By Angus Harley

There is nothing easy about interpreting Matthew 24. We all bring our presuppositions to the text. In exposing postmillennial-preterism’s (PP) theological presuppositions in the previous two articles,[1] I have also laid down some of my own. This article covers a similar contrast of presuppositions between PP and my own view. For, to PP, the language of immediacy, nearness, and contemporaneity of Matthew 24 is cast-iron proof that the Son of Man’s return, as related in 24:28-35, was, in its first phase, during the generation that Jesus was speaking to. By contrast, this article defends that the prophetic nature of the ‘nearness language’ directs us merely to one coming, one ‘phase’. Moreover, the events in the AD70 era that incorporated “this generation” are prophetically symbolic of the same judgment throughout time, and, more pointedly, of the Final Day itself, in which the Son of Man actually returns.

THE ‘NEARNESS LANGUAGE’

The coming section will state what is Jesus’ prophetical outlook in Matthew 24, indeed, in Matthew 24-25. This outlook will give a different perspective, a heavenly one, on Jesus’ words as ‘the’ prophet, which sits in contrast to the this-world hermeneutic of PP.

War of ‘ages’

Scripture relates that God’s redemptive plan has always been tied to this world and its chronology.

Redemptive work in ‘time’, in this world

Anyone with eyes can see that God’s redemptive work impacts mankind here on earth, in time. The clearest example of this is the time of the fulfillment of the OT promises in the incarnation of the Son of God (Gal.4:4). God’s redemption is ‘historical’, in history, and impacts sinners in a fallen world. Indeed, God’s kingdom, according to the many Matthean parables, spreads out in this world to bring many souls into God’s heavenly family. This earthy, chronology-bound, work of redemption is utterly indisputable. 

Clash of the kingdoms

Even so, it is a grave mistake to think that God’s kingdom plan and work are, effectively, merely God extending himself and his kingdom here on earth, as if he were some kind of theocratic God with a theocratic kingdom that extended itself from Jerusalem, or some other place, unto the ends of the world. John 18:36 is very clear: Jesus’ kingdom is of heaven, from above, and not of this world. In other words, his kingdom comes from a different place: that of his Father’s house in heaven and its many rooms (John 14:2). His rule is a heavenly rule, for his kingdom is’a heavenly kingdom (Heb.1:1-3). The many Matthean parables that refer to the heavenly kingdom’s extension on earth are not concerned with an earthly kingdom, therefore, but with the heavenly kingdom overpowering the kingdoms of man on earth, kingdoms controlled by the evil one himself. It is the kingdom of the Father in heaven, through the Son of Man, overpowering the evil one in his house (see Matt.4:1-11; 6:9-13; 12:25-30). 

‘Time’ as evil

So, when the NT refers to God’s work in time, in history, it is the invasion of the kingdom of heaven into this world and its fallen time. History and time in the bible are not neutral, as we typically think they are. This is not merely a case of saying that God does not operate according to how we perceive time; nor is it only to say that God is outside of time (see 2 Pet.3:8). Time is fallen and corrupt for it belongs to this world. The KJV writes, “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph.5:16), a literal rendition of the Greek text. Man’s ‘clock’, his ‘days’, his ‘time’ and ‘history’ are all fallen and corrupt. The kingdom of heaven that Jesus represented on earth in his spiritual invasion was imposing his heavenly ‘time’ and life upon earthly, fallen, time.


Matthew’s two ages

Matthew reflects the same theology. Given the evil and fallen nature of this world and its kingdoms, this age on earth and its time are characterized by evil and the work of the evil one (Matt.13:39). It is an age that is more specifically marked by a rejection of the Spirit’s work (Matt.12:32). It is therefore an age that will be harshly judged (Matt.13:39, 40, 49). In the age to come, and even in this age, those who do accept the Spirit’s work receive the forgiveness of sins (Matt.12:32). In fact, Jesus will be with his disciples, accompanying them unto the end of this age (Matt.28:20) because this age is evil and he alone has the power of heaven to overcome the evil one and his reign in the kingdoms and days of men.

