The Olivet Discourse: The Fig Tree Parable

The synoptic gospels are virtually identical in their accounts of the Parable of the Fig Tree within the Olivet Discourse. Whereas Luke specifically identifies the segment as a parable, the other accounts merely communicate its substance without a label. As in the case of many of the biblical parables, fanciful interpretations have arisen throughout history as to what are the "true" meaning of "symbols" within the parable. Therefore, it is vitally important to understand what parables are and are not in order to interpret this type of figure reasonably and to not veer off into the tall weeds.

Parables are merely analogies or comparisons--one thing, perhaps unknown or not fully understood, is likened, indirectly, to another that is readily known or understood. Parables are NOT allegories: each item in a parable is NOT meant to be symbolic of some other item in reality or to symbolically represent its action. Parables are really more akin to metaphors than to allegories in regard to their use of imagery. The conclusion or moral that can be drawn from the overall story of the parable, and thus teach a lesson, is the aim of using it.

As for the fig tree parable itself, two hermeneutic considerations need to be taken into account when interpreting it.

First, it is not really symbolic at all! It is a parable and is not reliant on meanings hidden in symbols. The audience knew figs, there were figs on the Mount of Olives where this discourse was being made (as well as olives), and so Jesus spoke about figs. When figs wake up from the winter and put out leaves, it is a sure sign that summer is around the corner. We could say the same thing using trees we know about in our neck of the woods and make the same point Jesus was trying to make, and make it just as well.

Second, Israel has never been symbolized anywhere in scripture as a fig tree, and it wasn't being symbolized as such in this parable. Making a fig tree represent Israel is beyond a stretch anywhere it is attempted, and it is not remotely hinted at, let alone obviously intended, by the language of this parable. To do so is bad interpretation, plain and simple. The fig tree is merely the means to communicate the concept of predictability in sequence from a known event to another related event: if one step of the progression occurs, you know with certainty the next step is about to happen.

Jesus said that when all (Matthew; Koine: panta) these things (Matthew, Mark and Luke; Koine: tauta) were seen (i.e., experienced), then we would know we were at the very end. Those things were all the things, each and every one of them (the force of tauta), detailed in the prior verses. When that condition exists, then the Son of Man bursting through the skies is at the door.  The intent is to keep folk from jumping the gun and anticipating the return of Christ before all of these things had come to pass--an especially helpful point considering the length of time envisaged in giving the signs in the first place.

The generation (Koine: genea, all those alive over a particular span) referenced has nothing to do with any symbolic meaning attached to the fig tree, since there isn't any. The point being made was that at least some of those who saw the Abomination of Desolation and its outcome ("all these things") would see the end as well. Clearly, the use of "generation" was not referring to the initial hearers of the Discourse such a long time ago, for the implicit scope of elapsed time within the signs given throughout the Discourse would have made their lifetimes an unlikely frame for fulfillment. So the use of "generation" was a way to push the scale of fulfillment off to a period in the future when the Abomination actually occurred and to offer hope to those believers who would be living through it.

The heavens and earth may seem like bastions of enduring reliability, but Christ's words are so established as to be more certain than even the existence of the creation itself, and especially so in regard to the end of the age.

The Olivet Discourse: Pregnant Refugees

A common feature of all three accounts of the Olivet Discourse is the pronouncement of woe upon the pregnant and nursing. It is situated in about the same place in the unfolding story in Matthew and Mark, but is located in a slightly different place in Luke. It doesn't appear to be a different detail, so can it be used to "align" all three accounts? I think that it could, but if it is, it removes any possibility at all that the Lucan account was referring to events foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

If the woe is the same woe in all three accounts, then Matthew and Mark's reference to the gospel being preached to all nations is a detail skipped over by Luke. The surrounding of Jerusalem and its desolation mentioned by Luke is just a different way of saying "the abomination of desolation" as stated by Matthew and Mark. Even though the Lucan description of this section would fit the events of 66-70 CE, the phrase "all that is written will be fulfilled" doesn't fit at all with 70 CE. Considering that at our late date all that is written still hasn't been fulfilled makes that especially so!

The only way to keep the preterist hope alive, therefore, is to see the woe on the pregnant and nursing as referring to two distinct occurrences of such a plight. Otherwise, the language of the end which dictates the interpretation of Matthew and Mark, would carry for Luke's account as well. The dual fulfillment of things like the "Abomination of Desolation" (seemingly fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes, yet used by Christ to refer to something yet undone) perhaps allows for such an approach, but I think it strains credulity to apply it to the pregnant refugees.

