Matthew 24 stands as a monumental testament to Jesus’ prophetic precision, weaving together the Jewish betrothal wedding idiom, the Mosaic feasts, and the Old Testament’s resurrection promises to proclaim the imminent judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70. Central to this discourse is the “day and hour” imagery (Matt. 24:36), which echoes the unique characteristic of the Feast of Trumpets—known as Rosh Hashanah, the only Jewish feast whose precise start was uncertain due to its dependence on the sighting of the new moon, leaving the “day and hour” unknown until declared. This resonates with the betrothal custom, where only the father of the groom knew the exact time of the wedding, a motif Jesus employs to frame His coming. Far from signaling a distant future Second Coming, as some Partial Preterists like Kenneth Gentry propose by dividing the discourse into two sections at verse 36, Matthew 24:36 continues the discourse’s focus on the AD 70 destruction, as evidenced by its context, scholarly consensus, and connection to the Feast of Trumpets, the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), and Daniel 12’s resurrection prophecy. The Mosaic feasts, as shadows of Christ’s redemptive work (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16–17), and the marriage and resurrection motifs of Isaiah 25:6–9 were fulfilled in Jesus’ generation, as He declared in Luke 21:22. This chapter demonstrates the unity of this fulfillment, refuting notions of multiple comings, weddings, or an artificial two-section division, and celebrates the establishment of Christ’s new covenant bride in AD 70.
The Context and Unity of Matthew 24:36
Jesus states in Matthew 24:36, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” This follows His assertion that His coming, trumpet gathering, and the end of the age would occur within “this generation” (Matt. 24:3, 30-34). Rather than introducing a new event, as some Partial Preterists argue, this verse qualifies and expounds upon the precise timing of the AD 70 judgment. The disciples’ question about the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:3) and the discourse’s consistent flow anchor verse 36 to this event, as affirmed by several commentators:
John Lightfoot writes:
“Of what day and hour? That the discourse is of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident, both by the disciples’ question, and by the whole thread of Christ’s discourse, that it is wonder any should understand these words of the day and hour of the last judgment.”[1]
Adam Clarke notes:
“Verse 36. But of that day and hour—…here, is translated season by many eminent critics, and is used in this sense by both sacred and profane authors. As the day was not known, in which Jerusalem should be invested by the Romans, therefore our Lord advised his disciples to pray that it might not be on a Sabbath; and as the season was not known, therefore they were to pray that it might not be in the winter; Matthew 24:20.”[2]
Even Reformed Baptist Historic Premillennialist John Gill agrees:
“Ver. 36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, &c.]… …the coming of the son of man, to take vengeance on the Jews, and of their destruction; for the words manifestly regard the date of the several things going before, which only can be applied to that catastrophe, and dreadful desolation…”[3]
R.C. Sproul reinforces this:
“Jesus qualifies [Matt. 24:34] by saying, ‘I don’t know what day in this generation, I don’t know what hour it will be, but I do know this, it’s going to be within the time frame of this generation.’ This is a much more sober [interpretation].”[4]
Keith Mathison likewise observes:
“This verse [24:36] does not contradict verse 34. As Davies and Allison explain, ‘Rather does the uncertainty of v. 36 interpret the certainty of the earlier verse: although the end will come upon “this generation,” its exact time cannot be fixed.’ in other words, from verse 15 to this point Jesus has been warning his disciples that they should be watching for certain events to occur within their lifetime, the events that will signal the impending destruction of Jerusalem. When they see these events, they are to take certain actions immediately. But here Jesus warns them that they do not know exactly when they will see these events. Because they do not know when these events will occur, there is the possibility that they could grow lax in their watchfulness if these events do not occur very soon. Much of the remainder of the Olivet Discourse is a warning to the disciples to remain watchful and vigilant.”[5]
These scholars confirm that Matthew 24:36 elaborates on the AD 70 judgment, not a future Second Coming, aligning with the discourse’s imminent timeframe.
The “day and hour” of Matthew 24:36 also connects to the “last day” of John 6:39, 40, 44, and 54, where Jesus speaks of raising up believers. This “last day” aligns with Daniel 12:1–7, where the resurrection occurs at the end of a “time, times, and half a time” (3½ years), corresponding to the Jewish-Roman War (AD 67–70). Daniel 12:7 specifies that this resurrection and judgment would occur when “the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end,” marking the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Thus, the “last day” and “day and hour” do not refer to the end of world history but to the climactic end of the old covenant age in AD 70, when Daniel’s resurrection prophecy was fulfilled alongside the wedding feast and gathering of the elect in Matthew 24–25.
Major Premise: If the “last day” in John 6 (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54) and the “day and hour” in Matthew 24:36 align with Daniel 12’s resurrection prophecy, which is tied to the 3½-year period of distress ending with the shattering of the holy people’s power (Dan. 12:1–7), then these events point to the end of the old covenant age.
Minor Premise: Daniel 12:7’s “time, times, and half a time” corresponds to the Jewish-Roman War (AD 67–70), and Jesus’ “this generation” timeframe (Matt. 24:34) situates the fulfillment of these prophecies, including the resurrection and wedding feast, in AD 70.
Conclusion: Therefore, the “last day” and “day and hour” refer to the end of the old covenant age in AD 70, fulfilling Daniel 12’s resurrection prophecy alongside the wedding feast and judgment of Matthew 24–25.
