Click here to get this post in PDF
Let’s Not Portray Jesus as a Fuzzy Thinker
The phrase used by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, “And Then the End Shall Come,” cannot in any way be a reference to the end of the world. To interpret it that way is to commit several errors: Such an interpretation misreads the prophetic word of Jesus by taking it out of context, denies the sovereignty of God in His omniscient plan for history, overemphasizes evangelism, imposes misplaced guilt on people for not evangelizing, and creates a truncated view of our calling and purpose in the kingdom of God. Perhaps most deleterious of all, such an interpretation creates fuzzy and unethical thinking about the word of God and, therefore, all of life.
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Matthew 24:14, KJV.A text without a context is a pretext. That is a most important catchphrase for reading the bible. The question you should ask upon reading this verse is “which end?“ The end of the Old Covenant as predicted by Jesus Christ and which was demonstrated to have been finalized in 70 A.D.? Or the end of history when Jesus returns to wrap up everything? The former has already happened. We’re still waiting on the latter, and we’re thousands of years away from the time of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. Jesus cannot be referring to both without exposing Himself to the legitimate criticism of being fuzzy in His thinking.
First, if Jesus’ words were telling us about a future event thousands of years distant in time, then the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is really not that important. It’s just a follow-on event that happened after Jesus’ life and death. It demonstrates perhaps the cruelty and domination by Rome of other people groups and of God’s Old Covenant people, Israel. But it’s really no more important than, say, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 A.D., when God’s New Covenant people lost a great city to another Empire set upon domination.
I ask you this. If the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is not that important in the gospel history, then what about the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians centuries before? Is that an important historical event in the Old Covenant that the bible reader should know about? I can safely say that I know of no Christian who would say the destruction of the first temple and the accompanying Babylonian Captivity is not important. Ask Isaiah and Jeremiah if it’s important. That event determines whether those two were prophets of God or false prophets who spoke words out of their own over-imaginative brains. And that leads to this nearly blasphemous question: Do you think that Jesus Christ is a false prophet?
Context is the most important determinant as to what and to when Jesus is referring in the Olivet Discourse. I will confine my discussion to the Discourse in Matthew 24 and to verses 1 through 35. There is a legitimate debate as to what and when Jesus refers to in the verses following verse 35. The portion of Matthew 24 that is most pertinent to a discussion of verse 14 is bookended by the first two verses of the chapter and verses 34 and 35. And there is simply no question for the honest reader as to what event Jesus refers to in those 35 verses.
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, “See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Matthew 24:1-2, KJV.
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:34-5, KJV.
These verses are Jesus’ timing passages, meant to be taken literally by the disciples listening to Him in His prophecy of the end of the age. He had just said that the Jewish world in which they and their forefathers had lived for centuries and which they believed would last forever was about to be completely overturned. They needed some help in understanding when it would happen and keeping faith as and after it happened. The age that was ending when He spoke and would be definitively over in 70 A.D. was the Old Covenant age.
Next to Christ’s first coming which ended with His death, resurrection, and ascension to His Father, this end is the most important endpoint in history. It is far more important than Christ’s second coming. It changes history forever and affects us now. It opens the floodgates for us and others to enter God’s kingdom, changes and clarifies our understanding as to who God’s people are, prioritizes the Mosaic law, warns of the judgment of God upon sinners, explains why God’s favor has been opened up to the world and not just descendants of Abraham, reveals the very nature of God’s person – His love, His mercy, and His triune relationship among the three persons of the Trinity, and more. Thus, history changed forever with the end of the Old Covenant, and Christ made and is making “all things new.”
One way to undercut the importance of this event is to say that the first 35 verses of Matthew 24 refer to some other event, not the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This happens two ways – when the bible expositor says all of Jesus’ words refer to a different event, and it happens when the bible expositor says it refers primarily to 70 A.D. and also to another event thousands of years later. The former is blatant distortion of Jesus’ meaning. The latter is the more common way this interpretive error occurs. The positing of a double meaning to Jesus’ words about “the end” attempts to remain faithful to His clear and primary meaning. But that position still calls Jesus’ integrity as a prophet into question. And it changes the intent of what He was saying in a way that appears below.
The bookend verses state clearly when the event to which Jesus referred would happen. In verse two, He’s clearly referring to the temple when He says, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Matthew 24:2b, KJV. We know from history when that happened – 70 A.D. Then in verse 34b, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Interpreters have tried to change the clear timing by redefining the word “generation,” but such are transparent efforts to avoid Jesus’ clear meaning. The context of His words and history demonstrate He was unquestionably referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., a date that would fall within the time of the generation to which He was speaking.
