Matthew 24:1-3

SECTION 60
JESUS DESCRIBES THE LAST DAYS OF THE
JEWISH STATE AND HIS SECOND COMING
I. THE OCCASION (24:1-3)

(Parallels: Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7)

1 And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Why do you suppose the disciples wanted to show Jesus the Temple buildings? Had He not seen them before? Did they think He was not sufficiently impressed with the Temple's magnificence? Why did Jesus redirect their thinking?

b.

What characteristic of true discipleship comes to light in the fact that the four fishermen-disciples came to Jesus privately for explanations?

c.

Mark and Luke quote the disciples as asking, When will this be? What will be the sign when this is about to take place? Matthew quotes them as adding, What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age? To what extent are the disciples-' questions a key to the true interpretation of Jesus-' answer?

d.

Do you think Jesus answered their question as asked, or did He need to furnish further information before it could begin to be treated?

e.

How could the disciples have ever arrived at the conclusion that the predicted destruction of the Temple had anything to do with Jesus-' coming and the close of the age?

f.

Since your coming (Greek: tês sês parousìas) is the ordinary expression for Jesus-' great Second Coming, (1) where did they get the idea He was going to be absent for a time, after which He would come? and (2) did they understand at that time all that we learn about this event from great texts like 1 Corinthians 1:7; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:7 ff.; John 14:3; 1 Timothy 4:1, etc.?

g.

On what reasonable basis did the disciples expect some sign to be given near the time of Christ's coming which would signal its arrival?

h.

Some believe that Jesus describes the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world, making the former a symbol of the latter, so that the signs which precede the former become, even if on grander scale, signs that herald the latter. What is the basis of this contention? Is it a correct view of what Jesus actually did in His discourse? If so, why? If not, why not?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

As Jesus abandoned the Temple and was going away, His disciples came up to call His attention to the temple buildings. One of them exclaimed, Master, look with what magnificent stonework and votive offerings the Temple is decorated! What magnificent buildings!
But Jesus answered him, You see all these grandiose buildings? I can tell you for sure that the time will come when there will not be left here one stone on top of the other. Everything you are now gazing at will be demolished!
Later, as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives on the side facing the Temple, the disciples, Peter, James, John and Andrew, approached Him privately with this question: Teacher, when are these things going to happen? And what will be the signal when all these things are about to take place, that is, your second coming and the close of the present period of time?

SUMMARY

Marveling disciples are awed by the beauty and apparent permanence of Jerusalem's Temple, but Jesus foretells its destruction. Later, some of them request an explanation: When will this happen and what will be the signal?

NOTES
A. Disciples Marvel at the Temple

Matthew 24:1 Jesus went out from the temple and was going on his way. Several reasons suggest that this is no mere change of scenery on the part of Jesus. While it is true that the long day of discussions is over which began the morning after the Triumphal Entry (cf. Matthew 21:23 to Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:20; Mark 11:27; Mark 13:1), something else has happened, something evidenced by Matthew's two distinct verbs: Jesus left the Temple and was walking away (exelthòn apò toû hieroû eporeùeto). In this simple redundancy? In fact, to exit through the gates of this practically fortified citadel is to leave the Temple, as there was no surrounding campus, parking lot or terraced lawn. Thus, Matthew's verbs suggest that Jesus-' move is deliberate, specific and prophetic:

1.

This verse concludes Jesus-' stunning, final message to Jerusalem in which He summed up Israel's evil and pronounced her doom due to occur in that generation. There He threatened the desolation of Israel's famous House, because of the nation's bitter, bloody antagonism to God's prophets and Jesus-' representatives (Matthew 23:29-39). Three elements in chapter 24 find their roots in chapter 23, a fact which suggests their connection in the mind of Jesus:

a.

this generation (Matthew 23:36; Matthew 24:34)

b.

the desolation of the Temple (Matthew 23:38; Matthew 24:15; cf. Luke 21:20)

c.

persecution of Jesus-' disciples (Matthew 23:34; Matthew 24:9)

2.

