A Study of New Testament Eschatology
G. I. Williamson
Introduction
The purpose of this study is a modest one. It is to set forth a few of the certainties of Biblical eschatology. It is our view that no one has all the answers. The whole history of the Christian Church teaches us to be modest in our claims, and tentative in many details of our doctrine of the future. Yet we do believe the main things are clear in the Holy Scriptures. The material that we are presenting here is intended to demonstrate this fact.
[1] We must always begin with the things that are clear, and then work at the problem of understanding the things that are not clear. For example: we do not begin with the book of Revelation, and then—after we interpret it—go back and impose our interpretation on the gospels and the epistles. No, we begin with the gospels and then move on to the more difficult passages.
[2] The only infallible interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself, and the Bible alone is sufficient. There are those, for instance, who say that there are things in the Bible—concerning the future—that cannot be understood today because we just don’t have the resources. We believe that this is incorrect. This denies the sufficiency of the Bible. The truth is that the problem is not in some deficiency in the Bible. The problem is rather in us—that we do not study it carefully enough.
[3] The Westminster Confession of Faith is correct when it says “the true and full sense of any Scripture. . .is not manifold but one. . .” It is often assumed by Bible teachers, for example, that there is such a thing as double (or even triple) fulfillment of prophecies. Our study of Biblical prophecy is decidedly against this assumption. It is rather our view that Biblical prophecy is quite specific, and that it refers to singular events. This does not mean that there is no application of a specific prophecy to other times and places. What it means is that the application is by way of analogy, not double fulfillment.
[4] We believe the logical place to begin, in developing a correct view of the future, is the great ‘eschatological discourse’ of Jesus. We therefore begin this study with the material contained in the gospel accounts in which Jesus speaks of the future. This material is found in Matthew 23-25 (and parallel passages in Mark and Luke). We will first try to understand this passage clearly, and then go on to some of the other material in the Apostolic writings.
The Context
What is happening in the narrative of Matthew 23? Do we not see Jesus Christ pronouncing the knell of doom on the apostate Jewish ‘Church?’ Time after time, in this passage, our Lord pronounces woe upon the Scribes and Pharisees, the religious leaders of Israel in that day. In them the whole development of the Jewish apostasy reaches its culmination [verses. 34,35]. Jesus also made it clear that this doom that he was threatening would not be long in coming. “I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation” [v. 36]. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem” cried our heart—broken Savior “how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate” [verses. 37,38]. Up to this time the Temple in Jerusalem was still acknowledged to be the house of God. That is why our Lord cleansed the Temple. But he had also denounced the fact that they had made his father’s house a den of merchandise. Now he speaks of a day rapidly approaching—a day that was to arrive within that generation [v. 36]—when it would no longer be God’s house. No, it would be “their house,” and it would be left unto them desolate!
We can well imagine the shock—waves that this caused, as it reverberated through the tradition—bound thinking of the disciples. ‘What, this house left desolate—this great Temple of God in Jerusalem? Surely not this!’ So, as they left the Temple that day “his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings” [Mt. 24:1]. ‘Look, Lord’ they were saying—in effect—as they pointed to these great buildings: ‘surely you can’t mean that these are going to come to desolation!’ To them this was simply unthinkable. But that is indeed what Jesus meant. We know this because he at once answered them saying “I tell you the truth: not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” [24:2]. They were utterly astounded. This shattered all the fixed ideas in their minds. It turned their whole idea of the future upside down. You see, they too were expecting that when the Messiah came he would restore the Kingdom to Israel—making the ‘good old days’ live again, as it were. (We know this because the disciples still tended to think this way even after Christ’s death and resurrection [Acts 1:6]). Yet here is the Messiah himself saying the destruction of the Temple is near. No wonder they began to ‘jump to conclusions.’ Isn’t that what we all tend to do, especially when it comes to predictions of the future?
So the disciples asked Jesus a question which—by its very structure—shows the conclusion to which they had ‘jumped.’ “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming [Greek: ‘parousia’] and the end of the age?” Now it is clear—is it not?—that they had simply assumed these things would happen together. If Jesus was right, and this house was going to be left unto them desolate, and if this was going to happen in that generation, then surely it had to mean Christ’s coming in glory and the end of the age.
But it was right there—in that giant assumption—that they made their big mistake. And the amazing thing is that so many Christian people keep right on making the same mistake today. No, they do not make it in quite the same way. But what is the common interpretation of Matthew 24? Is it not that Christ was really talking about two entirely different things as if they were one? Yes, this is the common interpretation. Many say that Jesus—from this point on—as he answers his disciples—is not only talking about [1] the coming destruction of Jerusalem (which took place in 70 A.D.); but also [2] the second coming of Christ and the end of the age (which is still future). They say that he was giving us signs of both of these events together. So the false Christs, and false prophets, and the wars, earthquakes, famines, etc., were not only intended as signs for that generation—to warn them of the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple—but also intended as signs to people destined to live many centuries later warning them of the nearness of Christ’s second coming.
With this interpretation we cannot agree. We do not think it is true that our Lord uses one set of words to predict two entirely different events. No, in answering the disciples—as we will seek to demonstrate—the Lord clearly divides the disciples question and carefully discriminates between the two things they were confusing. In the first section of Matthew 24 (vv. 4-35) our Lord deals with the things about which he warned the Scribes and Pharisees [Mt. 23:36]. In warning of these things he was not talking about his second coming and the end of history. This is quite clear from chapter 24, verse 34, where he says again (as in 23:36) “this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.” After making this crystal clear our Lord goes on (in Mt. 24:36-51, and in chapter 25) to deal with the other subject—namely, his second coming and the end this age. We could sum it up this way: our Lord takes pains to carefully distinguish between those two things that the disciples wrongly confused. They assumed that these two things—the destruction of Jerusalem and the ‘parousia’ and the end of this age—would come at the same time. Our Lord is careful to show them that it will be otherwise, as we will see in the next part of our study.
All These Things
Unless we are prepared to give a strained interpretation to Matthew 23:36 and 24:34, then, we must believe that “all these things” predicted by Jesus did, in fact, happen in that generation.
(A) But there are those who say ‘No, this cannot be the true understanding of what Jesus said because these things did not happen, in fact, in that generation.’ In order to try to make sense out of the passage, then, they are forced to change the sense of the word generation making it to mean ‘race’ instead. The meaning, then, would be that the Jewish race will not pass away until all of these things have been fulfilled. We are convinced that this is a wrong solution. If the reader will take a good concordance and study the use of this word ‘generation’ [Greek genea] in the New Testament, it will soon be apparent that the word has a well—defined meaning. It means the time span of human life from childhood to maturity. All that we can say about this interpretation is that it cannot possibly be right, because it imposes a sense on the Greek word that has no other support in the Bible. When our Lord, for instance, said “O unbelieving and perverse generation. ..how long shall I stay with you?” [Mt. 17:17] he was not talking about the Jewish race. No, he was talking about that part of the Jewish race living in Palestine during the time that he was here on earth. Again, when Jesus said “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah” he was not talking about the entire Jewish race. No, he was talking about the Jews of that time because they were so unbelieving.