So what happened with the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom “in all the world” before 70 A.D.? It happened. Jesus doesn’t say that the gospel would be preached to every individual, nor did He say that it would be preached to every tribe and people group on the earth in this passage. He said it would be preached “in all the world,” that is, in all the “oikoumene.” He doesn’t use the Greek word “kosmos,” as John uses in John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world, . . .”
According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, the Greek word “oikoumene” can mean any of the following:
I. the inhabited earth
A. the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
B. the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
C. the whole inhabited earth, the world
D. the inhabitants of the earth, men.
II. the universe, the world.
A look at the New Testament authors’ use of the word shows that its meaning depends on the context. Paul and Luke speak about what was happening in the inhabited Roman world, not “the whole inhabited earth,” in the following passages using “oikoumene” as the Greek word translated “world.” Acts 11:28; 17:6, KJV; Rom 10:18. Paul spoke in past tense about the worldwide spread of the gospel in the following passages: Col 1:23; I Thess 1:8. According to the book of Acts and non biblical history, the gospel was preached as far west as Spain and as far east as India. Was the gospel preached in the entire world of the Roman Empire before 70 A.D.? Of course, it was. This was a sign that the coming end of the Old Covenant order of things in God’s plan for history was near. In the context of Jesus’ warning about the coming destruction of the temple, He must have been using “oikoumene” to mean the inhabited Roman world because while we don’t know for sure, it’s highly unlikely that every person or every people group on earth heard the gospel of His kingdom before 70 A.D.
God is sovereign over history and, therefore, omniscient. He knows the end of history from the very beginning of history and even from before history. To condition Jesus Christ’s return to end history on our success in spreading the gospel across the planet implies that God is not sovereign over that event. Our works become the deciding factor. Arminianism and eschatology have met together in this teaching.
Any such denial of God’s sovereign determination of each and every event in history places an intolerably heavy burden upon the believer. “Why have you been so lazy as not to hasten Christ’s return to earth? You’re leaving the world to flounder in unbelief and denial of His Kingship, when we could be worshiping Christ and having a praise party instead of watching the world remain oblivious to Him!” That is the implied message.
Instead of living in the Sabbath rest of Christ, this message lays on the non-evangelist believer the guilt of being a Christian who disobeys Jesus and even more despicable, with the responsibility for delaying Christ’s return! It tells the insurance man that his work to help protect people’s families and property in the case of loss should be set aside for preaching the gospel. It says the same thing to the politician, the doctor, the lawyer, the businessman, the farmer, and on and on. I mean, why would you do anything other than evangelize the unreached if that means that Christ will return!? If that means not evangelizing every people group on the planet will delay Christ’s return?! Really, what’s the point of doing anything else if the Church is responsible for bringing Him back?
There is a particular scripture that we can use as a timing event for when Jesus Christ will return to end history as we know it, and that passage does not deny God’s sovereignty.
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. I Corinthians 15:24-6, KJV.
This passage places no burden on the believer to “hasten Christ’s return.” It clearly recognizes the sovereignty of God in the wrapping up of history, and it implies that there is much more to kingdom work than just the work of evangelism. We, the Church, are tasked with taking part in the “put[ting] down [of] all rule and all authority and power,” and that history-long process demonstrates Christ’s reign over all things. This passage also foreshadows His coming reign at the end of history. It includes evangelism, but it doesn’t exclude other kingdom building pursuits. And it doesn’t mean that once every person or people group hears the gospel of the kingdom, the end of history will occur. It could mean that the real work on earth of the worldwide Church as Christ the King’s bride is just getting started. “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.” Habakkuk 2:14, KJV.
When we combine this passage with a proper interpretation of Matthew 24:1-35, we understand that the disciples would see the Church – the true temple – well on its way to growing to fill the whole earth at the time the old temple was to be destroyed. That occurred because of the very important mission of evangelism. But Jesus was just getting started with His reign at the right hand of the Father, and that reign includes the subduing of all things to Him. That means the Christian doctor, lawyer, businessman, garbageman, mother, mailman, and every other earthly calling has a purpose in His Father’s sovereign plan to expand His Son’s earthly kingdom. But if Matthew 24:14 refers to the end of history, then that implies that all that really matters is evangelism because once that task is complete, God says, “It’s finished. History’s over.” Every Christian living at that time in the future will know the end will happen soon. Of course, there’s a serious problem with this idea – the bible tells us that we don’t know and never can know when that day will occur. II Peter 3:10.
