The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have finally completed and posted my article which walks through all three synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse verse-by-verse. I conclude that all three versions report prophecies from Christ concerning the same set of events, namely the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the events leading up to it. I also conclude that everything in all three versions of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD.

I look forward to discussing it here with anyone who agrees or disagrees. Here is the link:

The Synoptic Apocalypse


Richard

[basilfo]

Thanks Richard - I look forward to printing it out and reading it. It looks like a great study that took much effort. Thank you. Is there a good way to print it?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks Richard - I look forward to printing it out and reading it. It looks like a great study that took much effort. Thank you. Is there a good way to print it?

Hi Dave,

There's a "Printer Friendly" button near the bottom of the right sidebar. That will remove the sidebar and the banner bar to give just the text.

I look forward to your feedback,

Richard

PS: It's just a first draft. The problem is that it could easily be expanded into a book if I really wanted to be complete. But that kinda defeats the purpose of a brief overview since the "Big Picture" gets lost in the details.

[TheForgiven]

I look forward to discussing it here with anyone who agrees or disagrees. Here is the link:

The Synoptic Apocalypse


Richard

Brother Richard, that was the most well presented article of the Olivet Discourse I have ever read! I'm absolutely amazed! How long have you been working on that?

I haven't read the entire thing yet, but the section which covers the Olivet Discourse is dead on, and I'm even going to say ERROR FREE. I especially loved your connection with figures applied to Jerusalem (Sun, Moon, and Stars) and I loved how you used Old Testament prophesies against Egypt and Babylon to prove this point. If it worked for the Old Testament, then it most certainly works for the New Testament.

I was very pleased and proud to read your work sir. Thank you very much. Great Job!

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Brother Richard, that was the most well presented article of the Olivet Discourse I have ever read! I'm absolutely amazed! How long have you been working on that?

I haven't read the entire thing yet, but the section which covers the Olivet Discourse is dead on, and I'm even going to say ERROR FREE. I especially loved your connection with figures applied to Jerusalem (Sun, Moon, and Stars) and I loved how you used Old Testament prophesies against Egypt and Babylon to prove this point. If it worked for the Old Testament, then it most certainly works for the New Testament.

I was very pleased and proud to read your work sir. Thank you very much. Great Job!

Joe

Ahh ... shucks! Thanks bro! Those be some very encouraging words.

Of course, the reality is that I learned much of what I wrote from conversations with you and our fellow students here on the forum. There's been some "good fruit."

The biggest problem was deciding what to leave out. If I presented all the evidence the article would have been too big and the power of the primary point would have been lost in all the detail.

I just got back from a road trip to Reno where I witnessed my niece's wedding. I've been gone for nearly a week, so there's lots to catch up on.

God bless!

Richard

[Battyus]

Dear Richard,

I've read your The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse) page and must say that I disagree with your findings.

I've started to compare the Olivet Discourse to the Book of Revelation myself too and was very curious of the outcome.

I came to the conclusion that the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation was not fulfilled by AD70, but rather they describe events that are yet to happen.

As you said you would be willing to discuss the differences, let me give you a link where you can read my study: http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com

This study is not as wordy as yours, but has all the verses linked to each other with clear markings that explain the links between the corresponding passages.

Regardless of the results of our conversation I'm sending my brotherly love to you!
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dear Richard,

I've read your The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse) page and must say that I disagree with your findings.

I've started to compare the Olivet Discourse to the Book of Revelation myself too and was very curious of the outcome.

I came to the conclusion that the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation was not fulfilled by AD70, but rather they describe events that are yet to happen.

As you said you would be willing to discuss the differences, let me give you a link where you can read my study: http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com

This study is not as wordy as yours, but has all the verses linked to each other with clear markings that explain the links between the corresponding passages.

Regardless of the results of our conversation I'm sending my brotherly love to you!
Battyus

Hello Battyus,

Welcome to our forum!



Thank you for your blessings as a brother in Christ. I am thrilled to have a serious student like yourself join our forum. I reviewed your pages to find the reasons for your conclusions, and I think I found one important clue. On your page called Harmony of the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation I found references to the prophecies of the destruction of the first century Temple but I could not find any references to the fulfillment of that prophecy. Did I miss something? The destruction of the first century Temple is the KEY ELEMENT of Olivet Discourse. It's the "two ton elephant" in the middle of the room. If you left this out of your study, then you will not be able to come to a correct conclusion about the time of the fulfillment (i.e. AD 70).

Also, it appears you did not deal with any of the time statements in which Christ and His Apostles declared that all the events would happen "soon" during the life-times of the first century generation.

As for my conclusions, it would be very helpful to me if you could point out any errors or shortcomings in my presentation that cause you to reject the conclusions.