‘Age’ or ‘world’?

When one looks at the wider use of the Greek term aion in the NT, translations sometimes do not know whether to translate it as “age” or “world”, such is the similarity (e.g., 1 Cor.2:6, 7; 10:11; 2 Cor.4:4; Eph.1:21).

Matthew’s use of “age” is, similarly, close to the meaning, “world”. I ask you, the reader, to go back and read the Matthean passages and insert the term “world”. You will see that it is difficult to separate between it and “age” (e.g., 12:32; 13:32, 39, 40, etc.). In Matthew, one kingdom is clashing with another, one “world”, one “age”, is fighting the other “world”, the other “age”.

Full victory

With this contrast in mind of the war between the ages, we can now recognize that from the outset of Jesus’ presence on earth, and even before, he is described as coming as the complete and full Savior of his people from sin. He is God with us, God in the flesh, bringing the final victory of everlasting life of the other, endless, age into this fallen, time-bound, world and its evil age (see Matt.1:18-25).

Unquestionable!

As such, his full salvific-victory as the king of heaven was never open to question. His incarnation did not make victory merely possible, or even probable; it was 100% certain! Even the Magi from afar understood this, bringing him gifts fit for the status of a heavenly king in his reign (Matt.2:1-7). Of course, this age being evil, its rulers came after him to kill him. However, he could not be stopped, and escaped, to be set apart until the time of his Messianic ministry (Matt.2:8-23). John the Baptist was sent ahead of him, proclaiming that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt.3:2). Jesus the king was about to make his entrance. Jesus’ heavenly Father was supremely happy with his Son, calling him his beloved, empowering him by the gift of the Spirit to formally begin his kingdom work as Son (Matt.3:3-17). He then encounters the evil one in the wilderness, enduring his temptations, remaining faithful to his Father in heaven and his kingdom mission (Matt.4:1-11). So, even before Jesus starts engaging with this world in his Messianic ministry, before going to war with the Jews, he has already proven that he comes in the power of heaven and will certainly bring the full victory of his Father’s kingdom over the powers of this evil world. 

All dimensions!

All of this implies that the Son of Man’s person and work whilst on earth naturally embodied the fullness of the entire victory of God in all of its depth and dimensions. The Son will certainly and inexorably march on to the cross, bearing its shame, to destroy the power of the evil one, and of the Law to condemn. Sin will be crushed there! He will then rise from the dead to overpower death. After this, he will go to be with his Father in heaven to formally begin his royal reign as the Christ. All that remains is for him to wrap things up by his Second Coming, totally vanquishing the enemies of the cross and of his assembly, bringing in the new heavens and the new earth. All these dimensions of redemptive victory (and more aspects) were implied at all times in the person and ministry of the Son of Man whilst on earth.

The nearness language

There is much nearness language in Matthew 24. To comprehend it, we must illustrate, and expand upon, what we’ve just spoken of.

Tip of the spear

The phrase ‘tip of the spear’ refers to the leading aspects of some group or some action, its forefront. The phrase implies more is to come. When Jesus stood on earth, announcing that his Second Coming was near and that some of his disciples would see him “coming in his kingdom” (Matt.16:28), and that he will return on the clouds of heaven (Matt.24:30; 26:64), he was using ‘tip of the spear’ language: he embodied the full dimensions of the entirety of the work of the kingdom of God, including, of course, the Second Coming yet to be. The complete dimensions of kingdom redemption were therefore “near”, “at hand” (Matt.3:2; 4:17; 10:7), and so forth. For the tip presumes the sudden inevitability of the shaft of the spear, so to speak.