Furthermore, Reformed theologians often hold contradictory propositions regarding the “last day” and “last days,” which only Full Preterism reconciles. Some, like certain Amillennialists, assert that the “day and hour” of Matthew 24:36 and the “last day” of John 6 connect to the eschatological “last days,” implying a future end of world history. However, many Partial Preterists, acknowledge that the “last days” in the New Testament or the “last hour” (e.g., Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:2; 1 John 2:18) describe Israel’s last days, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This creates a tension: if the “last days” ended in AD 70, as Partial Preterists affirm, then the “last day” of that period must also be AD 70, not a future event. Full Preterism resolves this by consistently placing the “last day,” resurrection, and wedding feast in AD 70, harmonizing the New Testament’s eschatological timeline with the end of the old covenant age.
Major Premise: If Reformed theologians affirm that the “last days” in the New Testament refer to Israel’s last days ending in AD 70, then the “last day” associated with the resurrection and judgment (John 6:39–54; Matt. 24:36) must also occur within that timeframe to avoid contradiction.
Minor Premise: Partial Preterists concede that the “last days” describe the period leading to AD 70, yet some Reformed theologians place the “last day” at the end of world history, creating an inconsistent eschatology.
Conclusion: Therefore, Full Preterism’s view that the “last day” was fulfilled in AD 70 reconciles these contradictory propositions, aligning the resurrection and wedding feast with the end of Israel’s old covenant age.
Major Premise: If the context and flow of the Olivet Discourse, including the disciples’ question about the temple’s destruction and Jesus’ emphasis on “this generation,” tie Matthew 24:36 to the events of AD 70, then verse 36 does not introduce a new, future Second Coming.
Minor Premise: The disciples’ question (Matt. 24:3) focuses on the temple’s end, and Jesus’ response consistently addresses that judgment within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34), with verse 36 qualifying the timing rather than shifting topics.
Conclusion: Therefore, Matthew 24:36 refers to the AD 70 judgment, maintaining the unity of the discourse without an artificial hyper-creedal division theory read into the context.
This v. That / Those Days v. That Day – a Change of Subject?
As stated previously, partial preterists like Kenneth Gentry attempt to divide Matthew 24-25 into two comings of Christ connected to two judgments – one in AD 70 and another at the end of world history. Gentry believes verse 36 is that transition verse that begins introducing a subject the disciples never asked about – a coming of Christ to end world history. Gary DeMar who has published some of Gentry’s works disagrees with him as we do:
“Commentators often argue that Matthew 24 contains both a discussion of the A.D. 70 destruction of religious, social, and political Judaism as well as a reference to a yet-future return of Christ. This supposed distinction is drawn by contrasting “this generation” and “that day and hour.” Gentry writes that “there seems to be an intended contrast between that which is near (in verse 34) and that which is far (in verse 36): this generation vs. that day. It would seem more appropriate for Christ to have spoken of ‘this day’ rather than ‘that day’ if He had meant to refer to the time of ‘this generation.’”11 Not at all. We should expect to see “that” used for a time still in the speaker’s future, whether that event is forty years or four thousand years in the future. “This generation” refers to the present generation Jesus was addressing. “This” is therefore the appropriate word for something present while “that” is the most appropriate word for something future. Arndt and Gingrich agree: “[T]his, referring to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos [that] refers to something comparatively farther away.”12 “That day” would come in the final destruction of the Jews who rejected their Messiah, a time still in the future for Jesus’ audience.”[6]
Gentry also tries to justify v. 36 making a transition based upon “this generation” and “that day”:
“The remainder of the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:36-25:46) looks beyond the signs for “this generation” (haute, near demonstrative) to “that” (ekeines, far demonstrative) sign-less day and hour (Mt 24:34-36). Thus, the Lord turns his attention from the imminent events of that generation to his second advent at the end of history.”[7]
Marcellus Kik hoped to prove a division over Jesus’ use of “days” v. “day”:
“The expression, “that day and hour,” gives immediate evidence of a change of subject matter. In the First Section (24:4-35) the plural “days” is employed, in the Second Section (24:36-25:46) the singular “day” comes to the fore. In verses 19, 22 and 29 of the Frist Section the plural “these days” describes the period under consideration and the singular “that day and hour” is not employed. But in the Second Section the period under discussion is described by the singular (24:36, 42, 44, 50 and 25:13). It is true that in verses 37 and 38 the plural “days” is found but that is in reference to the days of Noah previous to the “the day” when Noah entered into the ark. The distinctive use of the plural in the First Section and the singular in the Second Section points rather conclusively that the periods under consideration are different.”[8]
Since Kik is running low on exegetical evidence for his artificial “First” and “Second” “Sections” division theory, he uses the word “conclusively” in hopes to persuade the reader. As I have listed above, there are several well-known partial preterists that have not found this argument “conclusive” at all (Lightfoot, Gill, Clarke, Wilson, Mathison, Sproul, DeMar, etc…). The plural “days” is used to describe the signs and tribulation period leading up to the climatic or consummative day or coming of the Son of Man in 24:30. It is “immediately after” “those days” (the signs and tribulation period 24:4-29) that the day of the Lord or the coming of the Son of Man takes place (24:30). The concerning “that day” statement of (24:36) is a reference back to the coming of the Son of Man (24:30) that Kik and Gentry believe was fulfilled in AD 70 when the Temple fell. Of that day and hour no one knew except the Father. Daniel connects the “HOUR of the END” of the old covenant age and resurrection taking places after the “tribulation” or “three-and-a-half-years” [AD 67-70] of those days as well (Dan. 12:1-2, 4 LXX, 7). As Gill points out, “…yet the exact and precise time was not known: it might have been: calculated to a year by Daniel’s weeks, but not to the day and hour; and therefore, our Lord does not say of the year, but of the day and hour no man knows…”[9]
Further refuting this artificial division, the linguistic and thematic continuity of the Olivet Discourse demonstrates no such break at verse 36. The “day and hour” of 24:36 directly echoes the unknown timing motif rooted in the Feast of Trumpets and Jewish betrothal customs, which permeates the entire discourse, including the parables that follow. For instance, the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1–13 explicitly concludes with the same exhortation: “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” (Matt. 25:13), linking it inseparably to 24:36 and the preceding signs climaxing in the day of the Lord or coming of the Son of Man in AD 70. This is not a shift to a distant future but a reinforcement of vigilance for the imminent judgment within “this generation” (24:34), as the bridegroom’s sudden arrival (24:27, 30; 25:31) mirrors the unexpected fall of Jerusalem.
