after the tribulation of those days. So if 4 to 28 
refer to what happens in the first century, then taking immediately 
in its obvious import, we have to conclude that it means immediately. And whatever Jesus means, he 
means he comes to judge those people for their covenantal unfaithfulness. And then the very basic fact 
that Jerusalem and its temple was destroyed. A.D. 70 was a reality. I mean, 
it's not just, you know, Matthew, Mark, and Luke who record this. 
Google it. Read Josephus. Josephus sounds 
like Matthew, Mark, and Luke in some ways. The way he records, 
the way he describes it, it actually happened. I think that's a strong 
argument for this particular position. In AD 70, the Roman 
armies surrounded Jerusalem. Interestingly enough, Titus called 
the armies off for a moment, and then people escaped. It's 
like what Jesus says, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by its 
enemies, know that its desolation is near. This is why he gives 
specific instructions. When you're on your rooftop, 
don't go grab the cat, run. When you see those Roman armies, 
if Titus happens to call them off, then run. Get out of town. Pray that your flight may not 
be in winter or on the Sabbath. But it was a localized, specific 
judgment that actually occurred, such that liberal scholars, I 
don't like calling them that, but liberal Bible people that 
do not take Jesus' words as authoritative, have seen the similarities between 
what Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse and what actually happened 
in AD 70. So they say, well, what we find 
is that AD 70 occurred and then Matthew wrote and put those words 
in Jesus' mouth, because it was so accurate. It was so literally 
fulfilled. It was so in line with what we 
find in the Olivet Discourse. This interpretation corrects 
those who think that Jesus was wrong with reference to His coming. 
Have you ever read through this section of Holy Scripture and 
said, wow, it sounds like Jesus is coming? And if I'm thinking 
properly, in 2336 and in 2434, he says, this generation, but 
I know he didn't come in that generation, so he must be wrong. Have you ever been led to think 
that? You don't have to nod your head or stand up or raise your 
hand or bow your head or close your eyes. I'm just suggesting 
that people think Jesus was wrong. You know, nobody thinks Jesus 
is wrong. Bertrand Russell, the famous British philosopher, He 
lived from 1872 to 1970. He wrote a book called Why I 
Am Not a Christian. He says, I am concerned with 
Christ as he appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as 
it stands, and there one does find some things that do not 
seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought 
that his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before 
the death of all the people who were living at that time. Bertrand 
Russell read the text and said, wait a minute, Jesus thought 
he was going to come in clouds of glory before the death of all those who were living 
at the time. People have suggested that Jesus was wrong. He got 
the parousia wrong. He didn't know when he was going 
to come back again. If we understand it from a Preterist 
interpretation, of course he wasn't wrong. Of course he was 
absolutely right. Not that preterism needs to tell 
us that. And then I think that this interpretation 
correctly understands the significance of the temple and the covenantal 
transition that's taking place. I think Paul reflects this in 
the book of Hebrews. Yes, I believe Paul wrote Hebrews. 
You're getting all kinds of wacko and weird things this morning. 
But in Hebrews 8, specifically in verse 13, in that he says 
a new covenant. He has made the first obsolete. 
The first covenant, what we refer to as the old covenant. Now, 
what is becoming obsolete and growing old? Why does he say 
that? He says it's obsolete, and then he says it's becoming 
obsolete and growing old. The language, the grammar, the 
tense, the uses of the verbs there. seems to indicate something 
odd. He says, he's made the first obsolete. Now, what is becoming 
obsolete and growing old? Here's what I suggest. The Old 
Covenant was rendered obsolete at the death of Christ on the 
cross. When that veil was rent asunder 
from top to bottom, God reaching down instead of man going up, 
that's when the Old Covenant was rendered null and void. It's 
no longer binding upon the people of God. But how can He suggest 
that what is becoming obsolete and growing old It's because 
the temple was standing when Paul wrote Hebrews. Because the 
sacrificial system was in place when Paul wrote Hebrews. This 
is why he says what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready 
to vanish away. And this language of vanish away 
is used in Old Covenant context when cities are desolate, when 
cities are destroyed, when judgment happens. So, from the vantage 
point of the apostle prior to A.D. 70, he says, yes, the new 
covenant rendered, you know, null and void the old, but it's 
still present in terms of its physical symbolism, but it's 
going to vanish away. And I think that as we see this 
interpretation, it causes us to appreciate the significance 
of the temple and the covenantal transition that's taking place. 
Now, finally, I know that we're at 1230. I like that clock because 
it's a little slower than mine. I feel really bad when I keep 
you late when I look at my watch. So maybe I shouldn't wear my 
watch on Sunday. But I just have to finish. As I said, this has 
been about 13 years. And just stick with me another 
five minutes. The practical import of this 
study, I think in the first place, the application of the covenant 
curse upon Israel as pronounced in Deuteronomy 28, 49-57 is seen 
fleshed out. We need to reflect upon the fact 
of what old covenant Israel was. It was a theocracy. It was a 
people called by God to God and given laws and a covenant that 
they were supposed to march lockstep with. Now, there are certainly 
other things going on typologically, but that is what I want to highlight 
at this particular point. Deuteronomy 28, 49-57 speaks 
of God raising up nations and bringing the people of Israel 
to exile. This leads Meredith Klein to 
make this observation. Old Testament history witnessed 
successive executions of this curse and it was finally exhausted 
in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It was finally exhausted 
in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. So what was prophesied or 
what was warned about in Deuteronomy 28 was finally exhausted in the 
fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This leads to two very practical, 
concrete realities for the people of God. There ought not to be 
anti-Semitism in the people of God. There ought not to be anti-Semitism 
in the church. The modern Israelite or Israeli 
living in Palestine is no more responsible for the death of 
Jesus than we are responsible for somebody who did something 
2,000 years ago. There ought not to be anti-Semitism. 
