Was Jesus wrong in his prediction concerning the end of the world?

It has been said that this prophecy of Jesus was mistaken,

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Matthew 24:34)

I do not wish to delve into a complete analysis of the Olivet discourse here, yet there are a few comments that need to be made.

The quote comes up when Jesus is leaving the temple having chastised the scribes and warned against them.

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2)

Later the disciples responded.

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3)

Note that the disciples are asking 2 and possibly 3 questions here, even though they may have thought they were asking about a single event. Jesus had said that the stones of the temple would thrown down. The disciples asked:

1. when will these things be?
2. what will be the sign of your coming?
3. [what will be the sign] of the end of the age?

Questions 2 and 3 may be the same question though they need not be. In the subsequent discussion called the Olivet Discourse Jesus answers these questions but as there is 2 and possibly 3 questions, his answers address different components.

In his answer he warns them; he says things will be terrible; he says there will be deception; he says his return will be obvious. The initial question was in response to Jesus' comment about the temple stones, thus part of the answer refers to the Fall of Jerusalem, though it need not all be about the events 4 decades hence. If we read the rest of Jesus quote it reads,

So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:33-36)

Jesus says,

1. Recognise the time of the end at the time of the end
2. This generation will not pass away until all these things take place
3. No one knows the time

And he says all this together. So understanding his meaning must take this into consideration. What might "This generation will not pass away" mean then? I can think of at least 3 possibilities.

It may refer to the temple question. This generation will not pass away until the temple will not have one stone left upon another.

It may refer to the time of the end. The people living at the time of the end are to recognise that they live at the time of the end because of the signs and they can know that when these signs are all being completed the end will definitely arrive within this generation.

It may be better translated,

This generation will not pass away until all these things begin to take place.

In which case the things Jesus is talking about will commence within a generation.

The time of the end

Christians have predicted the end of the world for centuries, although such prediction has a bad wrap currently. Of course there are many failed predictions we can point to, as well as Jesus' admonitions telling us we cannot know when. Even Jesus didn't know!

I think the idea that it is impossible to know is a little simplistic. And while many people falsely thought the end was nigh, there will be a generation around when Jesus returns. So can we know anything about the timing? And what did Jesus actually say?

On 2 occasions Jesus mentioned to the disciples that they are not to know the time of the end. The first during the Olivet discourse recounted by Matthew and Mark

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:36)

But concerning that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)

The second before his ascension.

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:6-8)

During the Olivet discourse Jesus prophesies concerning the destruction of the temple, the distress to come, and his return. It is his return which occasions the comments above. There will be signs in the sky at his return but people will be continuing their usual living: eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage; as in the days of Noah just before judgment.

Jesus' comments are notable for 2 things here. Firstly he mentions the day and the hour which may indicate quite a specific time. While not necessarily as specific as a certain day—it could preclude prediction of the year—it does not necessarily mean that one cannot know the approximate time. Daniel gives quite an exact prophecy timewise but it was difficult to understand at the time and even now continues to evade many commentators. Jesus' words here have been used to dissuade prediction and disparage predictors but he may not be completely prohibiting prediction as such. Which brings us to the second notable issue.

Jesus' comments expect men who live in the last days to recognise that they are. Right in the midst of describing his return and warning them that they cannot know the exact time Jesus gives the lesson of the fig tree.

From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

"When you see what I am describing" says Jesus, "know that my return is near." In fact Jesus' return will be during this generation.

So why have so many people in previous generations been wrong about Jesus' return? It is my contention that there are several conditions given around the end of the world, both here, and in other books such as Daniel, Zechariah, Thessalonians and Revelation. Other generations may have noted aspects of the world that fit some features, but not all. The generation of Jesus' return needs to see all aspects fulfilled, or being fulfilled. Ironically, the failed predictions of previous naysayers may have steeled the last generation against warnings of the end of the world, thus proving Jesus' warning about the days of Noah.

The warning in Acts does not detract from what I have said though it does need commenting on. Firstly, the nature of the kingdom of God was to be different from previous kingdoms of Israel, at least until Jesus' return. Secondly, the disciples concerning themselves with a coming earthly kingdom may have detracted them from Jesus' task which was discipling the world. Thirdly, this was given to the disciples of that time. Now while I think discipling the world applies to subsequent disciples including those of the final generation, this does not preclude the final generation knowing that they live at the time of the end.

