Jehovah’s Witnesses and their evolving interpretation of τέλος (Telos)

Telos, why is the “End” re-interpreted yet again?

Published By: Dr Cyberdyne, May 21st, 2025

When “The End” keeps changing, what does it say about the message?

If there’s one thing we as Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for, it’s our unflinching commitment to spreading the message that “the end is near.” For well over a century, our literature has hammered home the urgency of global evangelism, warning that the current system of things is teetering on the brink of destruction.

But what happens when “the end” itself — the very core of our message — gets redefined?

In a Questions from Readers section of a recent edition of The Watchtower (August 2025), anonymous writers for Jehovah’s Witnesses offer a notable reinterpretation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:14. This oft-cited verse states:

“This good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end [Greek: telos] will come.”

Historically, our enlightened organization has taught that this “end” marked the conclusion of the preaching work — a final checkpoint that would trigger Armageddon. But now, the message has changed. τέλος (Telos), we now assert, refers not to the end of the preaching phase, but rather to Armageddon itself. In other words, the preaching continues until the world is destroyed — with no clear cutoff.

This isn’t just a theological footnote. It’s a major recalibration with practical consequences. And for those paying attention, it raises more questions than it answers.

A broader use of Telos

As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we have made the Greek word telos a cornerstone of our eschatology. But how we interpret that word has shifted significantly over time, revealing not just evolving scholarship but evolving organizational goals.

In early Watchtower literature, the “end” was often described in broader, more flexible terms. The 1970 article titled “What Is the End of the World?” (The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1970) explored telos as meaning a conclusion, fulfillment, or goal — not necessarily an apocalyptic destruction. The term could refer to the completion of the global preaching work; the end of a political or religious system; or a transition into a new era under divine rule.

This broader use aligned well with Biblical usage, where telos does not always signal catastrophic judgment. Sometimes it refers to the completion of a personal mission (2 Tim. 4:7), or the maturity of love (1 Pet. 1:9).

Rewriting the deadline

The global preaching work will not end before Armageddon.

Now, in 2025, a dramatic narrowing occurs. The August 2025 edition of The Watchtower, in a Questions from Readers article, redefines telos in Matthew 24:14 specifically as Armageddon — the final divine act that destroys the current world system.

What’s significant here is not a change in the Greek word (its definition remains linguistically constant: an end, a goal, a conclusion), but how our illustrious organization chooses to apply it prophetically.

This new stance means that the global preaching work will not end before Armageddon; the “end” in Matthew 24:14 no longer refers to a preliminary marker but to the final moment of destruction; and the urgency of the preaching work is increased: no milestone (such as global preaching saturation) marks the end — only the final judgment will.

Is there a linguistic justification?

This question cuts to the core of the issue: Did the word telos suddenly change in meaning? Not at all.

Early Christian writers like John Chrysostom and Origen recognized telos as referring to the “end” in different ways — sometimes to the end of the Jewish system (70 CE), sometimes to the end of the world, and occasionally to spiritual fulfillment. Their interpretations were diverse but anchored in context rather than dogmatic finality.

So why now the rigid reinterpretation?

It seems that the word’s Greek flexibility is being subordinated to organizational necessity. Rather than treat telos as a term with multiple applications, the current interpretation narrows it for institutional clarity, giving the appearance of linguistic authority while advancing a doctrinal goal.

What is the doctrinal goal?

The redefinition … essentially extends the obligation to preach.

This reinterpretation serves a practical function: it eliminates ambiguity about when the preaching work concludes, ensuring that members remain actively engaged in evangelism with a sharpened sense of responsibility.

In the 1970 Watchtower article, telos was interpreted in various flexible ways: a conclusion of an era, the completion of the preaching work, or a system’s downfall. There was ambiguity — and a kind of theological breathing room.

Now, the ambiguity is gone. The redefinition removes any signpost before Armageddon and essentially extends the obligation to preach until the very last breath of this “system of things”. This is framed as “new light” — a clearer understanding, a refinement guided by divine insight.

But is it?

To an outsider — or even to a thoughtful insider — it might appear less like divine illumination and more like a strategic maneuver. One designed to keep the engine of the organization running, the members active, and the messaging evergreen. After all, if there’s no clear end to the preaching work, there’s no reason to ever stop pushing forward — and no moment when the group could be accused of crying wolf too early!

A question of trust

It’s the perfect insurance policy:
the end is always near, and your duty is always ongoing.

This is where the real issue lies: trust.

When our religious organization revises its prophetic benchmarks without acknowledging past mistakes or motivations, it risks sounding less like a faithful steward of truth and more like a self-perpetuating system. The redefinition of telos isn’t merely academic — it changes the nature of the commitment being asked of members.

And the timing of this change? Not insignificant. After decades of expectations — including failed predictions about the generation that saw 1914 — the organization now offers a version of prophecy that can never be wrong, because it has no measurable endpoint until destruction arrives.

In practical terms, it’s the perfect insurance policy: the end is always near, and your duty is always ongoing.

Final comments

If truth really is the hallmark of divine guidance, then transparency … [is] essential.

This shift in the interpretation of telos may be presented as “new light,” but it casts a long shadow. For some of us, it will feel like renewed clarity. For others, it will feel like a theological sleight of hand.

At the very least, it calls for critical reflection on the part of every single member. Unfortunately, most of us will mindlessly trust our leaders and swallow it whole without a second thought.

Not on whether the end will come — that’s a question of faith — but on how often the goalposts can move before one starts asking who’s holding the map.

If truth really is the hallmark of divine guidance, then transparency — even about past missteps and doctrinal motives — is not just admirable. It’s essential.

Because if “the end” keeps changing, maybe it’s not the world that’s on the verge of collapse — but the credibility of those who claim to know when it will.