Oh, those Jews, they murdered Jesus. No, that's not how you're 
supposed to look at Jews. Anti-Semitism is wrong. But secondly, 
the idea of Zionism is wrong. If God shuts down Israel as the 
covenant people officially in A.D. 70, we ought not to be looking 
for this prophetic fulfillment of the return of Jews to their 
land. There ought not to be a Zionism 
that precludes Christ himself. So there are two errors that 
I think are helpfully avoided when we take the discourse in 
its context. We ought not to be anti-Semites, 
but we ought not to be pro-Zionists to the point where we elevate 
Israel as a body politic over the Lord Jesus. They're with 
every other nation now. They've joined the ranks with 
the rest of us. They're not the covenant people 
of God. The church is the covenant people 
of God. Now, an ethnic Jew who's in the 
church is the covenant people of God, but he's not the covenant 
people of God because he's a Jew. We need to guard our hearts against 
such things. We're not going to fly the Israeli 
flag outside of our church. Zionism and anti-Semitism are 
both decisively dealt with by a proper understanding of just 
what Jesus is talking about. And as well, I think that we 
ought to pursue the truth. I was telling Pastor Porter that 
this stuff is tough to preach on because people, I mean, face 
it, we're conditioned futurists. We have grown up with Christian 
tradition. We have grown up with it being pummeled into our minds 
that every time, coming of the Lord means his second physical 
coming. It's hard to unthink that. Brethren, 
we have to pursue the truth wherever it takes us. I don't have some, 
you know, prejudice against futurism. If futurism is taught in the 
Bible, praise God. I think this when I speak to 
Paedo-Baptists, you know, you hate children, or you treat your 
children like pagans. No! I don't have anything against 
sprinkling a baby, if God commands it. I don't have an emotional 
investment in, you know, in preterism. You know, you have to believe 
this because... No, I think that's where the text leads us. And 
we ought to pursue truth even if it upgrades some of our present 
held assumptions. Now, I realize the futurist and 
the two-event guy would say the same thing. Praise God, let's 
make our cases. Let's seek to prove what Scripture 
says concerning these particulars. Now, for those of you who fell 
asleep after the second word of the sermon today, I just want 
to remind us all that it is about the Gospel. You say, well, how? What you just said can actually 
be about the gospel, because our Lord Jesus is the one who 
lived, who died, and who rose again. The Lord Jesus spoke on 
all of that. The Lord Jesus made these declarations, 
and the Lord Jesus did this in light of the reality that he 
came to his own and his own received him not. in light of the fact 
that he would go to the cross, that he would lay down his life 
for his people, that he would give up his own blood, he would 
give up his own life to save his people from their sins. This 
Christ, everything he did was according to a specific purpose. 
He did everything in obedience to his father's law. We have 
to take seriously what he spoke at Olivet in terms of eschatology 
or in terms of last things, and I would argue last things for 
the nation of Israel, specifically there in the Olivet Discourse. 
But that Jesus can't be dissected, he can't be pulled apart, we 
can't just have the priest Christ and reject the prophet Christ. 
But I do want to leave on this note, if you are not a believer 
this morning, you need the priest Christ. You need the prophet, 
you need the king. But when we refer to the priest 
Christ, we refer to him in his doing, and in his dying, and 
in his rising. You see, man is sinful. We have 
all departed from the living God. We have all raised our fist. 
We have all gone astray. We've sought out bales. We've 
sought out mammon. We've sought out sex. We've sought 
out drugs. We've sought out whatever it 
is, whatever pleases us. Some may say, well, I never went 
for sex or drugs or rock and roll and all that wickedness. 
Then it was probably self-righteousness. And as we'll see tonight, self-righteousness 
was condemned by Jesus more than crack dealers or the prostitutes. So don't think because you're 
not a crack dealer, because you're not a prostitute, you're somehow 
okay. All have sinned and fall short 
of the glory of God. The priest Christ went to the 
cross and bore the wrath of God for sinners. That's what he did 
there. It wasn't just a display of love. 
It wasn't just a warm example. It wasn't just something to make 
us smile occasionally. He was a substitute, a penal 
substitute. He bore the wrath in himself 
that was due for sinners. And then he was put into the 
grave, he was raised the third day, he ascended on high, he 
led captivity captive, and he gives gifts to men. And he calls 
sinners, by those gifts, preaching the gospel throughout the world 
today, to believe, to repent, to forsake sin and come to the 
Savior, to look to Him and to live. So whether you can rehearse 
to me what a futurist is or what a preterist is, you know what? 
In the grand scheme of things, I really don't care if you get 
that, but I don't want you to miss this. The way of salvation 
is through Christ Jesus the Lord. The way of hope, the way of life, 
the way of blessing, the way of peace with God is through 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and that's by faith. Look to Him, and you 
will live. Well, let us pray. Father, we 
thank you for your Word, and we thank you for the Prophet, 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and for his discourse at Olivet, for 
his words of instruction throughout the Gospel narratives. And I 
pray that you would help us to have understanding as we proceed 
through this passage of Scripture, and I pray, God, that you would 
prick the hearts of any here that are outside of Christ, and 
bring conviction for sin, and bring a realization that Christ 
is the alone Savior for sinners. Go with us now and watch over 
us and bring us together tonight that we may eat at your table 
and that we may rehearse the good things of the gospel of 
Jesus Christ our Lord. And we pray in his most blessed 
name. Amen.