Matthew 16:28 and 10:23

As an example, let us look at Matthew 16:28 and its reference to “some of those standing here” seeing the “coming of his kingdom”. This might have immediate reference to his transfiguration that was about to happen (Matt.17:1-8). Even if this were so, we should not limit the application to this event, for the manifestation of the Son’s glory on the Mount was a foretaste of the greater glory that was to come at his exaltation and at his Second Coming. This is implied in that Jesus was speaking to Moses and Elijah about his exodus (Gk. exodos) (Luke 9:31), his departure from this world to the next (see 2 Pet.1:15). It can also be argued, in contrast, that the sight of Jesus’ glory on the Mount, rather than being a limited version of the “coming of his kingdom”, was a window to it, acting like a kind of visible representation of the reality of the glory of the Son of Man when he is revealed, at last, from the heavens. I think this is what is taking place on the Mount. Jesus’ glory was revealed on the Mount in such a manner that, this event had a forward looking, prophetic, dimension that pointed to the Second Coming of Jesus in full glory. The tip of the spear.

Matthew 10:23 should be read in the same manner, “ “But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” ” The word “until” presumes that the disciples will go through the cities of Judea, and then the end will come through the Son of Man. Such is the nearness of God’s work in the then-present to the final installment of it in the future. The persecution of God’s apostles in the whole of Israel during Jesus’ time is a prophetic sign forecasting his sudden return at the end of time. The tip of the spear.

The blurring effect

Another way of describing the ‘tip of the spear’ effect is to refer to the blurring of redemptive stages and events with one another. Others name this ‘the blending effect’. Jesus can, in the same breath, as it were, refer to his kingdom presence and also the kingdom’s complete victory. The present blends with the past and the future, creating a kind of blurring effect. This is what is going on in Matthew 24. We will now take a look at this blurring effect in the use of “this generation” in Matthew.

“this generation”

To see this blurring effect, we must first orient ourselves in what “this generation” (see 24:34) indicates. We should not doubt that “this generation” is a reference to Jesus’ day and his contemporaries (Matt.11:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:7; 23:36). “[T]his generation” was one in which the glory of the Lord walked among men in the form of the incarnate Son of God, the Messiah. Yet, they rejected him, his glory, and his Gospel (John 1:9-14). To Jesus, “this generation” was not just about the people then: it was what they represented. By extension, therefore, “this generation” was representative of the “present evil age” (Gal.1:4). So, we read of “this evil generation” (12:45), “an evil and adulterous generation” (16:4) that rebels against the teaching of the Son of Man and expects signs (12:38-39; 16:1, 4). Indeed, such is the evil nature of “this generation” that they are compared to a man possessed with multiple demons (12:43-45). Thus, the judgment of Jerusalem, as related in 23:36-39, is tied to the murder of saints of the ancient past. Not all of these saints were Jews- consider Abel. Moreover, we are also told that Jesus’ disciples will be persecuted unto death. Various chronological times are, therein, blended into one picture.


As thoroughly grounded in the moment as “this generation” was, Jesus naturally attaches it to the final judgment and to other redemptive actions and eras. Thus, in his comments to “this generation” of 11:16, Jesus follows through with a clear reference to the final judgment of mankind (11:20-24). Notice, too, how the Jews of “this generation” are contrasted to the thoroughly depraved pagan nations of the ancient past. In Matthew 12:41-42, the Jews of “this generation” are explicitly tied to Judgment Day, and are, once again, contrasted to the Gentiles of the past. The difference is that on this occasion, these Gentiles are ancient believers: the Queen of Sheba and the repentant Ninevites. On the Day of Judgment, those ancient Gentile believers will rise up to condemn “this generation” of Jews. In the same context, in 12:40, Jesus states the Jews will receive only one sign: “the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”. Jesus references both human, fallen, time and its deathly nature; but implies that they are conquered in his resurrection. So, in this setting, Jesus moves from his current ministry to “this generation”, to his death and resurrection, then onto the Day of Judgment, whilst referencing the ancient past, all without batting an eyelid, or differentiating for our sake! The hearer is expected to understand that Jesus the king, in time, in this fallen world, embodies all the dimensions of his complete and everlasting victory, and to comprehend that his Gospel message utilizes the same blurring effect.