In summary, we cannot know the exact time and we should concern ourselves with discipling the world. This does not necessarily preclude knowing the approximate time. And even if we cannot know the approximate time ahead of time, those living in the generation of Jesus' return are expected to be aware that they are living in the last days. Further, they must not be complacent.

Eschatological schools

Following on from my prophetic principles, how do I see eschatology in general, and specifically Revelation? Revelation 1:1-7 mentions that the vision concerns the return of Christ. Verse 1 says the events are soon,

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.

Verse 7 mentions Jesus return,

Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.

Verse 19 adds,

Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

This means that Revelation discusses things happening around the time it was written and in the future. It need not solely mean immediately, that is the first generation after Jesus' resurrection; nor end-times, the last generation before Jesus returns. It potentially covers affairs from the time of John's vision until Jesus' return.

Briefly classifying the 4 major schools:

• Preterism^*: Most of the prophecies of the Bible find their fulfilment in the first generation after Jesus' resurrection; that is, by 70 AD.
• Historicism: The prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled in various persons thru-out history until the return of Christ.
• Futurism: Most prophecies of the Bible find their fulfilment in the last generation before Jesus returns.
• Idealism: The symbols are predominately symbolic of ideas and most do not correspond to any specific event.

By most prophecies I mean those that were not fulfilled by the time of Jesus, I do not mean those that are acknowledged to have been fulfilled such as Jeremiah's prophecy of the return from exile, or Isaiah's prophecies of the first coming of the Messiah.

I think that preterism, historicism, and futurism all offer a potentially valid approach. Idealism may get us thinking more carefully about what the symbols refer to, but it fails to recognise and apply genuine prophecy.

Because I am not attached to any one particular option I read some passages with an immediate (preterist) fulfilment, and others with a distant (futurist) one.

There is agreement among the schools in some aspects. Most interpreters identify the churches in the early chapters as representing real churches that existed in the time Revelation was written. Antipas was a martyr. Jezebel was a false prophetess. The Nicolaitans were a false sect. These should all be understood as literal people from the first century. Likewise they agree that Jesus returning in the clouds has yet to happen (Acts 1:11).

Here are some examples where each school is probably correct. Other schools may not necessarily disagree with the interpretation here, but the interpretation is most in line with the approach of the particular school.

Preterism
In the Olivet discourse Jesus refers to those escaping when they saw Jerusalem surrounded.

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-24)

I think this is best interpreted as occurring at the time of the destruction of the temple 66–70 AD under Vespasian then Titus. Interestingly there was a break in the fighting when Vespasian returned to Rome to become Emperor before Titus took over the seige. At this time many Christians, remembering Jesus' words, fled Jerusalem.

Historicism
The best example of this school of interpretation is Daniel's visions. His vision of the 4 beasts in chapter 7, then the ram and the goat in chapter 8, then the kings in chapter 11 refer to events that occurred over the following decades and apply to specific kingdoms and people. The beasts are kingdoms

• Lion/ eagle: Babylon
• Bear: Media/ Persia
• Leopard/ bird: Greece
• Terrible beast: Rome

The ram and goat are the kings of Media/ Persia and Greece respectively (Daniel 8:20-21).

Futurism
The final defeat of Satan, the new heaven and Earth, the judgment of the nations are all events at the end of the age. They are best viewed as future events.

Here are some problems with the schools.

Preterism
Not all of the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in the first century. Antichrist(s) may be yet to appear.

Historicism
Though Daniel offers a good example of the Historicist view, I have not read convincing interpretations of Revelation along these lines. The rise of Islam, the Great Schism, the Catholic/ Protestant split; none of these are clearly seen. I am also not certain about the allegorical application of the letters to the 7 churches to the global church thru the ages. Even if true, it is not the primary meaning.

Futurism
Disagreement with the number of the beast applying to Nero. Forcing a strict chronology on Revelation. Not applying parts of the Olivet discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.

