Matthew24:3

Let’s try to understand this passage the way the original hearers (the disciples) would have understood it. Instead of asking, “What does this mean to me?” let’s ask, “What did this mean to them and how does it apply to me?”

Understanding the phrase, “The completion of the age” is the key to understanding the entire discourse of Matthew 24 and 25. The question we need to ask ourselves is this: What age were the disciples referring to? Was it their age, or our age?

The disciples thought His great “coming/appearing” would take place during their lifetimes.

So, if they didn’t understand His purpose right after His death and resurrection, they surely did not understand it prior to those events. And if they thought He was going to reveal Himself publicly as the Messiah during their lifetimes, why would they be asking about events that would happen a long time down the road, pertaining to a totally different age, or era. No! They saw His glorious “coming” as the completion of the age they were still living in, the age of the Law.

In His response to their questions Jesus talked about two different events, He mixed and layered the two. He did so because their questions inadvertently pointed two different directions.

I am convinced they were asking about the completion of their own age or era, which we call the age of the Law. Said completion or fulfillment would confirm the arrival of the new era, the era in which we currently live. They would have called the era after theirs the “Messianic era,” but we call it things like the era of salvation, the age of the church or the age of the Holy Spirit. Think about it logically for one moment. Why would the disciples be asking about the completion of an era that had not even begun yet? They were still hoping to see Jesus fulfill their age and bring in the new one. They had been with Jesus for either two and a half years, or three and a half years (I think it was three and a half years) and Jesus had never shown any inkling of taking on the Romans. Yet their perception of the Messiah was that he would bring them freedom. Their dilemma, their burning questions, had everything to do with the completion of the age they were in, and nothing to do with the completion of the age to follow, the one we are in.

The disciples could easily understand that the destruction of the temple would be tied somehow to the arrival of the new era, for it would be the visible, palpable proof that the era in which they were living had been set aside. Jesus said the system associated with the temple would be eliminated; when that happened it would be confirmation that the major transition had taken place. Thus, what happened in AD 70 made perfect sense to the followers of Jesus, but the rest of the Jewish community could not understand why God would allow it.

In the Old Testament God had predicted the destruction of the temple in response to their sin, and it was accomplished by the Babylonians. But God had also told them through the prophets that their captivity would not last forever, but they would return, implying that the temple and its sacrifices would be restored. However, in this case, Jesus was telling His disciples that the temple and its sacrificial system would be destroyed, period. He gave no hope for its restoration. They did not realize that this confirmation would come almost 40 years after the new covenant had been established.

Although they were capable of understanding how the total destruction of the temple would signal the end of the sacrificial system, their focus and their burning question was still “When are you going to show yourself for who you really are?” They did not realize that a long time would pass by between the manifestation of Jesus’ power at the confirming event and when He would reveal all His power and glory at an event He hinted at in this discourse.

A sign could be used in the following ways: 1) to say, “heads up/pay attention,” 2) as a predictive marker indicating that an event is about to begin, or 3) as a confirmation proving the spiritual significance of something that had just happened. It is possible that the disciples were using the word “sign” in more than one way. They basically had three questions, which they thought would be fulfilled all at one time. Let’s look at their three questions independently:

1) They asked, “When will these things be?” Were they asking for a predictive sign to tell them when the destruction of the temple was about to happen? Yes, the sign they sought here was a predictive one.

2) They wanted a sign of the “coming” of Jesus, i.e. His arrival on the scene to remedy a problem only He could solve, thus demonstrating His great power and glory. For this one they could have been referring to either a predictive sign or a confirmation sign. But think about it this way, they had been with Jesus long enough to know He was not likely to tell them ahead of time what He was going to do; He would just do it. Jesus was completely unpredictable. They were hoping He would someday do something about what they considered their biggest problem– the Romans, and when He took care of them it would be a sign confirming who He was. While they wanted to ask “When are you going to deal with Rome?” they knew He was not likely to answer the “when” question. Instead they had to ask their other questions: “Are you ever going to pull out all the stops and do something about the Romans? When you do, we will know it because it will be obvious, right? Or will you do something we won’t understand? Please tell us how you will demonstrate and confirm the extent of your power.”

3) They also wanted a sign of “the end of the age.” This one could also go either way, but a confirming sign fits better than a predictive sign here. Let me put words in their mouths again: “Will it be obvious to us when you bring one era to completion and you usher us into a new, glorious era? How will we know?” That was a legitimate question because Jesus was unpredictable and sometimes hard to understand.