So in the end, I must dismiss it, and with it, the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

The Olivet Discourse: Abomination of Desolation Part II

Primarily, there are two things occurring in regard to the Abomination of Daniel referenced by Christ in the Olivet Discourse: suppression and replacement. The normal activities in the Temple have to be stopped, and other ones, unclean ones, have to take their place. Antiochus models that, but doesn't fulfill it, the Romans did one but not the other. What does fit the bill, for both Daniel and the Olivet Discourse, is described in Revelation 13:14-15, even though its location is merely implied by Revelation 13:5-6 (see Daniel 9:27) rather than specified.

Since Jesus did command the reader of Daniel's prophecy to understand, particularly as it relates to the end Jesus is prophesying, the Abomination of Desolation at the end of the age spoken of by Daniel was clearly meant to be understood. Oh, it may take some consideration, some thought (which is the burden of the Koine "noeito" which is translated "understand"), but it was certainly meant to be understood. I think that principle of perspicuity holds for all end-time prophesy. Without a doubt, such prophecy becomes clearer the closer we get to its fulfillment (Daniel 12:9-10).

The elephant in the room in all this unpacking is that the Abomination of Desolation presumes a place that can be abominably desolated. I think I have well established that the destruction of that location in 70 CE was not part of its ultimate desolation as envisioned by Daniel and Jesus and which still awaits. That can only mean that at sometime, the holy place must be rebuilt according to biblical standards and prepared for the offering of holy sacrifices once again. Make no mistake about it, the Temple will be rebuilt, it must be in order to fulfill that spoken by the prophet and by the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

At some point after the Temple is in place, the Abomination will be stood up, and those in Judea at that time are told to hit the pike; however, they are not directed to a location in the Olivet Discourse, or in Revelation 12, or anywhere in Daniel. Though Petra is often offered as a possibility by commentators, that is sheer speculation without so much as a shred of definitive biblical proof. At best, we can say that the refugees will probably run into the desert more than a Sabbath Day’s journey (~ ¾ of a mile) to a place where God will take care of them for 1260 days (3 ½ years). What is certain is that they are in hiding after their flight and are not to let anything (like purported sightings of the Messiah, even if evidenced by great miracles) draw them out.

That these refugees are believing Jews is easy enough to deduce: they are in Judea; they are sabbath keepers; they are actively looking for the Messiah. Furthermore, they must be those that would be mindful of the words of Jesus or this section of the discourse, which counsels them, would be fruitless. God's word never goes out void, so it seems to me, that some of those Jews, maybe a lot of those Jews, maybe even all of those Jews would be Messianic. It is easy enough to put together the pieces and see that the Abomination of Desolation will occur after Jews have rebuilt the Temple, and that many of them have turned to Jesus as Messiah.

The Olivet Discourse: Abomination of Desolation Part I

There is a difference between the Synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse concerning the sign of desolation. Matthew and Mark are similar in specifically citing Daniel’s Abomination of Desolation, whereas Luke merely mentions a desolation which comes on the heels of armies surrounding Jerusalem. By the hermeneutic cited elsewhere, the Lucan description cannot be taken to undercut the specification made in Matthew and Mark. So, whereas the Lucan description could be made to serve a preterist interpretation, Matthew, Mark and the actual passage referenced from Daniel strictly forbid it, so it cannot be valid.

Jesus understood Daniel's prophesy as being unfulfilled in his day. Though he would have been well-familiar with Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, he treated Daniel’s words as not yet having been fulfilled. Therefore, the abomination Daniel was speaking about was not accomplished (at least with any finality) by Antiochus placing an idol of Zeus in the Temple and sacrificing a pig on the Jewish altar. It certainly seems to be a picture of things to come, but it wasn’t the intended, ultimate fulfillment.

Furthermore, Daniel specifically says that the abomination comes midway through a covenantal arrangement with, presumably, the pompous little horn. There was no such instrument with Antiochus Epiphanes, nor was there any with the Romans in the 60's. So Daniel was not referring to Antiochus when prophesying this, and Jesus did not envision Titus (Emperor Vespasian/General Titus) when citing it. What Daniel spoke of is not an incursion and destruction (as in the case of the Romans), but a cessation of proper sacrifice and a substitution of detestable (unclean) things.

“Wing” (Hebrew: kanaph=wing, covering), as is translated in some English versions, in this part of Daniel is nonsensical, though wing is often a perfectly good translation when this word is used. Its range of meaning extends from edge or corner to covering, and it is the latter that makes sense in this context. Besides, for “wing” to be intended, translators (e.g. NIV following the LXX and Theodotion) must add the phrase “of the Temple” which is not in the Hebrew at all—not even a hint! The Abomination does cover or overspread the Temple, figuratively, which makes perfect sense in light of Revelation 13:15.

