Last Days Madness:
Obsession of the Modern Church
By Gary Demar
“It is unbiblical to
use the term ‘Antichrist’ for a present-day or future political ruler.
The proper context is theological and pre-A. D. 70” (p.204).
Gary Discusses LDM on Iron Sharpens Iron
About the Title:
The end is here...again. At every calendar
milestone, self-proclaimed modern-day "prophets" arise to stir
up a furor rivaled only by the impending apocalypse they
predict. This doom-and-gloom prognostication is not only spread
by a few fanatics, but millions of Christians, including some of
the most recognized names in mainstream Christianity who are
caught up in the latest "last days" frenzy. Seduced by the
popular craze, they are driven not to action, but to radical
inactivity, ineffectiveness, and lethargy while waiting for the
In this authoritative book, Gary DeMar
clears the haze regarding "end-times" themes by explaining in
clear language the interpretation of the time texts, the Olivet
Discourse, the rebuilt temple, the abomination of desolation,
the man of lawlessness, 666, the return of Christ, the cursed
fig tree, the passing away of heaven and earth, the antichrist,
armageddon, the rapture, the identity of "mystery Babylon," and
more. He sheds light on the most difficult and studied prophetic
passages in the Bible, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt.
16:27-28; 24-25; Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and many more.
But more than this, DeMar tests your views,
renews your zeal for the living truth, and encourages you to
escape the paralysis of last days madness. This is the most
thoroughly documented and comprehensive study of Bible prophecy
ever written! Last Days Madness will be your survival
guide and spiritual compass to insure you escape the paralysis
of last days madness.
Gary DeMar sheds light on the most difficult and studied prophetic
passages, including Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Matt. 16:27-28; 24-25;
Thess. 2; 2 Peter 3:3-13, and many more. DeMar identifies the Beast,
the Antichrist, and the Man of Lawlessness and clears the haze
regarding Armageddon, the abomination of desolation, the rebuilding
of the temple, and the meaning of 666. This is the most thoroughly
documented and comprehensive study of Bible prophecy ever written!
LDM will be your survival guide and spiritual compass to insure you
escape the paralysis of last days madness.
About the Author
Gary DeMar grew up in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is
a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his
M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He has lived in the
Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife Carol. They have two grown
sons. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
A prolific writer, Gary has authored over twenty
books covering a full range of topics: The three-volume God and
Government series (1982-86), Ruler of the Nations (1987, 2002), The
Reduction of Christianity (1988), Surviving College Successfully
(1988), Something Greater Is Here (1988), You’ve Heard It Said
(1991), America’s Christian History: The Untold Story (1993), War of
the Worldviews (1994), Last Days Madness (4th ed., 1999), Is Jesus
Coming Soon? (1999), Thinking Straight in a Crooked World (2001),
End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind
Theology (2001), The Changing Face of Islam in History and Prophecy
(2002), and America’s Heritage (2002). He is also the general editor
and co-author of A New World in View (1996) and Reformation to
Colonization (1997), the first two volumes in the To Pledge
Allegiance history textbook series.
Gary has been interviewed by Time magazine, CNN,
MSNBC, FOX, the BBC, and Sean Hannity. He has done numerous radio
and television interviews, including the "Bible Answer Man," hosted
by Hank Hanegraaff. Newspaper interviews with Gary have also
appeared in the Washington Times, Toledo (Ohio) Blade, the
Sacramento Bee, the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, and the Chicago
American Vision also publishes The Biblical
Worldview, a monthly magazine edited by Gary.
Chapter 11, "Identifying Antichrist"
Hal Lindsey wrote in 1970 that he believed that the
Antichrist was alive somewhere in the world. He repeated this belief in
1977 when he wrote that it was his "personal opinion" that "he's alive
somewhere now. But he's not going to become this awesome figure that we
nickname the Anti-Christ until Satan possesses him, and I don't believe
that will occur until there is this 'mortal wound' from which he's
raised up." In 1980 he restated this conviction by
writing that "this man [Antichrist] is alive today—alive and waiting to
come forth." Although Lindsey believes the
Antichrist is alive somewhere in the world today, and actually has been
since at least 1970, he has stated that "we must not indulge in
speculation about whether any of the current world figures is the
antichrist." Anyway, determining the identity of the
Antichrist does not really matter since Lindsey and others believe "that
Christians will not be around to watch the debacle brought about by the
cruelest dictator of all time."
Not to be outdone, Dave Hunt voices a similar
opinion: "Somewhere, at this very moment, on planet Earth, the
antichrist is almost certainly alive—biding his time, awaiting his cue.
Banal sensationalism? Far from it! That likelihood is based upon a sober
evaluation of current events in relation to Bible prophecy. Already a
mature man, he is probably active in politics, perhaps even an admired
world leader whose name is almost daily on everyone's lips."
Salem Kirban wrote in 1977 that "those of us familiar with Scriptures
can easily see the handwriting on the wall as the way is prepared for
the coming Antichrist."