(B) If we stick to the plain sense of the words, then, in Matthew 24, verse 34, there is no escape: Jesus meant that generation. Therefore, what needs to be demonstrated is that all of these things did indeed take place in that generation. It is therefore to this that we turn as we proceed with this study.
[1] To begin with, then, Jesus warns against being deceived by the false claims of pseudo—messiahs. That this took place “in that generation” we have abundant evidence. In Acts chapter 5 (vv. 36,37) we read the words of Gamaliel, in which he spoke of two such pseudo—messiahs—Theudas and Judas the Galilean. In the first letter of John the apostle (2:18,19, & 4:1-4) he clearly states that there already were “many antichrists” in the world as he was writing. We also have confirmation from the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus. The phenomenon of pseudo—messiahs was manifest in the period of time leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. “Now as for the affairs of the Jews” he writes “they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and imposters, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those imposters every day.” We therefore maintain that this specific prediction was, indeed, fulfilled in that generation. This is further confirmed by Luke’s account of the words of Jesus. Luke wrote for Gentile readers. He therefore explained some things for them that needed no explanation for Jewish readers. In Luke’s account (21:8) we read that Jesus said “the time is near” as he spoke of these pseudo—messiahs. Jesus was speaking to his disciples. He was warning them. How strange the interpretation that ignores this patent fact, and treats the words of Jesus as if they were spoken to people many hundreds of years in the future.
[2] In the second place, we read about wars and rumors of wars (v. 6). In Josephus [Book IV, chapter 9], we read that (prior to 70 A.D.) “sedition and civil war prevailed, not only over Judea, but in Italy also.” And again, in Book IV, chapter 10, we read that “about this very time it was that heavy calamities came about Rome on all sides.” Is this not a perfectly adequate fulfillment? For that generation—since it only ‘lived once’—a warning such as this had an urgent meaning. When they saw the dark clouds of war beginning to gather over their heads, as it were, then they really did have a very clear sign—and it warned them of the soon coming destruction (70 A.D.). But on the common interpretation this just isn’t true. Was World War I a ‘sign’ of the second coming? Evidently not. Neither was World War II. But if these wars are not great enough to serve as signs of the near coming of Jesus, what wars could be? The writer can remember—when the war clouds were gathering back in 1939—that preachers of that time were confidently saying this war was a sign of the nearness of the second coming. Some even put a limit on the time that was supposed to be left before that event came. But they were wrong. They were wrong because wars and rumors of wars are not a sign of the second coming. But they were a sign to that generation visited by Jesus—a sign of the fact that Jerusalem and the apostate Temple were soon to be a desolation.
[3] In the third place we note that, after repeating the basic idea of war—namely, that nation shall rise against nation—our Lord next spoke of various calamities that we associate with ‘nature.’ He spoke of “famine and earthquakes in various places” (v. 7b). And, again, anyone who reads Josephus’ history of the Jewish people will have no difficulty in seeing that this was fulfilled “in that generation.” Here is a typical excerpt taken from his account: “The madness of the seditions did also increase together with their famine, and both of these miseries were every day inflamed more and more…children pulled the very morsels that their fathers were eating out of their mouths…so did the mothers do as to their infants; and when those who were most dear were perishing under their hands, they were not ashamed to take from them the very last drops that might preserve their lives.” Later, in the siege of Jerusalem, the famine became so intense that it “confounded all natural passions; for those who were just about to die looked upon those who were gone to their rest before them with dry eyes and open mouths. A deep silence also, and a kind of deadly night, had seized upon the city.” We also note (in addition to Matthew 27:54, 28:2, Acts 4:31 & 16:26, which is decisive) that Josephus records a great earthquake in Book VI, chapter 5.
[4] In the fourth place, it is interesting to note that Luke—who wrote for primarily for Gentile readers—again adds important information (Luke 21:12). To the disciples our Lord said “but before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. This will result in your being witnesses to them.” Now as we see it the meaning is clear: Jesus was speaking to real people; he was telling them what was going to happen to them. What strange exegesis it is to try to apply these words to people far removed from that generation? Anyone who has studied the book of Acts will know that these things did happen to the Apostles. If words are to be interpreted in their natural sense, there is no reason whatever to take these statements out of this context. Our fourth point, then, is the fact that this also happened in that generation.
[5] The fifth thing predicted (in Mt. 24:10) was apostasy from the true faith, with betrayal and hatred. This could be taken to refer to the apostasy of the Jewish people, and their factional conflicts. We know, again, from the writings of Josephus that this was one of the most terrible aspects of the calamity that came on the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. However, when our Lord speaks of turning “away from the faith” it seems more likely that he is speaking of Christians—those who professed that he was the promised Messiah, and then went back on that profession. And, once again, there is no problem in seeing that this happened in that generation. The entire New Testament was written in that generation. And there is hardly a book in the New Testament that does not show the fact of apostasy and dissension. How soon the people in Galatia turned to what Paul calls “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” [Gal. 1:6,7]. The Church of Corinth was sadly divided by factions. And some of the Churches were at the point of repudiation by Jesus [Rev. 3:15]. We tend to idealize the Apostolic Church. But we should not do so. It was a veritable thicket of problems. There were some in the Apostolic church who professed to be Christians and then turned away from the faith. These “godless men” were described by Jude as “unreasoning animals” (Jude 4 & 10).
[6] The sixth item of information was the fact that there would be false prophets. And here, again, we not only read of such things in the New Testament scriptures (Rom. 16:17,18; I Jn. 4:1; Gal. 1:6,7; Acts 13:6, etc.), but Josephus gives abundant evidence of the large number of false prophets that came along to stir up vain hopes for the Jewish people. And well might we add (from the same evidence) that the love of many grew cold.
Now with reference to these predictions and their fulfillment in that generation there has been rather general agreement. Even those who apply these things partly to the future, admit that these things—outlined above—happened in that generation. But, they also say that from here on in Matthew 24 [down to verse 34] there are several things which did not happen in that generation. Therefore, they argue, we are forced to admit that our Lord also predicted things that would only come to pass toward the end of the age in which we live, and not in that generation. At this point is may be well to say that the writer also, at one time, held this view—and yet was never satisfied with it. The reason is that it required a very forced interpretation of the 34th verse. The more I studied the word ‘generation’ as it is used in the Greek New Testament, the more clear it became to me that I had to choose one of two things. Either Christ was wrong in what he said in verse 34, or I was wrong in thinking that some of ‘these things’ were still in the future. This drove me back to a much more careful study of the things Jesus predicted for that generation. And when this was done it became clear—to my surprise—that these things also happened in that generation. It is to these things that we will turn in the next chapter.
