John Calvin (1509-1564): “And then will the end come. This is improperly restricted by some to the destruction of the temple, and the abolition of the service of the Law; for it ought to be understood as referring to the end and renovation of the world. Those two things having been blended by the disciples, as if the temple could not be overthrown without the destruction of the whole world, Christ, in replying to the whole question which had been put to him, reminded them that a long and melancholy succession of calamities was at hand, and that they must not hasten to seize the prize, before they had passed through many contests and dangers. In this manner, therefore, we ought to explain this latter clause: ‘The end of the world will not come before I have tried my Church, for a long period, by severe and painful temptations’” (Comm. on Matt. 24:14).
Matthew Henry (1662-1714):
[1] “The discourse itself, in which we have, 1. The prophecy of divers events, especially referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the utter ruin of the Jewish church and nation, which were not hastening on, and were completed about forty years after; the prefaces to that destruction, the concomitants and consequences of it; yet looking further, to Christ’s coming at the end of time, and the consummation of all things, of which that was a type and figure, vv. 4-31” (Comm. on Matt. 24: Introduction).
[2] “Christ, in his answer, though he does not expressly rectify the mistakes of his disciples (that must be done by the pouring out of the Spirit), yet looks further than their question, and instructs his church, not only concerning the great events of that age, the destruction of Jerusalem, but concerning his second coming at the end of time, which here he insensibly slides into a discourse of, and of that it is plain he speaks in the next chapter, which is a continuation of this sermon” (Comm. on Matt. 24:1-3).
[3] “This prophecy, under the type of Jerusalem’s destruction, looks as far forward as he general judgment; and, as is usual in prophecies, some passages are more applicable to the type, and others to the antitype; and toward the close, as usual, it points more particularly to the latter” (Comm. on Matt. 24:4-31).
William Hendriksen (1900-1982): “In describing the brief period of great tribulation at the close of history, ending with the final judgment, Jesus is painting in colours borrowed from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 847).
Anthony A. Hoekema (1913-1988): “Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future. The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world, hence the intermingling. The passage therefore deals neither exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem nor exclusively with the end of the world; it deals with both—sometimes with the latter in terms of the former” (The Bible and the Future, p. 149).
O. Palmer Robertson (1937-): “When Jesus presents the terrors of God’s coming judgment, he intertwines the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the age so that the two aspects of his prophetic declaration cannot be separated. When armies surround Jerusalem and its desolation is near, then the ‘time of punishment in fulfilment of all that has been written’ will have arrived (Luke 21:20-22). The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 anticipated that great day of [Jehovah] which shall consummate the Lord’s judgments, even as did the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. Even as in Zephaniah’s prophecy, so also in Jesus’ prophecy, the judgment of God on Jerusalem inevitably anticipates the final devastation of the nations” (The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990], p. 325).
Dean Davis (1947-): “In the Olivet Discourse, the Lord blends predictions of an imminent (and providential) coming of Christ in 70 AD with predictions of an eschatological (and supernatural) coming of Christ at the end of the age. He blends predictions of a local judgment of the city of Jerusalem with predictions of a global judgment of the City of Man; indeed, of the universe itself. Speaking of the Olivet Discourse, C. E. B. Cranfield well says, ‘neither an exclusively eschatological interpretation is satisfactory. We must allow for a double reference, for a mingling of historical and eschatological'” (The High King of Heaven [Enumclaw, WA: Redemption Press, 2014], p. 531).
Kim Riddlebarger (1954-): “Jesus was on the Mount of Olives speaking as God’s final prophet, using the temple and the city of Jerusalem as graphic visual aids. Jesus spoke not only directly about God’s coming judgment on the city and the temple but also to the church awaiting the great consummation and the end of the present age many years hence” (A Case for Amillennialism, p. 158).