As mentioned previously, I would apply aspects of each of these as I see them apply to a specific passage. Based on the specifics of the prophecy and how events have panned out I would say some events have already occurred, and some are yet to be. Some of the difficulty in recognising the Messiah in Isaiah may have related to seeing him as both a suffering servant and a conquering king. These do not seem compatible, yet we know they are. He came first to suffer and die for our sins. He was raised victorious over death. He is seated at the right hand of God, and will return again to enforce his dominion. Let us not make this mistake, failing to realise that some aspects of prophecy were fulfilled in the first generation after Jesus ascended, and others in the last generation before he returns, and perhaps even some in between these generations.

---

^*I am using preterism to mean partial preterism. I consider full preterism (hyper-preterism) with its claim that the return of Christ was in the first century and was therefore spiritual to be false.

Prophetic hermeneutics

SLW has written an interesting piece on Antipas. He refers to his prophetic hermeneutic which is interesting.

• If events have significance to God's plan of redemption, those events will be foretold by prophets.
• If the prophesied event occurred within the time frame during which biblical writing was inspired, its fulfillment will be recorded in the scriptures dealing with that period.
• If a prophecy interprets the past (as it certainly does in the Revelation) it's fulfillment in the past will be recorded in the scriptures dealing with that period. (Predictive) prophecy is difficult to interpret. It may imply now, or soon, or distant future, or perhaps have duel fulfilment.

He bases this on Amos 3:7. These premises are well worth considering though I am not going to interact with them directly.

The post lead to a discussion on the dating of the book of Revelation and various interpretations of Revelation.

Traditionally these are

• Preterism
• Historicism
• Futurism
• Idealism

Let may say at the beginning that I do not have strong eschatological views. My reading around the issue is not in-depth enough. I am also not sure that if I did have more certainty, I would find the issue evoking significant passion. It seems more important to have a right view of beginning-times than of end-times.

Had I labelled myself previously, perhaps it would have been a futurist. I find I have increasing sympathy for preterism. I would not say that I have abandoned futurism for preterism, it would better to say I have incorporated aspects of preterism.

Nevertheless, I do not think that Revelation needs to fit into a preterist, historicist or futurist interpretation; I am more concerned with what Scripture says and with consistency. As Douglas Wilson has written,

We must always allow the words of Scripture to speak to us, straight up, and not modify them for the sake of a theological system. Receive the Word as spoken, and let the system (which will form necessarily) take care of itself.

It may be that eschatology is best understood under the classification of futurism, or preterism, or idealism, or historicism; or they may each contribute aspects of the truth.

It seems that futurism has a slightly more literal approach to prophecy. Although I have sympathy with literal hermeneutics, there are aspects of prophecy that call this approach into question; or at least suggest modification.

My general hermeneutic is probably better described as more grammatical (straightforward interpretation) than literal. Much of the Bible is to be understood in a literal manner (especially history). Still, figures of speech, idioms, approximations, hyperbole, rhetoric are all features of Scripture and Scripture needs to be interpreted with this in mind.

So is predictive prophecy literal? Well it may point to literal events: Isaiah's prophecies of the Messiah meant that a real person was coming. Yet some fulfilments of prophecy seem to be more spiritual than physical.

There are aspects of prophecy that should make us question whether something is literal, or rather that a literal aspect may be fulfilled in a difficult to perceive way. A couple are hiddenness and scriptural interpretation of prophecy.

If we view prophecy in the broadest aspect: God speaking to people though his servants, it seems that clarity is attenuated by righteousness. What I mean by this is that our ability to understand is modified by our receptiveness to God. Those inclined toward God understand better than those opposed to God. Jesus spoke in parables for this reason. Isaiah says,

‘You will be ever hearing, but never understanding;/
you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’/
This people’s heart has become calloused;/
they hardly hear with their ears,/
and they have closed their eyes (Isaiah 6:9-10, Septuagint)

Thus there is an aspect of hiddenness to Scripture. Related to this hiddenness is the concept that prophecy is better understood after the event than before it. That is, its fulfilment clearly relates to the prophecy, but this is much harder to grasp before the event.

We also need to read how the authors of Scripture understood prophecy. For example Matthew's interpretation of prophecies is different than I would expect at times. Jesus indicates that some things should be understood as more spiritual than material. We need to learn from Jesus and the inspired authors.

We need to read Scripture (including eschatology) aright. Avoiding both hyperliteralism (phylacteries) and over-spiritualisation (Jesus has returned in the church; Jesus has risen in our hearts); and also rightly discerning which aspects are more literal and which are more spiritual.

