Resurrection is Incompatible with Physicalism

Olivet Discourse and Apocalypticism

Matthew 24:1-51; Mark 13:1-37 and Luke 21:5-36.

The Olivet Discourse is found in all of the synoptics and is prominently absent in St. John's gospel. The main goal of believing exegetes, in general, seems to be, to avoid the implication that Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet who foretold an imminent end of the present world in this sermon. The statements, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," (Mark 13:30) and the close connection between the "end of the age" and the fall of the temple (Mark 13:1-4; Matt. 24:1-4) suggest a first century fulfillment of his words was intended. Yet the Son of Man has still not returned on a cloud with power and glory to judge the world. (Lk. 21:27, et al) The longest version of the sermon is Matthew's version, so I discuss it most directly. 

It seems to me that in all of the gospels, the apostles did not yet recognize the necessity of the Second Coming, nor the death of the Messiah until after the resurrection of Christ. They still imagined that Christ would walk into Jerusalem as a political leader, tear down the present temple and replace it with the great third temple described by Ezekiel—as they did on other occasions. (cf. Lk. 19:11; Acts 1:6) Their question in Matthew 24:3 represents this misunderstanding, "these things," the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, is quite different from the “parousia and the end of the age” but they did not recognize this yet. 

The first section of the sermon in Matt. 24:4-35, concerns “these things,” the events which befell Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE. “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:34, 35) I take “these things” mentioned in Matt. 24:3, 34 to be the destruction of the temple but not the Second Coming and Resurrection. It is possible to predict when "these things" will occur, just as easily as one may predict "when summer is near" or when a fig tree will give ripe fruit. (Matt. 24:32) 

I see a change of subject in Matt. 24:36 "But about that day," that is, the Second Coming, "no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Instead of talking of a predictable event which will come in that very generation as he did before, Christ now speaks of a particular great “day” which nobody knows except the Father. "You do not know which day your Lord is coming." (Matt. 24:42) “The Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.” (Matt. 24:44) In other words, mortal men can have some general and common sense understanding of the timing "these things," just as we would about when a fig tree will become fruitful. But the timing of "that day" is mysterious, and unknown to all except the Father. The subsequent parables at the end of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew chapter 25, I consider to be about the Second Coming and Judgment Day. This seems to be the best way to divide up the sermon to avoid unwelcome eschatological implications. 

However, even in the earlier section of the sermon before the troublesome statement of Verse 34, there are many eschatological predictions. The "great tribulation" (24:21-22), the return of the Son of Man (24:27), the great celestial phenomena predicted by the prophets (24:29) and the rapture of the saints (24:30-31). All of these are to befall the generation being addressed. It is best not to dignify the strange definition games in many Evangelical circles, re-defining γενεά whatever way they please. Further, there are plenty of equally apocalyptic statements throughout the gospel, "But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23) Or the equally troubling promise preceding the transfiguration that the kingdom must arrive in power before the apostles pass away. (Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; Lk. 9:27) It seems the approach of Crossan or Mack to deny the historicity of these statements is appealing.