Moreover, the supposed contrast between “this” (near demonstrative) and “that” (far demonstrative) is overstated and unconvincing. Greek demonstratives like “this” (houtos) and “that” (ekeinos) often function based on contextual proximity rather than chronological distance. In Matthew 24:34–36, “this generation” refers to the audience’s present era, while “that day” simply points forward to the climactic event still future to Jesus’ speaking—yet firmly within the same generation’s timeframe. As DeMar notes, “that” is appropriate for any future event, near or far, and does not demand a millennia-spanning leap. To impose a division here ignores the discourse’s unified structure, where verses 4–35 describe observable signs leading to the parousia, and 36ff. qualifies its unknowable timing, urging constant readiness without introducing a new subject.
Even within Partial Preterism, this division lacks consensus and reveals internal inconsistencies. In the book When Shall These Things Be?, co-authored by Gentry with Keith Mathison and Doug Wilson to refute Full Preterism, Mathison and Wilson reject a break at verse 36, viewing the entire discourse—including the parable of the ten virgins—as fulfilled in AD 70. This undermines Gentry’s position, as his own collaborators see no exegetical warrant for splitting the text. If prominent Partial Preterists like Mathison and Wilson affirm unity beyond verse 36, it exposes the arbitrary nature of the “two-section” theory, which fractures the discourse to preserve futurist assumptions rather than following the text’s natural flow.
The “days” versus “day” argument from Kik fares no better under scrutiny. The plural “days” in 24:19, 22, 29 refers to the extended period of tribulation and signs (echoing Daniel’s “time, times, and half a time” in Dan. 12:7), while the singular “day” in 24:36, 42, 44, 50, and 25:13 focuses on the culminating parousia event “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (24:29–30). This is a logical progression, not a topical shift: the preparatory “days” build to the decisive “day,” much like the “days of Noah” (plural, 24:37–38) lead to the singular “day” Noah entered the ark and judgment fell (24:39). Daniel 12 similarly ties the resurrection and “hour of the end” to the end of a 3½-year tribulation period, aligning perfectly with the AD 67–70 Jewish-Roman War and Jesus’ “this generation” timeframe. Imposing a division here creates an artificial dichotomy that the text does not support, as the singular “day” simply zooms in on the climax already described in 24:30.
Ultimately, this “two-section” theory introduces an eisegetical hyper-creedal division unsupported by the disciples’ question (24:3, focused solely on the temple’s destruction which they correctly connected with Christ’s coming), the consistent imminent language, or the interconnected motifs of judgment, gathering, and wedding. It results in contradictory eschatology, positing multiple comings and weddings where Scripture teaches one unified fulfillment in AD 70, harmonizing the end of the old covenant age with Daniel’s prophecies and the Olivet Discourse’s flow.
The Jewish Betrothal Idiom and the Feast of Trumpets
Jesus employs the Jewish betrothal idiom, where the bridegroom’s unexpected return signals the wedding feast, to frame His coming in Matthew 24–25. This imagery is vivid in the trumpet call of Matthew 24:31, where angels gather the elect with a “loud trumpet call,” and the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1–13:
“As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’ And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’ Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” (Matt. 25:5–12).
The “day and hour” in Matthew 25:13 echoes Matthew 24:36, linking both passages to the AD 70 judgment. The midnight cry and bridegroom’s arrival reflect the suddenness of this event, urging readiness, as in Jewish betrothal customs.
This betrothal imagery is deeply intertwined with the Feast of Trumpets, which carries unique significance in Jewish tradition for its connection to the unknown timing of divine events.
The Feast of Trumpets, known as Rosh Hashanah in Jewish tradition, was uniquely referred to as the feast of which the “day and hour” was unknown due to its dependence on the sighting of the new moon to determine its start, typically on the first day of the seventh month, Tishri (Lev. 23:23–25). Unlike other Jewish feasts with fixed calendar dates, the precise moment of the new moon’s appearance could vary, requiring the Sanhedrin to confirm the sighting, thus making the exact “day and hour” uncertain until officially declared. This characteristic resonates with the Jewish betrothal idiom, where only the father of the groom knew the precise time of the wedding, as he determined when the preparations were complete (cf. John 14:2–3). In Matthew 24:36, Jesus’ reference to the “day and hour” that “no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” directly echoes this cultural and festal imagery, tying the eschatological coming of the Son of Man to the Feast of Trumpets’ typological significance, fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment when Christ, the bridegroom, returned to gather His elect (Matt. 24:31) and consummate the marriage feast with His new covenant bride.
This connection between the Feast of Trumpets and the betrothal idiom underscores the precise cultural context Jesus’ audience would have recognized, as illustrated in the following table of Jewish wedding customs and their fulfillment in Matthew 24–25.