Even before leaving Galilee, Jesus astounded His followers with dire comments about the dark fate of unbelieving Jerusalem and its Temple (Luke 11:50; Luke 13:35). Amid the joy of His Messianic Entry into the city, He wept over its terrible destiny (Luke 19:41 ff.).

3.

Now his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. This reaction reflects their natural, even if wrong-headed, response in these circumstances. They animatedly express their shock at His startling announcement of the final abandonment of Israel's House (Matthew 23:34-39). They struggle for adequate descriptives to picture the beauty of the edifice (Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5; cf. 1MMalachi 3:2-7). Their excited words are not simply the awed exclamations of reverent Galilean pilgrims in from the provinces upon first visiting the Holy City. It is not likely that this is the first time these Apostles have admired the Jerusalem sanctuary, when every Hebrew is required by law to worship there three times EVERY YEAR (Deuteronomy 16:16). Rather, their wistful comments draw His attention to the magnificent permanence of this construction, in order to lodge a low-key appeal against His previous, ominous predictions of its overthrow. Because of the important role this Temple played in the plan of God and in the history of Israel, it not unlikely appeared to them well-nigh incredible that this historic place of communion with God could be left desolate in their own lifetime. Thus, even the disciples-' naiveté required that Jesus act decisively.

So, when Jesus left the temple, this was the moment He decisively abandoned that sanctuary. This prophetic act prefigured God's final departure therefrom and sealed the doom of that ill-fated capital and its people. Not only is the long day of discussions over, ALL discussion with Jerusalem, Israel and the Temple is over, as far as Jesus personally is concerned. His mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel is terminated, so He left the city, having done all He could to save it. There came a time when further pleading became useless. The testimony is now complete and satisfactory. Now the responsibility lies with those who must decide. From this moment forward Jesus would not speak personally to Israel. If they would believe His later witnesses, they could yet be saved (John 15:26 f.; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1:8).

In retrospect, therefore, there is discernible here the repetition of a historical, prophetic symbol. Just as the glory of God departed from the Temple during the Babylonian exile (cf. Ezekiel 11:23; Ezekiel 1:28; Ezekiel 8:2-4; Ezekiel 9:3; Ezekiel 10:1; Ezekiel 10:4; Ezekiel 10:18 f.; Zechariah 14:3 f.), so when Jesus of Nazareth strode out of the Temple, the true glory of God abandoned it. The true Temple of God, the glorious dwelling place of God in the Spirit, would always, and as truly as ever, be in Jesus Christ and in His people (Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 3:16 f.; 1 Corinthians 6:19 f.; Ephesians 2:22). That which had already served its purpose would soon become obsolete and disappear altogether with its covenant, its priesthood, its ceremonials and its sacrifices (Hebrews 8:13). Further, how could Jesus become greatly excited over a mere stone building, when He Himself was the highest expression of the dwelling of God on earth?

B. Jesus Predicts the Temple's Destruction

Matthew 24:2 But he answered and said unto them. Clearly Jesus-' attitude toward the Temple and City clashes with their enthusiasm. See ye not all these things? What a contrast between what Jesus saw in the Temple and what drew the reverent attention of His followers! While they admire the superficial, He looks below the surface. They reminisce over noble stones and votive gifts that bespeak a glorious national past, but He contemplates the long history during which these sacred precincts were polluted by the sins of this very nation. The majestic structure of the present occupies their mind, but He perceives the approaching disaster that must obliterate this temple profaned by greed, ostentation and other sins of the spirit. He had wept over souls of inestimable value doomed to eternal loss, whereas they are ready to mourn over STONES doomed to a dubious future on a rubbish heap! As He brooded over His last great invitation to an unrepentant nation (Matthew 23:34-39), these things not unlikely refers to more than mere holy buildings. He refers also to what the Temple stood for. These things must also include a corrupt, ungodly traditionalism that blindly could not discern the voice of God in His prophets. Jesus challenges His men, As you look at the Temple, do you not also see the sins of its people, the corruption of its priesthood and their indifference toward God and His Messiah, which require its judicial desolutiondo you not see all these things?!

