As already noted, Matthew’s account looks like he may be asking three questions. Some would say that He distinguishes the destruction of Jerusalem and a final return in answering the last two questions. Adherents to this view either make verse 29 or 36 the point of transitioning from a discussion of the question of authority to the final judgment. However, the language of verses 37-39, while it is claimed is a reference to the end of the world, is the same language used in Luke 17:22-37, which clearly refers to Jerusalem’s destruction. Luke 17 took place several days before the Matthew 24 discourse as Jesus and the apostles traveled to Jerusalem for the final week of his life. Notice that similarity in the chart:
Matthew 24:37-39 Luke 17:26-27
For the coming of the Son of Man will And just as it happened be just like the days of Noah. in the days of Noah, so For as in those days before the flood it will be also in the days of the they were eating and drinking, Son of Man: they were eating, marrying and giving in marriage, they were drinking, they were until the day that Noah entered the ark, marrying, they were being given and they did not understand until the in marriage, until the day that food came and took them away, so will Noah entered the ark and the coming of the Son of Man be. flood came and destroyed them all.
Luke ties this to the day of its fulfillment when he writes in the next verse, “In that day, he that shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away… “ (cf. Mat. 24:17, Mark 13:15). Matthew 24 shows no transition of thought from the destruction of Jerusalem and a final judgment. When Jesus said, “in that day” in Lk. 17.31, he must have referred to the day in verse 30, when the Son of man was revealed.
Another comparison illustrates the same conclusion.
Matthew 24:41 Luke 17:35-36
Two women will be grinding at the There will be two women grinding mill; one will be taken, and one will at the same place; one will be taken be left. and the other will be left. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.
Looking at the context of each of these two will show that Luke 17 is the same language as Matthew 24:41, which is after verse 29 and verse 36. In other words, the same wording places Matthew’s reference after the supposed transition from answering the first question to answering the second. According to Luke, as soon as Jesus tells them about some taken and others left, his disciples ask him, “Where, Lord?” And he said unto them, “Where the body is, thither will the eagles also be gathered together.” Again, this is the same language of Mt. 24:28, which is generally regarded as fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem because it occurs before the supposed transition. If Jesus changed the subject from the destruction of Jerusalem to the final judgment day, then the same language in Luke 17 would find Jesus jumping back and forth between these two subjects. Are we to believe that Jesus is discussing two different subjects at the same time, switching back and forth with every other sentence? This is hardly a logical explanation. The question in Matthew 24 with reference to the sign of His coming and the end of the age is a reference to the same thing because his coming would mark the end of the Jewish age.
The question can be reduced to one essential idea. They want to narrow in on a more precise time when they can expect the end of the age. Commensurate with it are the signs that would tell them how close it is getting. As travelers, one of the assurances we receive when given directions to a certain destination are the landmarks. It may be helpful to start slowing down and look for the exit. In a similar way, Paul gave signs to the Thessalonians, some of whom had rushed headlong to the reckless assumption that they had missed the resurrection (cf. 2 Thess. 2:2).
Furthermore, Jesus never taught the end of the world and verse 34 collaborates with this conclusion when Jesus explains that the things prophesied would be fulfilled in that generation. R.T. France writes, “The unwary reader is in danger of assuming a note of finality in the future hope of the Old Testament that is in fact foreign to it. The ‘eschatology’ of the Old Testament prophets was not concerned with the end of the world, but with the decisive act of God which will bring to an end the existing order of things in the world, and inaugurate a new era of blessing, of a totally different order.” From this description, one might easily refer to the change as a different world, as long as we are not referring to the physical earth (kosmos). I’ve heard grand-parents speak of this culture as a different world than the one in which they use to live. We don’t understand them to be referring to another physical planet.
Here are the facts:
(1) Their questions were in response to Jesus’ statement about not one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down. Jesus answers two questions relating to time.
(2) His coming is directly related to the temple’s destruction in that generation. The disciples are not concerned about a time disassociated with Christ’s coming for another two thousand years or more. The context of this passage and the entire New Testament places Jesus’ coming at the end of that age. Incidentally, now is a good reminder to point out that the change of the age does not occur at the cross nor at Pentecost. The changes from one to the other was at the coming of Jesus in judgment against that generation.
(3) In bringing an end to that present age, He would also usher in the new covenant and a new Israel that is likened to a new man, a body that included both Jew and Gentile.