I am asked frequently if I can recommend a commentary on Matthew’s Olivet Discourse. The problem is that (1) many commentaries on Matthew, in particular chapters 24–25, come from a historicist view, an interpretation that skews Matthew’s message and consequently distorts the application for the church today; (2) some commentaries come from a preterist view and/or historicist, which skews Matthew’s message and consequently distorts the application for the church today; (3) some commentaries come from a futurist-pretrib view, which, once again, skews Matthew’s message and consequently distorts the application for the church today; (4) some commentaries come from a liberal view that automatically rules out supernatural prophecy. Do I need to say it again?
This is not to say that you cannot discover nuggets in commentaries that you disagree with; I find many nuggets quite frequently. But I cannot recommend a commentary where I would agree with the main interpretation and that represents Matthew’s message accurately, and gets the proper application right. For example, how you interpret the referent of the great tribulation directly impacts the application for the church. If you do not believe that the last generation of the church will face the greatest persecution during Antichrist’s great tribulation, then that will determine your application and thus preparedness.
A better option than commentaries for research on the Olivet Discourse is to find journal articles and monographs. You are going to find much more substantive exegesis, in my opinion, in these latter resources than you would a commentary.
I have not written a comprehensive running commentary on Jesus’s Olivet Discourse, but I have written quite a bit on the Discourse. First, I have substantive commentary on Matthew’s Olivet Discourse in my book Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord: What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Return of Christ. There is also a convenient Scripture index if you are looking for a specific verse or passage. Second, I have written many articles on specific issues of interpretation in Matthew 24–25. The links to most of these articles are provided below in no particular order. And you can always use this website’s search engine if you are looking for a specific passage or topic.
ARTICLE LINKS TO SPECIFIC ISSUES
Virtually every commentary misses the significant structural conjunction oun in Matt 24:15. See also this.
Why the historicist interpretation fails on construing the great tribulation as the church age period. See also this.
I am always amazed how interpreters completely ignore the separation event at the parousia in Matt 24:31 when talking about this issue. It is the whole point of invoking the illustrations in the first place.
An untold number of interpreters have collapsed Matthew 24–25 into Luke 21 as if Matthew and Luke have the same message and purpose! It is so knee-jerk that they assume that Luke was speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 simply because Luke mentions Jerusalem being “surrounded by armies”—completely ignoring the fact that Luke situates these events in a parousia context. Matthew’s message is flattened by Luke’s message.