Lindsey, Hunt, Kirban, and many others share a belief
that is strikingly similar to that of fortuneteller Jeane Dixon. Dixon
claimed to have received a divine vision on February 5, 1962, about a
coming world religious-political ruler; her "prophecy" strikingly
resembles the modern doctrine of Antichrist: "A child, born somewhere in
the Middle East shortly before 7 A.M. (EST) on February 5, 1962, will
revolutionize the world. Before the close of the century he will bring
together all mankind in one all-embracing faith. This will be the
foundation of a new Christianity, with every sect and creed united
through this man who will walk among the people to spread the wisdom of
the Almighty Power." "Mrs. Dixon claims that this
man's influence will be felt in the early 1980s and that by 1999, the
ecumenical religion will be achieved." Why should we
believe present-day prophetic prognosticators when we have been offered
assurances of the identity of the Antichrist numerous times over the
Saint Martin of Tours, who died in A.D. 397, wrote of
the coming Antichrist whose reign would signify the last days. His
prediction sounds strangely familiar. "Non est dubium, quin
anticbristus…. There is no doubt that the Antichrist has already
been born. Firmly established already in his early years, he will, after
reaching maturity, achieve supreme power." Now go
back and reread the quotations of Lindsey and Hunt. Christians should
repudiate the writings of anyone who speculates that the Antichrist is a
contemporary figure. Such speculation is biblically unsound, as will
become evident as we survey the passages used to make the
Why all the confusion over who the Antichrist is? The
confusion arises because of two misconceptions: (1) treating divergent
biblical references as if they all refer to the same person thereby
creating a composite figure that is not found in Scripture; and (2)
mistaking the time period in which these divergent figures are to
The Composite Modern-Day Antichrist
Before we begin to sort through this confusion, let's
first establish what generally passes as the modern understanding of
Antichrist. The Antichrist of today's speculative theology combines the
characteristics of Daniel's "prince who is to come" and other features
from the Book of Daniel (9:26; 7:7-8, 19-26; 8:23-25); elements from
Matthew and Daniel's "abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24:15; Daniel
9:27); Paul's "man of lawlessness" (2nd Thessalonians 2:3); John's
"antichrist" language (1st John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2nd John 7); and John's
"Beast" (Revelation 13:11-18).
This futurized composite Antichrist supposedly will
make himself known after the Rapture of the church during the seven-year
tribulation. It is speculated that he will arise out of Europe since he
arises out of the midst of the "ten horns" on the head of the "fourth
beast" (Daniel 7:7-8, 19-26). This "fourth beast" with its "ten horns"
is said to be a revived Roman Empire. This is the same beast that rises
out of the sea of Revelation 13 (verses 1-10). Some believe the Beast or
Antichrist must be a Jew since he will come "up out of the earth" or
land (Revelation 13:11). Others believe that since he arises out of the
sea, a designation for Gentile nations, he must be a Gentile (cf. Isaiah
The modern Antichrist is pictured as a charismatic
political figure, the perfect media man. In the 1960s John F. Kennedy
seemed to fit all the criteria for a modem-day Antichrist, and his
mortal head wound clinched it for many gullible Christians. The
Antichrist purportedly will have the eloquence of a Winston Churchill
(Revelation 13:5) and the raw emotion and crowd appeal of an Adolf
Hitler (Daniel 7:20; 8:23).
The conjecture which surrounds this figure continues
with amazing detail based on scant biblical evidence. The Antichrist
will come to prominence as part of a ten-nation confederation
approximating the land area of the old Roman Empire. Initially he will
gain control through war, subduing three of the powers in the
confederation. Some speculate that the ten-nation confederation will
begin with thirteen. Once he secures power, he will pursue avenues of
peace like Adolf Hitler (Daniel 8:25). His talk of peace will be
attractive to an apostate Christianity (1st Thessalonians 5:3). As with
Hitler who made peace with the "Holy See" of Rome, these overtures of
peace will act like sedatives on the people.
In his speech of March 23, 1933, to the Reichstag
when the legislative body of Germany abandoned its functions to the
dictator, Hitler paid tribute to the Christian faiths as "essential
elements for safeguarding the soul of the German people," promised to
respect their rights, declared that his government's "ambition is a
peaceful accord between Church and State" and added—with an eye to the
votes of the Catholic Center Party, which he received—that "we hope to
improve our friendly relations with the Holy See."
As a man of peace, the Antichrist will make a
covenant with the Jews guaranteeing them peace and security in their own
land. In the middle of the covenant period, he will break the covenant
and turn on the Jews. He will then make war with the Jewish saints and
will overcome them (Revelation 13:17; Daniel 7:21). Of course, during
this three-and-one-half year period of time two-thirds of the Jews
living in Palestine will be killed (Zechariah 13:8-9). Since he hates
God, the Antichrist will blaspheme God and His tabernacle (Revelation
As a counterfeit Christ, the Antichrist will be given
great powers by the devil to try to duplicate Jesus' work. He will even
seek to match the resurrection; the Antichrist will seem to have
suffered a mortal blow to the head but will then be miraculously
resurrected. He will immediately become an object
of worship (Revelation 13:3-8) and will set himself up as God in the
temple in Jerusalem (2nd Thessalonians 2:4). The false prophet will
erect an image or idol to the Antichrist. He will then cause the statue
to come alive and to speak (Revelation 13:14-15).