The double-event interpretation appears to be a manipulative use of scripture. I assume that bible teachers and preachers use this verse improperly in a sincere attempt to encourage people to evangelize. However, it is a crude and manipulative way to do so. To misinterpret the words of Jesus in order to guilt people into paying more money for evangelism or becoming evangelists themselves is not exemplary of Jesus’ character and methods of motivating people. Paul said,
Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. II Corinthians 4:1-2, KJV.
This particular misinterpretation for the purpose of motivating evangelism is harmful in several ways. First, we’re called to be evangelists and support evangelism in so many places in scripture that we don’t need to misuse a verse to do so. Second, it teaches people to misinterpret scripture. There’s already way too much use of the Olivet Discourse for prophetic sensationalism. We should use every opportunity to correct that misuse, not encourage it.
Third, it’s illogical and if correct, would show a lack of integrity in how Jesus used words. Jesus could not have intended to mean two different things with His statement in Matthew 24:14, one referring to the events leading up to 70 A.D. and one referring to events leading up to His return to end history. If He did, then we can’t count on His word, or there’s no reason to try to understand His statements. Remember the bookend verses, which indicated there were two historical time marking references for the fulfillment of all that He said in between those verses. The destruction of the temple was one, and that occurred in 70 A.D. The other time marking reference was the duration of the generation in which He was speaking, which should have comfortably fit within the lifetimes of His listening disciples.
Therefore, if He was referring to two different events, one in 70 A.D. and one thousands of years later, He was speaking out of both sides of His mouth. Thousands of years would not fit within the timeframe of “this generation,” and logically could not occur before 70 A.D. If He was playing some double meaning game, why would He place such a restrictive time frame on what He was saying? I think that Jesus had enough integrity to at least add a caveat for His listeners.
If the “two ends” view of Jesus’ words is correct, then there were several ways Jesus could have kept interpreters from being fooled by those time marking bookend verses. First, He didn’t have to be so strict with those statements. If Jesus was honest, and He is, He could have said, “Most of these things will happen before this generation passes.” But He spoke absolutely and even added a signature statement in verse 34 indicating the absolute integrity and trustworthiness of His words: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” He said ALL these things will be fulfilled before that generation passed.
Also, He could have thrown in another verse after verse 14, saying, “Watch for a double meaning for the far flung future,” or “There are two ends I’m talking about here, one during this generation and one thousands of generations from now.” But all those caveats and conditions would have been absurd. We know what He was talking about – the end of that Old Covenant system and His new creation that would be birthed by that system’s ending! All these fanciful caveats and conditions are what we add in our own minds to convince ourselves that Jesus was an honest prophet. Otherwise, if He was referring to two different events separated by thousands of years, then His words about when it would all happen were really meaningless. We could make His words like rubber and make them mean whatever we want.
And that’s what teachers and preachers in the Church do with this verse. They’re slipshod in their handling of the words of Jesus. And it causes honest, knowledgeable listeners to say, “That’s not what Jesus said though. This guy sounds like a Madison Avenue adman making a pitch, using whatever he can to convince his audience to do something.” It’s all about getting the Church’s message out. It’s not about Truth in its fullest sense, in its intended sense. Such a superficial presentation only hardens unbelievers in their position, for they know that life is more than just the presentation of a message to motivate people to do something, even if that something is the critically important work of evangelism.
Jesus is the Son of God. All His words are true, and not in just some fuzzy, ethereal way. It’s not as if Jesus was making a pitch for evangelists to go forth in the Matthew 24 Olivet Discourse. He was prophetically letting His listeners know what to expect as they, Jewish men who saw the temple as the central representative building of their faith, saw its approaching destruction. For them, such destruction would represent the end of the world as they had known it. He was preparing them, warning them, comforting them ahead of time. What would replace the building? The gospel of the kingdom. Jesus’ kingdom.
Jesus was the real temple. His building, the Church worldwide, was far more important and more representative of His kingdom than any one building. The building in Jerusalem was never meant to be the be-all end-all for God and His people. Solomon had said so when he dedicated the first temple hundreds of years earlier. See I Kings 8:27. When you’ve spent your life counting on a building to be the symbol of truth and your God, what do you do when it’s gone? Your faith might be shaken a wee bit. But when the person whom the building represents and who planned the history of your faith and who knows all things that have happened and will happen tells you the events leading to that special building’s destruction, then why would you be afraid? It’s like running up to a man to tell him an enemy is about to burn his house down, and he calmly says, “Yeah, I knew that would happen. I’ve already built a better house around the corner, and I had already planned on moving there instead.”