Commonly Misunderstood Items
In this section of our study we want to deal with the material found in Matthew 24:14-31. In this section there are several items that are commonly assumed to be ‘yet in the future.’ It is our conviction that this is an error, and we hope to show this as we discuss each of these items in the discussion that follows.
[1] In Matthew 24:14 we read that “this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” The problem here is quickly solved if we observe the constant Greek usage. For this Greek term translated ‘world’ here does not mean the whole world or earth in the geographical sense. No, what this term means is the entire civilized world of that day—or, in other words, the entire Roman Empire. Take, for instance, the statement of Luke (2:1) that Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that ‘all the world’ should be taxed. The whole ‘world’ [Greek ‘oikoumene’] simply meant the whole Roman Empire. It is used the same way in texts such as these: Lk. 4:1, Acts 11:28, 17:6, 19:27, 24:5, and Rom. 10:18). And the fact is that the gospel was preached throughout that world in that generation. Take, for instance, the statement of Luke in Acts 2, verse 5. He says that—on the day of Pentecost—there were “devout men out of every nation under heaven” in Jerusalem to hear Peter’s preaching. And in Colossians 1:6 and 23 we read that “All over the world this gospel is producing fruit and growing” (1:6). Yes, says Paul, it “has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven” (v. 23). When the Scripture speaks so plainly, why should we doubt it? How, then, can anyone insist that the fulfillment is still in the future?
[2] The second problem that many see in our view is the prediction in verses 15 & 16. “When you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” It is common among Christians today to see, in this, a prediction of a future antichrist. But again, we would argue that there is good reason to see this as fulfilled in ‘that generation’—the generation to which our Lord was speaking. For the sake of the greatest possible clarity we will here list our reasons. 1) It is clear that Christ said “this generation will not pass away until all these things are fulfilled” (v. 34). The only natural interpretation of this statement is that the abomination of desolation (one of these things) also took place in that generation. 2) With this agrees the direct reference, here, to the disciples to whom Christ was speaking. He said “when you see…the ‘abomination of desolation.’” Does this not indicate that they, themselves, would see it? What meaning could this statement have had for those disciples, if this event was not to happen in that generation, but only thousands of years later? 3) With this also agrees the statement which follows (vv. 16 & 17). Our Lord instructed the people living in Judea as to what they should do when this event took place. They were to flee (v. 16). If they were on the housetop they were not to come down to try to take anything out of the house with them. In Jerusalem, in those days, the tops of houses were flat. One could go across the housetops to the wall (as the story of Rahab indicates). This was common in ancient cities in that era. This would not have much direct force today, where we are seldom up on the housetop—and can go nowhere without first coming down into the house. By what principle of Biblical interpretation is this simply ignored, so that this can be applied to the future? 4) Luke wrote his gospel especially for Gentile readers. Note, then, how he speaks of this same event. “When you [again, note that word] see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (21:20). Jews could be expected to understand the meaning of the phrase ‘the abomination of desolation.’ They were familiar with the Old Testament, and knew that this phrase appears in the book of Daniel. Gentiles, however, would not be so familiar with the prophetic writings. They needed an explanation. And so Luke—who was, himself, Gentile by birth—gave it to them. 5) Our fifth point is the confirmation we find in the writings of Josephus (who witnessed the downfall of Jerusalem). His record shows that the armies of Rome did surround the city. And those who took the words of Jesus seriously acted according to what he said as a literal warning to them. When they saw the armies coming they wasted no time in getting out of the city, fleeing to the little town of Pella. Can there be any doubt that this was fulfilled—and fulfilled in such a way as to make it rather strange, to say the least, to speak of a future fulfillment?
[3] In Matthew 24, verse 21, we come to a third ‘problem.’ Here our Lord says “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.” What should not be overlooked here is the fact that Jesus does not speak of this event as something that will come at the end of world history. No, quite the contrary: he speaks of it as an unparalleled event—unparalleled in the sense that nothing before that time, or after it, would ever equal it. Now it should be obvious that if our Lord had been speaking of something which was only going to take place at the end of world history he would not have said this. But if this event, of which the Lord is speaking, came in that generation, then there was a very good reason for contrasting it not only with all that went before but also all that would follow. Here, again, we find the record of Josephus adequate to support this conclusion, as he described the horrors that came on the Jews shut up in Jerusalem by the Romans. The words of Luke—written, for Gentile readers—confirm this. “There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (21:23,24). How could it be made more clear that our Lord was predicting a calamity for the Jewish nation?
[4] The next item is our Lord’s warning to his disciples, lest they should be deceived—during this time of distress—by any false teachers [Mt. 24:22-27]. What deserves special attention here is the emphatic way in which he directs his word to the disciples who were present as he was speaking. “At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. ..if anyone tells you ‘There he is, out in the desert’. . .or ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms’ do not believe it.” Again we are constrained to ask: what kind of Bible interpretation is it that removes this from that generation? It is certainly true that Christ speaks, in verse 27, of his ‘parousia’ (that is, his second coming). “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man.” But the reason for this is quite obvious. Our Lord mentions the second coming here simply by way of contrast. He is warning his disciples not to be misled, or deceived, when they—in that generation—hear rumors of the parousia, or second coming. (Incidentally, Josephus records the fact that there were many false rumors at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem). In order to help them to withstand this dangers our Lord reminded them by way of contrast. His second coming—when it does come—will not be secret at all. It will be so public that no one will fail to know when it happens.
The Most Difficult Points
Many bible commentators are willing to admit that—up to this point— our Lord was speaking primarily about things destined to take place in that generation. But a great many will say—at this point—‘but what about verses 29 to 31? Surely no one can possibly say that these things have also happened!’ It is, therefore, to this question that we now turn in our consideration of this section.
This is the statement of Matthew (24:29-31): “Immediately after the distress of those days ‘the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.’ At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the tribes of the land will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming [erchomai] on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from the one end of the heavens to the other” [our own translation]. It is not hard to see why many people have difficulty with this part of the Lord’s statement. The writer also, at one time, had difficulty in seeing how this could possibly be one of the things accomplished in that generation. But closer examination of what is stated here completely cleared up this problem. In the discussion that follows we will now consider the facts that cleared up the problem.
