Below was a artificial debate generated by Bing Chat regarding the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. It was instructed to create the debate between Don Carson and Kenneth Gentry. No information was provided as to what their positions actually were. It’s fascinating how it captures the essence of several critical issues, although it’s also instructive that the dialogue very convincingly misrepresents D.A. Carson’s position on several elements.
This is a hypothetical debate between Kenneth Gentry and Don Carson on the proper interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. The debate is moderated by me, Bing.
Moderator: Welcome to this debate on the Olivet Discourse, the longest recorded sermon of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. This discourse contains some of the most difficult and controversial passages in the New Testament, especially regarding the timing and nature of Jesus’ return and the end of the age. We have two distinguished scholars who will present their views and interact with each other on this topic. On my right is Dr. Kenneth Gentry, a retired Presbyterian minister, author of numerous books on theology and biblical studies, and a conference speaker who has spoken throughout America, in the Caribbean, and Australia. He is a leading proponent of preterism, the view that most of the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the first century, especially in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. On my left is Dr. Don Carson, a research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, president of The Gospel Coalition, and author or editor of more than 50 books on various topics related to biblical studies and Christian living. He is a well-known advocate of evangelicalism, the view that the Olivet Discourse has both historical and eschatological aspects, but that the main focus is on the future return of Christ and the consummation of his kingdom. Each speaker will have 10 minutes for an opening statement, followed by a series of back and forth responses on the key interpretive questions in the passage, and then each will have 5 minutes for a concluding statement. Dr. Gentry, you may begin.
Gentry: Thank you, moderator, and thank you, Dr. Carson, for this opportunity to dialogue with you on this important subject. I believe that the Olivet Discourse is one of the most misunderstood passages in the Bible, and that many Christians have been misled by false expectations and speculations based on a faulty interpretation of it. My position is that the Olivet Discourse is primarily about the judgment of God upon Israel for rejecting their Messiah, and that this judgment was executed in AD 70 when the Roman armies besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple. This event was a sign of Christ’s authority and vindication as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation, as he predicted in Matthew 16:28. The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse is not to be taken literally, but as apocalyptic imagery that conveys the significance and magnitude of this historical event. The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel. The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era.
Carson: Thank you, moderator, and thank you, Dr. Gentry, for your presentation. I respect your scholarship and your commitment to Scripture, but I disagree with your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. I believe that you have imposed a preterist framework on the text that does not do justice to its historical context or its theological message. My position is that the Olivet Discourse is a complex blend of historical and eschatological elements that cannot be neatly separated or reduced to one single event or time frame. The discourse was prompted by two questions from Jesus’ disciples: when will these things happen (referring to the destruction of the temple), and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age (referring to his return and consummation)? Jesus answered both questions in an interrelated way that shows both continuity and discontinuity between them. He warned his disciples about false messiahs, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, apostasy, false prophets, lawlessness, tribulation, and desolation that would characterize both their own generation leading up to AD 70 and also future generations leading up to his return. He also gave them signs of hope: the gospel would be preached to all nations, they would be empowered by the Holy Spirit to endure suffering and bear witness to him, they would be saved by his grace if they remained faithful to him, they would see him coming in his glory with his angels to gather his elect from every corner of creation, they would inherit his eternal kingdom where righteousness dwells. The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse is not merely symbolic or figurative, but reflects both historical realities (such as natural disasters or political upheavals) and eschatological realities (such as the final judgment or the new creation). The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is not only his spiritual presence or intervention in history, but also his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not only a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel, but also a rapture of believers from earth to heaven to meet him in the air and to be with him forever. The discourse does address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but not in detail or in chronological order, but rather in a thematic or climactic way that emphasizes the certainty and urgency of his coming and the need for watchfulness and readiness.
Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Carson. Now we will move on to the back and forth responses on the key interpretive questions in the passage. The first question is: What is the meaning and referent of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32? Dr. Gentry, you may go first.