Jesus is like that man, passing on His calm demeanor and lack of concern to His disciples. And Jesus definitely had already built another place in which to live that was much better than the temple. “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” And, of course, He planned to also dwell in His Church. Don’t you see how silly it would be for Jesus to be referring to a different event at the same time He’s referring to the change from the Old to the New, from one building in one city to a worldwide Church? What good would such a “prophecy” be to us or anyone else living after 70 A.D.? What is profound or inspired about meaningless predictions like, “Be warned. I think that before the world ends and time is no more and it’s time for God’s final judgment, all the world will have heard the gospel?” Or, ”Verily, I say unto you that before history ends, all of God’s plan for history will be finished.” What an insightful prophet!
How is that important information for us to hear? It’s not. We’ve added a second event as a part of His prophecy to satisfy our own need to believe He’s speaking about the end of history, not just 70 A.D. There are several reasons for this motivation. We may have always been taught Jesus was talking about the end of history in Matthew 24. We don’t know our bible well enough to understand how to interpret His figurative language in the rest of the Discourse. We’re afraid we won’t be able to explain His meaning well enough. We’re sloppy in our interpretation of Jesus’ carefully spoken and absolutely trustworthy words.
In conclusion, consider how adding another meaning to Jesus’ words undermines the integrity of Jesus’ words as to when those events would occur. And consider how that other meaning becomes no more prophetic or profound than saying, “A + B = A + B.” Why would Jesus need for us to know that something was going to happen before the end of history? The disciples needed to know when to escape Jerusalem. They needed to know that Jesus was in control of all things as the sovereign sitting at His Father’s right hand when they would see their Jewish world about to be overthrown.
But for us living today and to state the obvious, everything that is to happen in God’s plan will happen before the end of history. Is there somewhere to which we can escape when Jesus comes to end human history? What would be the point? Unlike the disciples in Jesus’ day who were facing a revolutionary reset of everything they’d ever known and needed some comfort from Him, believers thousands of years later don’t face that with respect to the end of history, a date we can never know in any event.
To assert that Jesus was referring to such in vs 14 is to make Jesus self-contradicting. It would also have been confusing to His disciples. “Wait! Which one comes first? Your coming to end history or your coming to end Jerusalem? Oh yeah, if you come to end history, I guess you end Jerusalem too. But if that’s the case, you would have left so little time for your New Covenant to impact the world. But you’re telling us the temple will be destroyed and what leads up to that. Why would you add something that has nothing at all to do with that event? You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth, Jesus!”
Can we agree that we don’t want to present the words of Jesus Christ as having two meanings if that means His words sound silly? When we say these things, I’m afraid we aren’t using Jesus’ words as He used them. We’re making a pitch for evangelists and for money to support evangelists. The punishment for being a false prophet was death. I wonder what the punishment is for twisting the prophetic words of Jesus?
If we’re fuzzy in our thinking about the meaning of the word of God because we want it to mean what we want it to mean, then how much integrity will we have about our own words in business, in social commitments, in law, etc.? How can such fuzzy teaching create faith in Jesus’ words on the part of hearers? On the part of unbelievers? How can such fuzzy teaching improve the congregants’ integrity in their own speech? The fuzzying of Jesus’ words here is not just some minor difference of opinion on interpretation. It’s the difference between teaching that Jesus had integrity in His words and teaching that we really don’t care what He actually intended to say.
When we use His words for our purposes, the world sees that because they can read. And sometimes they’re more honest in their assessment of those words’ meaning than we sincere, overzealous Christians who sincerely want to evangelize the lost. But how can we command the world’s respect for our faith in Jesus’ words when we have so little respect for those words?
A correct interpretation of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse leads to the following question. If Jesus was referring to 70 A.D. in the Olivet Discourse, what do we 21st century readers take away from Matthew 24:1-35? Jesus was not a fuzzy thinker. He stated something very specific, clear, and monumental for His hearers and for us. He foretold a historic event that would forever stand as an undeniable, historical memorial for the way God dealt with the world before His coming. Yet that same event was a turning point that signified God’s dealing with humanity would change forever. That event is a buttress to our faith that we have a temple in the heavens, not made with hands. And that temple stands forever. It stands to remind us that we believers have been made welcome to enter that temple for all eternity, all because of Jesus coming to earth and shedding His blood as a substitutionary atonement for us. Jesus’ family now includes not just physical descendants of Abraham, but people from all tribes and nations. Jesus dwells in that temple, and because it is indestructible, so is the hope we have for our faith for all eternity. That’s just a small part of the message Jesus was giving to us who live nearly two thousand years after 70 A.D. But that small part is huge!