According to this elaborate scenario, the world will
be living under a tyranny directed by Satan through his Beast-Antichrist
and false prophet. Each and every person will be stamped with the
dreaded 666! This recipe for disaster will eventually lead to Armageddon
where all the nations of the world will be brought against Israel. Only
the return of Christ will save Israel and the world.
When tested against sound biblical interpretation,
will such a theory hold up? Quoting verses from one book of the Bible
and claiming that they correspond to statements in another book of the
Bible does not constitute truth. In addition, the issue of timing
invalidates the entire theory. Is it possible that what was prophecy is
now history? Could the Beast of Revelation 13 and his attendant number
666 be referring to a well-known historical figure who played a
prominent role during the time in which the Book of Revelation was
As we will see, the modem doctrine of Antichrist is
an amalgamation of biblical concepts and events that either are
unrelated or find their fulfillment in past events. This is why
confusion persists. Modem Antichrist hunters are pursuing a figure who
does not exist. Let's look at the biblical evidence.
The Biblical Antichrist
First, we must find a biblical definition of
Antichrist. The word "Antichrist" appears only in John's epistles (1st
John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2nd John 7). "What is taught in these passages
constitutes the whole New Testament doctrine of Antichrist."
John's description of Antichrist is altogether different from the modem
image. John's Antichrist is
Anyone "who denies that Jesus is the Christ" (1st
Anyone who "denies the Father and Son" (1st John
"Every spirit that does not confess Jesus" (1st
"Those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as
coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2nd
None of what John writes relates to the modern
doctrine of the Antichrist as previously outlined. John's Antichrist
doctrine is a theological concept related to an apostasy that was
fomenting in his day. John did not have a particular individual in mind
but rather individuals who taught that Jesus Christ is not who the Bible
says He is:
In one word, "Antichrist" meant for John just denial
of what we should call the doctrine, or let us rather say the fact, of
the Incarnation. By whatever process it had been brought about, "Christ"
had come to denote for John the Divine Nature of our Lord, and so far to
be synonymous with "Son of God." To deny that Jesus is the Christ was
not to him therefore merely to deny that he is the Messiah, but to deny
that he is the Son of God; and was equivalent therefore to "denying the
Father and the Son"—that is to say, in our modern mode of speech, the
doctrine—in fact—of the Trinity, which is the implicate of the
Incarnation. To deny that Jesus is Christ come—or is the Christ
coming—in flesh, was again just to refuse to recognize in Jesus
Incarnate God. Whosoever, says John, takes up this attitude toward Jesus
Is this interpretation possible? Aren't we supposed
to look for a future apostasy out of which the Antichrist will arise? As
the New Testament makes clear, apostasy was rampant almost from the
church's inception. The apostasy about which John wrote was operating in
his day. Paul had to counter a "different gospel" that was "contrary" to
what he had preached (Galatians 1:6-9). He had to battle 'false
brethren" (Galatians 2:4, 11-21; 3:1-3; 5:1-12). He warned the Ephesian
church leadership that "men will arise, speaking perverse things, to
draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:28-30). Theological
insurrection came from within the Christian community.
Many people prior to Jerusalem's destruction in A.D.
70 questioned and disputed basic Christian doctrines like the
resurrection (2nd Timothy 2:18); some even claimed that the resurrection
was an impossibility (1st Corinthians 15:12). Strange doctrines were
taught. Some "Christians" prohibited marriage (1st Timothy 4:1-3).
Others denied the validity of God's good creation (Colossians 2:8,
18-23). The apostles found themselves defending the faith against
numerous false teachers and "false apostles" (Romans 16:17-18; 2
Corinthians 11:3-4, 12:15; Philippians 3:18-19; 1st Timothy 1:3-7; 2nd
Timothy 4:2-5). Apostasy increased to such an extent that Paul had to
write letters to a young pastor who was experiencing these things
firsthand (1st Timothy 1:19-20; 6:20-21; 2nd Timothy 2:16-18; 3:1-9, 13;
4:10, 14-16). In addition, entire congregations fell to apostasy:
One of the last letters of the New Testament, the
Book of Hebrews, was written to an entire Christian community on the
very brink of wholesale abandonment of Christianity. The Christian
church of the first generation was not only characterized by faith and
miracles; it was also characterized by increasing lawlessness,
rebellion, and heresy from within the Christian community—just as Jesus
foretold in Matthew 24.
The Book of Revelation recounts such heretical
teachings: "evil men" (2:2), "those who call themselves apostles" but
who are found to be "false" (2:6), a revival of "the teaching of Balaam"
(2:14), those "who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (2:15), the
toleration of the "woman Jezebel…who leads" God's "bond-servants astray,
so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to
idols" (2:20). The apostasy was alive and well on planet Earth
in the first century (2nd Thessalonians 2:3).
Antichrist is simply any belief system that disputes
the fundamental teachings of Christianity, beginning with the person of
Christ. These antichrists are "religious" figures. The Antichrist,
contrary to much present-day speculation, is not a political figure, no
matter how anti- (against) Christ he might be. The modem manufactured
composite Antichrist is not the Antichrist of 1st and 2nd John: "Putting
it all together, we can see that Antichrist is a description of
both the system of apostasy and individual apostates.
