Matthew 24 is the reading set for the fourth Sunday before Advent (i.e. in the countdown to Advent at the ordinary season comes to a close) and its parallel Mark 13 is the reading for the first Sunday of Advent. There is much confusion about both these passages (and the parallel in Luke 21), and there appear to be two main ways it is read.
1. Both two main sections, Matt 24.1–35 and Matt 24.36–51 are about Jesus’ second coming at the end of the age.
2. The first main section Matt 24.1–35 is about the immediate future and the destruction of the temple, but the second main section Matt 24.36–51 concerns a more distant expectation of Jesus’ return at the end of the age.
The first reading is very widespread, both amongst ‘confessional’ readers and ‘sceptical’ ones, for a range of reasons.
Firstly, there is a close association between the events in the first section and language of ‘the end.’ Matt 24.6 mentions that ‘the end is yet to come’ and 24.13 talks of standing firm ‘to the end.’ Secondly, in Matt 24.14 Jesus talks of the gospel being preached ‘in all the world’ and then ‘the end’ will come. Thirdly, Matt 24.21 talks of great distress ‘that will never be equalled.’ Fourthly, there is language in Matt 24.27 of the ‘coming of the Son of Man.’ Then in Matt 24.29, we are told of cosmic signs of the end of the age, after which in Matt 24.30 again the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ will be seen by ‘all the peoples of the earth.’ Finally, in Matt 24.31, there is a trumpet call, and the angels gather the elect from the ends of the earth. Some also see a parallel between what is described here, and the ‘end times’ judgements of the seven seals in Rev 6.
This all looks fairly compelling, so should make for a short blog post—except for one vital thing:
Amen I say to you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matt 24.34)
Jesus’ saying here is quite emphatic in form, including the emphatic form of the negative, mentioning ‘all’ these things clearly, and opening with the ‘Amen’ formula, characteristic of Matthew’s record of Jesus’ teaching, and suggesting recollection of Jesus’ actual words in Aramaic.
This is very difficult to evade. Some people suggest that the word ‘generation’ genea could be translated as ‘nation’ or ‘race’ rather than ‘generation’. But there is only one other occurrence in the gospels where this could be the reading—in Luke 16.8. Even here, the contrast is between people of this age and those ‘of the light’, so there is a temporal sense here. But in all other cases, the word clearly has the sense of ‘the people alive at this time.’ The clearest examples are in the genealogy in Matt 1.17 ‘fourteen generations’, and in the Magnificat in Luke 1.48 and Luke 1.50 ‘his mercy extends to those who fear him, from one generation to another.’ Along with this, the verse itself has a clear temporal sense in talking of it ‘not passing away.’
(A minority reading argues that ‘this generation’ refers not to the generation Jesus is addressing, but the ‘end times’ generation of some time in the future to whom all these things will happen. Apart from making this saying completely tautologous, such a reading has the minor disadvantage of making the term mean whatever the reader wants it to mean, rather than what Jesus actually said. If he is looking around at his disciples and uses the word ‘this’, then he is referring to them!)
This all makes the first approach problematic, and led C S Lewis to comment:
It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. (in “The World’s Last Night” (1960), The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)
Such a view also proposes that, in these verses, we have a confused mixture of predictions about the near and the distant future, which suggests Jesus didn’t really know what he was talking about, or the disciples didn’t, or the gospel writers didn’t—or all three. More seriously, it has made not a few scholars conclude that Jesus thought his return would be within a generation, and that he was clearly wrong—he was a failed apocalyptic prophet, and the writers of the NT tried (unsuccessfully) to cover up the fact.
The difficulty with this last conclusion is that Matthew, Mark and Luke all record Jesus saying this. Unless you think that all three gospels were written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, then you have to conclude that they also believed Jesus expected his return within the generation and that subsequent generations of copyists believed this, but somehow ignored it. This seems altogether implausible. All the evidence points to the gospel writers taking Jesus seriously, and thinking that their contemporaries needed to know what Jesus said.
How can we make sense of this? A first massive clue comes in comparing the parallel passage in Mark 13 with Matthew. The first section of Matt 24 equates to Mark 13.1–31; if you look in a Synopsis (which puts the passages from the different gospels in parallel with one another) you can see that Matthew and Mark are almost identical (with the exception of Matt 24.10–12). But in the second section, Mark has just 6 verses, whereas Matthew continues with 16 more, and then in chapter 25 records a series of Jesus’ eschatological parables about final judgement (the bridesmaids, the parable of the ‘talents’, and the sheep and the goats).