Doctrinal disagreement

The Bible claims to be revelation from God. It is thought by Christians to contain truth: that is, what it says on its pages reflects reality. Of course if one accepts this he is still left with the issue of interpreting the text.

Statements of faith can reflect this difference in interpretation. Thus we get people holding to a range of beliefs. It is possible for a Calvinist and an Arminian to be egalitarian; or for two paedobaptists to differ over ecclesiology. However holding one belief may increase the chance of holding another: beliefs are not mathematically independent. If 50% of Christians are paedobaptists and 10% are annihilationists, it may not hold that 5% are paedobaptist annihilationists.

Resolving differences requires assessing what the Bible teaches and weighting passages appropriately.

Now I think that some disagreements are genuinely over meaning. Which belief is most consistent with Scripture. I also think that significant disagreement comes about because of the influence of preference. People do want the Bible to confirm what they wish to be the case.

Conceding all this I think there are still a couple issues. Some differences may not be different when we understand the issue in adequate depth. Two opinions over a single issue may be resolved when it is realised that the issue is actually divisible: perhaps one opinion is correct when applied to one component of the issue and the other correct when applied to the second component. For example, I think Arminianism resolves the sovereignty issue that the Calvinists (perhaps unwittingly) seem to conflate.

However some differences are mutually exclusive. If the Bible is true, and there are contradictory interpretations, at least one perspective is incorrect. Christians who hold the correct interpretation will know the truth; they will know things as they really are, at least concerning that doctrine.

Such doctrines have a range of importance. Some beliefs are more central than others. Some beliefs are more foundational than others. And some beliefs are more clear than others.

By central I mean important to the Christian faith. These would include the deity of Christ, the literal death and resurrection of Jesus, the second coming of Jesus.

By foundational I mean beliefs which other doctrines build on. Such as the existence of God, the creation of the earth and universe by a transcendent God, the infiniteness of God, the omnipotence of God.

By clarity I mean how much the Bible reveals about the doctrine. Clear doctrines include the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation, that God created the universe. Less clear doctrines would include the hierarchy of the angelic world, the nature of the Nephilim.

A specific doctrines can range from central to peripheral, foundational to minor, clear to opaque. While any doctrine could lie anywhere along these 3 axes, central doctrines tend to be clear doctrines.

The degree of disagreement does not necessarily imply a lack of perspicuity in the Bible, there are other considerations as mentioned above. But divergence of opinion may imply lack of biblical clarity. As such, I think it prudent that we hold opinions more lightly when we recognise that there is opacity surrounding a particular doctrine.

One such doctrinal area is eschatology. I think Christians have disagreement here, in part, because the Bible is not completely clear about last things.

The number of the beast

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. (Revelation 13)

I think it is likely that this number refers at least to Nero. If this is the case it has implications for the dating of the book of Revelation which I think was written prior to 70 AD.

In this passage we note the the number of the beast is the number of a man. This does not necessarily mean that the beast is a man, just that the number of the beast is the number of a man.

The number of a man may be the number of the name via gematria. Nero Caesar's number in Greek is 1337, but his number in Hebrew is 666. The call for wisdom may have meant that the number needed to be calculated in Hebrew, not Greek. The association with Nero is very ancient, almost certainly as old as the book of Revelation. Nero Caesar does not have a gematria in Latin (that I am aware of), the Latin numbering scheme does not lend itself to this. But transliteration of Nero Caesar from Latin to Hebrew gives the number 616 which is mentioned in several manuscripts of Revelation. This confirms that the authors of the variant manuscripts thought Nero was intended. Below are the calculations.

Greek	Number	Hebrew	Number	Latin	Hebrew	Number
Ν	50	נ	50	N	נ	50
Ε	5	-	-	E	-	-
Ρ	100	ר	200	R	ר	200
Ω	800	ו	6	O	ו	6
Ν	50	נ	50	-	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Κ	20	ק	100	C	ק	100
Α	1	-	-	A	-	-
Ι	10	-	-	E	-	-
Σ	200	ס	60	S	ס	60
Α	1	-	-	E	-	-
Ρ	100	ר	200	R	ר	200
Total	1337		666			616

Though Nero's gematria in Greek is given by Suetonius without the Caesar resulting in 1005.