Let’s talk about understanding Matthew 24. What is the main message of Matthew 24?
In this article, I will show you the two most essential questions in Matthew 24 that you must grasp to see what’s going on.
This is why many believers adopt wrong ideas about the end times.
I’ve done extensive research into Matthew 24, and if you keep reading, I’ll give you the link to a 7-part FREE course I did on the whole chapter.
Here’s what to expect:
We’ll see why this chapter is the most critical passage about the end times.
I’ll show you two commentaries demonstrating the BIG error when interpreting this chapter.
I’ll reveal the common-sense method to Matthew 24’s two big questions.
I won’t present a biased, non-open approach to the end times.
Let’s get started.
Why Understanding Matthew 24 is the First Step to Grasping Revelation and Eschatology
Have you run into someone at the grocery store who started talking about the wars in Israel?
Did a strange person come to your church and start saying something about the rapture, asking, “Are you rapture ready?”
Do you wish you knew more about the end times and the second coming?
If so, here’s what happens.
When most people want to learn about the last days for themselves, the first book they think of going to is Revelation.
But they’re quickly disappointed because they didn’t realize that Revelation would be virtually impossible to understand with no pre-knowledge.
Here’s where you need to start to better learn the Book of Revelation and eschatology: Matthew 24.
The chapter is also known as the Olivet Discourse.
The author of the Left Behind series, Tim LaHaye, said this about Matthew 24:
“The Olivet Discourse, delivered shortly before Jesus’ crucifixion, is the most important single passage of prophecy in all the Bible. It is significant because it came from Jesus Himself immediately after He was rejected by His own people and because it provides the master outline of end-time events.”
Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, Charting the End Times: A Visual Guide to Understanding Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001), 35.
Matthew 24 is most significant because 1) it is not undecipherable apart from a bit of pre-knowledge, and 2) it is a large portion about the end-times from Jesus’ own mouth.
Sure, you can find a scripture here or a verse there that highlights end-time events.
But if you want a straightforward, complete, beginner-friendly portion on the end-times, Matthew 24 is your guide.
The Two Most Important Questions to Get Right Before Reading Matthew 24
Matthew 24:1-2 says that the disciples are walking with Jesus around the temple. They comment to Jesus about its beauty.
Jesus then gives a startling, somewhat random rebuttal: “There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
The entire temple would soon be destroyed. Everyone agrees that this was fulfilled around 40 years later in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed it.
But verse 3 is where the confusion comes in, and depending on what you believe about it, you can go entirely two different ways.
Matthew 24:3
As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
The disciples ask Jesus some questions about what he just told them.
Most scholars see basically two questions here:
When will the temple be destroyed?
What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?
The first question is easy. Jesus just told them the temple was going to be ravaged. They would naturally ask him, “When is this going to happen?”
As you can possibly imagine, things start getting muddy with their second question— “What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?”
What does that mean?
Depending on what exactly you believe they were asking Jesus about with this question, you will either believe that the following things Jesus tells them happened in the past (this is called preterism) or is still waiting to happen in our future (futurism).
Jesus goes on to respond to them. “There are going to be wars, famines, earthquakes, and disease.”
“Ungodliness will run rampant. False messiahs will rise up.”
“The sun will go black and stars will fall from the sky. Two will be in the field—one will be taken and the other left.”
“All of these things will happen in this generation before the coming of the Lord.”
As you might already know, most Christians believe that all these things are going to happen in our near future at the end of the world.
That’s why every time there is a new war, someone says it’s a “sign” of the end-times.
But it all goes back to whatever the disciples meant when they asked him that one question.
First, I’ll quickly tell you what I think.
It is way more logical that they were simply asking Jesus when the destruction of Jerusalem would happen and what signs would precede it.
In other words, when they asked him about the signs of his coming and the end of the age, these were things that did happen with the fall of their temple in AD 70.
Jesus did come in AD 70, and the end of the age did occur at this time.
Here are some of the reasons why I believe this.
1. The chapters leading up to Matthew 24 talk heavily about AD 70.
In Matthew 21, Jesus told the unbelieving, sinful Jews that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to other people, especially after they would kill the Son.
Matthew 22 talks about the “king” destroying the city of the people who did not come to his wedding feast.
In Matthew 23, Jesus tells the Jews that their house would be desolated in their generation, and all the sins of the past centuries would fall on them.
Then, we get to Matthew 24, where Jesus tells them their temple would also fall.
It makes more sense that the whole discussion about the fall of their city that’s been going on for the last few chapters simply continues here, and Jesus is talking about the signs that would lead to it.
2. The meanings of the “coming” and the “end of the age” are not what you might think.
The “coming” of the Lord was symbolic, judgment-type language, which meant that God was fixing to “come” to a nation or people and judge them with destruction.
He would usually “come” by allowing a pagan army to enter and destroy the nation.
The “coming” of the Lord doesn’t always mean a physical appearance of the Lord Jesus on planet Earth.
The “end of the age” doesn’t mean the end of “time” or the end of the physical world.
The “end of the age” referred to their Old Covenant age, when the New Covenant would be a complete reality.
3. The parallels of Matthew 24 word the disciples’ question differently.
A “parallel” is when one Gospel tells an event, but then another Gospel tells the same event, usually with a few different details or wording.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all say that Jesus told them the temple would be destroyed.
But they word the disciples’ important question a little differently:
Matthew 24:3 - “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
Mark 13:3 - “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”
Luke 21:7 - “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”
Following Mark 13:3 and Luke 21:7, Jesus gives them the same signs. Why? Because it’s a parallel story. It’s the same story, just worded a bit differently because each author is recalling the story how they remember it.