A second massive clue comes in noticing Matthew’s distinction between ‘this’ and ‘that’. In Mark 13.4 the disciples ask Jesus a single, compound question about the temple, prompted by his comment that ‘not a single stone will be left on another’:
“Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
But in Matthew, the compound question has become two questions:
“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
For some reason, Matthew appears to want to distinguish more clearly between the question of the destruction of the temple, and the question about Jesus’ coming and the end of the age. Matthew continues the distinction, by being clear that in the first section, Jesus is talking about ‘this’, but at Matt 24.36 he introduces a marked change of focus: ‘But about that day or hour, no-one knows…’ The most obvious explanation of this is that Matthew is writing after the temple’s destruction in 70AD, but Mark was writing before it. So for Mark, the impending fate of the temple looms large; for Matthew, this has now passed, and the question of Jesus’ coming deserves more attention.
What, then, do we make of all the material in the first section which looks as though it is referring to ‘the end’? It doesn’t need to be read in this way at all.
Note first that emphasis of Matt 24.6 is not to associate these events with ‘the end’, but to distinguish them. ‘The end is not yet.’ And in 24.13 and 24.14, the word ‘end’ is not the (semi-technical) term eschatos (as in ‘the last days’) but the more general term telos. Secondly, we might be conscious that there is more preaching to be done, but the word oikumene is best understood as referring to the known world. It does seem that preaching to the whole (Roman) world was Paul’s goal, and Luke (in Acts) does appear to think that that is what he has done, ‘with all boldness and without hindrance!’ (Acts 28.31)—and all before the fall of Jerusalem. Thirdly, the distress of the siege of Jerusalem was indeed terrible; Josephus recounts a story of a woman killing her baby and eating half of it, offering the other half to rebel fighters (Jewish War chapter 6), and more Jews were killed by other Jews than by the Romans.
But a key observation is to note the language of the ‘coming of the Son of Man.’ The word for Jesus’ second coming to earth, parousia, does not occur in Matt 24.30. The phrase instead is the ‘erchomenos of the Son of Man’. This is an almost direct quotation of the Greek of Dan 7.13:
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
In other words, this is not about the ‘Son of Man’ coming to earth, but his coming before God, receiving authority and being vindicated. Note that he exercises authority over ‘all nations and peoples’. Jesus also quotes this—in exactly the same words—to the High Priest in Mark 14.62. Here Jesus cannot be talking about his return—he refers to himself sitting at the right hand of God and exercising the power of the kingdom, which the priest believes to be blasphemy. And he says that the High Priest will witness Jesus’ vindication and authority; he will see Jesus raised from the dead and the Spirit coming to equip the disciples as witnesses not just to Israel but to all nations.
This also makes sense of the final parts of our puzzle. The ‘trumpet’ is not the ‘last trump’ of 1 Cor 15.52 and 1 Thess 4.16, but a metaphor for the proclamation of the gospel which we read about in Acts, and the ‘gathering of the elect’ is the entry into God’s people of the Gentile believers. But what of the cosmic language: ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’? Note that this is to happen ‘immediately’ after the distress of those days. Well, these words from Isaiah 13.10, Isaiah 34.4 and Joel 2.31 are also quoted soon after—by Peter at Pentecost:
In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people…The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood…And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Acts 2.17–21)
Peter appears to understand what is going on in front of him in exactly the same words that Jesus uses in the first section of Matt 24—all happening within the life of that generation.
So that is why I go with option 2 above. The first part of Matt 24 is indeed about the destruction of the temple, but also about the remarkable thing that God would do before that happened—Jesus’ resurrection, the gift of the Spirit equipping the disciples, and the good news about God’s kingdom spilling out beyond the bounds of God’s historic people to be proclaimed to the whole known world. And in all these events, Jesus would be vindicated and take his seat at the right hand of the Mighty One. It is only at Matt 24.36 that Jesus moves on to teach about his second coming to earth.
It is worth noting that, at this historical, cultural and linguistic distance, this is a difficult passage for us to read well. But it is also worth noting that we are significantly impeded in reading carefully by the weight of interpretative traditions here. Worse, a number of Bible translations are misleading. Scofield, in famous 1909 Dispensationalist study Bible, actually changed the word ‘generation’ to ‘race’ in v 34 in order to support his interpretation. And today’s New Living translation actually adds the word ‘return’ in v 33 to do the same thing. It has never been more important to read a good translation.
For a fuller discussion of New Testament eschatology, including how to read the difficult passages, see my Grove booklet Kingdom, Hope and the End of the World.
(A version of this was first published in 2013)
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you consider donating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
25 thoughts on “What is Matthew 24 all about?”