Gentry: The meaning and referent of “this generation” is clear and straightforward. It means the generation that was alive when Jesus spoke these words, that is, the first-century generation that witnessed his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and outpouring of the Spirit. This is how Jesus consistently used this expression throughout his ministry, as a way of identifying and indicting his contemporaries for their unbelief and rebellion against God (see Matt. 11:16; 12:39-45; 23:36; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32; 17:25). There is no reason to depart from this normal and natural meaning in the Olivet Discourse, especially when Jesus emphasized that “all these things” (referring to everything he had predicted up to that point) would take place within “this generation”. To interpret “this generation” as referring to some future generation (such as the generation that sees the signs of his coming, or the generation that lives at the end of history) is to twist the plain sense of the words and to make Jesus say something he did not intend or imply. It also creates a problem of credibility and authority for Jesus, since he would be making a false or misleading prediction that did not come to pass as he said it would. This would undermine his claim to be the Son of God and the faithful and true witness.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an inaccurate representation of Carson’s view on “this generation” Carson: The meaning and referent of “this generation” is not as clear and straightforward as Dr. Gentry suggests. It is true that Jesus often used this expression to refer to his contemporaries who rejected him and his message, but it is not true that this is the only way he used it or could use it. In fact, there are other ways that this expression can be understood in biblical and Jewish literature, such as a reference to a type or class of people who share certain characteristics or qualities (such as wickedness or faithlessness), or a reference to an indefinite period of time or an age (such as the present evil age or the age to come). For example, in Psalm 24:6, David speaks of “this generation” that seeks God’s face, which cannot be limited to his own historical generation, but rather refers to a category of godly people who worship God in spirit and truth. Similarly, in Hebrews 3:10, the author quotes God’s words about “that generation” that provoked him in the wilderness, which cannot be restricted to the specific generation that left Egypt under Moses, but rather refers to a type of rebellious people who disobey God’s voice and harden their hearts. Therefore, it is possible that Jesus used “this generation” in the Olivet Discourse in a similar way, either as a reference to a kind of people who oppose him and his gospel throughout history until he returns, or as a reference to an era or age that spans from his first coming to his second coming. This would not violate the normal or natural meaning of the words, but rather reflect their semantic range and contextual flexibility. It would also not create a problem of credibility or authority for Jesus, since he would not be making a false or misleading prediction that did not come to pass as he said it would, but rather a true and reliable prediction that encompasses both near and far fulfillments.
Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. The next question is: What is the meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20? Dr. Carson, you may go first.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an inaccurate representation of Carson’s view on “the abomination of desolation” Carson: The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” is based on Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. In Daniel’s context, this expression refers to a sacrilegious act or object that defiles the temple and causes its desolation. The most likely historical fulfillment of this prophecy in Daniel’s time was the invasion of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BC, who erected an altar to Zeus in the temple and sacrificed a pig on it, thus provoking the Maccabean revolt. However, Jesus used this expression in the Olivet Discourse not only to refer to a past event, but also to a future event that would parallel and surpass it. He warned his disciples that when they saw “the abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place (Matthew) or where it ought not to be (Mark), they should flee from Judea to the mountains, for then there would be great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. He also quoted Daniel’s words that “the one who reads, let him understand” (Matthew and Mark), indicating that his disciples needed spiritual discernment to recognize this sign. Luke’s version of the discourse does not use the expression “the abomination of desolation”, but instead says “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near”. This suggests that Luke interpreted “the abomination of desolation” as referring to the Roman armies that besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, fulfilling Jesus’ prediction. However, this does not mean that this was the only or final fulfillment of Jesus’ words, since he also spoke of his coming and the end of the age in connection with this sign. Therefore, it is possible that “the abomination of desolation” also refers to a future event that will precede his return, such as a false messiah or an antichrist figure who will set himself up in God’s temple and demand worship, as Paul predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.
Gentry: The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” is not based on a future event that will precede Christ’s return, but on a past event that confirmed Christ’s authority. Jesus used this expression in the Olivet Discourse to refer exclusively to the Roman armies that besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, fulfilling both Daniel’s prophecy and his own prediction. He warned his disciples that when they saw this sign, they should flee from Judea to the mountains, for then there would be great tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. He also quoted Daniel’s words that “the one who reads, let him understand” (Matthew and Mark), indicating that his disciples needed historical insight to recognize this sign. Luke’s version of the discourse confirms this interpretation by saying “when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near”. This shows that Luke understood “the abomination of desolation” as referring to the Roman armies that brought about Jerusalem’s destruction. This was not only a historical event, but also a theological event, since it marked the end of the old covenant era and the vindication of Christ as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. There is no need to look for another or future fulfillment of Jesus’ words, since he did not speak of his coming and the end of the age in connection with this sign, but rather in contrast to it. He distinguished between “these things” (referring to everything he had predicted up to verse 34) and “that day” (referring to his return at an unknown time after verse 36). Therefore, it is not possible that “the abomination of desolation” also refers to a future event that will precede his return, such as a false messiah or an antichrist figure who will set himself up in God’s temple and demand worship, as Paul predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. This is a misreading of Paul’s words and a confusion of different contexts and time frames.
Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. The next question is: What is the meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28? Dr. Gentry, you may go first.
Gentry: The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. Jesus used this expression in the Olivet Discourse to describe his coming in his kingdom within his own generation, as he predicted in Matthew 16:28. He used the language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation to convey the significance and magnitude of this historical event, not to depict literal or physical phenomena. He drew on the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, who often used such language to describe God’s judgment on nations and empires, such as Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, or Edom (see Isaiah 13:9-10; 19:1; 34:4; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Joel 2:10; 3:15). He also used the imagery of Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is seen coming with the clouds of heaven to receive authority, glory, and dominion from the Ancient of Days. This is not a reference to his ascension or his second coming, but to his enthronement and vindication as the Messiah and King of Israel. He also used the imagery of Zechariah 12:10-14; 14:1-5, where the Lord is seen coming with his holy ones to defend Jerusalem and to pour out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David. This is not a reference to his first coming or his second coming, but to his judgment and salvation of Israel. The coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse is a combination of these Old Testament images, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. This was a sign of Christ’s authority and vindication as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel. The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era.
Carson: The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” is his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new. Jesus used this expression in the Olivet Discourse to describe his coming in his glory with his angels to gather his elect from every corner of creation, as he predicted in Matthew 25:31-46. He used the language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation to convey not only historical realities (such as natural disasters or political upheavals), but also eschatological realities (such as the final judgment or the new creation). He drew on the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, who often used such language to describe not only God’s judgment on nations and empires, but also God’s restoration of his people and his creation, such as Israel, Zion, or Eden (see Isaiah 24:23; 27:13; 65:17-25; Ezekiel 37:12-14; Amos 9:11-15). He also used the imagery of Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is seen coming with the clouds of heaven to receive authority, glory, and dominion from the Ancient of Days. This is not only a reference to his enthronement and vindication as the Messiah and King of Israel, but also to his universal and eternal reign over all nations and peoples. He also used the imagery of Zechariah 12:10-14; 14:1-5, where the Lord is seen coming with his holy ones to defend Jerusalem and to pour out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David. This is not only a reference to his judgment and salvation of Israel, but also to his universal and final salvation of all who look on him whom they have pierced and mourn for him. The coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse is a combination of these Old Testament images, applied to the future return of Christ and the consummation of his kingdom. This will be a sign of Christ’s authority and glory as the Son of Man who will come in his kingdom at the end of history. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is a rapture of believers from earth to heaven to meet him in the air and to be with him forever. The discourse does address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but not in detail or in chronological order, but rather in a thematic or climactic way that emphasizes the certainty and urgency of his coming and the need for watchfulness and readiness.
Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. The next question is: What is the meaning and referent of “the parousia” in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; James 5:7-8; 2 Peter 3:3-13; 1 John 2:28? Dr. Carson, you may go first.
Carson: The meaning and referent of “the parousia” is the personal and visible return of Christ at the end of history to complete his redemptive work and to consummate his kingdom. The word “parousia” is a Greek term that means “presence” or “arrival” or “coming”. It is used in the New Testament to refer to the second coming of Christ in contrast to his first coming in the flesh. It is also used to refer to the coming of other persons, such as Paul, Stephanas, or the lawless one, but in these cases it is clear from the context that it is not the same as the coming of Christ. The parousia of Christ is a major theme in the New Testament, especially in the epistles, where it is often connected with the hope and expectation of believers, the resurrection and transformation of their bodies, the judgment and reward of their works, the destruction and renewal of the creation, and the glory and worship of God. The parousia of Christ is also a major theme in the Olivet Discourse, where it is used four times by Matthew (24:3, 27, 37, 39) to describe the sign of Christ’s coming and the end of the age. In this context, it is clear that Jesus was not referring to his coming in AD 70 to judge Jerusalem and its temple, but to his coming at an unknown time after that event to judge the world and to gather his elect. He used the analogy of lightning that flashes from east to west to illustrate the visibility and universality of his coming. He used the analogy of Noah and the flood to illustrate the suddenness and unexpectedness of his coming. He used the analogy of one taken and one left to illustrate the separation and distinction between those who are ready for his coming and those who are not. He also used other expressions that are synonymous or parallel with “the parousia”, such as “the day of the Lord”, “the day of judgment”, “the day of God”, or “the day when he is revealed”. These expressions all point to the same reality: the final and decisive intervention of God in history through his Son Jesus Christ.