I very much look forward to discussing this with you.

Many blessings in Christ our Lord,

Richard

[Battyus]

Hello Battyus,

Welcome to our forum!



Thank you for your blessings as a brother in Christ. I am thrilled to have a serious student like yourself join our forum.

Thank you Richard for the nice words! It is truly a pleasure to meet brothers and sisters who are eager to get closer to God by studying His word. May He lead all of our studies and may all the glory be His!

#1

I reviewed your pages to find the reasons for your conclusions, and I think I found one important clue. On your page called Harmony of the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation I found references to the prophecies of the destruction of the first century Temple but I could not find any references to the fulfillment of that prophecy. Did I miss something? The destruction of the first century Temple is the KEY ELEMENT of Olivet Discourse. It's the "two ton elephant" in the middle of the room. If you left this out of your study, then you will not be able to come to a correct conclusion about the time of the fulfillment (i.e. AD 70).

No, you did not miss anything. This is just the core of our different understandings of the Olivet Discourse. There is no reference in the Book of Revelation of the fulfillment of that prophecy (Destruction of the Temple), that's why you did not see any verses grouped together with Mat 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luk 21:6.

#2

Also, it appears you did not deal with any of the time statements in which Christ and His Apostles declared that all the events would happen "soon" during the life-times of the first century generation.

In your study under "The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!" section you say:

"Mat 24:32-35; Mark 13:28-31; Luk 21:29
Here we have the explicit, unequivocal, and incontroverible answer to the disciples' question that began this integrated discourse.
When shall these things be? The Lord Jesus Christ answered with perfect clarity, directly declaring to His audience that "this generation" - that is, they themselves - would not pass before all things were fulfilled.
He used the phrase "this generation" with exactly the same meaning as when He warned them that judgment for all the "righteous blood" shed on the earth would be required of "this generation" in Matthew 23, immediately preceding the Olivet Discourse.
Thus Matthew bracketed this great prophecy before and after with the time marker of "this generation."

My answer:
Each of the 3 passages you mention starts with the parable of the fig tree, but it seems like you skipped over them. If you read these passages in whole you can see that the "This generation" term refers to the generation which sees the Fig tree to put forth leaves.

As we know throughout the scripture the Fig tree identifies Israel.
Israel ceased to be a nation in AD70, and was in this state until 1948 when they became a nation again. This event was prophesied in Ezekiel 37.

In other words the "Fig tree to put forth leaves" expression refers to Israel becoming a nation again in 1948 and the "This generation" term refers to the generation of Israelites that saw this event happening. Therefore these passages do not refer to the 1st century Jewish people but address the generation that actually is alive today.

Please see the corresponding passages at
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelati...rdance.html#44 and
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelati...rdance.html#45

As for my conclusions, it would be very helpful to me if you could point out any errors or shortcomings in my presentation that cause you to reject the conclusions.

I gave you 2 above, but as a conversation starter I list few more:

#3
In your study you say: "The fact that the disciples did not even know that he would be leaving also argues against the "Second Coming" as possibility."

I say: If the disciples did not know that Jesus would be leaving, then why did they ask the time of his "coming"? They knew he was going to leave since Mat 16:21.

#4
In the beginning of your study under the "The meaning of "end of the age" section You say that the "end of the world [age]" in Mat 24:3 refers to the Temple's destruction and cite Heb 9:26 as a proof that the "end of the world [age]" refers to a 1st century event.

I say: Heb 9:26 states specifically that the "end of the world [age]" was at the sacrificial death of Christ: "... now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:26)

So, you can not use "end of the world [age]" term to refer to an event ~40 years later, when Heb 9:26 puts this expression at the time of the cross!

The apostles clearly asked about the time of the destruction of the temple, yet Christ answered referring to the future events of the Tribulation.

#5
In your study you say:
"Thus we see that the "spirit of antichrist" was already in the world in the first century, and that it was the "last hour" when John wrote his Epistle.
Again, the Bible teaches nothing about an "Antichrist" wanna-be world dictator.
It speaks of the "spirit of antichrist" that fills those who teach specific false doctrines about Christ.
...2 Thessalonians 2:1-10...
Paul wrote this when the literal Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. The mystery of lawlessness was already at work in the first century at the time Paul was writing.
The "man of sin" fits the description of the false prophet that is thrown into the lake of fire (perdition) in Rev 16:13.
He is earlier in Revelation described as the "second beast" that is given his power from the first beast, who in turn received his power directly from Satan"

I say:
So, according to this, there aren't supposed to be any false Christs around us today. Well, unfortunately almost every day I have to hear about false Christs! There are more false Christs today then ever. (Just turn on TBN for a few examples)

I very much look forward to discussing this with you.