It’s brilliant, thoughtful, helpful perspective and analysis, Ian.
I wish I could even begin to communicate how thoroughly steeped the American evangelical/conservative church is in the left behind/end times mentality. It’s almost impossible to overstate it, and to overcome. To question the viewpoint is to risk being a heretic who does not believe a literal interpretation of the scriptures.
I was a pastor’s child, and have been married to a pastor for most of our lives ( though he is not at this time.) To suggest anything other than the popular dispensation a list view is to completely disorder the average evangelical Christians world. You know you’re just going to mess up everything for them. Church signs tout “scare messages,” Bible studies are focused on Revelation and the rapture, songs reference flying away to Heaven, sermon references talk longingly about how soon we will all *go home,* to our real home. I’ve spent my whole life here, find myself deeply at odds with what I see as a fear based, academic-free, monstrosity of a system/culture which has been built, struggle with how to raise children within it…eventually they, being highly intelligent, begin to question what the church is saying and to reject the periphery of what is being taught from their preschool classes onward. My husband and I teach them differently at home. I send links to your articles to my oldest children, my children still at home read N.T. Wright’s books so have a different perspective…but this sets them completely askance from every single person I, and they, know. It is so bad, that we either have to choose to remain but disagree quietly (and know that those around us have not even studied outside of what their churches espouse) or make issue and have no friends, no community for our children as they grow. So, we stay. The only other option is the liberal church, and they deny so much about the Gospel and the veracity of the scriptures (from almost any interpretive angle) that they simply aren’t an option.
I hope it doesn’t seem that I overstate. I don’t. Bit of quandry.
So, thank you for thinking, studying, continuing to work thru challenging passeges. What you say here makes good sense to me. It is very much needed, and thw work you do is a lifeline to me and my family.
I don’t think you overstate the case, Holly. But there is hope. We are currently in a Brethren tradition church, so many of the older members of the congregation know nothing but a dispensational approach. Most of the new Christians find eschatpology incomprehensible. We have just done Revelation in our home group and it was a struggle. But by constantly (and boringly) asking how John’s readers would have understood the imagery, I began to see change. Although one person whose main theological reading seems to be ‘Left Behind’ was both disappointed and unimpressed that I refused to accept that John was describing helicopter gunships.
Oops – eschatology
I rather liked ‘eschatpology’ – having been weened in musty chapels on Edwardian Brethren end-time charts I think that describes it well 🙂
Ian – you rightly say ‘It has never been more important to read a good translation’ – traduttore traditore – what do you recommend – I recall u aint a big fan of the conservative weighted ESV?
Well, we can’t use Tom Wright’s personal translation, because now we know that Ian thinks it’s wrong on this passage. 😉
Holly, thanks for the cultural insight. One point: you said that the issue is sometimes whether one believes a ‘literal’ interpretation of the scriptures (of course, on this particular issue we are talking about just a few scriptures: not scriptures in general). What I’m not sure about here is why it can’t simply be a matter of texts being correct or incorrect in what they assert. And of texts written in literal genres meaning things literally (allowing, of course, for apocalyptic language etc.). Is there really (in most cases) a third option, a ‘metaphorically true’ option? – and if there is, what is that option on this occasion? (And who has the right to decide what it is?) Thanks.
But American evangelicalism doesn’t really even interpret the term *apocalyptic* in the same way. (I am referring to the non-Calvinist or non-Reformed branches) We would call that literature prophetic (meaning, telling us what is going to happen right now, such as fearing a red moon) or almost cataclysmic. Apocalypse is the movie where everyone dies except the hero and the few people with him.
We have no interpretive lens. We have no academic wing. My church of 800 still does the Rick Warren study and it goes no deeper than that.
We just do the flat reading and try to make it make sense. And yet, we vote and make foreign policy based upon what we think we read. It’s all about fear!
And sure, of course I’m referring to these few scriptures and the genre in general. Not debating whether the Bible is meant to be read literally. That, too, requires definition!
It sure does.
I think the red moon is a good example. When the New Testament speaks about moon turned to blood it means a red moon, no more and no less. People who think they are sophisticated treat that as an example of not taking the Bible literally’, as they put it. But what is the metaphorical meaning that they have in mind that is the ‘real’ meaning of the moon being turned to blood? I think they are over-anxious to prove they are not hicks. On this occasion the hicks understand the New Testament writers and the sophisticated (who are trying too hard and seem counter-intuitively desperate to avoid the obvious meaning) don’t.
And of course I’m just teasing. 🙂
Ian, you are too liberal for much of American Evangelicalism. Issues of science, foreign policy, how to read Revelation, etc. You simply challenge firmly held paradigms.