1) In the first place, a reading of Old Testament prophecies shows that they too use language very much like this statement of Jesus. In Isaiah 13, for example, we find the same kind of reference to ‘the lights going out’ when mighty Babylon was overthrown. Ezekiel also does much the same thing, in chapter 32, when he speaks of the overthrow of Egypt. The study of these, and other like passages, will show that this is a standard way of prophetic expression. It never did mean the literal destruction of the physical universe, but the overthrow of a nation or civilization. Amos, for instance, in chapter 8 says “‘In that day,’ declares the Sovereign Lord, ‘I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your religious feats into mourning, and all your singing into weeping‘” (verses. 9, & 10). And Micah expresses the same idea when he says “The sun will set for the prophets, and the day will go dark for them” (v. 6). It is the same idea that Jeremiah expresses when he says “her sun has gone down while it is day” and Ezekiel says “I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you; I will bring darkness over your land” (verses 7 & 8). When the prophets spoke in this manner they did not mean the literal end of the physical universe. And the same is true of the Lord Jesus. He was not speaking of ‘the end of the world’ but of the end of the Old Testament era and the special position of Israel as God’s only covenant people.
Here, again, Luke clarifies the problem. “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars” he says, but then hastens to add “and on the earth nations will be in anguish” (21:25). Now it may be, as some of the older commentators supposed, that the reference here is to an eclipse of the sun by the moon [when it does, as a matter of fact, turn to the color of blood]. There is also the possibility that there is at least some reference here to a common event that occurred in ancient warfare. We refer to the fact that cities were burned, and the smoke was often so great that it did—for a time—blot out the sight of celestial bodies. But be that as it may one thing is clear: Jesus was not talking about the final collapse of the physical universe. He was predicting the overthrow of the Jewish nation. (Incidentally, this is still the way we speak of this sort of thing. During the World War II—when nations were shaken—there were even songs to this effect. The writer remembers one that was popular at that time. It went like this: ‘When the Lights Go on again, all over the world.’ There are some things that ordinary language is not sufficient to portray. One of these is the overthrow of one’s own nation. Whenever something like this happens, even today, it is felt to be such a great calamity that it requires the same kind of language that was used by our Lord.
2) Another point that should be noted with care is the fact that Jesus said ‘the powers of heaven will be shaken.’ I understand him to refer, by this, to the spiritual powers belonging to Satan. Christ’s victory became manifest precisely in the fact that there was a destruction of the Jewish nation. This was what he meant when he warned the Scribes and Pharisees that their house was about to be left to them desolate (Mt. 23:38). Christ’s victory over Satan began with the end of that historical period during which the Church was confined within the Jewish nation. From this time on the Church was destined to spread out to all nations. The nations which, before, had been held in chains of darkness by Satan, now saw the great light sent to them from heaven. In the very day when the heavens became dark over the Jewish nation (Ezekiel 32:7), the glorious light of the day dawned upon us—the Gentile nations. Satan was bound, in other words, so that he could no longer deceive the nations. For Christ is now exalted “far above all principality and power and might and dominion” (Eph. 1:21). And “now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places” God makes “known by the church the manifold wisdom” he has “purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10.11). Having spoiled principalities and powers, in other words, he has made manifest his triumph over them (Colossians 2:15). So, calamitous as it was for the Jewish nation, it was anything but the end of what God had planned to accomplish in world history. The conclusion is clear: this also took place in that generation.
We now come to what some would call ‘the Achilles heel’ of our interpretation. In verses 30 and 31 we read of ‘the sign of the Son of man in heaven,’ and of ‘his coming in the clouds of heaven.’ The reader, at this point, may well be saying: ‘now surely you will have to admit that this did not happen “in that generation.”’ Yet—amazing as it may seem, at first sight—the fact is that it did. You see, Christ was not referring here to his second coming [parousia]. No, what he was referring to here was his exaltation to the right hand of God and his present reign there in glory. We here present the evidence that demands precisely this conclusion.
1) Note first of all, then, the fact that it is ‘the sign of’ the Son of Man that was to appear, not the Son of Man himself. There is a big difference between the two. Yet how constantly this fact is overlooked. A sign is not the same as the thing for which it stands. The rainbow is ‘the sign of’ God’s promise that he will never again send a universal flood, but the rainbow is not—itself—the promise. Again, baptism is ‘a sign of’ regeneration and renewal. But it is not—itself—regeneration. And the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper are a sign of the body and blood of Christ. But they are not—and do not become—physical flesh and blood. There is, in other words, a very important difference between a sign and the thing signified. To say that ‘the sign of’ the Son of man will appear, is one and the same with saying that Christ himself will not be seen—not visibly. That is the very reason why the sign is needed!
2) But what does it mean, you may ask, when it says “They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory?” (v. 30). We do not see that there can be any doubt that it means the fulfillment of the great prophecy of Daniel? Daniel wrote: “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 peoples, nations and men 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” (7:13,14). Clearly, Daniel was not referring to the second coming of Jesus. “Coming with the clouds of heaven” does not have that meaning in prophetic language. To the contrary, what it refers to is Christ’s exaltation to glory. It means that Christ is enthroned in heaven, and that the Father has given to him all authority in heaven and earth (Mt. 28:18-20). Daniel’s prophecy looked forward to the time when the great Kingdom of Jesus Christ would supplant all other universal Kingdoms. And it is perfectly clear that this has been accomplished (the ascension and enthronement of Jesus) and continues to be applied in the world-wide extension of his Kingdom by the preaching of the gospel.
Is it not clear that when Christ was exalted to the right hand of the father, it was in order that he might receive the authority that he now exercises over all things for the father (Mt. 28:19,20)? Yes, but we cannot see him with our physical eyes at this time. That is why our Lord spoke of ‘the sign’ of his reign in glory. And what was that ‘sign?’ It was precisely the fulfillment of Christ’s threat against the apostate Jewish teachers—and apostate Jewish nation. When the Romans came, the lights went out, as they made the city—and temple—a scene of complete desolation. That was the sign making it perfectly clear that Christ was reigning in glory. And his reigning in glory is, in Daniel’s terms [LXX] coming [not parousia but erchomai] on, or with, the clouds of heaven. It means that Christ’s work is moving forward—coming more and more to realization—because he is no longer in a state of humiliation but exaltation (enthroned on the clouds of heaven).
It should be noted here that this fully agrees with other seemingly enigmatic statements of Jesus. Consider this one, for example “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Mt. 16:28, Mk. 9:1 & Lk. 9:27). Now how could we possibly interpret this statement to refer to some far—off moment, long after the death of all of those people? Such interpretation, common as it is, is a dishonest handling of Scripture. Jesus was either wrong (which, of course, we deny) or this actually happened. And when we see that he was referring to the prophetic witness of Daniel, we can see that it really did happen. In truth, there is no problem.
