PMW 2026-036 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
One of the leading interpretive cues in Matthew 24 is the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” In terms of Matthew’s rhetorical strategy, his record of their questions here may be equal in significance to the Lord’s own statement at Matthew 24:34 regarding “this generation.” After all, as Ulrich Luz notes: “much depends on the interpretation of the double question, since in the opinion of most exegetes it determines the interpretation of the entire chapter.” [1]
What is more, the significance of the Discourse is emphasized in its circumstances: Jesus is “sitting” and he is “on the Mount.” When Jesus sits to speak, this introduces his formal instruction on an important matter. We can see this, for instance, in Matthew 5:1 (where he gives his Sermon on the Mount) and 13:1 (where he presents his parabolic instruction to the crowds on the beach). This formal teaching posture is enhanced by the where he is delivering the Discourse: he is speaking from a mountain. We see the significance of such a setting when Jesus’ takes three of his disciples to “a high mountain by themselves” (Matt. 17:1), where the transfiguration was experienced. And also when he issues his world-challenging great commission (Matt. 28:16ff), which was delivered on “the mountain which Jesus had designated” (Matt. 28:16). Consequently, the disciples would understand that what they are about to hear is of great importance.
Although many scholars have argued that the disciples asked three questions here, currently most appear to hold that only two questions are asked: (1) “when will these things happen” and (2) “what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age.”[2] There is much exegetical support for this two-question view. I will be presenting much fuller argumentation in a forthcoming work co-edited with Jay Rogers: Hugo Grotius: A Preterist Commentary on the Mount Olivet Discourse (which should be published this year, 2026).
BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing (459 pp; paperback). Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.
For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/
Consider the following brief exegetical support for the two-question view:
First, lexical observation
Lexically the disciples’ questions present only two interrogatives, not three. They ask “when” (Gk., pote) and “what” (Gk., ti): “when [pote] will these things happen, and what [ti] will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?
Second, syntactical observation
Syntactically the two nouns parousia (“coming”) and sunteleia (“end”) are “linked as a single subject by the lack of a resumptive article before” the second noun. [3] As Charles Quarles points out with more detail: “The use of the sg. art. noun semeion with two gen. modifiers parousias and sunteleias both sharing the same def. art. suggests the disciples assumed a single sign would announce both events and thus that the parousia and the end of the age would be concurrent.” [4] Dana and Mantey state that this is the Granville Sharp rule of the article, “where the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case” so that when “the article … is not repeated before the second noun or participle … it denotes a farther description” of the first noun. [5]
The Book of Revelation Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)
Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting. Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Third, grammatical observation
Grammatically the second question is united by the fact grammatical structure used: “the sign” (to semeion) is a singular noun that governs both “Your coming” (ho ses parousias) and “the end of the age” (sunteleias tou aionos).
Fourth, noun distinctions
The Discourse, as reported by Matthew, employs two different nouns for “end”: sunteleia (v. 3) and telos (vv. 6, 13, 14). This suggests two different ends are in view and that they are to be distinguished. Elsewhere Matthew’s Gospel reserves sunteleia for references to the consummation of all things (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 28:20). But in the Discourse telos (which has a wider semantic range) appears to be used for referring to the end of something else. And in this context that “end” regards the temple (per Jesus’ prophecy, v. 2). Thus, Quarles states that “the expression ‘the end’ (to telos) is different from the expression ‘the end of the age’ (sunteleia tou aionos) in 24:3, and the two references must not be confused. Although the ‘end” in 24:3 refers to the end of the current age and beginning of the eschatological kingdom, the ‘end’ here [in 24:6] refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.” [6] Thus, Jeannine Brown and Kyle Roberts well note that “Matthew takes care to distinguish this temporal horizon (… telos) from ‘the end of the age’ (… sunteleia tou ainos; 24:3).” [7]
Covenantal Theonomy
(by Ken Gentry)
A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Fifth, transition indicator
Matthew records a distinct break in the Discourse that supports the two-question view. Matthew 24:36 (cp. Mark 13:32) has Jesus state: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” As I note in my exposition of Matthew 24 elsewhere in this work, the grammatical structure of the new section suggests a change of subject as we see in the phrase introducing this new section: peri de (“but of” or “but concerning”). Indeed, France (and many others) insists verse 36 “marks a deliberate change of subject,” [8] thereby transitioning from Jerusalem’s approaching temple judgment to the distant final judgment that AD 70 anticipates.
Sixth, content distinction
The content of the section before 24:36 is quite distinct from that which follows beginning at v. 37. [9] Before verse 36 we read of historical precursor events leading to the destruction of the temple signifying its approaching end (e.g., 24:4–15, 24–25; cp. vv. 32–33). So, Jesus warns that these precursors to the siege of Jerusalem could be misconstrued as the end itself (cf. 24:8, 26).
But with his statement at v. 36 Jesus surprises us with a declaration regarding “that day and hour” (i.e., “the end of the age, v. 3): “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Thus, the time of “the end of the age” is wholly unknown (e.g., 24:37–41, 42–44). If Jesus did not know when “that day and hour” was to come, when the end of th age was to come, how could he confidently declare that it was to occur in his very own “generation” (24:34)?
The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This commentary is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book. It takes an orthodox preterist approach, giving serious attention to the details of John’s many visions.
Click: The Divorce of Israel
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Conclusion
I apologize for the truncated presentation. But I hope my readers will check out our editing of Hugo Grotius’ work on the Olivet Discourse. Not only are we translating Grotius’ Latin work into English for the first time (which is a significant contribution to the eschatological debate), but we offer several appendices that interact with him, both positively and negatively.
Notes
1 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 190.
- To save space I will not provide bibliographies but will simply list a few scholars whose two-question convictions are found in their Matthew commentaries: R. T. France, Robert H. Gundry, Robert H. Mounce, Leon Morris, Jeffrey A. Gibbs, David L. Turner, Craig L. Blomberg, Craig S. Keener, Donald A. Hagner, R. V. G. Tasker, Grant R. Osborne, David A. Garland, Charles L. Quarles, Douglas R. A. Hare, Frederick Dale Bruner, Ulrich Luz, Michael J. Wilkins, Jeannine K. Brown, Kyle Roberts, Robert G. Bratcher, Floyd V. Filson, Stuart K. Weber, Jeffrey Glen Jackson, Philip C. Stine, and Timothy J. Christian.
- R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 894 n. 12. See also Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel (St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 2000), 227.
- Charles L. Quarles, Matthew: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2017), 281. He references Hagner and France: Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Dallas: Word, 1995), 688; France, Matthew, 894.
- H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 223. This is cited by Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia, 170.
- Charles L. Quarles, Matthew (EBTC) (Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Academic, 604–05.
- Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts, Matthew (THNTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 216.
- R. T. France, Matthew (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 1985), 347. - Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel (St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 2000), 170–77.
Leave a Reply