The one ‘drama’

In Matthew 24, Jesus’ prophetic outlook is blending together God’s judgments on Israel in “this generation” with the coming of the Son of Man at the end of time, which creates the impression of one continuous set of events. This is deliberate, creating one drama, as it were, that peaks at the moment of the Second Coming of Christ. Plainly, the events of “this generation” that are divine judgments are the prophetic precursors to the end.

By inserting another coming, under the guise of a ‘phase’, PP spoils the ‘drama’, subverting the climax of the Son of Man’s return. In any good story, there is only ever one climax. There is only one climax to Jesus’ ‘story’, and it is not found in the destruction of the temple; it is in the Son of Man’s in-person return at the end.

Retrospective prophetic significance

It was only after the events of AD70 that Jesus’ disciples would have understood that what happened in those days was symbolizing, prophetically, each version of “this generation” until the end of time. Thus, these disciples could, retrospectively, look back upon Jesus’ prophecy at that time, and see in it a new significance that they had not understood at the beginning.

The reader might be uncomfortable with that thought. Let me bring some comfort, dear brother and sister. The entire OT was one giant prophetic ‘Scripture’ that came into ‘maturity’ only when Christ came to this world. For it was only from the vista of the Christ-event that the assembly understood the fuller prophetic dimensions of the OT that the OT saints only got a passing glimpse of.

Suddenness that cannot be dated

It is typical of PP and other views of Matthew 24 to write that by referring to the events that will take place both internationally and nationally that these are signs of the time of Jesus’ coming. Of course, we have the PP version of the ‘time’ of the temple’s destruction as the first phase of his coming. There is also the ‘time’ of the Son of Man’s coming at the very end, on the Last Day. It is maintained, for example, that Jesus’ parable of the fig tree is indicative of time: there is the time of the budding leaves, followed by the time of the summer of fruit.

Seasons, not time

As seemingly logical as this understanding of Jesus’ parable is to our own minds, it is not at all his point. It is not times, the ‘when’, Jesus conveys, but the seasons. The parable of the fig tree conveys two seasons: the non-summer, non-fruit, season; followed inevitably by the summer, fruit, season. Dates, times, and ‘when’, are the point of view of Jesus’ Jewish disciples, not his own. His mind does not work according to the calendars and clocks of men on earth; for his kingdom is from heaven, and is the invasion of earth. Please do not forget that Jesus’ presence represents the clash of two ages, two times, two kingdoms. There was going to come the season, as it were, of judgment in “this generation”, upon the world, there and then, and Judea itself will be smashed, so that even the elect will be wound up in these events. Then there was the season of the Final Judgment, “the end”, which was signified by the earlier season: the one necessitates, gives rise to, the other, thus, their incredibly close relation throughout Matthew 24.

Our Lord says so!

Matthew 24:36 puts in bold the fact of the pattern of Jesus’ absence and then his sudden, unannounced, unknown, return (see coming article). For even he, the Son of Man, did not know the hour of his return. We can explain this phenomenon as, in part, arising from his limited capacity as the Man for us, who, at that time in his Messianic mission, was not given the knowledge of the day of his return. Yet, the main reason for him saying what he did was to underscore that human time and its ‘days’ was not God’s heavenly measurement of redemption. The heavenly Father’s ‘schedule’ does not work on the timetable of men who live in fallen time. The ‘Day of the Lord’ is not that human measurement of time that we mistakenly impose upon Matthew 24 and other texts. For, there is no ‘Doomsday Clock’, no ‘day’, no ‘when’ in God’s calendar, at least not as we understand time. God’s ‘age’ is not manipulated and shaped by man’s fallen time.

Contra PP

These facts run counter to PP’s very strong emphasis on its date-oriented model of the interpretive threshold of 70AD.

Yet, PP is not deterred, and responds by arguing that it is merely reflecting back the text, for it was in AD70 that the temple was destroyed by the Romans and the Lord spiritually returned.