3) A third thing that we need to notice is the fact that Jesus said “all the tribes of the land will mourn” [v. 30]. The big problem here is not in the text—not as it stands in the original Greek—but in the misleading translations in English (and they are persistent). The New International Version says “all the nations of the earth will mourn.” This makes it—on this particular verse—one of the worst of all the translations. The New American Standard is much better, but still far from satisfactory, when it says “all the tribes of the earth.” This still gives the ordinary English reader the impression that our Lord had in mind all of the people on the planet earth. But he did not. What he had in mind was “all the tribes of the land” (that is, the land of Israel). This becomes self evident if we compare a parallel passages in Luke. Since this gospel was written primarily for Gentile readers, it does not even mention this statement. Now if Christ had really predicted that ‘all the tribes (or nations) of the world would mourn just before the sign appeared, why would Luke not also record this fact? If, on the other hand—as we believe—these words were addressed to the Jews, there was no reason for Luke to mention this to the Gentiles, and every reason for Matthew to record it (since he wrote for Jewish readers). They were the ones who did indeed mourn throughout the land when their house was left to them desolate!
4) We do not usually think of the present age in terms of what is written in Matthew 24:31. Yet this is really what is now going on in the world. This is true which ever way we interpret the word ‘angels.’ Sometimes, in Scripture, the word angels means men as God’s official messengers. Sometimes it means heavenly beings. Since there is sufficient support for either of these, we find it difficult to be dogmatic on one side or the other. It does seem, however, that the word probably means these heavenly beings, because the Book of Revelation often speaks of them as sounding the trumpet. These, of course, are not literal trumpets that we can hear. They are rather symbolic representations of the execution of the decrees of God. And the fact is that the angels of God are even now gathering God’s elect together. This is the very thing that the Jews found so startling—and offensive! Would God really leave their house desolate? Would he really go into the highways and byways in order to gather others in—even the Gentile nations? This was simply unthinkable for most of them. And yet, even as Jesus spoke these words, the hour of fulfillment was fast approaching. That is why our Lord then went on to say: “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: as soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door” (vv. 32,33).
Here again we observe that these words become quite strained if we try to transpose them to what is still future. If our Lord had intended his words to mean that he would have spoken after this manner: ‘Now don’t imagine that summer is near, just because the fig tree says so! No, it is a long way off yet, and so, when you see these things don‘t get excited. It isn‘t going to happen for at least another 2,000 years. It is not at the door for this generation.’ But of course Jesus did not speak in this way. The reason is that these things were not in the far distant future, but would happen in that generation. “I tell you the truth,” said Jesus, “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (v. 34). Then, as if to add one more ‘hammer blow’ he said “heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (v. 35). As much as to say: incredible as it may seem this is absolutely certain—all these things are going to happen within this generation. Yes, and that is exactly what happened.
5) This becomes even more patent when we observe the manner in which Christ went on to speak of his second coming (from Matthew 24:36 to the end of the chapter). It is not our purpose, in this small booklet, to give a full exposition of this teaching of Jesus. It will be sufficient to emphasize here the fact that Christ draws a contrast. Already once—in verse 27—Christ mentioned his second coming by way of contrast. There he reminded people then living that his second coming would be like the lightning that comes out of the east and shines to the west. When it suddenly came, in other words, there would be no need to announce it, and therefore no excuse for being victims of deception. It is this point that Jesus now elaborates on, in the rest of this passage. He first says that no one knows—or can know—the day or hour of that second coming (it is known by the father only). Since this is so, it follows (does it not?) that it cannot be predicted. This is precisely the point of the comparison between the second coming and the time just before the great flood (24:37-39) and the intrusion of a thief in the night (vv. 42 & 43). If the second coming of Christ is not known as to the time appointed, and if it will come like lightning—like a thief in the night—like the great flood, then how can we use material from the earlier part of Matthew 24 in order to try to calculate its nearness? Yet this is precisely what is so often done. People so often say that Christ’s second coming is very near because of all the signs—the wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, and so on. Yet, this was the very thing the teaching of Christ was designed to prevent! The one common feature of ‘the lightning’—‘the thief in the night’—and ‘the flood of Noah’ is that these all refer to events that come (or came) without warning signs. And so it will be with the second coming of Jesus.
Some people find it hard to accept the fact that the majority can be so wrong. But popularity never was the test of the true Christian doctrine. The truth is that our Lord was right. “All these things” did happen in that generation. And the very force—or purpose—of the teaching of Jesus was to warn against the common error. We must not confuse the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. with our Lord’s second coming. There were signs to warn of the one [the destruction of Jerusalem]. There will be no such signs to warn of the other [Christ’s second coming]. No, our Lord will come ‘as a thief in the night.’ It will be as sudden, and unexpected, as a lightning flash from way off on the horizon on a dark summer night in mid—west America. It will be like ‘the flood of Noah.’ It will, in other words, be without warning—except, of course, for the Word of God and that is sufficient.
It is certainly true, as Paul informed Timothy, that “in the last days perilous times will come” (2 Tim. 3:1). But we must never forget that ‘the last days’ began with the ascension of Jesus (Cf. Acts 2:17, Heb. 1:1, etc.). Can anyone study the history of the Church without seeing that in many places, at various times, perilous conditions have existed? Think of the Christians burned by Nero. Think of believers tortured in the Inquisition. Think of Christians killed under the tyranny of Hitler. Think of what happened to the Church in China during the rule of Mao. Yes, and it could happen to us. If the apostasy of the Western Church continues, it could be that perilous times are ahead for us. But this is a very different thing from what we read in Matthew 24:1-34. Christ was speaking to living men, about things that were going to happen in their generation. That is why he gave to them a whole series of signs by which they could know when it was about to happen. It is not so with the second coming of Christ, for of that day and hour there is—and can be—no human foreknowledge. The very purpose of Christ was to carefully distinguish these things that differ. How strange it is that so many persist even yet in confusing them.
What does the future hold? Our answer is that it holds no such gloomy and pessimistic scenario as many people today imagine. Christ is on the throne. He will reign until he has put all enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:23-28). Yes indeed, perilous times will come. But so will seasons of refreshing (Acts 3:19). Dreadful apostasy may well come here, while over there we see a great revival. But the world as a whole will simply continue with the wheat and the tares growing together until the harvest (Mt. 13:24-30, 37-43). Then, without any warning signs at all, the Lord will appear in His glory. May our gracious Lord enable us to be ready.
The Thessalonian Letters
A second great prophetic passage in the New Testament is found in Paul’s second letters to the Thessalonians. These two letters were probably written fairly early in the Apostolic age, probably not later than 55 A.D. This means that approximately 25 years had passed since our Lord’s great prophetic discourse (recorded in Matthew 24), and about 15 years before the destruction of Jerusalem (and “all these things” that he had predicted).
