The End of the World

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Aug 10, 1882

The End of the World.

The Scriptural phrase, "the end of the world," has an important bearing on the subject in hand, and deserves careful consideration.

It is claimed that this phrase, used by our Lord in parable, prophecy, and promise, relates to the close of the Jewish dispensation, and not to the winding up of the affairs of this world when time shall cease. And it is essential that any system of doctrines that denies the coming of Christ to judge the world at the end of the meditorial reign, should maintain this ground; for the coming of Christ at "the end of the world," in some sense, is not to be questioned. It is the occurrence of this phrase in the twenty-fourth of Matthew, in the second question propounded to the Saviour, that gives the defenders of a figurative coming the anxiety they manifest.

Their position is that the word "world," in this phrase, is a mistranslation; that the original word, aion, should be rendered age; and that the application should be made so as to show that it was the "end of the Jewish age" or dispensation the disciples and the Saviour were speaking of in the use of this language.

Writers of respectability have given countenance to this exposition, so that authorities of high character for learning and evangelical soundness can be quoted in its support; and yet it is clearly untenable and misleading. We reject it utterly, and give reasons; and if our reasons are solid, so as to overthrow the position against which they are alleged, they sweep away the entire assumption of a "figurative" coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem.

The entire ground of the assertion that this phrase means the end of the Jewish age is the fact that the word rendered "world" sometimes means "age," and may be fairly so translated. This fact is not disputed. No violence would be done if the phrase were rendered "the end of the age." The question is not as to the meaning or force of the word, but as to its application. If the period of the Jewish economy was one "age," the period of the gospel economy is another "age" or dispensation; and if the Jewish "age" had an "end," the gospel age will also have an "end." Then conceding that the word aion means age, and might be so rendered, the question is, To which "age" does the phrase apply in our Saviour's discourses—the Jewish or the Christian? This is a question of fact. If it applies to the Jewish age alone, the advocates of a figurative coming of Christ have one point in their favor, and so far may be right. But if it applies to the "age" of the Gospel, as we shall see that it does, then the notion of a figurative advent must be abandoned. The issue is plain and vital.

More has been conceded to the opposition, with reference to this word aion, than a knowledge of all the facts will warrant. It has been claimed, and sometimes admitted, that aion never means the "world" in which we live, as we use the term "world." We know that kosmos is the proper word for "world," and expresses the ordinary conception of the material globe, and does it, as aion can not; and yet there is a fact which has evidently escaped the attention of those who make the broad assertion that aion never means "world." In the Greek Testament kosmos and aion are used interchangeably in some instances, and in other places aion plainly takes the meaning of kosmos. An example of the interchangeable use of these words is found in 1 Cor. 3:18, 19: "If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world [aion], let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world [kosmos] is foolishness with God." An instance of aion taking the meaning of kosmos is found in Heb. 1:2: "By whom also he made the worlds" [aionas]. Another example of this kind is found in Heb. 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds [aionas] were framed by the word of God." The worlds that were "made" and "framed" by the word of God were none other than the material worlds that float in space, including the world in which we live—the kosmos. We call attention to this fact, not for the purpose of building an argument upon it, but as an offset to the confident assertion which is so often made to the contrary. It is a fact not without significance in this discussion, and yet we submit it without further comment.

The application of the phrase in question to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to anything coincident therewith, is unauthorized and without meaning. Strange that it should have been so widely accepted! It aims, when thus applied, to denote the "end" of the Jewish dispensation. But the Jewish dispensation "ended" long before Jerusalem was destroyed. And to this fact we invite particular attention. Jerusalem was destroyed forty years after the ascension of Christ, and therefore after the ministry of the apostles; and, of course, it was after the "end" of the Jewish, and after the beginning of the gospel age. The apostle used the phrase correctly, of course, with undoubted reference to the "end" of the Jewish age, when he said, "But now once in the end of the world [aion] hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. This shows that Christ's first "appearance," or coming, was at the end of the Jewish age, as his second coming will be at the end of the gospel age. Strictly speaking, the end of the Jewish age was the time that Christ died. It was when he "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." That was a typical dispensation, and could not last an hour longer than the period of the fulfillment of the types. The rending of the veil of the temple marked the time of the closing up of the typical economy. No other period is designated or known in the Scriptures, or is in any wise set forth as the "end of the Jewish dispensation." The Christian dispensation began with the death of Christ, and was fully ushered in not later than the day of Pentecost, which, we have seen, was the date of the beginning of the kingdom of God on earth—the day on which Christ came "in his kingdom," and the "kingdom of God came with power." That day was an epoch. It stands out in history as the birthday of the church of Christ in its new relation, and as fully endowed for the conquest of the nations. We dare not date the new dispensation later than that memorable Pentecost. But, if this is correct, the Jewish dispensation was then past. The apostolic ministry belonged not to the Jewish, but to the gospel age, as every intelligent reader of the Scriptures will readily admit. Hence, the Jewish age closed, and the Christian dispensation began at least forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem—for the dispensations did not lap. Both were not in progress at the same time. Neither was there a hiatus of forty years between them. When one ended, the other began. The apostles entered upon their ministry with the dawn of the new dispensation, and lived and labored and died in the full blaze of gospel light, while Jerusalem was yet standing. It is therefore absurd to speak of the destruction of Jerusalem as "the end of the Jewish age."