Notice how Matthew includes “your coming and of the end of the age.”
But Mark and Luke do not. These seem to be questions about one event—the destruction of their temple and city.
So, with Matthew, it APPEARS that there are two questions about two events: the destruction of their temple AND the final end of the world, with the “coming” of the Lord and the end of the age.
But with Mark and Luke, there is just one question.
What I’m proposing is this: The disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3 is really just one big question about AD 70, and is the same question as in Mark and Luke, with just a couple more fancy phrases (“coming” and “end of the age”).
The destruction of their city and temple was when Christ came and judged the Jews. This was when the old age ended, and the new one completely began.
What This Means for the Disciples’ Questions
If all these things are true, then the disciples simply asked Jesus about the signs that would precede the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The natural conclusion is that Jesus’ words in the rest of Matthew 24 were simply a response to this question, describing what would happen before the final destruction.
Earthquakes, wars, famines, and so forth would occur before AD 70.
In other words, the things Jesus described are not happening in our day. They already happened in the past.
Sure, we see wars and false Messiahs today. But he wasn’t talking about the ones we see today. He’s talking about the ones before AD 70 that were signs leading up to it.
The Other Way to See Their Questions
The other way to see the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3 is like this:
“When will these things be” - refers to AD 70.
“What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age” - refers to the end of the world and the second coming, where the rapture occurs beforehand.
This is the futurist way to approach their questions.
Futurists believe that their first question concerns the destruction of Jerusalem, and they also think that the previous chapters discussed this.
However, when they get to the second part—the “coming and end of the age”—they say that this part is about the physical end of the world.
To better explain this, let’s briefly look at two commentaries.
The first one is David Guzik, a popular futurist. He says this about their questions:
“The disciples probably thought they asked only one question. In their minds, the destruction of the temple and the end of the age were probably connected. But really, they asked two questions (some say three), and this second question is answered in the remainder of the chapter.”
So, he begins by separating the two phrases and making them two separate events and concepts—the destruction of the temple and the end of the world.
I’m not sure why he feels he needs to do this other than he needs to make the futurist doctrine work.
There is no reason to separate these questions and concepts so rigidly right off the bat without any reason…
… unless we approach this scripture with preconceived ideas about what the “coming” and the “end of the age” are.
And unless we need to see things from our futurist lenses.
Again, Mark and Luke say:
“When will the temple be destroyed, and what will be the signs that it’s about to happen?”
→
Earthquakes, wars, and so forth.
Matthew says:
“When will the temple be destroyed, and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?”
→
Earthquakes, wars, and so forth.
It’s the same concept, the same idea, and the same prophecy.
When you know the parallels and the meanings of the “coming” and the “end of the age,” it is more logical to see their questions as simply revolving around AD 70.
However, the bottom line is this: David separates the questions by saying they are two completely different events (the destruction of the temple and the end of the world) without any evidence or reason to do so.
Next, Guzik states that the disciples thought the two events were connected, but really, they weren’t.
This is the popular futurist view concerning the disciples’ questions: The disciples wrongly believed that the end of the world would happen when their temple was destroyed.
Futurists try to sharpen this view by saying that Jesus often corrected the disciples, so it isn’t farfetched to think that the disciples were wrong.
But again, David is automatically assuming that the “end of the age” is the end of the physical world.
He knows that the common view of the Jews in those days was that the “coming” and the “end of the age” would occur when their temple and system fell.
However, because some futurists do not understand the proper meanings of these ideas, they say they’re physical.
They say that there should be a literal coming of Jesus down from the clouds and destruction of the world with meteors falling to the ground.
They reason, “This hasn’t happened yet, so it must still be in our future, and the disciples must have had it wrong.”
But again, they’ve started with an incorrect view of the meanings of these ideas and ignored the parallels.
Lastly, even though Guzik says they asked two questions about two completely different events, Jesus ignored their first question and only answered their second one.
Guzik said, “They asked two questions (some say three), and this second question is answered in the remainder of the chapter.”
But what about the answer to their first question about when the temple would be destroyed?
Again, this is the futurist view. They see two questions here about two different events.
However, they also believe Matthew 24 is about future events and the world's end, not Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70.
They then realize that because they hold this view, they will have to say that Christ just bypassed their first question.
The problem is that from what I’ve read, futurists don’t seem to have any explanation for this. They just state it as a fact.
Tommy Ice, a futurist, says it like this:
“For whatever reason, Matthew and Mark’s entire focus is upon the last question that speaks of “the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age.”
By saying “for whatever reason,” he’s subtly implying that even though that stance doesn’t make much sense, it must be true because all of Matthew 24 is about the future.
He’s saying that they don’t know the reason as to why Christ would have ignored their first question.
But to me, the truth is obvious. He didn’t ignore their question. They all thought this was about one big event that would happen when their temple was destroyed.
Conclusion
When you understand exactly what the disciples were asking, you have the right outline to read and grasp Matthew 24.
Understanding Matthew 24 is not hard if you have the right lenses!
Let me know in the comments:
What do you think about the meanings of the “coming” and the “end of the age?”
This is very clear. Jesus was answering the disciples question (singular). This is built upon Jesus teaching the disciples the prophetic timetable found in the book of Daniel. Daniel not only explains when the messiah would come (at the end of the 69th week) and die (in the middle of the 70th) but he also shows that the end of the 'age' (you rightly point out this is not the end of the world) is to take place when the temple comes down. All things would then be completed.
Thanks again for your work Jamey.