Yet it is clear that already, in the Church at Thessalonica, the very errors that Jesus had warned against (Mt. 24:4,23,26) were appearing. A careful reading of I Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 will reveal that some of these people assumed that Christ’s second coming would take place before that generation had passed away. It was for this reason that they sorrowed for those who had died with an unseemly sorrow (4:13). They erroneously supposed that such persons would miss out on the blessings to be enjoyed by survivors. This notion the Apostle strongly opposes (vv. 13-16). But the interesting thing to observe is this: Paul did not say that it was impossible that Christ would appear in that generation. Indeed, he rather indicates that this was a distinct possibility. For he says “we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep” (v. 15). And, if our interpretation of Matthew 24 has been right this is exactly what we would expect Paul to say. Jesus said no one [no, not he] knew the time of his second coming? Well, that was the same as saying it could be either sooner, or later. So, if f Paul had denied the possibility that Christ might come back during that generation, he would have claimed to know at least something about the time when he would return. But Paul did not know. That is why he said “about the times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (5:1,2).
In other words—as we have already pointed out in our discussion of Matthew 24—the second coming of Christ (Greek: parousia) will come without any warning (other than the verbal warning he has given us in the Scriptures).
Now here in the second Thessalonian letter, Paul carries the matter a little further. He again takes up the danger of these people being deceived (2 Thess. 2:3). Because they had (rightly) accepted the possibility that Christ might return sooner, rather than later, they were dangerously near to being deceived by various rumors to the effect that this event had already happened. Observe what the Apostle says: “we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come” (2:1,2). [The Greek term here is in the perfect tense. It indicates an accomplished fact. The trouble is that many English translations fail to express this faithfully. (The New International Version is excellent here)]. But this is exactly the danger predicted by Christ, 25 years earlier (Mt. 24:23,24). Were they “so soon” to be “unsettled” or “alarmed?” Not if Paul could help it. And what better way than to remind them of the one thing that was certain to happen before the visible return of Jesus? And this, as we have seen, was the ruin of Jerusalem and the Temple. This our Lord himself had solemnly promised within “that generation.” So it was clear: “that day” (Christ’s second coming) could not possibly come until “all these things” had been fulfilled. And we need to remember that this letter was written about fifteen years before that awesome destruction came.
The Differing Views
Before we begin our discussion of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, it may be well to briefly describe the three basic types of interpretation that have been made of this passage. (1) The first is that which regards this as a restatement of what Christ had already taught. The falling away, on this view, refers to the great Jewish apostasy. They fell away from God when they rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The man of sin is therefore a description of the one who came and made desolate the Temple and the ‘holy’ city. (2) The second interpretation is that which was held by the Reformers. It saw the falling away as the rise of the Papacy and the false doctrines of the Romish Church. The man of sin was taken to mean the Pope. This view is set forth in the original version of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV, section 6. (3) The third view is that which takes Paul’s description to refer to something as yet future—to be fulfilled near the end of time, prior to (and near to) the second coming of Jesus. The falling away, on this view, is taken to mean a nearly complete apostasy of the Christian Church, near the end of time. And the man of sin is taken to be a person of extraordinary power and authority such as we have not yet seen in history. The views may be diagrammed as follows:
Matthew 24 II Thessalonians 70 A.D. Parousia
(Man of Sin) = M (.....unknown length.....)
[1] (Jesus)-----------(Paul)------^.............................................................vM
[2] (Jesus)-----------(Paul)------^...........................^................................vM
[3] (Jesus)-----------(Paul)------^.........................................................^..vOf these three views the following should now be clear. (1) The third view cannot possibly be correct (popular as it is today) for the simple reason that it contradicts the clear teaching of Jesus. He said there would be no warning sign by which we could know that the hour of his second coming is near. (Remember the three illustrations that Jesus used—the thief, the lightning, and the flood of Noah? The thing that is common to these is the fact that there are no warning signs). (2) It is clear that either of the first two views preserves one main point in the teaching of Jesus: namely, the fact that he will return without warning signs. If the man of sin prediction was fulfilled in the events around 70 A.D. then obviously this cannot be a sign to tell us how soon our Lord will return. Likewise, if the man of sin is taken as a prediction of the rise of the Papacy, it still cannot serve as a time indicator to tell us when Christ is about to return. (3) Again, on either of the first two views it is possible to take seriously the fact that what Paul was talking about was already present. This point is completely ignored in the third view. Paul says “the secret power of lawlessness is already at work” (v. 7). He also says there is “one who now holds it back” and that this “will continue. . .till he is taken out of the way” (v. 7). It is easy to see how this would fit very well with the first view. But even the second (Reformers’) view could accommodate this idea. It could be argued that the apostasy of the Church (which culminated in the Papacy) had already begun in the Apostolic age when Paul was writing this letter (See 2 Pet. 1, Jude, 2 Tim. 2:16-18, 3 Jn. 9, etc.). (4) Since we do not see anything in either of these two views that necessarily contradicts what we have already learned from the teaching of Jesus, we will now proceed to consider this passage and then try to determine which of these—if either—is the correct one.
In the interpretation of this passage the following points are crucial:
- Who is the man of sin (or lawlessness)?
- When does he appear?
- What is the falling away?
- What is its relationship to the man of sin?
- Who is the restrainer?
In the next section we will examine this passage carefully with these questions in mind. (We will also try to be honest enough to admit it when there are problems we are not able to solve).
The Main Points
In the previous discussion we have tried to show our reasons for rejecting the interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 which is so popular today. (The view that expects the fulfillment of ‘these things’ as yet in the future, just prior to the second coming). We now want to show why we have been driven to precisely the opposite view—the view which holds that this prophecy has already been fulfilled and that it was fulfilled, just as Jesus had promised, in Paul’s generation.
(1) The first reason is that Paul warns the Thessalonians not to be deceived by those who were saying “the day of the Lord has already come” (v. 2). No, says Paul, “for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (v. 3). Christ’s second coming could not take place, in other words, until this event had been completed. But to what event was Paul referring? We believe it was none other than that already predicted by Jesus (in Matthew 24). We have already shown, in our previous discussion, that this event was to be the overthrow of the Jewish Theocracy, and that it was to happen in that generation. Paul says “Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?” Please note these key words, which are found also in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34! ‘These things’ were precisely the very same things of which Jesus had spoken—spoken because the New Testament scriptures were not yet written, copied and circulated among the Churches. It was therefore necessary for Paul himself to teach them “these things.” But having heard “these things” from him they ought to have remembered that Christ could not return until all of “these things” were fulfilled. Since this had not yet happened, there was no reason whatever for them to be deceived by these completely false rumors.
2) A second fact of great importance is the constant time indication in this Thessalonian passage. Paul does not say “the secret power of lawlessness” will come some day in the (far off) future. No, he says it is already at work. But because there is “one who now holds it back” it has not yet been “revealed” (v. 6). So the man of lawlessness was not spoken of as non—existent, at that time, but as not yet revealed. He was spoken of as already existent, but for the time being still hidden. Observe also that, in verse 10, the Apostle speaks of those who have fallen under the harmful sway of this man of sin. They were already perishing because they had refused to love the truth in order that they might be saved. And it was because this had already happened that the Apostle Paul says: “for this reason God sends (or, is sending) them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie” (v. 11). The time indicators throughout this passage show clearly that Paul was speaking of something already existing. This supports the first type of interpretation of this passage.
