We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

How do you respond to Matthew 24:1–44?

This is Jesus’ Mount of Olives discourse in which, according to many scholars, he prophesies concerning the conditions at the end of the age. “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place (vs. 6)…nation shall rise against nation…there will be famines and earthquakes (vs. 7)…many false prophets will arise and lead many astray (vs. 11)…this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world (vs. 14)…at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now (vs. 21)…Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn (vs. 30).”

Some scholars (such as N.T. Wright) argue that this passage is not about the end of the world as such, but only about the end of the Jewish world as they knew it. It is an apocalyptic (and thus heavily symbolic) description of things that were to take place within several decades after Jesus spoke of them. In support of this view, consider that the entire passage is structured as a response to the disciples’ question concerning when the temple will collapse (vs. 1–3). And Jesus tells his audience in no uncertain terms that “this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (vs. 34, emphasis added). If this interpretation is accepted the passage has no bearing on the issue of God’s foreknowledge. In fact, we learn from Josephus that there were others in the early first century who were predicting that the temple was going to be destroyed, and we have no reason to think any of these people had divine foreknowledge.

Other scholars, however, argue that at least part of the passage refers to the very end of world history. Even if this latter group of scholars are right, we are reading too much into the passage if we suppose that it demonstrates that the future is exhaustively settled. Jesus prophesied that there will be wars (vs. 6), false messiahs (vs. 5, 24), famines and earthquakes (vs. 7) and persecutions (vs. 9). This simply means that the general features of how the world will end are settled and that God knows them as such. Given that the omniscient Lord knows perfectly the evil hearts of people and of fallen angels, and given that he knows that Satan and the kingdom of darkness are going to make one last all out effort to destroy God’s plan, as many other New Testament passages make clear, it should come as no surprise that God can accurately predict the turmoil the world will be in when history finally comes to a close.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics:
Verse:

Related Reading

If God anticipates each possibility perfectly, how does he differ from the “frozen God” of classical theism?

Question: If God anticipates each and every possibility as if each were only possibility, how does God ever experience novelty and adventure? It seems that a God who perfectly anticipated (from all eternity)  every single possibility as if it were the only possibility would not differ from the timeless “frozen God” of classical theism Answer:…

How do I avoid feeling like God is absent?

Question: I used to see God involved in everything and used to believe every event expressed God’s will. After my wife and I lost our child in a tragic accident,  and as a result of reading your books (especially Is God to Blame?),  I came to embrace the warfare worldview and the open view of…

What is the significance of Judges 2:20–3:5?

The Lord did not provide any assistance in Israel’s battles, “In order to test Israel, whether or not they would take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their ancestors did” (vs. 22). The pagan opponents of Israel “were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments…

Topics:

Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?

Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…

How do you respond to Acts 13:48?

“When the Gentiles heard this [preaching], they were glad and praised the word of the Lord, and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.” Luke does not specify when the Gentiles who believed were “destined for eternal life.” Calvinists rightfully point out that the Gentiles’ faith followed their being “destined for…

My Car Crash and the Open View

Last Saturday night Shelley and I were involved in a rather serious four car crash on a local highway. One person was hospitalized, and I’m being treated for neck pain and an on-going dull headache. But thankfully, no one was critically injured. In any event, the crash inspired several folks to e-mail or tweet questions…