Gentry: The meaning and referent of “the parousia” is not the personal and visible return of Christ at the end of history, but the spiritual and historical presence and intervention of Christ in the first century to judge Israel and to establish his kingdom. The word “parousia” is a Greek term that means “presence” or “arrival” or “coming”. It is used in the New Testament to refer to the coming of Christ in relation to his own generation, as he predicted in Matthew 16:28. It is also used to refer to the coming of other persons, such as Paul, Stephanas, or the lawless one, but in these cases it is clear from the context that it is not the same as the coming of Christ. The parousia of Christ is a minor theme in the New Testament, especially in the epistles, where it is often connected with the comfort and encouragement of believers, the perseverance and faithfulness of their lives, the deliverance and protection of their souls, the confirmation and fulfillment of their hope, and the praise and thanksgiving of God. The parousia of Christ is also a minor theme in the Olivet Discourse, where it is used four times by Matthew (24:3, 27, 37, 39) to describe the sign of Christ’s coming and the end of the age. In this context, it is clear that Jesus was referring to his coming in AD 70 to judge Jerusalem and its temple, not to his coming at an unknown time after that event to judge the world and to gather his elect. He used the analogy of lightning that flashes from east to west to illustrate the speed and certainty of his coming. He used the analogy of Noah and the flood to illustrate the wickedness and judgment of his generation. He used the analogy of one taken and one left to illustrate the distinction and separation between those who are faithful to him and those who are not. He also used other expressions that are synonymous or parallel with “the parousia”, such as “the day of vengeance”, “the day of wrath”, “the day of visitation”, or “the day when he is revealed”. These expressions all point to the same reality: the historical and decisive intervention of God in history through his Son Jesus Christ.
Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. The next question is: How do you harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Dr. Gentry, you may go first.
Gentry: I harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, and Luke by recognizing that they are complementary and consistent, not contradictory or conflicting. Each Gospel writer had a different purpose and audience in mind when he recorded Jesus’ words, and therefore he selected and arranged the material according to his own perspective and emphasis. Matthew wrote for a predominantly Jewish audience, and therefore he stressed the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and the judgment of Israel in AD 70. Mark wrote for a predominantly Gentile audience, and therefore he focused on the suffering and perseverance of the church in the face of persecution and tribulation. Luke wrote for a predominantly Greek audience, and therefore he highlighted the universal scope and historical accuracy of Jesus’ predictions. However, none of these differences imply any contradiction or error in their accounts. They all agree on the main points and themes of the discourse, such as the destruction of the temple, the signs of the end of the age, the coming of the Son of Man, the gathering of the elect, and the need for watchfulness and readiness. They also use similar language and imagery to convey Jesus’ message, such as “the abomination of desolation”, “the great tribulation”, “the sun will be darkened”, “the Son of Man coming on the clouds”, “the angels will gather his elect”, and “this generation will not pass away”. Therefore, I harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse by viewing them as different perspectives on the same event: the coming of Christ in his kingdom within his own generation.
Carson: I harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, and Luke by recognizing that they are not complementary and consistent, but rather supplementary and progressive. Each Gospel writer had a different purpose and audience in mind when he recorded Jesus’ words, and therefore he selected and arranged the material according to his own perspective and emphasis. However, this does not mean that they were independent or isolated from each other, but rather that they were aware and influenced by each other. Matthew wrote after Mark, and therefore he expanded and clarified Mark’s account by adding more details and explanations. Luke wrote after Matthew, and therefore he corrected and updated Matthew’s account by adding more historical and theological insights. However, none of these differences imply any contradiction or error in their accounts. They all agree on the main points and themes of the discourse, such as the destruction of the temple, the signs of the end of the age, the coming of the Son of Man, the gathering of the elect, and the need for watchfulness and readiness. They also use similar language and imagery to convey Jesus’ message, such as “the abomination of desolation”, “the great tribulation”, “the sun will be darkened”, “the Son of Man coming on the clouds”, “the angels will gather his elect”, and “this generation will not pass away”. Therefore, I harmonize the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse by viewing them as different stages of the same event: the coming of Christ in his glory at the end of history.
