PMW 2026-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Dscsourse is prompted by the Disciples questioning Jesus about his prophesying the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2–3). It is important to understand their questions in order to follow Jesus’ answer. I believe the evidence is clear that they ask only two questions, not three (as per John Walvoord and some others). The exegetical support for the two-question view is as follows.

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 (France, Matthew NICNT, 894). 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” (Quarles, Matthew: Exegetical Guide). 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 (A Manual Grammar of the Greek Testament).

The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

Six lectures on six DVDs that introduce Revelation as a whole, then focuses on its glorious conclusion. Provides an important, lengthy Introduction to Revelation also.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Third, grammatical observation. Grammatically the second question is united by the fact that “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) (Quarles, Matthew: Exegetical Guide).

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 variation 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 refer 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” (Quarles, Matthew (EBTC). Thus, Brown and Roberts well note that “Matthew takes care to distinguish this temporal horizon (… telos) from ‘the end of the age’ (… sunteleia tou ainos; 24:3).” (J. K. Brown and Kyle Roberts, Matthew).

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

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,” thereby transitioning from Jerusalem’s approaching temple judgment to the distant final judgment that AD 70 anticipates [France, Matthew, TNTC].

Sixth, content distinction. The content of the section before 24:36 is quite distinct from that which follows beginning at v. 37 ( Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia). 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 this 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 the age was to come, how could he confidently declare that it was to occur in his very own “generation” (24:34)?

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

Seventh, social circumstance distinction. The social circumstances of the early portion of the Olivet Discourse dramatically differ from those of the latter portion (Kik, An Eschatology of Victory). In the first section (up to Matt. 24:36) all is confused, chaotic, and catastrophic. This period is laden with wars and rumors of wars (vv. 6–7), famines and earthquakes (v. 7), betrayal and persecution (v. 10), false prophets (vv. 11, 24), lawlessness (v. 12), desolation (v. 15), fearful flight (v. 16), and great tribulation (v. 21). Thus, woe upon woe befalls men in the calamitous first portion of the Discourse.

But in the second section all of this upheaval and danger is absent. Social activities are tranquil, allowing business as usual while the commonplace activities of life continue. People are marrying and eating and drinking (Matt. 24:38), working in the field (v. 40), and grinding at the mill (v. 41). The wholesale chaos leading up to AD 70 (24:4–31) stands in stark contrast to the tranquil conditions at the time preceding Christ’s parousia and the end of the age (24:36–25:46).

There are other evidences to come. Check my next installment.