With paper and pen, he listened closely to each person as they attempted to answer the question. Sure enough, it was not long before one gave an interpretation of the passage that ran completely counter to that given by another four seats earlier. To the author's amazement, no one caught it. About an hour or so later, it was the author's turn. By the time the question was put to him, he had recorded at least seven different “meanings” of the text. Only on two occasions did people notice a contradiction between two or more answers.

From the perspective of one who has spent years studying and teaching hermeneutics, the problem arose because the original question itself was problematic-the leader had confused interpretation with application. Before attempting to explain the basic meaning of any text, one needs to first gain an appropriate interpretation of a passage. A passage may have multiple applications, but it can have only one meaning. This is true even for prophetic passages, which may establish a pattern that may occur more than once. As well, the meaning of a passage may involve several aspects or pieces that may, in turn, involve total or partial fulfillments. Yet, fundamentally, a passage still has but one meaning. At the beginning, the leader should have explained the basic meaning of the passage and then given each person the opportunity to explain how the passage might apply to him or herself.

Many commentaries written about Matthew 24:1-31 appear to make the same error. They confuse interpretation with application. Only after identifying the best possible understanding of what the text means should we attempt to explain how that meaning applies to the church or believers in general.

In 1989, David L. Turner wrote an article in which he surveyed the possible ways evangelicals interpret Matthew 24:1-31. He wrote,

Evangelical studies of Matthew 24 tend to emphasize either the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem (preterist view), the eschatological return of Christ (futurist view), or some combination of the two (preterist-futurist views). 

According to Turner, there are four basic views that capture most modern evangelicals on this passage. The first group, which Turner labels as futurist, “stresses the age-ending return of Christ and finds little if anything in these verses which addresses the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 or the current age.”  A great majority of futurists argue that Matthew 24:1-31 applies to Jewish believers immediately before the return of Christ. Most see no part of the bride of Christ involved in these events. A second view, the preterist view (which is completely opposite the first) locates the whole of Matthew 24:1-31 in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This position sees much of the description given in this passage as highly symbolical, thus not necessarily requiring a literal fulfillment. Turner classifies the two other views as “mediating positions between the first two.” 

Turner, himself, takes the position that Matthew 24:1-31 is best explained by taking “the traditional preterist-futurist view.”  Turner's interpretation of Matthew 24:1-31 is that

[Matthew] 24:4-14 describes the course of the present age, during which “enduring to the end” and “preaching the gospel of the kingdom” are the Church's duties. In 24:15-28 the “Abomination of Desolation” is understood to refer both to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem and to the ultimate abomination against God's people committed by the eschatological antichrist. Christ's return to earth is described in 24:29-31. Finally, 24:32-41 underlines the certainty of the prophecy's fulfillment with the assertion that Jesus' contemporaries will not die before they see his prophecy fulfilled. 

With the exception of the futurist view, all views listed by Turner demand that Matthew 24:1-31 deal in one way or another with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

It is our conviction that both preterists of various shades and futurists such as pretribulationists have missed the significance of Matthew 24:1-31. Most dispensational futurist and covenantal preterists attempt application before proper interpretation. At a very basic level, the gospel of Matthew is a set of short stories that biographically tell of Jesus and what He did during His ministry on earth. On a higher level, we have Matthew's arrangement of the material to argue to a certain conclusion that is important to him about the kingship of Jesus. A final level concerns the Holy Spirit's design of the material to teach us a deeper significance concerning how God is Immanuel (God with us).

Most scholars recognize that the gospel of Matthew consists of five books, with a final section devoted to the Passion of Christ. Each book consists of a narrative section followed by a discourse section. Scholars are not in agreement concerning the significance of Matthew's unique structure.  Perhaps it was an easy way for Matthew to arrange the material for his audience to read and remember. Regardless, it is immediately obvious at a higher level that Matthew intends for his readers to conclude by reading his book that Jesus is a true Davidite and that, as such, He can and does fulfill all the promises God gave concerning Abraham and David. Jesus is that long awaited King who fulfills all of God's promises to Israel.

At the third or highest level, the Holy Spirit designs Matthew's material to convey the extraordinary measures God undertook to accomplish His eternal plan to come to be among us as one of us-Immanuel. The route that God took is beyond human comprehension. For Jesus to be among us as one of us, He had to have a miraculous conception and birth and a life marked by suffering, rejection, death, resurrection, waiting, and eventual exaltation to reign upon the earth. It is important for any interpreter to keep these issues clear when offering insights into Matthew's text.

It is our belief that many commentators do not understand Matthew's use of the eschatological or the Olivet Discourse. The Lord's primary purpose for giving the discourse to Peter, James, John, and Andrew is not necessarily the same purpose employed by Matthew. In fact, Matthew uses the Olivet Discourse to answer an entirely different question from His disciples than the one the Lord originally answered. This matter we shall deal with in detail later.


David L. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41,” GTJ 10, (1989), p. 3.
Ibid., p. 4.
Ibid. Turner writes, “The first of these mediating positions, which will be called the traditional preterist-futurist view, sees a portion of the passage (usually 24:4-14) as a general description of the course of the present age, and another portion as a 'double reference' prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction and the end of the age…. A second mediating position, which will be called the revised preterist-futurist view, sees alternating reference in these verses to the course of the age, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the coming of Christ.” See Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41,” p. 4.
Ibid., p. 5.
Ibid.
Book 1: Chapters 1-4 Narrative; Chapters 5-7 Discourse; Book 2: Chapters 8-9 Narrative, Chapter 10 Discourse; Book 3: Chapters 11-12 Narrative, Chapters 13 Discourse; Book 4: Chapters 14-17 Narrative, Chapter 18 Discourse; Book 5: Chapters 19-23 Narrative, Chapters 24-25 Discourse; The Passion - Chapters 26-28 Narrative.



Back to Title Page

Table of Contents

Return to Strong Tower Publishing homepage

Strong Tower Publishing is operating at zero inventory on this title. All orders placed on this site are printed on demand and fulfilled by the printer. Orders are generally filled within 1-2 weeks. For faster arrival, you may order from Amazon or other online retailer.

Order the e-book (file will be emailed to you within 24 hours)

Note: Pricing for hard copies is for deliveries in the U. S. only.