In other words, Antichrist was the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy that a
time of great apostasy would come, when 'many will fall away and will
betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will
arise, and will mislead many' (Matt. 24:10-11)."
In addition, you will not find the word Antichrist in
the Book of Revelation. This is significant since the John who defines
Antichrist for us in his first two letters is the same John who penned
the Book of Revelation.
It is remarkable that a word so "characteristic of
the School of John" does not appear in the Apocalypse, where it might
have served the writer's purpose in more than one passage. That the
conception of a personal Antichrist existed among the Christians in Asia
in the first century is certain from 1st John 2:18.
Second, according to the Bible, Antichrist is not a
single individual. John wrote, "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" (1st John 2:18). "He
calls them just "Antichrists," and he sets them over against the
individual Antichrist of which his readers had heard as the reality
represented by that unreal figure." It is possible
that the early church "heard" that one man was to come on the scene who
was to be the Antichrist. John seems to be correcting this mistaken
notion: "John is adducing not an item of Christian teaching, but only a
current legend—Christian or other—in which he recognizes an element of
truth and isolates it for the benefit of his readers. In that case we
may understand him less as expounding than as openly correcting
it—somewhat as, in the closing page of his Gospel, he corrects another
saying of similar bearing which was in circulation among the brethren,
to the effect that he himself should not die but should tarry till the
Lord comes (John 21:18-23]." In a similar manner,
the people in Jesus' day had "heard" certain things that were only
partially true. Jesus corrected them in their misreading of the Bible
(Matthew 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43).
Third, whether there was to be only one or many
antichrists, John made it clear that "it is the last hour" for those who
first read his letters (1st John 2:18). How do we know this? John said,
"Even now many antichrists have arisen." And in case you did not get his
point, he repeated it: "From this we know that it is the last hour."
John did not describe a period of time thousands of years in the future.
It was the "last hour" for his contemporaries. Keep in mind
that Jesus had told His disciples years before, John among them, that
their generation would see the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem
(Matthew 24:1-34). John, writing close to the time when this prophecy
was to be fulfilled, described its fulfillment in the rise of "many
antichrists," that is, many who preach and teach a false religious
system, the denial that Jesus had come in the flesh (2nd John 7). The
apostle's knowledge about coming antichrists was probably taken from
Matthew 24:24: "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will
show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the
They had heard that "the spirit of antichrist' was
coming. For them, "now it is already in the world" (1st John
4:3). Antichrists had arrived. It is inappropriate to look for a
contemporary rising political leader and describe him as the
Antichrist. Such a designation cannot be supported from Scripture. Does
this mean that the spirit of Antichrist cannot be present in
our day? Not at all. It does mean, however, that a figure called the
Antichrist cannot be alive somewhere in the world today. Having
said this, we still must conclude that John had the time prior to
Jerusalem's destruction in mind when he described the theological
climate surrounding the concept of the Antichrist.
An Antichrist, therefore, is anyone who "denies that
Jesus is the Christ" and anyone "who denies the Father and the
Son" (1st John 2:22). "Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not
from God; and this is the spirit of antichrist" (1st John 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" (2nd John 7). John "transposes
Antichrist from the future to the present. He expands him from an
individual into a multitude. He reduces him from a person to a heresy."
From this study we can conclude that it is unbiblical to use the term
"Antichrist" for a present-day or future political ruler. The proper
context is theological and pre-A.D. 70.
1. "The Great Cosmic Countdown: Hal
Lindsey on the Future," Eternity (January 1977), 80.
2. Hal Lindsey, The 1980s:
Countdown to Armageddon (King of Prussia, PA: Westgate Press,
3. Hal Lindsey, The Late Great
Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,  1971), 113.
4. Lindsey, The Late Great Planet
5. Dave Hunt, Global Peace and
the Rise of Antichrist (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1990), 5.
6. Salem Kirban, Countdown to
Rapture (Irvine, CA: Harvest House, 1977), 181.
7. Quoted in Robert Glenn Gromacki,
Are These the Last Days? (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist
Press, 1970), 90 .
8. Gromacki, Are These the Last
9. Quoted in Otto Friedrich, The
End of the World: A History (New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan,
10. William L. Shirer, The Rise
and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1960), 234.
11. Lindsey says that he "does not
believe it will be an actual resurrection, but it will be a situation in
which this person has a mortal wound. Before he has actually lost life,
however, he will be brought back from this critically wounded state.
This is something which will cause tremendous amazement throughout the
world" (Late Great Planet Earth, 108). This is highly doubtful.
The world would not be amazed. A vast majority would consider it a
trick. They've seen too much of the magician David Copperfield.
12. Benjamin B. Warfield,
"Antichrist," in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield,
vol. 1, ed. John E. Mecter (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
13. Warfield, "Antichrist," 360-61.
14. David Chilton, Paradise
Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1985), 108.
15. Chilton, Paradise Restored,
16. Henry Barclay Swete, The
Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and
Indices (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1906), lxxv.
