Meditations in Matthew 24—Four Key Words

The AD 70 blog has come full circle. We published our first post on Nov. 3, 2016. Our fourth post appeared on the last Wednesday of that month. Since then, the Lord has blessed us to post each Wednesday for 129 consecutive weeks.

We have covered much ground. Our first series of posts established the need for an improved prophetic model. We documented the Bible’s inherent prophetic scheme. The Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5–38) served as our starting point and provided the skeleton for our model.

First Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20 provided the flesh and bones. These passages extended our model through the messianic age to the resurrection and the final judgment. They allowed us to document a robust and well-rounded prophetic model. We named it inmillennialism.

We then showed inmillennialism’s validity and value. It helped us interpret the prophetic passages in Hebrews and all of Revelation.

Miscellaneous posts appeared as we made our way through these books. Some were Q&A posts generated by readers’ questions. Some dealt with passages where inmillennialism offers explanations unfamiliar to most modern Christians.

One year ago today (May 22, 2018) we began our examination of Matthew’s prophetic passages. During the past 52 weeks, we have examined the first 23 chapters. Now, we have arrived where we started—at the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25).

The Olivet Discourse continues Jesus’s message on the last Tuesday of his earthly life. Matthew’s record of this day’s activities began in Matt 21:19. It will end when Jesus finishes the Olivet Discourse (Matt 25:46).

We do not wish to duplicate previous posts as we work our way through the Olivet Discourse. Instead, we will highlight several key elements of inmillennialism. Readers who have followed along to this point will recognize their importance. Perhaps this list will entice others to review our Summary of Inmillennialism (here) and our previous posts on the Olivet Discourse (here).

Inmillennialism rests on pillars found in the Olivet Discourse. It claims specific definitions for four key words. We will examine these in this post. It also rests on two key literary devices. We will look at these (D. V.) in our next post. 

Age/World

“The disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of … the end of the age (Gk. aion)?’” (Matt 24:3 NKJV; emphasis added). 

Jesus had just told the scribes and Pharisees about the Temple’s coming destruction. “See! Your house is left to you desolate” (Matt 23:38 NKJV). A few hours later, at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse, he repeated this message to his disciples. “Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matt 24:1–2 NKJV).

The Temple was the chief symbol of the Mosaic age. Its destruction would mark the end of the age for which it stood.

Most modern translations show this by using the word “age” here. This is not a controversial definition. But the beloved KJV has “the end of the world.” So, we emphasize that Jesus was not speaking about the end of the cosmos. He was talking about the end of the age for which the Temple stood—the Mosaic age.

Inmillennialism maintains this orientation throughout the Olivet Discourse. When Jesus mentions “the end” (Matt 24:6, 13, 14), he means the end of the Mosaic age. In these verses, Jesus is answering the questions his disciples asked in Matt 24:1–3. This establishes “the end” he has in mind. 

At the close of the Olivet Discourse Jesus mentions the final judgment (Matt 25:31–46). This event is not “the end” he associated with the Temple’s fall. 

Jesus’s “end of the age” did not refer to the end of the messianic age. Nor did it denote the end of the physical world (i.e., cosmos). It meant the end of the Mosaic age and its sacrifices.

Presence

“The disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming (Gk. parousia)?’” (Matt 24:3 NKJV; emphasis added).

Inmillennialism uses “presence” to translate this Greek word. This agrees with The McReynolds English Interlinear and Young’s Literal Translation. Both use this meaning in every New Testament occurrence of parousia. We provide other support for “presence” in a glossary entry (here).

Parousia does not represent a point-in-time action—like “coming”—without reference to a state of being. Paul provides an example that shows this. He says, “As you have always obeyed, not as in my presence (Gk. parousia) only, but now much more in my absence (Gk. apousia), work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Php 2:12 NKJV). The Apostle uses parousia to mean “presence,” the opposite of “absence.”

Inmillennialism sees an impetus to adopt this definition. The Lord had just mentioned the destruction of the Temple. This would end the Mosaic age. And, another must begin. 

The disciples were familiar with the long-promised messianic age. They had preached it for many months (e.g., Matt 4:23; 9:35; 10:7, 23). They knew the prophets had promised God’s presence as one of its leading characteristics (e.g., Ps 68:18). 

These disciples were thinking beyond the Temple’s fall and the end of the Mosaic age. They used parousia to represent Christ’s presence with his people in the messianic age.

Jesus confirmed this meaning. He said the Temple would fall in “the coming (Gk. parousia) of the Son of Man” (Matt 24:27 NKJV). Later, Paul placed the resurrection “at His coming (Gk. parousia)” (1 Cor 15:23 NKJV). 

Inmillennialism recognizes that these two events—the Temple’s fall and the resurrection—both occur in Christ’s parousia. This can only be true if this word means the “presence” of Christ with his people in the messianic age. It cannot mean “coming” as a point-in-time event.

Earth/Land

“Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth (Gk. gē) will mourn” (Matt 24:30 NKJV; emphasis added)

The Newberry Interlinear has “all the tribes of the land.”¹ Inmillennialism accepts this meaning. Jesus was speaking of the Temple’s fall and associated events. These were events concentrated in the land of Israel.

Luke’s account of the Olivet Discourse confirms this definition. “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people” (Luke 21:23 NKJV). 

John Gill makes a key point. Jesus is speaking about “the land of Judea; for other lands, and countries, were not usually divided into tribes, as that was; neither were they affected with the calamities and desolations of it, and the vengeance of the son of man upon it; at least not so as to mourn on that account, but rather were glad and rejoiced.”²

Jesus was speaking about distress in the land of Israel and the tribes who dwelled there. He was not speaking of a world-wide catastrophe. 

Generation

“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation (Gk. genea) will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (Matt 24:34 NKJV; emphasis added). 

The disciples asked a time question related to Temple’s fall: “Tell us, when will these things be?” (Matt 24:3 NKJV; emphasis added). Jesus listed the signs that would precede that event (Matt 24:4–31). Then, he answered their “when” question. These events would happen in their generation.

Jesus was not speaking about some future generation. He used the near demonstrative pronoun—“this generation.” Had he meant some other time period, he would have said “that generation.” Matthew never uses this pronoun to point forward in time.³

Inmillennialism says Jesus did not change meanings on this Tuesday of Passion Week. Earlier, he had told the scribes and Pharisees about the Temple’s coming destruction. He also set the timeframe. “Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation (Gk. genea)” (Matt 23:36 NKJV). Jesus did not use the same pronoun-noun combination in different ways within hours of each other.

By “generation,” Jesus meant the “people living at the same time and belonging to the same reproductive age-class—‘those of the same time.’”⁴

The things of which Jesus spoke would occur in his generation.

Conclusion

Inmillennialism requires us to accept these four definitions. But, this is not special pleading. None of them are arbitrary. Standard authorities support each of them. And, above all, the Scriptures show their legitimacy, either through examples or “good and necessary consequence.”⁵

We can go further. These definitions undermine other prophetic systems. Those systems deny Jesus was speaking about the end of the Mosaic age. They cannot accept that the parousia of Christ was a reality in the first century. Or, that Jesus’s prophecy pertained to the land of Israel. And that his generation would see its fulfillment.

Our next post will examine two key literary devices—cosmic collapse and protensive language. Jesus uses both in the Olivet Discourse.

1. Thomas Newberry and George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2004).
2. John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 9 vols. (1809–1810; repr., Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 7:294-5.
3. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew, Mark, Luke, vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 146.
4. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 119.
5. The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6.