There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down. The only Savior and rightful King of Jerusalem foresees the imminent divine judgment brewing over His City and His Sanctuary, because its people had not recognized what elements contributed to the true Peace of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41 ff.; Matthew 21:12 ff.). His response cancels all hope that the City and Temple can be saved.

The Jewish Temple is one of history's ironies. Not even completed in Jesus-' day, the construction had already taken 46 years (John 2:20). Begun in the eighteenth year of Herod the Great (19 B.C.; Wars, I, 21, 1), the entire complex was terminated about 86 years later in the days of the procurator Albinus, 62-64 A.D., just a few years before the outbreak of the ill-starred Jewish war against Rome. (Cf. Ant. XV, 11, 1; XX, 9, 7.) Unblessed by God, this sanctuary was destined to be demolished only six years after its completion. (Cf. Psalms 127:1.) Jesus had just prophesied the desolation of Israel's famous Temple and all it stood for (Matthew 23:38). Now He clarifies that desolation means destruction.

Not one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down. The City and its Sanctuary had been carefully constructed one stone upon another (cf. Haggai 2:15). Now it is to be dismantled, not by the gradual dilapidation of time's ravages, but by the savage anger and fierce hatred of its enemies bent on its violent overthrow, (kataluthésetai, break down into its component parts; dissolve; destroy, demolish, overthrow; throw down). Some of the Temple's foundation stones were massive, weighing above 100 tons. Josephus adds that these enormous stones were plainly visible on the outside of the Temple. Some he measures as 12.5 meters long, 4 meters high and 6 meters wide, representing a mass of 300 cubic meters (roughly 900 cubic feet). For full descriptions of Herod's Temple, consult Josephus-' Ant. XV, 11, 3-5; XX, 9, 7; Wars, V, 5, 1-8.

In the fulfilment not only was the Temple burned despite Titus-' efforts to save it, but it was so demolished that, according to the Talmudists, Terentius (Turnus) Rufus, left in command of the Roman occupation army at Jerusalem, plowed up Sion as a field, and made Jerusalem become as heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest as foretold by Micah 3:12 and cited in Jeremiah 26:18. Not unlikely this commander of occupation was the same who executed Titus-' order to raze most of the wall to the foundation and demolish what remained of the Temple and City, leaving three major towers and the western wall to show the greatness of the city subjugated by Roman valor. (Cf. Wars, VII, 2, 1 with 1, 1.) The fact that these stone constructions were allowed to remain does not nullify Jesus-' prediction, since His graphic expression, not one stone upon another, need not be pushed to a literal extreme. Rather, Jesus pictures here what Josephus later described: Jerusalem's complete destruction as a city (Wars, VII, 1, 1).

But for the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those who dug it up at the foundation, that there was nothing left to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.

With His brief prophecy, Jesus dropped the subject. Astonished silence intervened as the small company wound its way eastward out of the City and across the Kedron Valley.

C. Disciples Ask for Clarification

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. Silent, dumbfounded, this small cluster of disciples climbed the Mount of Olives (to the Garden of Gethsemane? cf. John 18:1-2), overlooking the Temple area on the opposite hill to the west. Their vantage point offered them a panoramic view of the main features of the entire City. At one sweep of their gaze they could see immediately in front of them the glorious Temple (Mark 13:3). To the left, on the right and behind it lay Jerusalem's walls and towers, its palaces and streets, its theater and gymnasium. From Olivet's summit to Jerusalem's east gate was less than a kilometer (1/2 mile) by the direct path. The city's magnificence, viewed from up there must have made it more incredible and heart-breaking to accept Jesus-' stunning prediction. This site for the discourse that follows is highly significant, because they sat discussing, not some vision of a future Jerusalem and Temple, but the desolation of a literal, material city and temple right before them (Matthew 23:38; Matthew 24:2 f.,Matthew 24:15). Had Jesus intended the former, He should have said so in this discourse, especially since every word describing the suffering of Jerusalem's inhabitants, its desolation and desecration would most naturally have been interpreted literally by His first interpreters, unless He furnished those listening disciples some clear indication that He did not refer to the literal city in full view there before them. But this He did not do.