17. Warfield, "Antichrist," 359.
18. Warfield, "Antichrist," 357.
19. Gary DeMar, "You've Heard It
Said": 15 Biblical Misconceptions that Render Christians Powerless
(Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1991).
20. Warfield, "Antichrist," 358.
Chapter 15, "The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth"
When Jesus' disciples heard His frightening
prediction about the destruction of the temple and the judgment of
Jerusalem in their generation (Matthew 23:3639), they asked when the
destruction would take place, what signs would precede the event, and
what sign would signify His coming "and of the end of the age" (Matthew
24:3). It is quite obvious that the disciples connected Jesus' "coming"
with the "end of the age." The "coming" of Matthew 24:3 refers to the
coming of Jesus in judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70. James, as well as
other New Testament writers, is clear about the nearness of Jesus'
coming: "the coming of the Lord is at hand" (James 5:8), at hand for
those who first read the epistle.
The destruction of the temple, and with it the
priesthood and sacrificial system, inaugurated a new era in which "the
blood of Christ" cleanses our "conscience from dead works to serve the
living God" (Hebrews 9:14). Therefore, the expression "end of the age"
refers "to the end of the 'Jewish age,' i.e., the time of transference
from a national to an international people of God,"
what the Apostle Paul describes as the "ends of the ages." The "end" had
come upon the first-century church (1 Corinthians 10:11).
A similar phrase is used by the author of Hebrews:
"But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been
manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26).
Jesus was manifested, not at the beginning, but "at the consummation of
the ages." The period between A.D. 30 and 70 is, as the apostle Peter
describes it, "these last times" (1 Peter 1:20). As time drew near for
Jerusalem's destruction, Peter could say that "the end of all things was
at hand" (4:7). Milton Terry offers the following as a summary of the
meaning of the "end of the age":
It is the solemn termination and crisis of the
dispensation which had run its course when the temple fell, and there
was not left one stone upon another which was not thrown down. That
catastrophe, which in Heb. xii, 26, is conceived as a shaking of the
earth and the heaven, is the end contemplated in this discourse; not
"the end of the world," but the termination and consummation of the
Notice that the disciples did not ask about the
dissolution of the physical heaven and earth or the judgment of the
"world" (kosmos). After hearing Jesus pronounce judgment on the
temple and city of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39), His disciples ask about
the end of the "age" (aion). When did the "end" occur? The only
proximate eschatological event that fits the "end of the age" framework
is the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The disciples knew that the
fall of the temple and the destruction of the city meant the end of the
Old Covenant order and the inauguration of a new order. As Jews who were
familiar with Old Testament imagery, the disciples recognized the
meaning of this restructuring language. Jesus nowhere corrects or
modifies the multi-faceted question of the disciples.
The numerous New Testament time indicators
demonstrate that Jesus did not have a distant "end" in mind when He
spoke of the "end of the age." Charles Wright, in his commentary on
Zechariah, offers the following helpful discussion of the meaning of the
"end of the age":
The passing away of the dispensation of the law
of Moses, which as limited in great part to Israel after the flesh,
might well be called the Jewish dispensation, was justly regarded as
"the end of the age" ( Matt. xxiv. 3). The Messiah was viewed as the
bringer in of a new world. The period of the Messiah was, therefore,
correctly characterised by the Synagogue as "the world to come." In this
signification our Lord used that expression when he uttered the solemn
warning that the sin against the Holy Ghost would be forgiven "neither
in this world (the then dispensation), neither in the world to come"
(Matt. xii. 32), or the new dispensation, when, "having overcome the
sharpness of death," Christ "opened the kingdom of heaven to all
The "age to come," therefore, is simply a designation
for the Christian era, an era that was long ago prophesied by the
prophets. Abraham, for example, "rejoiced in order to see [Jesus'] day;
and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). The old covenant with its
attendant animal sacrifices and earthly priesthood passed away when
God's lamb, Jesus Christ, took away the sins of the world.
Among Reformed preterist adherents, there is a great
deal of agreement with the above interpretation and the application of
Matthew 24:1-34 to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Among these
same preterists, however, a debate arises over a proposed shift in
topics and eras with verses 35 and 36 being time transition
verses. Numerous commentators claim that Jesus redirects His discussion
from the Great Tribulation of A.D. 70 (Matthew 24:134) to a distant
coming that will result in the passing away of our present physical
"heaven and earth" (24:35).
J. Marcellus Kik writes in his highly regarded and
influential commentary on Jesus' Olivet Discourse, An Eschatology of
Victory, that "many have recognized that with verse 36 a change in
subject matter occurs." [Charles H.] Spurgeon indicates this in his
commentary on verse 36 [of Matthew 24]: 'There is a manifest change in
our Lord's words here, which clearly indicates that they refer to His
last great coming to judgment.'" Kenneth L. Gentry,
author of many helpful works on prophecy, takes a similar view.
While I respect the work of these men, I do differ with them on their
analysis of Matthew 24:35 and following.
The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth
Jesus does not change subjects when He assures the
disciples that "heaven and earth will pass away." Rather, He merely
affirms His prior predictions, which are recorded in Matthew 24:29-31.