In the first-century Jewish context, betrothal was a binding covenant—the groom would go to prepare a place for his bride (John 14:2–3), while only his father could decide the exact day and hour of the wedding. At the appointed time, the father would send the groom’s procession to gather the bride with a trumpet blast, leading her to the prepared home for the feast. This covenantal sequence saturates the prophetic imagery of Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul. The following table illustrates how these customs align with Matthew 24–25:
| Jewish Custom |
Matthew 24–25 Fulfillment |
| Only the Father of the groom knew the day and hour of the wedding. | Matt. 24:36 – “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels… but the Father only.” |
| When the Father decided, he would send the groom’s party with a trumpet to gather the bride. | Matt. 24:31 – “He will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect.” |
| The groom would come like the morning light, often suddenly. | Matt. 24:27 – “For as the light of day comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the parousia of the Son of Man.” |
| The bride had to remain ready with her lamp trimmed. | Matt. 25:1–13 – Parable of the ten virgins. |
| The feast would follow immediately after the arrival. | Matt. 25:10 – “…those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.” |
The trumpet call in Matthew 24:31 ties directly to the Feast of Trumpets, a Mosaic feast signaling judgment, ingathering, and covenant renewal through the shofar’s blast. This feast, part of the Law of Moses, was a shadow pointing to Christ’s work (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16–17). The trumpet imagery aligns with Isaiah 27:12–13, where a “great trumpet” gathers Israel amid Jerusalem’s judgment (Isa. 27:9–11), fulfilled in AD 70 when Christ returned to judge old covenant Israel and establish His new covenant bride.
The Mosaic Feasts as Shadows Fulfilled in AD 70
The Mosaic feasts, including the Feast of Trumpets, were typological shadows of Christ’s redemptive work. Hebrews 10:1 SLT states, “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things about to come instead of the true form of these realities…” Colossians 2:16–17 SLT adds that the feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths were “a shadow of the things about to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” The old covenant was “obsolete and growing old, ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13), and the judgment on Israel was “about to come” (mellousēs kriseōs, Heb. 10:27). Paul’s reference to a resurrection connected to Israel’s hope “about to be” (mellousēs esesthai, Acts 24:15 YLT) further situates these shadows’ and resurrection of Daniel 12’s fulfillment in AD 70.
Jesus’ declaration in Luke 21:22, “For these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written,” confirms that the Old Testament’s prophecies—including the marriage and resurrection motifs (Isa. 25:6–9; 27:12–13) and the feasts prefiguring the resurrection—were fulfilled in His generation. The Feast of Trumpets, with its trumpet blast, found its substance in Christ’s AD 70 coming, as depicted in Matthew 24:31 and 25:1–13. Extending these feasts’ fulfillment beyond AD 70 contradicts Jesus’ timeframe and the New Testament’s teaching on the old covenant’s obsolescence.
Major Premise: If the Mosaic feasts were shadows of Christ’s redemptive work “about to be” fulfilled (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16–17) and the old covenant was “ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13) with judgment “about to come” (Heb. 10:27 SLT), then their fulfillment must occur at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.
Minor Premise: Jesus promised that “all that is written” in the Old Testament, including the feasts and marriage/resurrection motifs, would be fulfilled in His generation (Luke 21:22), coinciding with Jerusalem’s destruction.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Feast of Trumpets and related motifs in Matthew 24–25 were fulfilled in AD 70, marking the consummation of the wedding and resurrection.
The Eschatological Marriage in Matthew 8, 22, and 25
The wedding feast imagery recurs throughout Matthew, consistently pointing to AD 70. In Matthew 8:10–12, Jesus describes Gentiles reclining at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while unbelieving Jews are cast out:
“When Jesus heard this [expression of the Gentile’s faith], he marveled and said to those who followed him, ‘Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west [Gentiles] and recline at the table [wedding feast of Isa. 25:6–9] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven [in the resurrection], while the sons of the kingdom [Pharisees and unbelieving Jews] will be cast out into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” (Matt. 8:10–12).
Kenneth Gentry affirms this AD 70 fulfillment:
“In Matthew 8:11–12 we read of the faithful gentile who exercises more faith than anyone in Israel. We hear once again of the people from the east. This time they sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the rightful place of the Jews). While the Jews themselves are ‘cast out’ into ‘outer darkness’ (He Shall Have Dominion, p. 175). And, ‘God is preparing to punish his people Israel, remove the temple system, and re-orient redemptive history from one people and land to all peoples throughout the earth… This dramatic redemptive-historical event…ends the old covenant era…’”[10]
Strengths:
- The “casting out” of the “subjects of the kingdom” refers to old covenant Israel’s judgment in AD 70, with the believing Jewish/Gentile Church taking her place.
- The “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” describe the AD 70 judgment.
Weaknesses:
- There is no mention of Isaiah 25:6–9 as Jesus’ source, which is odd because Jesus says He came to fulfill all the Law and Prophets (cf. Matt. 5:17–18) and because He said this would be fulfilled in His generation (Luke 21:20–32).
- There is no inconsistency in Jesus’ use of the phrases “cast out into darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in Matthew 24:51 and 25:30. There is simply nothing throughout Matthew’s gospel which indicates there are two (casting out into outer darkness / weeping and gnashing of teeth) judgments in Jesus’ teaching.
- Unanswered questions – Since, according to Gentry and James Jordan, Daniel 12:2–3 teaches that there was a spiritual resurrection which was fulfilled in AD 70, why isn’t this the fulfillment of that resurrection?
- While Gentry agrees that the eschatological divorce of Old Covenant Israel and the marriage to the Church was fulfilled in AD 70 in Matthew 8:10–12 and Revelation 17–22, he does not sufficiently explain how the marriage imagery of Matthew 24:36 and 25:1–13 should not also refer to AD 70. If it doesn’t, how many eschatological marriages are there? And isn’t he just as guilty of teaching two eschatological marriages as the Dispensationalists are? If not, why not?
In Matthew 22:1–14, the wedding feast parable depicts a king whose invitation is rejected, leading to the city’s destruction:
“And again, Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, “Tell those who are invited, ‘See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’” But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, “The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.” And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So, the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?” And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” For many are called, but few are chosen’” (Matt. 22:1–14).
