Debates over the interpretation of the Christian Scriptures have existed since the bible’s initial inception. Church history is full of these disputes and while some were but simple textual or doctrinal disagreements, others took on the form of an all-out campaign against heretical teachings especially those surrounding teachings related to the person of Jesus Christ[1]. Even in our present day, we continue to dig into the scriptures to understand its message and fight the good fight to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3). One important and positive effect of these types of debates has been their ability to make people think through their beliefs and produce some clarity in our conception of the words of God. Doctrines that we cherish the most and to which we are deeply rooted are those that we’ve generally examined the closest. Often, when one of our beliefs is questioned or contested, we tend to get a little fired up and throw ourselves into a deep theological examination to better understand it and defend this belief. But there are times when this type of encounter brings about a different result, mainly when we become persuaded of a different doctrinal position than our original dogma. This has happened to the best of us and shows that we should sometimes be grateful for those who are willing to confront us. Perhaps unknowing to them, they inadvertently helped us grow. It is good for us to question and debate, keeping in the spirit of Iron sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17) and that the first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17).
When formulating a set of Christian teaching, there needs to be room allowed for potential uncertainties. As an example, since we are not living in 1st century Palestine and most of us don’t speak Aramaic, there are things that we just may struggle to comprehend[2]. The study of eschatology[3] could be classified as one of these areas. The vast array of interpretations on just how things are going to end is complex and sometimes riddled in confusion. A prime example of this is where to place the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ in association with the millennium of Revelation 20 and the events leading up to that return. Studying the many scriptures associated with the events surrounding the return of Christ is both time consuming and intricate. Roughly 25-30% of the bible is eschatological in nature and to come up with a systematized eschatological outline can certainly be a lifetime adventure in studying its details. It becomes even more daunting an endeavour when we consider that many of the eschatological texts are largely symbolic in nature. While I’m not persuaded that we can fully grasp every aspect of biblical eschatology, I still believe the study of the end in relation to Christ’s coming and human history is significant and worth the investment. The point we are making is that we simply may need to be satisfied with basing our conclusion upon the balance of probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt. Still, if we truly desire to know more about the Messiah and His glorious Kingdom, this study is necessary.
While debate and passionate discussions produce deeper study and reflection, it can also have a serious impact. There is always the danger of becoming over-zealous and anathematizing others who don’t share our view. We must make every attempt to keep the air cool and avoid divisions between brethren because of an interpretation of eschatology. Unlike primary doctrines that are non-negotiables and clear in scripture, discussions and debates on the end times can largely be had without throwing out the word heretic. We can be ardent about it without severing ties with our brothers & sisters. We must stay focused upon those things that unite us rather than divide us.
I’ve spent many years examining the texts of scripture and reading many books on the theme of eschatology. That, in addition to many conversations on the end times, have allowed me to have at least an understanding of the many interpretations of eschatology. If I can be honest with my readers, what I came to realize is that I’ve never truly been persuaded and satisfied with a particular position. Some I found more persuasive than others. But at this time in my life, my desire is to once and for all settle it for myself. I want to take the time to evaluate those texts that truly speak on the subject and come to a conclusion for me personally. A position that I can conscientiously affirm! And so, while this series is made available with the intent of blessing my readers, it is also a personal endeavour to lay out a case for my own personal convictions.
While there are hundreds of biblical texts that are eschatological in nature, I want to begin with what I would deem as probably the most significant and the one which I believe serves as a foundation to all else. I want to examine in this series what Jesus taught about eschatology. What did the Christ say about the end times? It would be almost impossible to even begin to understand biblical eschatology prior to doing a true examination of Jesus’ teaching on the subject. The most extensive of all that Jesus had to say about eschatology is found in what is commonly called the Olivet Discourse. The passages of Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 & Luke 21 are central to this study and form the foundation to all other biblical examinations. The Olivet Discourse spells out Jesus’ own record of the outcomes of human history in relation to His coming. What did Jesus communicate to His disciples about what was in store for them and at the end of time? How should they behave based upon this revelation? What can future generations expect from this teaching? The Olivet Discourse addresses these very points. With its interpretation in mind, we then can address other eschatological passages to create a framework on what to expect from the future!
The Olivet Discourse is not without its interpretive challenges and in return, has created some different points of view. There are those who would argue that certain passages seem to relate to signs & events in the lives of the disciples living in the 1st century while others understand the content as predicting something that will happen towards the end of human history. This is the tension between what is called the Preterist view (Past), which sees the fulfillment of these passages in the events leading to and surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the Futurist view, which interprets theses passages entirely at the end of human history. Still there are those who approach the Olivet Discourse from what I call an “idealist” perspective whereas they see a double fulfillment of these passages and relate them both to first century believers and future Christians. While there are some that are rigid when choosing between these two options, most scholars see a little of both.
The interpretation in this essay is based upon what is called a partial-preterist view, which is a unique interpretation. It attempts to mingle the two views, both preterist and futurist together, by taking certain sections as pertaining to the past in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem while other finding their fulfillment at the 2nd coming of Christ. Prior to delving into Matthew 24, I will begin by addressing the context in which the Olivet Discourse was given. I will delve into an in-depth review of Matthew chapters 21-23. I will then spend most of my time going over Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 with the Matthean passages as my root followed by an excursus examining several other eschatological passages found in the gospel of Matthew.
[1] Some noted heresies would be Sabellianism, Arianism and Pelagianism, just to name a few.
[2] To be clear, this is not an uncertainty of authority, inspiration, or reliability, but of clarity.
[3] Eschatology simply means the study of the last things or the end.