And I gather you are too conservative for many others. 😉
Thank you, again, for the work you do. It’s so important.
Please forgive the typos. I see them….editing is difficult on my phone.
Amen to what you have said Holly -you are not alone.
I’m totally on board with your assessment of American Evangelicalism. I made the mistake of attending college and thereafter graduate school–for English–and I found that I had to slough off much of my earlier ideas (well, I didn’t intentionally slough them off, rather they came off of their own accord because, really, they had no scriptural basis). I’m attending an Evangelical church with my wife at this time, but I feel so out of place–it’s like I’m walking this very thin line where I want to be respectful, but I find myself constantly poking at what I see as surface readings of the scripture. Ah, I just keep my head down and pray to God.
Thank you, Matthew.
I’m sorry that this is so.
To see Matt as a post-August 70 adjustment of Mark is economical given this textual data – and the more so when we consider (a) the overall relationship of these 2 gospels, (b) the fact that sticking close to Mark, as he does, will mean Matt can potentially look more primitive than he really is. That is why your perspective has, I think, the advantage over others, of which I’m sure you’re aware. Some (Sanders, Gundry) rightly point out that *occasionally* Matt actually seems more primitive than Mark here (24.29 ‘immediately’) – but that would be so even by the law of averages. David Wenham sees the ur-SynopticApocalypse as closest to Matt. John Nolland maintains a pre-70 dating of Matt even without that. Garrow and Goulder do align all this with the seals, but one can agree with there being some connection while disagreeing on the nature of the connection (I see Mt 24.30-1 as dependent on Rev.). As often, Matt’s redactional additions are (a) spectacular and/or (b) reflective of folk-tradition or -expectation – no lessening of intense expectation since Mark (e.g., 24.30 ‘the sign of the Son of Man’, 24.40-1 ‘rapture’ verses).
Sounds pretty plausible as an approach to a very confusing passage. There does need to be some explanation for v34.
I can just about see how the ‘that day and hour’ (v36) is a change of reference – though the repeat reference to the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ (v30, 37, 44) does make it questionable – if it is two different ‘comings’ the passage hasn’t taken care to make that clear!
Also, if the first ‘coming’ in v30 refers to the resurrection and ascension, why does it follow on ‘immediately after the suffering of those days’, which you are connecting with the destruction of the temple in AD 70?
This could be the kind of slight confusion that is bound to happen when a writer both (a) sticks closely to his source, thereby limiting his manoeuvrability and (b) has quite a few new things to say. Producing a convincingly integrated finished product is almost impossible in such circumstances, and awkward joins and inconcinnities can spring up. Mark Goodacre, Geoffrey Styler and several others use this as the kingpin point in their detection of which evangelist edited which.
Yes, Ian’s analysis seems convincing. I have ordered the booklet on the strength of it.
Regrettably, I must dissent from this analysis.
To interpret ‘this generation’ as that of Jesus’s time is to overlook his preliminary warning that a considerable period must pass before even the beginning of the birth pangs (Matt 24:4-8). Elsewhere (Luke 19:11-15) he compares this period to the absence of a nobleman gone on a long journey, correcting the idea that ‘the kingdom of God was to appear immediately’. At the end of the Olivet discourse he speaks of his return being ‘delayed’ (Matt 24:48, 25:5). Clearly ‘this generation’ must refer to a generation following all that happens in Matt 24:4-8.
The interpretation also overlooks the parable of the fig tree (Matt 21:19, 24:32-33), which is the immediate context of Matt 24:24. The fig tree symbolised the nation of Israel, cursed because it did not bear fruit, despite the ‘manure’ cast around it by the early Jewish church. The curse came to pass in AD 70. The fig tree began to put forth leaves again in 1948.
‘This generation’ is therefore better understood as the generation which sees the tree beginning to put forth leaves. I don’t think we have quite reached the end of that generation. ‘All these things’ that we have not yet seen are those described in Matt 24:15-31.
As for Daniel 7:13, this refers to the Son of Man coming at the end of the present age (Matt 24:30). The context is clearly apocalyptic. The award of the kingdom is the subject of Rev 5, just before the end but not completed until the start of the kingdom in Rev 11:15. Yes, Jesus refers to the Daniel vision in Matt 26:64, but note that the first ‘you’ is singular, addressed to the High Priest, and the second plural, addressed to all present. I take Jesus to be saying that you Jews – with no particular reference to time – will one day see the Son of Man coming in his glory. The phrase ‘ap arti’ (translated ‘from now on/hereafter/henceforth’) is problematic whether you accept my reading or see this as a reference to the Ascension. But perhaps it should be understood with ‘I say to you’ rather than ‘you will see’: after keeping silent Jesus says, “Moreover, I say to you henceforth: you will see …. ‘ The phrase is omitted in Mark 14:62, so does not seem to be crucial. There is a similar punctuation issue in Luke 23:43, best read as “I say to you today: you will be with me in paradise.”