The disciples came to him privately, straining to know more. That they approached Him privately for further instruction on a difficult-to-accept subject measures the depth of their discipleship. They do trust Him to teach them, even if what He says must run counter to their best understanding of the subject, even if His doctrine is at first incomprehensible or unacceptable. Sketching in scene after scene, Jesus related the prophecies to their personal needs, fears and future ministry. He furnished practical information they needed for giving proper leadership to the Church. No interpretation of this chapter can call itself sound that lays great stress on future eschatology and ignores this practical concern for Christians of the first century, as if Jesus were more concerned about predicting the end of the world than about helping His own dear disciples to face their own near future with understanding.

Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? These things, contextually, are the events just predicted: the fall of Jerusalem's temple (Matthew 24:2). If, on the sole basis of His prophecy, they could formulate questions that involve even His Coming and the close of the age as well, they obviously assumed that these three events are in some way connected, if not contemporaneous. It is not fruitless to ask in what sense the Twelve understood their questions, for two reasons:

1.

Such an examination will help us to understand how Jesus treated their curiosity. This should cure us of that obstinate curiosity and sign-seeking sensationalism that has marred the history of prophecy studies, especially that fanatical exegesis connected with this chapter.

2.

It will also lead us to learn whether He answered their questions as asked or not.

Does it really matter what the disciples meant? Objectively, no, except insofar as their questions introduce the subject, since what really counts is Jesus-' teaching which actually corrects any misconceptions their questions reveal. Subjectively, with respect to the interpreters, however, their questions must be analyzed carefully, since so much weight has been placed on them. In fact, in these questions expositors today seek an outline of Jesus-' discourse and expect His answers to match that outline. However, if the disciples framed a misguided question, then their queries are irrelevant as an indicative outline, and we must not only see this, but also discern how the Lord corrected their misinformation. To accomplish this, we must ask what meanings they could have intended by the words they used.

1.

Thy coming (tês sês parousìas; see Arndt-Gingrich, 635; Kittel TWNT, V, article parousìa) could refer to three things:

a.

Presence, unlikely, because He was already present. Hence, it could have no meaning here, unless His absence were specified in the context, implying the return of His presence, in which case the meaning coming would be required, not presence.

b.

Coming meant the coming of an invisible deity who revealed his presence by some expression of his power.

c.

Coming also referred to the personal arrival of a high-ranking official, such as kings or emperors, during visits of state to a province under their rule.

2.

The end of the world (sunteleìas toû aiônos), since aiòn may signify a time, an age; a very long time, eternity; the material universe, may picture at least two distinct concepts:

a.

The end of an epoch, the winding down of a given era.

(1)

The end of the JEWISH world. Jesus Himself died at the end of the world (Hebrews 9:26). The Christian age of the Holy Spirit began at the end of God's former revelations (Hebrews 1:2: ep-'eschàtou tôn hçmerôn toùtôn; Acts 2:17; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 1 Peter 1:20). The end of the Jewish world only meant the conclusion of exclusively Jewish privilege and the offering of the Gospel and Kingdom privileges to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:41; Matthew 21:43; Matthew 22:10).

(2)

The end of the CHRISTIAN era (Matthew 28:20). The end of OUR world, however, is not unlikely contemporaneous with the following sense.

b.

The end of the material universe with its dissolution of the present world system, the end of time as well as final judgment and the beginning of eternity for man. (Cf. 2 Peter 3:3-13; Matthew 7:22; Matthew 13:39 f., Matthew 13:49; John 6:39; John 11:24.)

What is important to discover is the disciples-' mentality at the moment, not their understanding after Jesus-' revelations given here or further instruction by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:6). The only reason they mention the end of the world and thy coming in context with a question about Jerusalem's end is that by mentioning these other events, they wrongly think they are asking something significant about the latter.