This parable aligns with the ministry of John the Baptist (the greatest and last of the OT prophets) and Jesus’ apostles, who called Israel to the kingdom during a pivotal period leading to AD 70. The kingdom of heaven is depicted as a wedding feast for the King’s Son, with two groups of servants issuing invitations. First, the King (God the Father) sends servants—John (the friend of the Groom) and the apostles—to invite Israel’s leaders, but “they would not come” (vv. 1–3). A second wave of servants is sent, yet Israel’s response is mixed: some ignore the call, while others seize, shame, and kill the messengers (vv. 4–6). Enraged, the King sends his armies—widely recognized as the Romans—to destroy the murderers and burn their city, a clear reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 (v. 7).
Verse 8’s “then” or “at that time” does not shift to a post-AD 70 era. Instead, it recapitulates the same pre-AD 70 period, focusing on a broader invitation. The servants, still the apostles, now call the lowly Jews (sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes) and Gentiles—resulting in a filled wedding hall (vv. 8–10). This is not a new mission but an expansion of the gospel call before the feast’s consummation in AD 70. The man without a wedding garment, cast into “outer darkness” with “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 13), mirrors and parallels the judgment and timing of verse 7, reinforcing that this is the same AD 70 event described differently.
The parallel language of judgment in Matthew 8:12 and Matthew 22:13 underscores AD 70’s significance:
| Matthew 8:12 |
Matthew 22:13 |
| “The sons of the kingdom [old covenant Jews] will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” | “…he saw there a man who had no wedding garment [a Jew trusting in his own works]. …Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” |
Partial Preterists, like Kenneth Gentry, acknowledge that this “casting out” into outer darkness refers to AD 70, when the kingdom was stripped from Israel and given to the Gentile church. The burning of the city (Matt. 22:7) and the casting out of the unworthy (Matt. 22:13) both point to this judgment, proving that Matthew 22:1–14 does not contrast pre- and post-AD 70 evangelism but recapitulates the gospel’s reach to Gentiles in Acts.
Joel McDurmon comments:
“Here the first servant-messengers (another reference to the prophets, no doubt) were simply ignored. Another wave of servant-messengers (more prophets) are treated as such a nuisance that while some still ignored them, ‘the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them’ (v. 6). Jesus is certainly adding [the murdering of the servants or prophets] here as part of the same indictment of Jerusalem He would give again in (Matt. 23:34–36).” “The murderers were the entire generation of Israelites… the armies would set the murderers’ city on fire (again exactly what happened in AD 70).” And of verses 8–14, “…yet, after this destruction… during this post-destruction wedding feast, some would sneak in who did not belong… Whether [the man w/out the wedding garment] should be interpreted as the Judaizers who would cause so much dissention in the NT Church, or whether these should just be understood as general heretics in the Church, is not clear.”[11]
Strengths:
- The Great Commission invitation (vv. 1–7) occurs between AD 30–70.
- The rejection and killing of the servants align with Matthew 23 and the AD 70 judgment.
- The city’s burning closes the old covenant era in AD 70.
- The “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” characterize this judgment.
Weaknesses:
- Again, there is no mention that Jesus came to fulfill Isaiah 25:6–9 or 65:12–14 because they would have to address the timing and nature of the resurrection.
- Postmillennialists miss that Matthew 22:1–14 is structured with recapitulation: a). (vss. 1–7): 1. There is an invitation to the wedding feast. 2. It is rejected, and 3. this rejection leads to the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 – burning their city. b). (vss. 8–13): 1. There is an invitation, 2. BUT there is NEW information given to us about the same time period that vss. 1–7 didn’t tell us about. This rejection results in the invitation to the undesirables – the 10 northern tribes/Samaritans and Gentiles (as laid out in Acts 1:8) and describes the success of the Great Commission between AD 30–AD 70. And then finally 3. there is a judgment for their rejection (except this time it’s described differently – with a Jew or Judaizer trying to achieve salvation by works of the law and not through belief in the Son and His grace – who is then “CAST” out into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth). This is the same language used for the AD 70 judgment Postmillennialists assign to Matthew 8:11–12. So, there is no exegetical evidence that vss. 8–13 are a post-AD 70 Great Commission resulting in a different judgment at the end of time.
Refuting the Two-Coming and Two-Wedding Theories
Dispensational Premillennialism posits two peoples, two gospels, and two eschatological comings of Christ for two weddings, but Scripture presents one covenant people and one eschatological Second Coming and wedding. Partial Preterists like Gentry, who see Matthew 24:36–25:46 as a future Second Coming, introduce a second wedding and resurrection, fracturing the discourse’s unity. The consistent “this generation” timeframe (Matt. 24:34) and the feasts’ fulfillment in AD 70 refute this. The wedding imagery in Matthew 8:11–12, 22:1–14, and 25:1–13, tied to the Feast of Trumpets, points to one event: Christ’s marriage to His new covenant people in AD 70.
Notably, in the book When Shall These Things Be? co-authored by Gentry with fellow Partial Preterists Keith A. Mathison and Doug Wilson attempting to refute Full Preterism, Mathison and Wilson do not divide the Olivet Discourse at verse 36. Instead, they view the entire discourse, including the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), as fulfilled in AD 70. This internal inconsistency among Partial Preterists undermines Gentry’s artificial division at verse 36, as his own co-authors reject it in favor of a unified AD 70 fulfillment beyond verse 36. If even prominent Partial Preterists like Mathison and Wilson see no break at verse 36 and affirm the parable’s AD 70 fulfillment, it highlights the arbitrary nature of Gentry’s position and strengthens the case for Full Preterism’s coherent, unified interpretation.
