PMW 2026-057 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing my presentation of the evidence that the Disciples of Christ ask him two questions in Matthew 24:3, not three questions. See preceding posting.

Eighth, disciples’ confusion tendencies. In their question the disciples confound two separate issues. In their interaction with Jesus in Matthew 24:1–3, their tendency to confusion leads them to associate the destruction of the temple with “your parousia and the end of the age.” And this despite the fact that they had already heard from the Lord that “the end of the age” was the end of time brought about with the final judgment (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49). Of course, the implied reader would also know of Jesus’ soon-coming great commission reaching to “the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). And the disciples’ confusion on this matter becomes even more evident to us in that Jesus’ prophetic statement (which gives rise to the disciples’ question) focuses solely on the temple’s destruction.

As Donald Hagner (Matthew) explains, the two parts of their question asked in the same breath shows they “could not disassociate the destruction of the temple from the end of the age.” That is, “the disciples …. were unable to separate the two events in their minds: the destruction of Jerusalem must entail the end of the age and the parousia of Jesus, inaugurating the eschaton.”

God’s Law Made Easy

(by Kenneth Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We know from the Gospel records that the disciples are frequently confused. For instance, the disciples are even confused about Jesus’ approaching death — despite his having clearly informed them of his looming death and resurrection several times before they occur (Matt. 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:7–19; 28:6a; Mark 8:31–32; 9:9–10, 30–32; 10:32–34; Luke 9:21–22, 43–45; 18:31–34; 24:6–7; John 12:7–8; 14:27–29). In fact, to show the enormity of their confusion, on one of those occasions after he mentions his coming death (Mark 8:31), we read: “He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind Me, Satan’” (Mark 8:32–33). And they so missed what he meant that when he was resurrected they were surprised (John 20:3–9; cp. Luke 24:36–40).

Indeed, Gibbs notes that in Matthew’s Gospel, when the disciples approach Jesus with a question, only on one occasion is the question reasonable: in 26:17 when they ask where they are to prepare the Passover meal. But in every other instance they show their ignorance (13:10, 36), flawed thinking (14:15; 15:12, 23; 18:1, 21; 20:20), or lack of faith (8:25; 17:19).

And in light of the Lord’s recent judgmental cleansing of the temple (21:12–13), cursing of the fig tree representative of Israel (21:18–22), debating the officers of the temple (21:23–27), parabolically denouncing the temple overseers (21:33–45), lamenting over Jerusalem (23:37), and declaring the temple “desolate” (23:38), why would the disciples approach their Master “to point out the temple buildings to Him” (24:1), declaring “behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings” (Mark 13:1)? As Osborne (Matthew) argues: “impending judgment has been the dominant theme since the symbolic actions of the cleansing of the temple and cursing of the fig tree in 21;12–22. This theme culminates in the Olivet Discourse.” Yet the disciples do not anticipate this at all.

So, here in Matthew 24:3, after the Lord declared the temple’s approaching destruction, the disciples questions bring up two issues Jesus was not even talking about. They simply assumed that “when” the temple was destroyed this necessarily required that it occur at “your parousia and the end of the age,” i.e., the end of time. Consequently, in answering their confused inquiry Jesus begins by warning them: “See to it that no one misleads you” (24:4). Then he reissues this warning a little later when he urges them not to believe reports that he is present at any particular place (24:25–26).

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission as given in Matthew 28:18-20. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Regarding a narrative critical analysis of this interaction, “both the record of the disciples’ mistaken point of view throughout the story [of Matthew] and Jesus’ opening response [warning against being misled, 24:4] alert the implied reader to reject the disciples’ joining together of the predicted ruin of the temple and the consummation of the age.” (Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia). The bipartite structure of the Discourse (see fifth and sixth points above) supports this narrative critical concern.