The phrase in dispute occurs also in the great commission, and its use in that place ought to determine its application in other passages, and particularly where the second coming is connected with it. When Christ sent his apostles into all the world to baptize and teach the nations, he said to them, "And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Does this mean that Christ was to be with his ministers only until the end of the Jewish age? So we are told by those who deny the future coming of the Lord to judgment—consistency requires them to do it; but the absurdity of the statement must appear upon its face. The commission was given them to preach the gospel, and his presence was promised during the time they were thus employed. If the preaching under this commission belongs to the gospel age, then the promised presence of Christ belongs to the gospel age, and the promise, "Lo, I am with you alway," covers the entire period of the gospel dispensation. The Jewish age ended before the apostles began to preach under this commission. Christ himself brought that dispensation to a close when he "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Here we stand with confidence. If the commission to preach the gospel to every creature belonged to the Jewish age, and was fulfilled under that economy, then our critics may be right in their assumption that "the end of the world," in this passage, means the "end of the Jewish age." But who will assert all this? Who believes it? Surely no one intelligently weighs the matter will affirm anything so preposterous. And yet it must be done, or the very foundation of the opposition to the future coming of the Son of man to judgment gives way. For as certainly as the obligation to preach the gospel pertains to the gospel age, and lasts as long as the age lasts, it follows that the spiritual presence of Christ is promised throughout that age, and the "end of the world" means the end of the gospel age. And if this is the true application of the phrase in this passage, it can scarcely be possible that it will bear a different application where the second coming of Christ is connected with "the end of the world."

The same conclusion is forced upon us by the use the Saviour made of this phrase in his exposition of the parable of the tares and the wheat. Matt. 13:37-43: "He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. As, therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." This is full of instruction. It is not a parable, but the exposition of a parable. The language should therefore be taken in the most literal sense admissible, and particularly with reference to the description given of the divine arrangement for the separation of the tares and wheat—the children of the kingdom, and the children of the wicked one.

It is evident that "the end of the world" here mentioned did not take place at the time Christ "appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." That great fact put an end to the typical economy, and the Jewish age, but no one believes it was the "harvest" described in this scripture. Our critics do not so apply the language, but invariably to the destruction of Jerusalem. That sad event is all their hope. If it was not the "end of the world," as we have seen it was not, their whole theory fails. The "harvest" was not then, for the righteous did not at that time experience the blessedness of the promise that they should "shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." They received no special distinction in connection with the horrors of that catastrophe, except that they escaped the miseries of the Jews by obeying the direction of the Master to "flee to the mountains." Neither were the angels sent forth at that time as "reapers." The assumption that the "angels" were gospel ministers is groundless, and contrary to all correct ideas of the Saviour's language; and yet if we should admit the baseless assumption, the facts would condemn the interpretation sought to be forced upon this expression. The gospel ministers were not sent forth at the destruction of Jerusalem, but long before, so that the apostles had finished their ministry, and had all gone to rest—unless John still lingered—before that time. And they were not sent forth as "reapers," but as "sowers." Their business was unlike that which is ascribed to the angels when the harvest comes.

But the point to be noted is, that the harvest is the "end" of that particular "age" in which "the kingdom of Heaven" is displayed. Did the parable of the "tares" relate to the condition of things before the birth of Christ? If the "kingdom of Heaven" pertained to the Jewish dispensation, and accomplished its work therein, and terminated with the close of that typical period, then there might be propriety in claiming that the "harvest" was the "end of the Jewish age." And there can be no propriety in that claim without this condition of facts. But it was not the Jewish economy that was illustrated by this parable. The kingdom of Heaven did not belong to that age. The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist, and since then the kingdom of Heaven is preached. This kingdom belongs to the age of the gospel. Its coming was seen in Christ's personal ministry, and its establishment on earth was complete when the kingdom of God came with power on the day of Pentecost.

The first coming of Christ put an end to the Jewish age, as his second coming will bring an end to the gospel age. Hence, when he comes, he will "send forth his angels"—send them forth "with a great sound of a trumpet"—"and gather out of his kingdom all things that offend"—an expression which, of itself, proves beyond question, that the "harvest" is to be at the end, and not at the beginning of the gospel age.

Thus, every turn we give to this language, every possible view that has reason in it, carries us to the same conclusion, and reveals more and more clearly the absurdity of the assumption that "the end of the world," as used by our Lord, had reference to the end of the Jewish age. Such a position cannot stand for a moment without making the kingdom of Heaven synchronical with that age, and the folly of attempting this is too glaring for even those whose doctrine is unable to stand without it. The "end of the age" meant in this parable is the time of the "harvest;" and the harvest cannot come till after the sowing of the good seed; and the good seed are the children of the kingdom, sown by the Son of man. The "tares" grow along with the "wheat," and so long as the children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one live together in this world, it is useless to imagine that the "harvest" is past. The harvest separates the tares from the wheat, or it does nothing. "So shall it be in the end of the world."—From Bishop Merrill's Book, The Coming of Christ.