Moreover, this raises a critical question for Partial Preterism: How many eschatological weddings and feasts does it teach? If the wedding in Matthew 8:11–12 and Revelation 19–21 is fulfilled in AD 70 (as Gentry concedes), but Matthew 24:36–25:13 describes a future event, does this not imply two separate weddings—one in AD 70 and another at the end of history? Such a duplication mirrors the Dispensationalist error of multiple weddings and lacks biblical warrant, further discrediting Partial Preterism’s divided approach.
Major Premise: If Partial Preterists like Mathison and Wilson, co-authors with Gentry, reject a division at Matthew 24:36 and see the parable of the ten virgins as fulfilled in AD 70, then Gentry’s division is inconsistent even within Partial Preterism and lacks consensus support.
Minor Premise: The unified context of the discourse, with its “this generation” timeframe and consistent wedding imagery, demands a single AD 70 fulfillment without division.
Conclusion: Therefore, Gentry’s artificial division at verse 36 is discredited, affirming Full Preterism’s view of one eschatological wedding and feast in AD 70.
The Messianic Banquet and Resurrection in Isaiah 25:6–9
Jesus’ teaching fulfills Isaiah 25:6–9:
“On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. The LORD has spoken. In that day they will say, ‘Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation’” (Isa. 25:6–9).
This banquet occurs amid judgment on old covenant Israel (Isa. 24:5), with Jerusalem reduced to a “heap of rubble” (Isa. 25:2). Commentators affirm the time of the wedding and feast is the time of the resurrection:
“The picture is that of the ‘messianic banquet,’ derived from such OT passages as Isaiah 25:6–9 (cf. 65:13–14)…” (D.A. Carson).[12] “Jesus characterizes that bliss as taking ‘their places at the feast,’ the messianic banquet image depicting the intimate fellowship among God’s people in the age to come (cf. Isa 25:6–9; 65:13–14)” (Craig Blomberg).[13] “A reference to the messianic banquet theme of Is. 25:6–9. Gentiles now appear in place of the natural sons” (Reformation Study Bible, p. 1684).[14]
Isaiah 25:2, 6–9 offers one of the most remarkable prophetic portraits in Scripture—a city reduced to rubble, a lavish banquet prepared for all peoples, “the death” swallowed up forever, and God’s people rejoicing in His salvation. Jesus drew directly on this imagery in His parables of the wedding feast (Matt. 8:10–12; 22:1–14) and in His Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25), where He tied the destruction of Jerusalem, the wedding feast, the trumpet gathering of the elect, and His parousia all to fulfillment within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).
The apostle Paul, likewise, connects Isaiah’s prophecy to the resurrection victory of 1 Corinthians 15:54–56, identifying “the death” to be destroyed as the sin-death empowered by the old covenant Mosaic “the Law”—and placing that victory at Christ’s parousia in the lifetime of his contemporaries.
Major Premise: If the “death” and “disgrace” of Isaiah 25:7–8 refer not to physical death but to spiritual sin-death and shame introduced in Adam (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12–14) and perpetuated and magnified under the Mosaic Law (1 Cor. 15:56), then the resurrection Isaiah envisions occurs when that death is swallowed up through the fulfillment and then the passing away of that Law’s “heaven and earth” world (Matt. 5:17–18; 24:35; Heb. 8:13; 12:26–28).
Minor Premise: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:23–24, 26, 51, 55–56, teaches that the defeat of “the death” would take place at Christ’s parousia within the lifetime of some first-century believers, when “the law” would be overcome [and fulfilled Isa. 25 & Hos. 13]—an event coinciding with the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 (Matt. 24:3–34).
Conclusion: Therefore, the “death” swallowed up in Isaiah 25:7–8 is covenantal/spiritual death that was magnified under the Law, and its defeat occurred at Christ’s parousia in AD 70, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy in conjunction with the wedding feast and judgment scenes of Matthew 8:10–12, 22:1–14, and 24–25.
Watt’s Identification of “The Death” John Watt clarifies:
“The death is the most substantive of them all (the shroud, the shadow, the death and the disgrace – all have the definite article) while the disgrace of the people is the most relevant in the context. The thought that this refers to ‘death’ per se ignores the definite article. A specific ‘death’ is to be swallowed up. A specific ‘disgrace’ is to be removed. This death and this disgrace comprise the shroud and the shadow over all the peoples, the very ones that had been invited to the feast. They are the peoples whose disgrace he will remove from the land.”[15]
Watt’s observation dismantles the assumption that Isaiah 25 refers to the end or defeat of physical death. The definite article points to “the death” unique to Israel’s covenantal condition—a death that began in Adam the day he sinned (Gen. 2:17) and was magnified by the Mosaic Law’s condemnation (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:56). If people under this death and disgrace are invited to the wedding feast, then clearly this is spiritual death and disgrace that only Christ and the gospel can overcome.
The WuestNT on “The Death” Being Destroyed Kenneth Wuest translates 1 Corinthians 15:26 as:
“As a last enemy, death is being reduced to inactivity.”
This translation highlights an important point often overlooked: Paul uses the present tense—death is being reduced to inactivity—not “will someday be destroyed.” The verb here points to an ongoing process, not a single, far-off event. If Paul were speaking of biological death, then Christ has been “failing” to abolish it for nearly two thousand years. Instead, the “death” in view is covenantal or sin-death—the very death Adam incurred “in the day” he sinned (Gen. 2:17) and which was magnified under “the administration of death” (2 Cor. 3:7) in the Mosaic Law. From the cross (AD 30) onward, this death was already in the process of being dismantled, and that process would culminate in the destruction of the old covenant order at Christ’s parousia in AD 70—the very end of the “age” in Matthew 24:3, 13–14, 34; the “then comes the end” of 1 Corinthians 15:23–24, 51–56.