Verse 36 is a summary and confirmation statement of these verses.
Keep in mind that the central focus of the Olivet Discourse is the
desolation of the "house" and "world" of apostate Israel (23:36). The
old world of Judaism, represented by the earthly temple, is taken apart
stone by stone (24:2). James Jordan writes, "each time God brought
judgment on His people during the Old Covenant, there was a sense in
which an old heavens and earth was replaced with a new one: New rulers
were set up, a new symbolic world model was built (Tabernacle, Temple),
and so forth." The New Covenant replaces the Old
Covenant with new leaders, a new priesthood, new sacraments, a new
sacrifice, a new tabernacle (John 1:14), and a new temple (John 2:19; 1
Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21). In essence, a new heaven and earth.
The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of
the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more
descriptive ways of saying that "heaven and earth will pass away"
(24:35). In other contexts, when stars fall, they fall to the earth, a
sure sign of temporal judgment (Isaiah 14:12; Daniel 8:10; Revelation
6:13; 9:1; 12:4). So then, the "passing away of heaven and earth" is the
passing away of the old covenant world of Judaism led and upheld by
those who "crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8).
John Owen (16161683) maintained that the "passing of
heaven and earth" in 2 Peter 3:57 had reference, "not to the last and
final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and
destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state" in
A.D. 70. John Brown (17841858), commenting on
Matthew 5:18, follows the same methodology.
"Heaven and earth passing away," understood
literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe; and
the period when that is to take place, is called the "end of the world."
But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament
Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the
establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of
the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new
John Lightfoot applies the phrase the "passing away
of heaven and earth" to the "destruction of Jerusalem and the whole
Jewish stateas if the whole frame of this world were to be dissolved."
This and That
Commentators often argue that Matthew 24 contains
both a discussion of the A.D. 70 destruction of religious, social, and
political Judaism as well as a reference to a yet-future return of
Christ. This supposed distinction is drawn by contrasting "this
generation" and "that day and hour." Gentry writes that "there
seems to be an intended contrast between that which is near (in
verse 34) and that which is far (in verse 36): this
generation vs. that day. It would seem more appropriate for
Christ to have spoken of 'this day' rather than 'that day' if He had
meant to refer to the time of 'this generation.'"
Not at all. We should expect to see "that" used for a time still in the
speaker's future, whether that event is forty years or four thousand
years in the future. "This generation" refers to the present generation
Jesus was addressing. "This" is therefore the appropriate word for
something present while "that" is the most appropriate word for
something future. Arndt and Gingrich agree: "This
refers to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos
[that] refers to something comparatively farther away."
"That day" would come in the final destruction of the Jews who rejected
their Messiah, a time still in the future for Jesus' audience. John Gill
But of that day and hour knoweth no man... Which
is to be understood, not of the second coming of Christ, the end of the
world, and the last judgment; but of the coming of the son of man, to
take vengeance on the Jews, and of their destruction; for the words
manifestly regard the date of the several things going on before, which
only can be applied to that catastrophe, and dreadful desolation.
Gill assumes that the previous context of the chapter
governs the meaning of "that day." As was pointed out above, Matthew
24:29 is a familiar Old Testament description of the "passing away of
heaven and earth," that is, the end of a social, religious, and
John Lightfoot's comments show that the only possible
reference was to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: "That the
discourse is of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident,
both by the disciples' question, and by the whole thread of Christ's
discourse, that it is a wonder any should understand these words of the
day and hour of the last judgment."
The Absence of Signs
Another reason offered in support of dividing the
chapter at 24:35 is that the signs that follow are of a general nature
compared to specific signs detailed in 24:1-34. There are two very good
reasons for the absence of signs. First, the signs have already been
given. All the signs that were necessary to understand the general
timing of Jesus' return in judgment were specified. Second, the topic
changes from signs leading up to the temple's destruction to
watchfulness during the interim.
Those Days and That Day
Gentry writes that "we should notice the
pre-transition emphasis on plural 'days' in contrast to the focus on the
singular 'day' afterwards. 'This generation' involves many 'days' for
the full accomplishment of the protracted (Matt. 24:22) Great
Tribulation." He states that in contrast to the "many 'days'" of the
Great Tribulation, "'that day' of the future Second Advent will come in
a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (cp. 1 Cor. 15:52)." Notice,
however, that the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24:15-28 does not include
either the dissolution of the social, political, and religious world of
the Jews (24:29) or the "coming of the Son of Man" (24:30). The events
of 24:29-30 (the coming of Jesus in judgment before that first-century
generation passes away) follow "immediately after the tribulation of
those days" (24:29). Such a distinction indicates that Jesus
was pointing towards a certain day when the temple and the city of
Jerusalem would fall.
The description of the Great Tribulation leads up to
the heart of the discourse which is found in 24:29-31. This is why
Matthew describes the "coming of the Son of Man" as following the "days"
of the Great Tribulation. The "coming of the Son of Man" in 24:30
parallels the "Son of Man" who comes up "to the Ancient of Days" in
Daniel 7:13. This "coming" was not a multi-day event; it happened on a
certain day known only to the Father. The collapse of the social,
religious, and political world of Israel (Matthew 24:29) -- witnessed by
tens of thousands as they saw their beloved city and sanctuary turn to
ashes amidst the flames -- was evidence that the Son of Man had come "up
to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him" (Daniel 7:13; cp.