And the warning against being deceived does not just occur in this one, opening statement. Jesus will shortly warn that many will fall away as false prophets arise to mislead them (Matt. 24:10–12). Then he later warns that such deceptive false Christs and fall prophets would be so persuasive they could almost mislead, “if possible, even the elect” (v. 24). But, thankfully, “I have told you in advance,” says the Lord (v. 25).

Ninth, the disciples’ apocalyptic outlook. The disciples’ social context and religious outlook had been fed by apocalyptic expectations since childhood. As Calvin states: “since they had considered from childhood that the temple would stand to the end of time … they had not thought that the temple could fall down as so long as the world created order stood” (Matthew). The apocalyptic prophecies expected the end of the temporal order and the final establishment of the messianic-nationalistic kingdom. From 200 BC to AD 100 the great mass of popular Jewish apocalyptic literature was produced. As France (Matthew) comments regarding “the end of the age”: “The ‘end of the age’ … is a familiar Jewish expression for the crisis which was expected to bring the present world order to a close and to inaugurate the ‘age to come’…. Here its specific concern is with the judgment that concludes the present age and determines people’s status for the age to come.”

Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error
by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

As Hebraist John Lightfoot explains regarding Matthew 24:3: “See here the doctrine of the Jews concerning the Messiah…. From hence we easily understand the meaning of this question of the disciples …. When he will come in the evidence and demonstration of the Messiah, raising up the dead, and ending this work and introducing a new; as they had been taught in their schools concerning his coming.” Osborne speaks of the disciples’ confusion about Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction: “The disciples … are most likely thinking of the expected moment when Jesus will become conquering Messiah…. They do link this with the final ‘consummation of the age.”

We see the influence of apocalyptic hopes exposed in several New Testament passages. For instance, after he miraculously fed the 5000 we read: “Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone” (John 6:15). As D. A. Carson (John) notes: “they had witnessed or heard of Jesus’ miracles of healing, and they had been fed from food provided by his miraculous power. Surely nothing could prevent such a person from being the powerful liberator that so many children of Israel longed for.” Klink (John) agrees: “Although the crowd was correct in what they declared (unknowingly) about Jesus, what they imported into that role and therefore onto Jesus became their error. For the crowd, Jesus as the Prophet was a warrior-king…. Therefore, they intended to make Jesus king so that he would lead Israel to political dominance over the world (i.e., Rome).”

He Shall Have Dominion
(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Elsewhere when Jesus entered Jerusalem for his last Passover, we read that the crowds “spread their coats in the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees and spreading them in the road” (Matt. 21:8). “The spreading of garments and palm branches on the road marks the festive acknowledgment of Jesus’s kingship (cf 1 Kings 1:32–40; 2 Kings 9:13; 1 Macc. 5:45–54; 13:51; 2 Macc. 10:7)” (Turner, Matthew). Then they praise him by shouting out the last of the Hallel psalms: “Hosanna to the Son of David; / Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; / Hosanna in the highest!” The last two stanzas are from Psalm 118:25–26, but the first stanza referencing the “Son of David” is added by the crowds. Osborne (Matthew) well comments: “This is the coronation procession of the royal Messiah. The people are calling out divine blessings on their expected deliverer, but they will be delivered by the suffering Servant rather than a conquering king.” Or as Hagner (Matthew) puts it, due to the approaching Passover (Matt. 26:19–30) “with the entry of the king into Jerusalem, eschatological salvation (conceived of in national-political terms) was about to be experienced.” Once again the crowds were moved with messianic-nationalistic fervor prompted in part by Jesus’ miraculous power, for he had just healed the two blind men (Matt. 20:30–34).

This apocalyptic hope for the sudden and glorious appearance of the Messianic kingdom was expected by those associated with Zaccheus whom Jesus befriended: “He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately” (Luke 19:11). Jesus had just declared “Today salvation has come to this house” (19:9) and he was headed to Jerusalem (19:11a). Thus, Garland (Luke) suggests that those present had realized “awakened traditional expectations about Jerusalem’s redemption (2:38). The audience may assume that God’s reign will take on an earthly manifestation after the manner of earthly kings and kingdoms.”