This covenantal death existed within the framework of the old covenant “heavens and earth”—the world order governed by Torah—which was itself “being dissolved” (2 Pet. 3:11 LEB) and “passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31; 1 John 2:17–18) during the transitional forty years between the cross and the parousia. As that old order was progressively dismantled, so too was the reign of sin-death over God’s people. At the same time, the new creation—the New Jerusalem—was “comingdown” (Rev. 3:11–12 NIV), bringing the reality of Revelation 21:4, where “the death will be no more.” This descent of the New Jerusalem was not postponed to some distant millennium but was bound up with the “soon” (Rev. 22:6–7, 12) second coming of Christ in AD 70, when the curse of sin-death was fully removed and the new covenant kingdom stood unveiled in its fullness.
| The Old Creation (OC) – Passing Away | The New Creation (NC) – Arriving |
| “The death” (spiritual sin-death) reigns in Adam and under Moses (Gen. 2:17; 2 Cor. 3:7) | The life of Christ revealed (John 11:25–26; 2 Tim. 1:10)—those believing would “never die” (John 11:26), referring not to biological death but deliverance from spiritual sin-death |
| “Heavens and earth” of the old covenant in process of “being dissolved” (2 Pet. 3:11) | New Jerusalem “coming down” from heaven (Rev. 3:11–12 NIV) |
| OC world “passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31; 1 John 2:17–18) | Kingdom being received (Heb. 12:28) and saints being transformed into Christ’s image (2 Cor. 3:18) |
| The Law’s condemnation still active until its removal (Matt. 5:18; Heb. 8:13) | Full forgiveness and eternal life manifest at parousia (Heb. 9:28; Rev. 21:4; Rom. 11:25–27) |
| Sin-death “being reduced to inactivity” (1 Cor. 15:26) | “The death” is no more; curse removed (Rev. 21:4) |
| Ends at AD 70 with Temple destruction being the OC age “heaven and earth passing away” (Matt. 24:2–3, 35) | Fully revealed at AD 70 in the NC order when Israel’s old covenant “heavens and earth pass away” (Rev. 21:1–6) |
Summary Points:
- The death in 1 Corinthians 15 is spiritual sin-death, not biological death. This death held the dead in Hades and the living in its grip until the parousia.
- Its destruction was a process beginning at the cross and completed at the parousia in AD 70.
- The dissolution of the old covenant order and that was passing away and the arrival of the new creation that was increasing and being received happened concurrently over the AD 30–70 transition period.
- The “never die” promise of Christ refers to freedom from spiritual death, not the postponement or nullification of biological death.
- Revelation 21:4’s “no more death” was realized when the curse of Adam spiritual death was removed and the New Jerusalem was fully revealed.
A crucial thread running through each of these passages is the wedding motif—and more specifically, the ancient Jewish betrothal process. The “feast” of Isaiah 25 is developed by Jesus in Matthew 22 and 25 into parables about a wedding banquet and wise virgins. Paul’s description of the trumpet, the gathering, and meeting the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4 echoes the very stages of this betrothal period, from the Father’s timing to the trumpet announcement, the coming of the groom, and the consummation feast.
The following chart shows how Isaiah 25, Matthew 8 & 22, Matthew 24–25, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 all converge to depict this covenant-closing wedding celebration in AD 70:
| Isa. 25 | Matt. 8 & 22 | Matt. 24–25 | 1 Cor. 15 | 1 Thess. 4–5 |
| 25:2 – Jerusalem made a “heap” of rubble. | 22:7 – City burned by the King’s armies. | 24:2 – Temple destroyed; city left desolate. | — | — |
| 25:6 – Wedding feast on God’s mountain. | 8:11; 22:2–4 – Gentiles & lowly Jews recline at the table. | 25:10 – Wise virgins enter the wedding feast. | — | — |
| 25:7–8 – “The death” and “the disgrace” removed for those in Christ on Zion. | 22:11–13 – Unworthy cast into outer darkness. | 24:30–31 – Elect gathered at the trumpet. | 15:26, 54–56 – Death destroyed; the Law overcome. | 4:16 – Trumpet; dead in Christ rise; “meet” the Lord (wedding greeting). |
| — | — | 24:27 – Parousia like the light of day; 24:36 – Only the Father knows the “day and hour” (wedding motif). | 15:23–24 – Parousia; at end of the old covenant age when victory over “the law” of Moses is given. | 5:10 – Living & dead “dwell together” with the Lord (Rev. 21:3; “God all in all”). |
Isaiah 65:12–14 and the Judgment of Old Covenant Israel
Isaiah 65:12–14 depicts Israel’s judgment and the salvation of a remnant with Gentiles:
“I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will fall in the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.” Therefore, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “My servants will eat, but you will go hungry; my servants will drink, but you will go thirsty; my servants will rejoice, but you will be put to shame. My servants will sing out of the joy of their hearts, but you will cry out from anguish of heart and wail in brokenness of spirit” (Isa. 65:12–14).
This is fulfilled in AD 70, when the Church, as the New Jerusalem, feasts (Rev. 19–21), while old covenant Israel faces famine and destruction.
Major Premise: If Isaiah 65:12–14 describes the judgment of old covenant Israel by the sword and the feasting of God’s servants (remnant and Gentiles), then this motif must be fulfilled when old covenant Israel is judged and the new covenant Church is established.
Minor Premise: The New Testament places this judgment and feasting in AD 70, with the Church as the New Jerusalem feasting while old covenant Israel is judged (Rev. 19–21; Matt. 8:11–12).
Conclusion: Therefore, Isaiah 65:12–14’s judgment and feast were fulfilled in AD 70, aligning with the unified eschatological wedding and resurrection.