Just Like the Days of Noah
To help His listeners better understand the timing
and circumstances of the events leading up to and including the
destruction of the temple before their generation passed away, Jesus
draws on a familiar Old Testament judgment event -- the flood. Jesus,
teaching by analogy, shows how the coming of the flood waters and His
own coming are similar. In Noah's time we read about "those days
which were before the flood" and "the day that NOAH ENTERED THE
ARK" (Matthew 24:38). Similarly, there were days before the coming of
the Son of Man and the day of the coming of the Son of Man. The same
people were involved in both the "days before" and "the day
of" the Son of Man. Those who "were eating and drinking" and "marrying
and giving in marriage" were the same people who were shut out on "the
day that Noah entered the ark." Noah entered the
ark on a single day similar to the way Jesus as the Son of Man came on
the "clouds of the sky with power and great glory" (24:30), a day and
hour known only to the Father (24:36). "Some shall be rescued from the
destruction of Jerusalem, like Lot out of the burning of Sodom: while
others, no ways perhaps different in outward circumstances, shall be
left to perish in it."
Mix and Match
Luke 17:22-37 describes five Olivet-Discourse
prophetic events that are identical to those found in Matthew 24. The
difference between Matthew 24 and Luke 17 is in the order of the events,
a characteristic of the passages that few commentators can explain. Ray
Summers, an exception to the rule, makes the following comments:
This is a most difficult passage. The overall
reference appears to be to the coming of the Son of Man -- Christ -- in
judgment at the end of the age. Some small parts of it, however, are
repeated in Luke 21 in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D.
70), and larger parts of it are in Matthew 24, also in reference to the
destruction of Jerusalem. The entire complex cautions one against
dogmatism in interpreting.
Taking Matthew 24 as the standard, Luke places the
Noah's ark analogy (Matthew 24:37-39) before the events of Matthew
24:17-18 ("let him who is on the housetop not go down"), verse 27 ("for
just as the lightning comes from the east"), and verse 28 ("wherever the
corpse is, there the vultures will gather"). If the five prophetic
events of Matthew 24 that are found in Luke 17:22-37 are numbered
1;2;3;4;5, Luke's numbering of the same events would be 2;4;1;5;3
After A Long Time
Another line of evidence offered by those who believe
that events following Matthew 24:34 refer to the personal and physical
return of Jesus is the meaning given to "after a long time" (24:48;
25:19) and the "delay" by the bridegroom (25:5). On the surface these
examples seem to indicate that two different events are in view, one
near (the destruction of Jerusalem) and one distant (the second coming
of Christ). This is the view of Stephen F. Hayhow. He writes:
Both parables, the parables of the virgins (vv.
113), and the parable of the talents (vv. 1430), speak of the absence
of the bridegroom/master, who is said to be "a long time in coming" (v.
5) and "After a long time the master of the servants returned" (v. 19).
This suggests, not the events of A.D. 70 which were to occur in the near
future, in fact within the space of a generation, but a distant event,
the return of Christ.18
Notice that the evil slave says, "My master is not
coming for a long time" (Matthew 24:48). The evil slave then proceeds to
"beat his fellow-slaves and eat and drink with drunkards" (24:49). But
to the surprise of the "evil slave" the master returned when he least
suspected (24:50). The master did not return to cut the evil slave's
distant relatives in pieces (24:51); he cut him in pieces. The evil
slave was alive when the master left, and he was alive when the master
returned. In this context, a "long time" must be measured against a
person's lifetime. In context, two years could be a long time if the
master usually returned within six months.
The same idea is expressed in the parable of the
"talents." A man entrusts his slaves with his possessions (25:14). The
master then goes on a journey (25:15). While the master is gone, the
slaves make investment decisions (25:16-18). We are then told that
"after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled
accounts with them" (25:19). However long a "long time" is, it
is not any longer than an average lifetime. The settlement is made with
the same slaves who received the talents.
The delay of the bridegroom is no different from the
"long time" of the two previous parables. The bridegroom returns to the
same two groups of virgins (25:1-13). The duration of the delay must be
measured by the audience.
This brief analysis helps us understand the "mockers"
who ask, "Where is the promise of His coming?" (2 Peter 3:3-4). Peter
was aware that Jesus' coming was an event that would take place before
the last apostle died (Matthew 16:27-28; John 21:22-23). The doctrine of
the soon return of Christ was common knowledge (Matthew 24:34; 26:64;
Philippians 4:5; Hebrews 10:25; 1 John 2:18; Revelation 1:1, 3). It is
not hard to imagine that the passage of several decades would lead some
to doubt the reliability of the prophecy, especially as the promised
generation was coming to a close. The horrendous events of A.D. 70
silenced the mockers.