Jesus said that the abomination will stand in the holy space. In Rome’s destruction (really, obliteration) of Jerusalem nothing stood--literally, the Romans threw everything down and stood up nothing. That kind of destruction was actually prophesied by Daniel (9:26) as having already occurred when the Abomination takes place, really, as something parenthetical to the cutting off of the Messiah. So Rome's destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is prophesied by Daniel, just not as part of the Abomination of Desolation.

The Olivet Discourse: Dispensationalism

There is, in my view, an unmistakable dispensational quality in what the scriptures say about the last days (see this, this, and this). Gentiles are on one schedule for redemption, whereas Jews are on another. Don't take that to mean that I see a way to God other than Jesus Christ, I do not! Everyone who is ultimately saved will be so because he or she recognized Jesus as the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from the dead, and therefore put all his or her hope in him.

God merely has one agenda for bringing that salvation in Christ to the Gentiles, and another for bringing that same salvation to the Jews.

In the Olivet Discourse, this reality can be seen in what Jesus prophesied concerning the Abomination of Desolation. Notice how the context changes at the introduction of that sign in Matthew (it is more subtle in Mark and Luke but still discernible). Earlier in the discourse the emphasis was on the nations (Gentiles), but once the subject of the Abomination is broached, the emphasis shifts to the Jews. That change, it seems to me, is clear enough to be obvious and yet its import can be easily missed.

Notice, specifically, how instructions given to those who see the Abomination are given to those in Judea and to sabbath observers. The Jewishness of such a designation can scarcely be overlooked. Furthermore, tribulation is curtailed and relief provided for the elect, but that action is marked by the sign of the Son of Man which causes the tribes (phulai) of earth to mourn. That distinction contrasts the Jewishness of the sufferers against the "Gentileness" of the mourners.

If we consider the original context in Daniel for this sign, it becomes very clear that the Abomination of Desolation (and thus the Tribulation signified by it) is part of God's redemptive plan for the Jews. Nothing is offered to the Gentiles by it but mourning due to their unbelief. As for all those Gentiles who did believe in the gospel, they are not addressed, nor even mentioned. The inference, therefore, is that they're not around until they are gathered from one end of heaven to the other when Christ returns!

The Tribulation, redemptively, is for the Jews and Jerusalem. It brings nothing but wrath and the portent of ultimate judgment to the Gentiles who experience it. Believing Gentiles will be off the scene at that time and not return until after it is over. There is one redemptive track in history for the Gentiles, and another for the Jews.

The Olivet Discourse: The End

The synoptic accounts introduce the actual ending sign in the Olivet Discourse differently from one another. Matthew gives us a detail that Mark and Luke do not mention. Mark and Luke merely mention enduring to the end to be saved (as does Matthew just before its unique statement), whereas Matthew further states that the Great Commission will be completed, "and then the end will come." A break that can only be inferred in Mark and Luke is thereby clearly delineated in Matthew.

So, let's review the schema of the Olivet Discourse as I've interpreted it.

The Discourse is Jesus' answer to the question, "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” In the early segments of his answer, Jesus reveals two general signs which lead up to the end:

1) Birth pangs of false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, falling away, false prophets and lawlessness occurring throughout the age. Like birth pangs they will increase in frequency and intensity through the age. My interpretation of the seals of the Revelation being mostly historical fits in quite well with this description--once a seal has been broken, it's effects continue throughout the age; and

2) The Gospel being preached to the entirety of the world. This effort began at the Day of Pentecost and has moved forward throughout the age (note my interpretation of the First Seal). Regardless of whether progress is assessed by every ethnic group being reached or by every habitable place having a witness, the sign that we are not at the end yet is the continuing effort to complete the Great Commission. Once it has been accomplished, the end is here!

The break between the signs leading up the end and the end itself is communicated by the phrase: "then [tote, again] the end will come." The end, in this case, is not a hard stop like a period in punctuation, but is more like a period in history. The end is actually a finite span over which the very last things will occur. What the breaks tells us is that final period will not begin until the Gospel has been preached everywhere.

What occurs during that final period which is the end? Daniel's 70th Week is what is indicated by the reference to Daniel's Abomination. Therefore, what is actually outlined in the Olivet Discourse is a Labor Period followed by a Delivery Period which culminates in the Return of Christ. The Labor Period is long and drawn out, and has been going for almost 2000 years. The Delivery Period has not begun yet (since the Great Commission has not been accomplished yet), but once it does it will last only seven years, and finish with Christ in Jerusalem ruling and reigning here on earth.