In my opinion, the question about the destruction of Jerusalem was a “how soon” question, the other two were seeking confirmation.

It appears that Jesus gave them two types of signs, some signs that were predictive of the destruction of the temple, and some that served as a confirmation of the completion of His redemptive work. The destruction of the temple was definitely portrayed by Jesus as a confirmation that the new era had indeed arrived.

One of the things the disciples asked for was a “sign of your coming.” This word “coming” has two emphases woven together; prior to the writing of the New Testament it was usually used of a king’s arrival on the scene to deal with a situation that only he could deal with. Secondly it has a personal element; it shows that this kingly figure will show up in person and be physically present; he will not just send an emissary. Therefore it is often translated as “presence or appearing.” This is not the only word for “coming” used in this discourse; there is another one that means “come” in the normal sense. However, this word, which I translate as “personal coming as a king” was used by Jesus twice in this discourse, Matt 24:27 & Matt 24:39.

The word I have rendered as “personal coming as a king” is usually understood to mean the second coming of Christ, which has not yet happened. That is because we are looking at things from a post-resurrection vantage point. The disciples were wondering why Jesus had not yet fully revealed Himself as the Messiah, nor done all the Messiah-like things they expected Him to do – such as defeat the Roman army and establish Himself as their rightful ruler. The disciples were wondering when Jesus would burst onto the scene in full power and deal with a situation that only He could deal with. They were waiting for His presence to be felt in all its force. The healings and miracles were nice, but they knew Jesus could do more than that, and they were hoping to see the fulfillment of Jesus’ true purpose, as they understood it. “When are you going to show everyone who you really are?” Even after the resurrection, just before He was taken to heaven, the disciples were still asking this question (see Acts 1:7).

The thing to remember here is this – even though this word “coming” is used later in the New Testament of the second coming of Christ, it is highly unlikely that Matthew 24:3 refers to anything other than the disciples’ own personal dilemma. Jesus had just blown their minds by saying that the temple would be utterly destroyed, so their natural thought was “Aren’t you going to do something about that? When are you going to take action anyway?”

They didn’t fully understand the crucifixion and the resurrection until Pentecost when the Holy Spirit put all the pieces together for them.

In the response Jesus gave them, the entire first section has nothing to do with what we call His second coming, and everything to do with the end of the era in which the disciples were living, which was capped off by the destruction of the temple. He was answering their questions, not ours. It is difficult to say with certainty where His discourse begins to use double meanings with double fulfillments, but in my opinion, Jesus begins to make His words refer to both the destruction of the temple and to what we call His second coming in verse 27. In the rest of the discourse, AD 70 and His second coming are both in view. However, there are hints of double meaning prior to verse 27, so I cannot say for sure. His future return may fulfill certain aspects of what He said more fully than did AD 70, but other statements were fulfilled more fully by the destruction of the temple; that is the nature of double fulfillments. His admonitions to be ready found in verses 42-51 apply to the people of that time as well as the people of every era after them. The portions of Matthew 24 that deal with the destruction of the temple are longer and more numerous than the portions that pertain to His second coming. The reason He talked so much about AD 70 is that it would be the confirming sign that His redemptive work had been completed.

The problem with double fulfillments is that it is very difficult to predict them; it’s like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall! However, once an event has occurred and is the second fulfillment, it is usually clear and we say, “Ahhh, now I see.” Throughout this discourse Jesus warned them several times to not make predictions. That admonition is true for us as well.

Mark 13:1-37 and Luke 21:5-38 record this same discourse of Jesus in answer to basically the same questions posed by the disciples. However Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 record the questions of the disciples differently than does Matthew; they have a more simplified version which said, “When will these things be, and what will be the sign that these things are ready to happen?”

Here there are only two questions and both of them are related only to the destruction of the temple, not to His “coming” or to “the end of the age.” They were obviously asking for a predictive sign that would hint at how soon the temple and its sacrificial system would be removed. Jesus answered their questions in a partial way, but He also gave them much more than they asked for.

Whether you read the passage from Matthew, Mark or Luke, the starting point is always the destruction of the temple in AD 70, and it remains the central point of the entire discourse. All three accounts also include double meaning with double fulfillments.