We even see this apocalyptic expectation among his closer disciples. The two Emmaus road disciples lamented Jesus’ death because they “were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). Garland (Luke) surmises that “they probably understood [this] in terms of messianic liberation from Israel’s enemies ….. Their apocalyptic expectations embraced hopes for a national ‘ruler and deliverer’ (see Acts 7:35), and these false hopes have also blinded them.”

House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology
By Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry

This book presents and defends Christian Reconstruction theology, particularly theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology. It does to by responding to dispensationalism’s social and exegetical theology.

For more educational materials: www. KennethGentry.com

In Mark 10:35–45 we are presented hope-filled apocalyptic pride overtaking two of Jesus’ closest disciples, James and John. In v. 37 they audaciously ask of Jesus: “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” They ask this as Jesus is on the way to the royal city of Jerusalem (v. 32) and as they were anticipating his kingly “glory” (v. 37). And underscoring (once again) their tendency to confusion, they ask this immediately after he says he is going to Jerusalem to be condemned to death (vv. 33–34)! And yet they expect “apocalyptic victory of the divine warrior” (Garland, Mark).

Just before his ascension we also see the yet unextinguished hope for national redemption by Jesus’ closest disciples: “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). The disciples’ expectations “will not be fulfilled in ways that the disciples might expect or prefer. The kingdom of God has noting to do with establishing Israel as a mighty kingdom that will rule the world with an iron fist as Rome does.” (Garland, Acts).

Tenth, the disciples’ temple expectation. The disciples appear to assume that the temple will stand to the end of time. We do not discern this simply on the basis of their architectural awe regarding the seeming impregnability of the temple’s massive stone structure (e.g., Mark 13:1–2). Philo commented regarding the temple: “that “the buildings of it are of most exceeding beauty and magnificence” (Spec. Laws 1:13). In the Letter of Aristeas (at 100–101) we read: “ It is situated on a lofty site, fortified with a number of towers, which in their turn are built of sizable stones right up to the top, according to our information, for the protection of the area around the Temple, so that, in case of any assault or revolt or enemy attack, no one could force his way into the precincts surrounding the house.”

In fact, Titus himself was amazed that he could overcome the temple’s massive fortifications, for Josephus records his words: “When Titus entered the city, he marveled at its fortifications and towers, which the tyrants had abandoned in their folly. Observing their immense height, the size of each stone, and the precision of their construction, he said: ‘We have fought with God on our side, and it was God who drove the Jews from these strongholds; for what can human hands or machines accomplish against such towers?’” (J.W. 6:9:1). Indeed, even today a portion of the massive foundation platform on which the temple stood still exists. The visible portion is 1600 feet long and 100 feet high. Most of its stones weigh between four and eight tons, though one of them, known as Wilson’s Arch, is forty feet long and weighs 570 tons. For the Jews, “the massive stones of the temple buildings … appeared to be built for eternity” (Luz, Matthew).

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

However, rather than simply personal awe in viewing the temple, we can read of the Jewish expectation that the temple was destined by God to stand until the end of time. The Jewish philosopher Philo (d. AD 50) comments: “the temple will always be preserved, being coeval in their duration with the universal world” (Spec. Laws 1:14). In the later Sibylline Oracles 5:401 (ca. AD 100) we read of the destruction of the temple: “the ever-flourishing, watchful Temple of God / made by holy people and hoped / by their soul and body to be always imperishable.”

Therefore, the disciples wrongly assumed that the temple’s destruction must signal the end of history. And Jesus must correct their false apocalyptic assumptions by separating the two issues: (1) the temple’s destruction and (2) the parousia introducing the end of the age. What the disciples joined together, the Lord put asunder.

Closing note:
For bibliographic documentation for this and the preceding article, see Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. and Jay Rogers, The Sign of His Coming: Hugo Grotius: A Preterist Commentary on the Mount Olivet Discourse.