The Olivet Discourse: When Is the Answer

I have stated that the question which Jesus was actually responding to in the Olivet Discourse was: "What would be the sign of his coming and the end of the age?" The entire address is taken up with his response to that and the question about the destruction of Temple was entirely ignored. That may seem hard to swallow, but as I will demonstrate, it does produce a coherent, consistent interpretation of the whole discourse. Regardless, however one may interpret this passage, to be on the mark, that interpretation must end up with Jesus back here in a new age--anything else misses the point.

Although it seems out of place in the setting, Jesus was not speaking only to those who were with him, but also to all of us who would come later in time and hear his answer through the transmission of its witnesses. This is revealed by the breadth of his answer. John was the only one of that bunch that lived more than another 50 years (at least according to tradition), and the scope of Jesus' answer is actually much longer than that when it’s carefully examined. In fact, it is so broad that we are encompassed within its detail today, and in a very real sense, those that were hearing him were stand-ins for all of us.

Jesus described that scope (v. 4-8) as encompassing wars, famines, earthquakes and false Messiahs (all in the plural). However, Jesus stated that such, even in the plural, would not be a reason for any eschatological alarms to be sounded. The end was not yet, even after a multiplication of such things. In his account, Luke adds pestilence, terrors and signs in the heavens to the mix, all in the plural as well. We have been seeing these things throughout history, and are still seeing those things today, yet they still should not be alarming because they're not the telling sign of the end of the age.

Furthermore, the occurrences of these signs are represented as akin to the progression of labor, but just the beginning of it (v. 8). Labor starts slowly and builds in a cyclical pattern of increasing intensity, and culminates in a grand conclusion. The process can be quite lengthy, a few hours if one is lucky, over a day if not. A proper reading of these signs must incorporate a lengthy process (i.e, labor) of repetitively building events (wars, famines, earthquakes, false messiahs) that themselves take a lengthy time to develop, and that's just the start. Clearly, Jesus envisioned a very a long time in his answer.

He also spoke of false prophets arising and leading many astray (v. 11). History has seen its share of those, although it seems to me, the most significant (e.g., Muhammed, Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell) arose long after the Temple was destroyed. If the termination of the prophesy is the end of the age and Jesus' return, these false prophets, as well as historical false messiahs, such as Bar Kochba, Menachem Schneerson, and even Sun Myung Moon would have been in view by Jesus as he spoke about such, such a long time ago.

In these issues alone, I have already demonstrated the difficulty of compressing all of these signs into the short span of time before 70 CE, but let us remember that the terminus of the prophetic answer was the end of age and Jesus' return. This is certainly reinforced by Jesus tying the fulfillment of the Great Commission (v.14) to his answer. Even now, we're only just reaching the point where this sign is even remotely fulfilled and the end will not come before it is accomplished. Preterism, it seems clear to me, is a non-starter in interpreting Matthew 24.

Jesus also referenced the desolation mentioned by Daniel (v. 15) as a sign. At the time Jesus spoke this, Antiochus and the Maccabees were a well-known and understood aspect of history, and yet Jesus spoke of Daniel's desolation as happening in the future. As Jesus would have used the term, it referred to an idol being placed in the Temple and the altar being desecrated. Jesus was saying that Antiochus' actions were not the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, but that it would be fulfilled as the most salient sign of the imminent end of the age.

History tells us that Rome's actions at the Temple in 70 CE were not the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy either, because they do not fit the bill. Whereas the Romans burned the place, killed its defenders on its grounds and dismantled it, they did not set up Daniel’s desolation. Hadrian's efforts in 130 CE to put a Roman face on a formerly Jewish city weren't even close to fulfilling Jesus' reference to Daniel, and nothing has occurred throughout the rest of history that is even remotely similar to Daniel's description. That means that the Abomination of Desolation, as cited by Christ, is something yet to happen.

It is common among naysayers, and preterists too, to say that Jesus and his first followers anticipated the end occurring quickly, within their lifetimes at most. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, and they see that event as the scope of the Olivet Discourse. Preterists see it as fulfilled, the unbelieving see it as reportage after the fact, but either way, the events of 70 CE don’t line up with the facts as Jesus stated them. Neither viewpoint can be true!

What is true is that the Gospel has not yet to be proclaimed to all nations, the desolation spoken of by Daniel has not yet occurred, and Jesus has not yet appeared. So the age has not ended and this prophetic discourse, therefore, is still in force.