Further, not without justification the disciples expected God to furnish some great sign from heaven that would warn of the near approach of the world's end, Jerusalem's destruction and of Christ's coming. After all, had not God's past dealings with His people taught them to expect that events of such immensity and significance as these be foretold by heavenly wonders that signal their immediate arrival so that appropriate preparation could be made? But, in this, as are so many curious Christians, they were mistaken, as Jesus will show.

So what did the disciples ask Jesus?

1.

If they ask Him: What shall be the sign of your invisible coming which reveals your presence by some expression of your power over Jerusalem that has rejected you, that sign which, at the same time, marks the end of the Jewish dispensation? then Jesus answered this question. Even though it does not exhaust His eschatological concept, it is correctly framed and expresses a true grasp of at least part of Jesus-' intentions regarding the nation of Israel.

2.

If they mean, What shall be the sign of your personal coming in glory to visit your people, that sign that marks the end of the Jewish dispensation? they were mistaken to connect His final parousìa with the end of the Judaism that had existed until 70 A.D., as He will show.

3.

If they mean, What shall be the sign of your personal coming in glory and of the dissolution of the material universe? then they were mistaken to expect forewarning of an event for which God would give no signs. Further, to connect these events with the conclusion of the Jewish national economy in Jesus-' generation is to confuse two widely separated events.

Some suppose that the disciples could not have spoken of Jesus-' coming (parousìa).

1.

Some see parousìa as a technical concept belonging to the apostolic age after Pentecost, hence a concept too advanced for them at that stage of their maturity. But the fact that Matthew uses a later technical term does not mean the disciples could not have used a paraphrase for it at the moment, meaning precisely what the later technical term signifies for Matthew's readers. (Cf. Expositor's Greek Testament, 289.)

2.

While it is true, with Morgan (Matthew, 282) to assert that the second advent must be prepared for fundamentally by the Cross and the Resurrection; and they had no apprehension of the Resurrection.. They were in revolt against the idea of the Cross and blind to the fact of the Resurrection, it does not follow that they had no conception of the Second Coming. Their mind was open to this glorious prospect. (See below.)

3.

Plummer (Matthew, 239), too, simply misinterprets the evidence. It is not Matthew who mistakenly rewords a question the disciples did not ask, whereas Mark supposedly reports it correctly. Rather, Matthew's is the objective reporting of the more fully worded statement of the disciples-' complete question. Even though it is based on wrong presuppositions, Jesus does in fact deal with it in the course of His answer, even if to correct their misunderstanding.

Jesus had already taught these men much that would lead them to formulate reasonably intelligent questions on these subjects, even if their grasp of the true connections was far from perfect. They knew He had declared that.

1.

He would leave the earth to return to His Father (Matthew 19:28; John 7:33; John 8:21; John 8:28).

2.

He would come again after a long time (Luke 18:8; Luke 19:11-15) at the close of the age (Matthew 13:40; Matthew 13:49) in glory (Matthew 16:27).

3.

It would be to resurrect the dead and give life (John 5:28 f; John 6:39; John 6:44; John 6:54; John 11:24-26).

4.

He would preside over the judgment (John 5:22; John 5:27; John 5:29; Luke 19:15-27; Matthew 7:21 f; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 13:41).

5.

That Jesus should pronounce judgment against cities or people highly favored by their abundant opportunities and magnanimous grace of God, would not surprise the Twelve (Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:20-24; Matthew 12:36-45). So, for Him to pronounce judiciary destruction for Jerusalem and its Temple would suggest to the Twelve an immediate association with the Final Judgment concerning which he had already revealed much.

6.

He had just connected Jerusalem's destruction with His own mysterious absence (Matthew 23:37-39). At the Triumphal Entry He had predicted the City's death-hour in war and desolation (Luke 19:41-44).

The true problem is not: How could the disciples to whom Christ's repeated predictions of His coming death and resurrection meant so little,. ask about his (second) coming? (Hendriksen, Matthew, 851), but, rather, how these disciples could disconnect the necessity for Jesus-' death, burial and resurrection from His glorification and return to bring judgment on sinners and victory for His saints, a rule in which the Twelve themselves would share (Matthew 19:28). Intellectually, they knew Jesus had spoken of His passion, but were emotionally blind to it. However, because their emotional framework welcomed His revelations of victory and future glory, they could ask questions openly about these concepts.