Many blessings in Christ our Lord,

Richard

Same here Richard! It looks like a very interesting discussion.

By the way, I've just saw the Bible Wheel app for the first time: I must say, that it looks amazing! (I'll read more about it)

May God bless you,
Battyus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you Richard for the nice words! It is truly a pleasure to meet brothers and sisters who are eager to get closer to God by studying His word. May He lead all of our studies and may all the glory be His!

Excellent prayer! I concur wholeheartedly.

#1

No, you did not miss anything. This is just the core of our different understandings of the Olivet Discourse. There is no reference in the Book of Revelation of the fulfillment of that prophecy (Destruction of the Temple), that's why you did not see any verses grouped together with Mat 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luk 21:6.

You are correct that there is no explicit reference in the book of Revelation to the destruction of the Temple. But neither is there any explicit reference to the "Church Age" or to "Daniel's 70th week" yet you put those ideas in the header of your table. This exemplifies how your table imposes a futurist system upon the text. If I were to make a table like yours, I would have had a header called "Destruction of Jerusalem" under which I would have linked these verses:

• Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
• Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

From my perspective, the fulfillment of Christ's prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem are fulfilled in Revelation 17-18 which describes apostate Jerusalem as the Great Whore Mystery Babylon.

Christ spoke the Olivet Discourse as an answer to the question "when shall these things [the destruction of the Temple] be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?". The destruction of the Temple occurred at the same time as the desolation of Jerusalem which was during the lifetime of the generation to whom Christ spoke, whom He referred to as "this generation." It seems to me that all the pieces fit together with great clarity and precision.

#2

In your study under "The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!" section you say:

"Mat 24:32-35; Mark 13:28-31; Luk 21:29
Here we have the explicit, unequivocal, and incontroverible answer to the disciples' question that began this integrated discourse.
When shall these things be? The Lord Jesus Christ answered with perfect clarity, directly declaring to His audience that "this generation" - that is, they themselves - would not pass before all things were fulfilled.
He used the phrase "this generation" with exactly the same meaning as when He warned them that judgment for all the "righteous blood" shed on the earth would be required of "this generation" in Matthew 23, immediately preceding the Olivet Discourse.
Thus Matthew bracketed this great prophecy before and after with the time marker of "this generation."

My answer:
Each of the 3 passages you mention starts with the parable of the fig tree, but it seems like you skipped over them. If you read these passages in whole you can see that the "This generation" term refers to the generation which sees the Fig tree to put forth leaves.

As we know throughout the scripture the Fig tree identifies Israel.
Israel ceased to be a nation in AD70, and was in this state until 1948 when they became a nation again. This event was prophesied in Ezekiel 37.

In other words the "Fig tree to put forth leaves" expression refers to Israel becoming a nation again in 1948 and the "This generation" term refers to the generation of Israelites that saw this event happening. Therefore these passages do not refer to the 1st century Jewish people but address the generation that actually is alive today.

Please see the corresponding passages at
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelati...rdance.html#44 and
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelati...rdance.html#45

I agree that the fig tree can represent Israel in certain contexts, but I see no justification for the idea that to "put forth leaves" means "become a nation again." Consider what the text actually states:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

It seems evident from the text that the "leaves" represent "all these things" which Christ had just prophesied in the preceding verses. The phrase "putteth forth leaves" means "when the events I prophesied are beginning to happen." There is nothing in the text that suggests anything having to do with Israel becoming a nation again. This is confirmed in Luke's record of this parable:

Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

If the fig tree represents Israel becoming a nation again, what would "all the trees" represent? Was Jesus telling us that "all the nations" would "become nations again" in 1948? No, that would make no sense at all. But it makes perfect sense when we understand that he was speaking of the events he had just prophesied, namely:

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

Recall that Jesus was answering the question about when the first century Temple would be destroyed. He answered saying "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies" and we know that happened in AD 66. And He specifically said this was the time when "all things written" would be fulfilled, and "great wrath" would come upon "THIS people" (which is the same "this" as in "this generation." This is why "this generation" can not be some generation in the distant future. Christ was explicitly answering a question about the destruction of the first century temple and Jerusalem. Again, it seems all the pieces fit with great clarity and precision.

#3
In your study you say: "The fact that the disciples did not even know that he would be leaving also argues against the "Second Coming" as possibility."

I say: If the disciples did not know that Jesus would be leaving, then why did they ask the time of his "coming"? They knew he was going to leave since Mat 16:21.

