The destruction of Jerusalem is an important event. We would expect Jesus to make some comments on it. The only lengthy description and warning is found in Matthew 24:4-35. If as some people say, this refers to the second coming, then Jesus has let a vital event in the history of Israel pass without comment. This would be impossible. It would also mean that Jesus had avoided the disciple’s question.
In the equivalent account in Luke’s Gospel, only the first part of the disciple’s question is recorded; the part dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem.
When will these things happen? And what will be the sign they are about to take place. Luke 21:7
And Luke only records the first part of Jesus answer (the equivalent of Matt 24:4-36). He only records the part about the destruction of the temple. Luke recognises that Jesus’ comments about the second coming are part of a separate topic, and records them separately in Luke 17:20-37. Here we see the Holy Spirit inspiring a writer to divide the prophetic discourse in half, a confirmation that it covers different topics.The events in the first part of Matthew 24 are limited to the locality of Palestine. This is indicated by the reference to Sabbath travel (v.20). This would only be a hardship in Palestine. Likewise, the command not to go down off their houses was only relevant in Palestine, where houses were all joined together, so people could flee along the rooftops. In contrast, the second part of the passage is universal in application.
The first section gives an impression of very tumultuous times. There are wars, famines, earthquakes and persecutions. The second section describes a more normal situation; people are eating and drinking, getting married, and working in normal employment. The two sections obviously refer to different times.
Jesus gives a specific sign for the events described in the first part of the chapter; the abomination of desolation (v.15). In the second part Jesus absolutely refuses to give any signs. He tells three parables which all teach that there will be no warning signs prior to his coming. This would be illogical, if he were speaking about the same events.
In the first section Jesus tells his followers to flee from Jerusalem into the mountains. This would be pointless behaviour at the second coming, as his followers will simply be taken (vv.40,41). It would be good advice if Jerusalem was about to be besieged by a foreign army, which is what Jesus was really describing.
There is a sense of immediacy in the first part of the chapter. Yet the parables in the second part suggest that there will be considerable delay before Jesus returns.
In the first few verses of Matthew 24 Jesus speaks about the Jerusalem Temple. It can have no relevance to the second coming as it was destroyed in A.D. 70, so these verses cannot apply to the second coming. Some commentators get round this by saying that the temple will be rebuilt. This is no help as Jesus is specifically talking about the temple which the disciples were looking at. If Jesus was speaking about a future temple he would have informed his disciples of this. Actually, there is no place in the Bible which says that the temple will be rebuilt. In this age the church is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
We can conclude that the first part of Jesus’ prophecy describes the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is his answer to the first question that the disciples asked. It has no connection with the second coming.