However, we must not let PP of the hook, here. Jesus emphatically stated, “ “of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” ” (24:36). Yet, suddenly, in PP’s version of events, everyone in the world after 70AD knows that the Lord returned! We must insist, therefore, that PP’s reading does not reflect the text; it demonstrates, rather, an interpretation of Jesus’ words after the events of AD70. The one is not the other. Jesus is not interested in dates and times, in the ‘when’, as his disciples were, but in the qualitative aspects of his return, what its precursors will be, and what his return will look like. It is counter-intuitive to the text to read Matthew 24 as yet another chronological model, or about the ‘when’, as so many have been wont to do, including some amilers. The Lord’s return is not known, nor was known, even during and after the judgments on Judea and its temple.

Those parables

Look at the parables again. Matthew 25’s parables are exactly the same in import to those of Matthew 24. There is a season prior to the Lord’s return, and then there is the season of the Lord’s return. Matthew 25 in particular hammers this lesson home time after time. There are not two phases to the Lord’s return in Matthew 25: there is one return. Yet, this order has no impact on PP’s reading of Matthew 24 itself, for it has contrived the notion of dual phases of a return, contrary to all the parabolic evidence. How can the spring be the summer? How can the summer be the spring? How can the judgments on “this generation”, during their day, be the Final Judgment of mankind, the return of the Son of Man? The spring is not the summer in seed form; nor the summer the spring in seed form. Two wholly different seasons, which are nevertheless entirely inseparable and completely dependent on one another. There are not two phases of one summer, or two summers, even. There is the spring of judgment, and then there is the Final Judgment. The Final Judgment is marked by Jesus’ coming, the spring of Judgment is not marked by his coming, and that is why it is a spring form of judgment, and not the full bloom of the fruit of the summer, of the end, when he actually does return. The vultures of Judean judgment are not the corpse of the coming end-judgment when the Son of Man returns. The one (the eagles and Judean judgments) indicates the other, the presence of the corpse (the coming of the Son at the end of time).

Anxious and vigilant expectation

It is to undermine the spirit of the parables to introduce a dual-phase return of the Lord. The whole point of these parables is to induce an overwhelming sense of the sudden, without warning, nature of the Lord’s return. The disciples are deliberately put on edge by Jesus’ words, made to be anxious and vigilant about his unknown return. Yes, one knows he will return, in his season, but no one knows ‘when’, not a soul, not even the Son of Man!

Conclusion

Having examined Jesus’ prophetic outlook that underlies the text of Matthew 24-25, it is apparent that he does not view prophecy as an extension of a ‘this-world’ view of the divine kingdom. It is the clash of kingdoms, in which the full might, authority, and victory of the heavenly age clashes with the fallen age of this world and its demonic powers. The outcome was never in doubt. So, whenever Jesus was present, he represented the entire scope of this victory, its inevitability and its nearness, both as to final judgment and full deliverance of the elect at the end of time. It is this prophetic understanding of nearness that allowed him to use events in “this generation” to prophetically signify mankind’s ongoing warfare with God, but, far more importantly, to signify the coming of the final judgment, the “end of the age”, when he will return from afar to bring and end to that warfare once-and-for-all. It wrecks this ‘story’, this ‘drama’ to insert, impose, the idea that the Son of Man returned during the time of “this generation”, for it subverts the climax of the ‘story’: the Return of the King in the final battle!

This completes the theological arguments against PP. Yet, PP will have serious objections to my argument until this point. I will delay answering them until future articles, which focus on the text of Matthew 24-25 itself.

[1] Angus Harley, “Matthew 24: A Critique of Postmil-Preterism, Part 1,” All Things New Covenant, June 1, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/06/01/matthew-24-a-critique-of-postmil-preterism-part-1/; “Matthew 24: A Critique of Postmil-Preterism, Part 2,” All Things New Covenant, June 1, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/06/02/matthew-24-a-critique-of-postmil-preterism-part-2/.