The "coming" does not mean the "second coming." They were asking when Christ would "come" in power and glory as Ruling Messiah. This happened when He poured out the judgment that He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse. It proved that He was Who He said He was, namely, God incarnate - the Lord YHVH who "comes with the clouds" throughout the Old Testament. That's why the High Priest said it was blasphemy when Christ said they would see Him "coming on clouds" - He was telling them that He was God.

#4
In the beginning of your study under the "The meaning of "end of the age" section You say that the "end of the world [age]" in Mat 24:3 refers to the Temple's destruction and cite Heb 9:26 as a proof that the "end of the world [age]" refers to a 1st century event.

I say: Heb 9:26 states specifically that the "end of the world [age]" was at the sacrificial death of Christ: "... now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:26)

So, you can not use "end of the world [age]" term to refer to an event ~40 years later, when Heb 9:26 puts this expression at the time of the cross!

The "end of the age" did not happen at a single moment. It spanned the whole time period from the birth of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem.

The apostles clearly asked about the time of the destruction of the temple, yet Christ answered referring to the future events of the Tribulation.

Why do you think Christ was speaking of a "tribulation" that would be in the distant future after the destruction of the Temple? The whole prophecy began as an answer to the question about when the Temple would be destroyed, and the destruction of 70 AD was the greatest Tribulation ever to come upon Jerusalem. It was the Time of Jacob's Trouble when Jerusalem was utterly destroyed, a million Jews murdered, and the rest driven off into slavery or exile. How can you think that Christ was not speaking of those events as the "great tribulation" that would culminate in the desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple?

Same here Richard! It looks like a very interesting discussion.

Yes, I think this will be a great conversation!

By the way, I've just saw the Bible Wheel app for the first time: I must say, that it looks amazing! (I'll read more about it)

May God bless you,
Battyus

Yes, there is a lot of potential for that application, but I have a LOT of work to do on it. Currently, its nothing more than a "demo" app.

Thanks for the blessings. Same to you, my friend!

Richard

[Edward Goodie]

Excellent thoughts RAM...

One tiny clarification, IMO, if you will permit...

#3
In your study you say: "The fact that the disciples did not even know that he would be leaving also argues against the "Second Coming" as possibility."

I say: If the disciples did not know that Jesus would be leaving, then why did they ask the time of his "coming"? They knew he was going to leave since Mat 16:21.

The "coming" does not mean the "second coming." They were asking when Christ would "come" in power and glory as Ruling Messiah. This happened when He poured out the judgment that He prophesied in the Olivet Discourse. It proved that He was Who He said He was, namely, God incarnate - the Lord YHVH who "comes with the clouds" throughout the Old Testament. That's why the High Priest said it was blasphemy when Christ said they would see Him "coming on clouds" - He was telling them that He was God.

Was it not "the sign of thy coming" as opposed to just the coming? And I would definitely say that the coming was His Parousia that did occur at the end of the age.

And now more general thoughts...

I think the disciples were well-versed in the OT Scriptures. They would be quite familiar with other "comings" and other "days of the Lord" in judgment. They also knew that the ACTUAL, physical presence of deity was not required for the judgment to take place. The events would be "seen" as the carried out judgment by what transpired. In Babylon's case it was the Medes who were God's divine instruments (Isaiah 13:17). In the Olivets, it would be the Roman armies who would come upon apostate Jerusalem - those who held to the old covenant economy despite Christ's constant teachings against it...

Christ detailed the signs for those 4 disciples who had asked the question. To say that he answered a different question than the one they asked is just speculating in order to hold on to an already devised system of theology...and to say that Christ answered to a different generation as well is also speculating...

I think the disciples knew full well that Christ was talking about the destruction of the temple. This literally meant the end of Judaism, all they had ever known and had ever been taught. 1600 years of history would come crashing down, never to be re instituted again...

The NT was about an exchange of covenants - old to the new. The new had come and the old was "about to" (Mello, Strong's 3195) pass away. It was not "about to" pass away 2,000 years in the future to a generation who had nothing to do with Christ's crucifixion. That would be EXACTLY like punishing all the Japanese who were citizens of the United States in the year 3942 - 2,000 years after Pearl Harbour!

Look how the other two Olivets describe the timing of their question. The Greek word "mello" (Strong's 3195) is used...

Mark 13:4 (YLT) - "Tell us when these things shall be? and what is the sign when all these may be about to be fulfilled?"

Luke 21:7 (YLT) - And they questioned him, saying, "Teacher, when, then, shall these things be? and what is the sign when these things may be about to happen?"

The "about to" (Mello, Strong's 3195) emphasis has a lot to say regarding their question! Unless, of course, one believes that "about to" happen means 2,000 years in the future...

Do you see now how this all ties in with Christ's "this generation"? The generation who had persecuted the church, who had been responsible for crucifying the Lord Jesus.