Is the "coming of the Son of Man" in Matthew 24:37
different from the "coming of the Son of Man" in verses 27 and 30? There
is no indication that Jesus is describing two comings separated by an
indeterminate period of time. What would have led the disciples to
conclude that Jesus was describing a coming different from the one He
described moments before when He uses identical language to describe
both of them? Jesus does not say "this coming of the Son of
Man" or "that coming of the Son of Man" to distinguish two
comings as He does with "this generation" and "that day."
Similarly, there is little evidence that the "coming
of the Son of Man" in Matthew 24:27, 30, 39, and 42 is different from
the "coming of the Son of Man" in 25:31. Compare Matthew 25:31 with
Matthew 16:27, a certain reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in
"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of
His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according
to his deeds" (Matthew 16:27).
"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all
the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne" (Matthew
These verses are almost identical. The timing of
Matthew 16:27 is tied to verse 28: "Truly I say to you, there are some
of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they
see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." "Recompensing every man
according to his deeds" corresponds with "He will sit on His glorious
throne" to execute judgment among the nations (25:32). But how can this
universal judgment be said to have been fulfilled in 70?
There is no indication that Matthew 25:31-46
describes a single event. Rather, the passage describes a judgment over
time, related to Jesus' dominion as an "everlasting dominion" (Daniel
7:14). Jesus was "exalted to the right hand of God" where He rules until
all His enemies are made a "footstool for [His] feet" (Acts 2:33, 35).
Paul writes that Jesus "must reign until He has put all of His enemies
under His feet" (1 Corinthians 15:25). Milton Terry writes that "the
ideal of judgment presented in Matt. xxv, 3146, is therefore no single
event, like the destruction of Jerusalem." Terry
The Old Testament doctrine is that "the kingdom
is Jehovah's, and he is ruler among the nations" (Psalm xxii, 28). "Say
ye among the nations, Jehovah reigneth; he shall judge the peoples with
equity. He cometh, he cometh to judge the earth; he shall judge the
world in righteousness, and the peoples in his truth" (Psalm xcvi,
1013). The day of judgment for any wicked nation, city, or individual
is the time when the penal visitation comes; and the judgment of God's
saints is manifest in every signal event which magnifies goodness and
The King of glory is continually judging and reigning
among the nations, and He will not cease from this work until "He has
abolished all rule and all authority and power" (1 Corinthians 15:24).
The solution in determining when certain prophetic
events take place is the presence of time indicators in context. The
phrase "long time" has been made to stretch over several millennia even
though there is no indication of such an extended period of time in
Matthew 24:48 and 25:19. While all admit that time indicators are
present in Matthew 2425, few are willing to allow the words themselves
and the context to set the limits on how long a "long time" is. The use
of "long time" has no eschatological significance in other New Testament
contexts (Luke 8:27; 20:9; 23:8; John 5:6; Acts 8:11; 14:3, 28; 26:5,
29; 27:21; 28:6). The same can be said for the New Testament use of
"delay" (Luke 1:21; 18:7; Acts 9:38; 22:16; 25:17; Hebrews 10:37;
The parables of Matthew 2425 are clear on the
duration of the delays -- the two masters who go on a journey return to
the same people they left. There is no need to allegorize these parables
to force them to depict a distant coming of Christ. In addition, the
delay of the bridegroom in the parable of the ten virgins is not very
long, unless the virgins are related to Rip Van Winkle. The virgins get
drowsy at dusk, and the bridegroom returns at midnight (25:6). How can
this "delay" be turned into a span of time nearly two thousand years in
1. R. T. France, The Gospel
According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 337.
2. Milton S. Terry, Biblical
Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of
Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,  1988), 225.
3. Charles Henry Hamilton Wright,
Zechariah and His Prophecies (Minneapolis, MN: Klock and Klock,
 1980), 449.
4. J. Marcellus Kik, An
Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1975), 158.
5. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., "An
Encore to Matthew 24," Dispensationalism in Transition (May
6. Henry Alford, The New
Testament for English Readers (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, n.d.),
7. James B. Jordan, Through New
Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN:
Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 167.
8. John Owen, The Works of John
Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 196568), 9:134.
9. John Brown, Discourses and
Sayings of Our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,
 1990), 1:170.
10. John Lightfoot, Commentary
on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew -- 1
Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, ,
11. Gentry, "An Encore to Matthew
12. A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament.
13. John Gill, An Exposition of
the New Testament, 3 vols. (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer,
 1989), 1:296.
14. Lightfoot, Commentary on
the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 2:442.
15. Jesus "came up to the Ancient of
Days" (Daniel 7:13) while Noah and his family ascend above the flood
16. Thomas Newton,
Dissertations on the Prophecies, Which Have Remarkably Been Fulfilled,
and at This Time are Fulfilling in the World (London: J.F. Dove,
17. Ray Summers, Commentary on
Luke: Jesus, the Universal Savior (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1972),
18. Stephen F. Hayhow, "Matthew 24,
Luke 17 and the Destruction of Jerusalem," Christianity and Society
4:2 (April 1994), 4.
19. Milton S. Terry, Biblical
Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of
Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,  1988), 251.
20. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics,
Reprinted by permission of American
Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460, http://www.americanvision.org