On these grounds I would defend the ‘minority reading’, which I feel is too easily (though uncharacteristically) dismissed in the paragraph between parentheses.
I retract the suggestion of repunctuation (it doesn’t work), and in the 3rd para the reference should be Matt 24:34, not :24. So the problem remains: what exactly is Jesus looking forward to when he says, “Henceforth you will see the Son of Man [i] seated at the right hand of Power and [ii] coming on the clouds of heaven”? I said ‘henceforth’ was problematic because it implies a change beginning from the moment of speaking, yet the following verb is future tense. Be that as it may, only one person in the NT is recorded as having seen [i] and that was Stephen (Acts 7:56). The disciples did not see Jesus at the right of God, though they saw him going to that place (Acts 1:9), and almost certainly the members of the Council were not among them. Rev 1:7 refers to [ii] as something yet to occur (even now), as also indicated by Matt 24:30; it will occur immediately before the gathering of the elect.
Hi Ian. This is great work. Have you heard of the opinion that ‘this generation’ is a reference to the two seeds of Gen 3:15? I do not know the author, Philip du Grange la Toit, but I agree with his view: https://verbumetecclesia.org.za/index.php/ve/article/view/1850/3496
Thanks for the link, which I have quickly read. It is completely unconvincing, and appears to be working hard to reach an unsustainable conclusion. There are two major problems with it.
First, although he cites France and lists his view, he has completely misunderstood it, and have not even mention the central argument of France (following G B Caird) that the ‘coming’ (Gk erchomai) of Jesus is a citation of Dan 7.13 and so is the coming of Jesus to the throne from earth, not the coming of Jesus from heaven at the end. That is absolutely the central issue, and he completely omits it.
Secondly, the bulk of his argument is about the meaning of gennema, meaning ‘brood’ or ‘offspring’, and not genea, meaning ‘generation’. Both are derived from ginomai, but mean different things. The core of his argument is that ‘brood tends to mean people of a certain characteristic, so perhaps ‘generation’ might mean that too’. The straightforward answer is ‘No, it cannot’!
This is the best example of the poor arguments about the meaning of ‘generation’, but it is still special pleading. In passing, and listing all the occurrences of genea in Matthew, he actually confirms my argument!
For information, this is what Louw & Nida say about gennema: ‘that which has been produced or born of a living creature’. And this is what is says about genea: ‘people living at the same time and belonging to the same reproductive age class.’
It really is impossible to skirt around in this way.
Matthew Chapter 24 can be summed up as the end of the Jewish Nation in the Bible.
If you’d like, I’d be happy to support this with a 150+ page PowerPoint presentation that I have saved in PDF format (360kb).
I am not sure I agree with you there. Possibly the anticipation of the end of an ethnic nation in a geographical land, but not the end of the Israel of God…
Thank you for this really clear and helpful article Ian.
The last time I read this chapter it struck me that the phrase ‘these things’ is used in both v. 33 and v. 34, and it would seem reasonable to expect it to mean the same thing in both places. In v. 33 it explicitly does not include the final return of the Lord but only those preliminary things which show that ‘he is near, right at the door’. That gives a different complexion to v. 34: ‘Amen I say to you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these [preliminary] things have happened.’
The question then remains of where to draw the line between the parts of the chapter describing the things that show he’s at the door, and the parts describing him walking through it. You make a good case for v. 36 being the pivot but there are still difficulties, e.g. how can the ascension (v. 30) be said to be ‘after’ (v. 29) the fall of Jerusalem? Is there anything to stop us drawing the line instead at e.g. v. 13?
I think that the simply answer to your question is: we need to stop reading this with an obsession on chronological sequences!
If you translate the Greek connective τότε by ‘then’, it looks like you have a chronological sequence, but that is not a necessary meaning. The TNIV at v 30 translates it ‘at that time’, which is helpful. I don’t see why we assume Jesus is offering us a programme of events in connection with the fall of Jerusalem; he is not particularly sequential earlier in the chapter.
I think it is perfectly fine to read this as a cluster of events associated with the judgement of Israel including the fall of the city.
You can draw a line at v 13—but you are still then left with the problem of ‘all these things’ happening in a generation at v 33. The idea that ‘these things’ simply ignores everything after v 13 is very odd!