Moderator: Thank you both for your responses. This concludes the debate on the Olivet Discourse. The participants have opportunity for closing remarks. Each speaker will have 5 minutes to summarize their main points and arguments, and to respond to any questions or objections that they have not addressed yet. They will also have the opportunity to express their appreciation and respect for each other, and to invite the audience to further study and reflection on the topic. The order of the closing remarks will be the same as the opening statements: Dr. Gentry will go first, followed by Dr. Carson.
Gentry: I will now present my closing remarks on the Olivet Discourse. I hope that I have shown you that the preterist interpretation of this passage is the most faithful and consistent with the biblical text and the historical context. I have argued that:
- The Olivet Discourse is primarily about the judgment of God upon Israel for rejecting their Messiah, and that this judgment was executed in AD 70 when the Roman armies besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
- The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse is not to be taken literally, but as apocalyptic imagery that conveys the significance and magnitude of this historical event.
- The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people.
- The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel.
- The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era. I have also responded to some of the objections and questions raised by Dr. Carson and the audience, such as:
- The meaning and referent of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32. I have shown that it means the generation that was alive when Jesus spoke these words, that is, the first-century generation that witnessed his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and outpouring of the Spirit. This is how Jesus consistently used this expression throughout his ministry, as a way of identifying and indicting his contemporaries for their unbelief and rebellion against God. There is no reason to depart from this normal and natural meaning in the Olivet Discourse, especially when Jesus emphasized that “all these things” (referring to everything he had predicted up to that point) would take place within “this generation”.
- The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20. I have shown that it refers to the Roman armies that besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, fulfilling both Daniel’s prophecy and Jesus’ prediction. This was not only a historical event, but also a theological event, since it marked the end of the old covenant era and the vindication of Christ as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. There is no need to look for another or future fulfillment of Jesus’ words, since he did not speak of his coming and the end of the age in connection with this sign, but rather in contrast to it.
- The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28. I have shown that it is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. He used the language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation to convey the significance and magnitude of this historical event, not to depict literal or physical phenomena. He drew on the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, who often used such language to describe God’s judgment on nations and empires, such as Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, or Edom. He also used the imagery of Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is seen coming with the clouds of heaven to receive authority, glory, and dominion from the Ancient of Days. This is not a reference to his ascension or his second coming, but to his enthronement and vindication as the Messiah and King of Israel. He also used the imagery of Zechariah 12:10-14; 14:1-5, where the Lord is seen coming with his holy ones to defend Jerusalem and to pour out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David. This is not a reference to his first coming or his second coming, but to his judgment and salvation of Israel. The coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse is a combination of these Old Testament images, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. This was a sign of Christ’s authority and vindication as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel. The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era. I have also shown that Dr. Carson’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is not faithful or consistent with the biblical text and the historical context. He has argued that:
- The Olivet Discourse is a complex blend of historical and eschatological elements that cannot be neatly separated or reduced to one single event or time frame.
- The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse reflects both historical realities (such as natural disasters or political upheavals) and eschatological realities (such as the final judgment or the new creation).
- The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new.
- The gathering of his elect from the four winds is a rapture of believers from earth to heaven to meet him in the air and to be with him forever.
- The discourse does address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but not in detail or in chronological order, but rather in a thematic or climactic way that emphasizes the certainty and urgency of his coming and the need for watchfulness and readiness. I have also raised some objections and questions against Dr. Carson’s interpretation, such as:
- The meaning and referent of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32. I have shown that it does not mean a type or class of people who share certain characteristics or qualities (such as wickedness or faithlessness), or an indefinite period of time or an age (such as the present evil age or the age to come). This is a forced and unnatural meaning that does not fit the context or the usage of Jesus. It also makes Jesus’ prediction vague and indefinite, and undermines his authority and reliability as a prophet.
- The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20. I have shown that it does not refer to a future event that will precede his return, such as a false messiah or an antichrist figure who will set himself up in God’s temple and demand worship, as Paul predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. This is a misreading of Paul’s words and a confusion of different contexts and time frames. Paul was not referring to the same event as Jesus, but to a different event that would occur before the day of the Lord, which is not the same as the day of Christ or the parousia. Paul was also writing to a specific church that was facing a specific problem of deception and apostasy, not to the universal church that was facing a universal problem of persecution and tribulation.