Bridging the Gap: The Analogy of Faith
The Analogy of Faith teaches that Scripture interprets Scripture and Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Logically, if A = B and B = C, then A = C:
- A (Matt. 8; 22; 24-25) = The wedding feast, end of the age, and Parousia fulfilled by AD 70.
- B (Isa. 25:6–9) = The wedding feast and resurrection fulfilled “in that day.”
- C (1 Cor. 15) = The resurrection and end of the age fulfilled at the Parousia fulfills Isa. 25.
Jesus in A uses B (Isa. 25:6–9) to teach the wedding feast’s fulfillment in AD 70, and Paul in C uses B to teach the resurrection at the Parousia. Thus, A and C describe the same AD 70 event, including the fulfillment of the Mosaic feasts as shadows of Christ’s redemptive work.
Major Premise: If the Analogy of Faith requires consistent interpretation across Scripture, and Jesus and Paul’s teaching fulfill Isaiah 25:6–9 for the wedding feast and resurrection, then these events must coincide at the same Parousia.
Minor Premise: Jesus places the Parousia and feast in AD 70 (Matt. 24:34), and Paul ties the resurrection to the Parousia at the end of the old covenant age in the lifetime of his contemporaries.
Conclusion: Therefore, the wedding feast, resurrection, and Parousia form a unified fulfillment in AD 70.
Conclusion
Matthew 24:36, with its “day and hour” language echoing the Feast of Trumpets’ uncertain timing and the betrothal idiom’s father-determined wedding day, elaborates on the AD 70 judgment, as confirmed by Lightfoot, Clarke, Gill, Sproul, Mathison, and DeMar. The betrothal motif, depicted in the trumpet call (Matt. 24:31) and the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), ties to the Feast of Trumpets, a shadow fulfilled in Christ’s coming (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16–17). Jesus’ claim that “all that is written” would be fulfilled in His generation (Luke 21:22) encompasses the marriage, resurrection, and feasts, consummated in AD 70, fulfilling Daniel 12’s prophecy at the end of the Tribulation or 3½-year war (AD 67–70).
Multiple comings, weddings, or divisions of the discourse at verse 36 lack exegetical support, as even Partial Preterists like Mathison and Wilson affirm the parable of the ten virgins’ AD 70 fulfillment, undermining artificial two-section theories. The Olivet Discourse proclaims one Parousia, one wedding and feast, and one resurrection, fulfilled when Christ returned to judge Jerusalem and establish His new covenant bride at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70. Partial Preterists rightly recognize that the wedding feast and judgment of Matthew 8, Matthew 22, and Matthew 24–25 were fulfilled in AD 70, while Classic Amillennialists connect Isaiah 25’s banquet and resurrection victory with those passages and 1 Corinthians 15.
Yet both camps separate what Scripture unites: the resurrection, wedding, and feast occur when Jerusalem was judged in AD 70. Only Full Preterism resolves the contradictory propositions in Reformed theology, which inconsistently place the “last day” at the end of world history while affirming the “last days” ended in AD 70. Full Preterism preserves the prophetic tapestry: Isaiah 25 foretold Jerusalem’s destruction (v. 2), a lavish feast for all peoples (v. 6), and the removal of “the death” for those in Zion (vv. 7–8). Jesus wove the imagery and fulfillment of Isaiah 25:6–9 into Matthew 8, 22, and 24–25, grounding the eschatological wedding and judgment in His generation (Matt. 24:34). Similarly, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:54–56 ties the resurrection victory to the parousia, when “the sting of death” (sin) and “the power of sin” (the Mosaic Law) were overcome through Christ. This victory, fulfilled in AD 70 when the old covenant Law was “ready to vanish” (Heb. 8:13), aligns with the New Testament’s imminent timeframe, not a futurist end of world history, as the Law’s fulfillment and then obsolescence marked the defeat of sin and death for God’s people.
This unified fulfillment culminates in the relational goal of 1 Thessalonians 4–5, where the living and the dead “dwell together” “with the Lord forever” (5:10), paralleled in 1 Corinthians 15:28 (“God all in all”) and consummated in the New Jerusalem where God dwells with His people and “the death is no more” (Rev. 21:3–4). Christ’s parousia in AD 70 was the full removal of Adamic sin-death, the end of the Mosaic covenant age, and the inauguration of our eternal dwelling with God. The home He prepared (John 14:2–3) is the matured new covenant New Jerusalem (or Paul’s “Jerusalem above,” Gal. 4), where the curse of spiritual death and shame per Isaiah 25 and Revelation 21–22 is removed for those dwelling in the Kingdom, pictured as being in Mount Zion / New Jerusalem. We invite the nations out of their darkness and death to be healed and drink of the living waters of eternal life in God’s perpetual glory, light, and eternal day (Rev. 22:2, 17).
[1] John Lightfoot, COMMENTRY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, (Oxford Press, 1859, Hendrickson Publishers 442
[2] See Clarke’s comments on Mark 13:32, Adam Clarke’s Commentary – available online https://www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/24-36.html
[3] See John Gill’s Commentary on Matthew 24:36 – free online https://www.studylight.org/
commentary/matthew/24-36.html
[4] R.C. Sproul, Lecture on “This Generation” of Matthew 24:34 which includes a discussion of v. 36.
[5] Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 379.
[6] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, Tenth Printing, 2024), 192
[7] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 355
[8] J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of VICTORY (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1971), 159
[9] Gill, Ibid.
[10] Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 342.
[11] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26 (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2011), pp. 157-158.
[12] Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Ibid., 202–203
[13] Craig Blomberg, Matthew: The New American Commentary Vol. 22, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers)
[14] R.C. Sproul, ed., The Reformation Study Bible, p. 1684
[15] John D. W. Watt, Isaiah 1–33, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 24 (Dallas: Word Books, 1985), 331