The Falling Away
What, then, is the falling away? The Greek word is ‘apostasia.’ We usually translate it ‘apostasy’ (which means a fatal falling away from the God of the Bible). It is interesting to note that in the Greek Version of the Old Testament (and in some New Testament passages) the term can also mean ‘divorce!’ In Biblical language the great divorce is the severance of the bond between Israel and Jehovah. This was the great apostasy. It was also the momentous event predicted by our Lord (Mt. 23). Think of the woes pronounced by our Lord, and promised to take effect in that generation! And already it was coming to pass when Paul wrote this letter. Time after time the Jews—to whom Paul always went first with the gospel—rejected the witness he gave in which he showed that Jesus was the Messiah. They did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved (2 Thess. 2:10, Acts 18:25-29, etc.). God was (already) sending them a strong delusion so that they would believe ‘the lie’ (2 Thess. 2:11). So Paul even then could already say “the wrath of God has come upon them at last (or, as some translate: to the uttermost)” (1 Thess. 2:16). It was near, even at the doors, the dread hour in which the Jews would be broken out of their own olive tree (Rom. 11:17). Truly this was the great apostasy (or divorce) that no other instance of apostasy in the history of the world will ever equal, let alone surpass (be sure to note, here, the phrase “no, nor ever shall be” in Matthew 24:21).
The Man of Lawlessness
And who was the man of lawlessness? It is our opinion that it most likely was the Roman conqueror Titus. We say this for the following reason. The Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel, was the thing specially warned of by our Lord (Mt. 24:15). But we know, both from Luke (writing for Gentile readers; Lk. 21:20,21) and from Daniel that this refers to the desolation of the Temple by a heathen ruler. Daniel 11:30-32 indicates this clearly. We cannot give a detailed exposition of Daniel. But virtually all Bible expositors agree that the first prediction of Daniel was fulfilled in the notorious person and work of Antiochus ‘Ephiphanes.’ Viewed from the stand—point of importance in the eyes of the world, he was insignificant. He did not begin to compare in importance with men such as Nebuchadnezzar or Alexander the Great. But from a Biblical viewpoint he was very important. For a brief moment this man aspired to a sphere of great power and glory. The account of this can be found in the first book of the Maccabees. He tried to become a great ruler in part of the empire left by Alexander the Great. But when his grandiose plans were frustrated (by the rising power of Rome) he came back (from Egypt) in a rage. Stopping off in Jerusalem, he desecrated the Temple. He even compelled Jews to sacrifice swine on the holy altar (See I Macc. 1:10-24). Since Christ expected the Jews who knew Daniel’s prophecy to understand, it is clear that the final abomination predicted in Daniel 12:11 (of which Jesus speaks in Matthew 24) was to be something very much like the infamous act of Antiochus Epiphanes. We have a similar phenomenon in our use of the word ‘holocaust.’ The murder of millions of Jews by Hitler has come to be known as ‘the holocaust.’ So, now, if anyone wants to speak of a terrible thing in the future they will speak of ‘another holocaust.’ It was in just this way that the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus was like the abomination of desolation known from the time of Antiochus Ephiphanes.
The great error in the popular view is the assumption (without any scriptural warrant at all) that the man of sin must be someone of world—wide authority (and unparalleled importance). There is no such teaching in this passage. It is not his position over against the world that counts, but his position over against the Temple. If it be objected that Titus did not make the awesome claims here ascribed to the man of sin, we can only reply that he did. In fact, scripture frequently speaks of earthly rulers in similar terms. In Ezekiel 28:2-10, for example, we find the prince of Tyre (hardly a man of world—wide authority and importance) saying “I am God, I sit in the seat of God” (v. 2). Isaiah speaks in a similar way of the king of Babylon. “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High” (14:14). So when Daniel (11:35-45) speaks of “the king (or ruler) who will do as he pleases and magnify himself above ever god. ..etc.” there is no doubt that this terminology is used by the prophets with respect to heathen civil rulers. We therefore see, from the analogy of the Scripture, that the man of sin is almost certainly Titus.
The Restrainer
The one who restrained the man of sin for a time can also be determined by the analogy of Scripture. In Daniel’s day, the prince of Persia was Israel’s oppressor. The Lord, therefore, came to Daniel (10:10-12) to inform him that his prayer had already been heard, from the first day he began praying. “But” says the Lord “the prince of Persia withstood me twenty-one days” (10:12-14). So it is the Lord himself—or, more accurately, the angel of the Lord—who has restrained this Prince. Again, in 10:21, we read: “there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.” Behind the struggle between this great prince and the Jewish people, in other words, stands a yet greater conflict. It is the conflict between the spiritual principalities and powers in heavenly places. Since, in the Thessalonian passage, this ruler (the man of lawlessness) is the instrument of Satan (2:9,10) it follows as night follows day that there is none who can restrain him but the great angel of the Lord (Cf. Jude 9).
In the common interpretation it is supposed that (in Paul’s day, at least) the Roman Government itself was the restraining power. The great difficulty is the (well—known) fact that it was the Roman Government that soon (during the first three centuries of the history of the Christian Church) began to persecute Christian believers. How much more in harmony with historic fact to see the Roman power itself as the thing restrained by the Lord. But that restraint was removed in 70 A.D. And when it was removed the Romans came and fulfilled the woeful predictions of Jesus.
The Relationship
It may be objected, on this view, that there is no clear connection between (1) the apostasy and (2) the revelation of the man of lawlessness. This objection fades away, however, when we remember the analogy of Scripture. In the book of Daniel too, the inner connection is apparent. When the Old Testament Church was unfaithful (falling away from God) then God permitted the princes of the kingdoms of the world to oppress them. The work of Satan, in other words, is two—fold in its nature. On the one hand he works with lying signs and wonders in order to deceive people. Then, when they are deluded, not receiving the love of the truth, God permits Satanically directed forces to have the mastery over them. Was this not the very thing that Jesus had promised in that generation (Lk. 21:24)? A study of the record of the Jewish historian Josephus should convince even the most skeptical that the final apostasy of the Jews came on the crest of the wave of just such lying signs and wonders. And the inundation came when Titus came to sit down, as it were, in the Temple as if he himself was supreme.