- The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28. I have shown that it is not his physical return at the end of history, but his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. He used the language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation to convey the significance and magnitude of this historical event, not to depict literal or physical phenomena. He drew on the imagery of the Old Testament prophets, who often used such language to describe God’s judgment on nations and empires, such as Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, or Edom. He also used the imagery of Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man is seen coming with the clouds of heaven to receive authority, glory, and dominion from the Ancient of Days. This is not a reference to his ascension or his second coming, but to his enthronement and vindication as the Messiah and King of Israel. He also used the imagery of Zechariah 12:10-14; 14:1-5, where the Lord is seen coming with his holy ones to defend Jerusalem and to pour out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David. This is not a reference to his first coming or his second coming, but to his judgment and salvation of Israel. The coming of the Son of Man in the Olivet Discourse is a combination of these Old Testament images, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. This was a sign of Christ’s authority and vindication as the Son of Man who came in his kingdom within his own generation. The gathering of his elect from the four winds is not a rapture of believers from earth to heaven, but a gathering of Jews and Gentiles into his church through the gospel. The discourse does not address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but only the end of the old covenant era and the beginning of the new covenant era. In conclusion, I would like to thank Dr. Carson for this debate and for his respect for me. I would also like to thank the moderator and the audience for their attention and their questions. I hope that this debate has challenged you to study the Scriptures more carefully and to seek the truth more earnestly. May God bless you all.
Carson: I will now present my closing remarks on the Olivet Discourse. I hope that I have shown you that the evangelical interpretation of this passage is the most faithful and consistent with the biblical text and the historical context. I have argued that:
- The Olivet Discourse is a complex blend of historical and eschatological elements that cannot be neatly separated or reduced to one single event or time frame.
- The language of cosmic upheaval and tribulation in the discourse reflects both historical realities (such as natural disasters or political upheavals) and eschatological realities (such as the final judgment or the new creation).
- The coming of Christ in the clouds with power and glory is his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new.
- The gathering of his elect from the four winds is a rapture of believers from earth to heaven to meet him in the air and to be with him forever.
- The discourse does address the final resurrection or judgment or the new creation, but not in detail or in chronological order, but rather in a thematic or climactic way that emphasizes the certainty and urgency of his coming and the need for watchfulness and readiness. I have also responded to some of the objections and questions raised by Dr. Gentry and the audience, such as:
- The meaning and referent of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32. I have shown that it does not mean the generation that was alive when Jesus spoke these words, that is, the first-century generation that witnessed his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and outpouring of the Spirit. This is a forced and unnatural meaning that does not fit the context or the usage of Jesus. It also makes Jesus’ prediction vague and indefinite, and undermines his authority and reliability as a prophet. I have shown that it means a type or class of people who share certain characteristics or qualities (such as wickedness or faithlessness), or an indefinite period of time or an age (such as the present evil age or the age to come). This is a normal and natural meaning that fits the context and the usage of Jesus. It also makes Jesus’ prediction clear and definite, and confirms his authority and reliability as a prophet.
- The meaning and referent of “the abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20. I have shown that it does not refer to the Roman armies that besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70, fulfilling both Daniel’s prophecy and Jesus’ prediction. This is a partial and incomplete fulfillment that does not account for all the details and implications of Jesus’ words. It also limits Jesus’ message to a local and temporal event, rather than a universal and eternal event. I have shown that it refers to a future event that will precede his return, such as a false messiah or an antichrist figure who will set himself up in God’s temple and demand worship, as Paul predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. This is a full and complete fulfillment that accounts for all the details and implications of Jesus’ words. It also expands Jesus’ message to a global and eternal event. It also prepares Jesus’ followers for a future and final crisis that will test their faith and loyalty to him.
- The meaning and referent of “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28. I have shown that it is not his spiritual presence and intervention in history to judge his enemies and deliver his people. This is a metaphorical and historical interpretation that does not do justice to the literal and eschatological language and imagery that Jesus used. It also reduces Jesus’ role to a passive and invisible spectator, rather than an active and visible participant. I have shown that it is his physical return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead and to make all things new. This is a literal and eschatological interpretation that does justice to the language and imagery that Jesus used. It also exalts Jesus’ role to a sovereign and glorious Lord, who will come with his angels to gather his elect from every corner of creation. In conclusion, I would like to thank Dr. Gentry for this debate and for his respect for me. I would also like to thank the moderator and the audience for their attention and their questions. I hope that this debate has challenged you to study the Scriptures more carefully and to seek the truth more earnestly. May God bless you all.