One reason they confused the Fall of Jerusalem for the End of the World and Jesus-' coming is psychological. Bruce (Training, 323) observed that local and partial judgments are wont to be thus mixed up with the universal one in men's imaginations; and hence almost every great calamity which inspires awe leads to anticipations of the last day.

Another reason for their confusion is theological. Old Testament prophecies seemed to justify the belief that the material Temple and its City would last forever. (Cf. Psalms 78:68 f.; 2 Chronicles 7:16 and Zechariah's Jerusalem prophecies; Zechariah 1:12 ff.; Zechariah 2:1 ff.; Zechariah 8:3-4; Zechariah 8:22; Zechariah 9:8 f.; Zechariah 12:3 to Zechariah 13:1; Zechariah 14:1-21.) The mistake involved in their interpretation of these prophecies lay in the assumption that God's plan cannot be realized in its fullest, truest sense in the unquestionably real but spiritual temple of God, Jesus His Son in whom all the fullness of the Deity dwelt bodily (Colossians 2:9) and in His Church (Ephesians 2:22). The exquisitely spiritual character of God's true dwelling placeeven in the Mosaic economy (Isaiah 57:15; Isaiah 66:1 f.)escaped them, so they, like too many interpreters, expected a stone edifice in a material city to serve the purpose of God until the Last Day. The Twelve should not have tried to establish a close connection between the Temple's destruction, the Lord's Second Coming and the world's end. This, because He had just said, You shall not see me until you say, Blessed. (Matthew 23:38 f.), which establishes an indefinite interval between the desolation of Jerusalem's Temple and Jesus-' own reappearance to Israel. Due to their misunderstanding, the Twelve garbled these events, whereas Jesus Himself clearly separated them.

As we shall see, it was the Lord's way, when someone approached Him with an irrelevant or badly-put question, not simply to rebuke their ignorance, but to place the question at issue in its proper perspective before answering it. (See Matthew 21:22; cf. Luke 11:27 f; Luke 13:23 f; Luke 17:5 f.) So, just because the disciples ask for the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world, does not obligate Jesus to answer their question as asked. A question wrongly framed does not force the one questioned to deal with it in that form. Rather, the question must be reformed by correcting the misconception(s) on which it is based. Concerning the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age, the Lord will furnish two clear signs that it is about to occur. So doing, He met their basic desire to know (1) When? (the time); and (2) the sign. But when He treated His Second Coming and the end of the world (Matthew 24:36 to Matthew 25:46), He was not at all obligated by their question to indicate ANY sign whatever of these latter events. Rather, in no uncertain terms, He will deny that any warning will be given. (See notes on Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:36-39; Matthew 24:42; Matthew 24:44; Matthew 24:50; Matthew 25:13.) It is futile to seek such a sign in Jesus-' words, merely because the disciples asked for one. Thus, the disciples-' questions are no final or definitive key to interpreting Matthew 24.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

From what major event was Jesus just coming when He went out from the Temple and was going on His way?

2.

What particular features of the Temple buildings captured the interest of the disciples, according to Mark and Luke?

3.

Quote Jesus-' reaction to the disciples-' enthusiasm over the wonders of the sacred buildings.

4.

Where was Jesus when He gave His answer to the disciples-' questions? Why is this site significant?

5.

Quote the questions His disciples formulated and explain the connection between their questions and the circumstances that gave rise to them.

6.

According to Mark, who were the four disciples who sought further information about Jesus-' terrible prophecy?

7.

What did the disciples mean by the end of the age?

8.

Explain the disciples-' theology or view of eschatology that caused them to ask the questions they did.

9.

On what other occasions had Jesus taught His disciples about the following?

a.

The fall of Jerusalem

b.

The Second Coming

c.

The end of the world and its concomitant events

What predictions had He made before, which His disciples could have taken into consideration to formulate their questions about these events?