In the common interpretation the ’sitting in the Temple’ is taken to mean some kind of supreme authority in the visible Christian Church. This point gave us great difficulty when we first began to study this passage. The Greek term used here originally meant ‘the inner sanctuary’ of the Temple. But the word is used with respect to the New Testament Church only in connection with believers (1 Cor. 3:16,17; 6:19; and 2 Cor. 6:16). Nowhere do we read that apostate people are God’s holy temple. How, then, could some future ‘man of sin’ sit in the spiritual temple which is composed of real believers? Those who reject the truth of God are not any longer God’s temple. Therefore the man who (on this view) heads up the great apostasy could not really sit in God’s present Temple. No, but on the interpretation that we have outlined here, there is no problem whatever. Until 70 A.D. there was a Temple in Jerusalem. Until the great divorce between Israel and God it was still God’s house. But Jesus had warned that their ‘house’ would be left to them desolate. That is what actually happened. The man of lawlessness did come and did sit down in that Temple, as if he was almighty. And it all happened ‘in that generation’ exactly as Jesus predicted.
The Antichrist
Antichrist is mentioned in the New Testament writings only in the Epistles of John (1 John. 2:18,22; 4:3; and 2 John. 7). To remind the reader of this teaching we here quote these text in full from the New American Standard Bible. “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour” (1 John. 2:18). “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John. 2:22). “And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world” (1 Jn. 4:3). “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 Jn. 7).
Now it is certainly a fact that the most common interpretation of these texts is that which envisions a future ’superman’ of evil. The writer also, at one time, was held in the spell of this prevailing idea. This was so for one simple reason: it was what the writer had so often ‘heard.’ But here again it happened that a closer study of the text revealed some startling things.
What does John mean when he says “you heard that antichrist is coming?” Does he mean that this is a statement of ‘gospel truth’? Or does he merely indicate that they too had fallen under the spell of an erroneous, but common, misconception? We recall that Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, uses this same phrase (Matthew 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43). “You have heard” he says, again and again. But was what they had heard true to the Bible? No, that was just the trouble: it wasn’t. That is why Jesus goes on to correct precisely the errors in this tradition that people had heard so many times. We believe it is exactly the same when it comes to this antichrist doctrine. John does not say there is no truth at all in what people had been hearing. But he does correct and clarify it. For the doctrine of the antichrist by John’s inspired witness (1) is not something future, but rather something already present; (2) not manifest in one ‘big’ superman, but manifest in many; and (3) not so much a man at all as rather ‘a spirit of error.’
The time of the antichrist was already present when John wrote this Epistle. Could anything be clearer? “Children” he says “it is the last hour.” And how do we know it is the last hour, asks John? Well, we know it because “even now many antichrists have arisen.” As another writer has put it: “the time we are living in—that is the last hour. For the ‘last hour’ means just the Messianic period, the period after the Messiah has come.” The Greek here is decisive. John says the antichrist has come (2:18). It is an accomplished reality with an abiding result. Is this not often ignored—yes, even denied—on the common view of the antichrist?
It is, of course, sometimes said that there are forerunners of the antichrist. But observe: John does not say that. He does not speak of ‘little antichrists’ leading up to the ‘big one.’ No, this is the last hour. And many antichrists, says John, have already arisen. For “this is the antichrist” he says “the one who denies the Father and the Son.” As the above quoted writer puts it “predecessors of Antichrist might prove that the ‘last hour’ was approaching; only actual Antichrists could prove that ‘the last hour’ had already come. There can be no question, then, that John volatilizes the individual Antichrist (i.e. the rumored superman) into thin air, and substitutes for him a multitude of ‘Antichrists.’” This conclusion is only strengthened by the teaching of 1 John 4:3. Here we clearly see that there is what can be called an anti—Christian spirit in the world. But the remarkable thing is that John says that what they had heard was coming into the world was already present. “Now it is already in the world” says John. “John not only erases the individual Antichrist from the scroll of prediction, but reduces him just to a heresy.” For he says “who is the liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist” (1 John. 2:22). In fact, “every spirit which confesses that Jesus is Christ come in the flesh is of God; and no spirit which does not confess Jesus, is of God: and this is that Antichrist of which you have heard that it is coming: and it is now in the world already” (1 John. 4:3).
But what difference does it make, we may ask, which of these interpretations we adopt? Well, it is our conviction that it makes a very big difference. Imagine, for argument’s sake, a young theological student. The second world war has just ended. He has just enrolled in a theological seminary that is drifting away from the faith. ‘Ah well,’ he might say to himself, ‘this isn’t very significant: at least I don’t live during the terrible time of the coming Antichrist.’ So, in his foolish naivete, he relaxes his guard and the spirit of antichrist nearly destroys him. In a false sense of security engendered by the idea that the real antichrist—the ‘big one’—is off there in the future, he becomes the victim of the many antichrists (and the spirit of the antichrist working in them) of which the Apostle warns in his writings. Suppose, on the other hand, that this same young man comes to see the three simple elements of John’s teaching (namely, that the Antichrist is already present, not far off in the future—many, not one—and spirit, not flesh). At once he realizes that he must constantly be on guard, and because he is he does not fall become a victim.
When we look at the sad state of many Churches today, is not this lesson apparent? Instead of looking for one great fleshly antichrist —someone who will be a kind of 'superman'—of the future, we should have been on our guard against the many antichrists of the present. For John assures us that “the antichrist” is anyone “who denies the Father and the Son” (2:22). Since “every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God” (2:22), and because “many deceivers have gone out into the world. . .who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is…the antichrist” (2 John. 7). Any theologian—or minister of the gospel, who denies the historical truthfulness of the Bible—ultimately attacks the incarnation of the Savior. All the attacks of the antichrist have this as their essence. And the sad thing is that entire churches are sometimes carried away by the antichrist while they do not realize what is happening to them. They imagine that they are safe from the antichrist of which they have so often ‘heard’ while, in actual fact, they are in the process of being destroyed by the real antichrist who is already present.
It is a very bad thing when Christians are held in the spell of a wrong view of the future. Yet that is exactly where people are in most churches today. The common view is that the future is dark—the great antichrist is coming. The truth is that the future is not dark at all, for—as John the Apostle clearly states—”the darkness is past, and the true light is already shining” (2:8). The time of alarm is now, not ’someday.’ The perils are around us, not somewhere else. The urgent need to take the whole armor of God is ours, not just for those who will come later (Eph. 6:11-18). But the encouraging thing is that the future is bright. Christ has ascended to glory. He sits, right now, at the right hand of God—right now he is ‘coming’ (erchomai) on the clouds in His kingdom. We don’t know when he is going to return visibly (parousia). There will be no signs to announce it. But we do know the one thing that we need to know. We know that he requires us to be awake—and at work in his glorious service—so that when he does come (parousia = parousia) he will find us as ‘faithful servants.’
What the Church needs today is to go back and study again the words of Christ and the Apostles. And nowhere is this more needed than it is with respect to the doctrine of the future. If this little tract will encourage that it will need no other justification.
The Rev. G. I. Williamson, is a semi-retired minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. | Return to G. I. Williamson Home Page