Exploring Interpretations of Escatology

Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21

Luke differs from the others in that he starts with a period of time. “but before all these things,” Luke 21:12. This could just be additional information of the timing of each account. One interpretation, Dr. Chuck Missler gives, that it is in fact the key to understand Luke’s account being a different interaction then other two. I want to spend some time detailing this idea. How each individual account is so close to each other in a variety of ways. This seems like a stretch to take such a strong opinion. Many of the verses given are almost word for word. But I think it is necessary to follow out what the logical conclusion of this interpretation puts forth. We know that everything Jesus spoke and taught is not recorded in the synoptic gospels. John explains this at the end of his letter in John 21:25. Since Jesus was an itinerant teacher, traveling constantly, gave His teaching multiple times. Obviously, this is inferred upon but does follow the rules of logic. Jesus repeating His teaching in the different locations He traveled to seems highly probably. Following that line of thought. Jesus could have given this teaching more then one specific night. Luke does leave out who asked these questions and the location of this conversation. Which seems to support this interpretation at the surface. Luke also focuses on Jerusalem being surrounded and destroyed verses the Abomination of Desolation spoken in Matthew and Mark. Luke leaves out any mention of the gospel going forth. But most notably, explains that the days he is describing are the “Days of Vengeance” Luke 21:22 and this is “wrath against this people” Luke 21:23. Luke excludes any mention of the days being shorted for the elect, the gathering of the elect by the angels, and a detailed account of the rampant issues false christs and prophets. Another very compelling exemption by Luke is the famous verse about no one knowing the day or the hour, not even the son of man. However, I would say the most glaring objection would be Luke still mentions both “the end” and “the coming of the Son of Man”. These other details though important. Are not of the same categorical importance I just mentioned. These two are in fact the focus of this study. As we have looked at all accounts at length. The similarities seem to out weight the differences. So to consider Luke’s account to be an entirely different topic does not seem wise. Luke most confidently describes his account with a different audience and a narrower focus. Yet, seems to be speaking on the same events that unfold within Matthew and Mark’s account.