Matthew chapter 24 verse by verse

I want to study Matthew chapter 24 from verse 1.

Please stay on the verse studied and the verses of Mark and Luke.

At the end of chapter 23 Jesus is far from happy of the Pharisees.

In verse 1 he foretells the destruction of the temple.

In the following verses he gives the signs in response Peter, john,James and Andrew .

The questions to Jesus in Mark and Luke are slightly different from Matthew who is more precise.

Matthew reports: “when will these things happen and what will be the sign of your presence and of the end of the system of things”.

I am sure that Jesus was talking not only of the end of the Judaic system of that time but also of the end of the satanic system.

1 Like

What is “the satanic system?”


You’re using a Jehovah’s Witness bible, aren’t you?

That’s not a translation of Mt 24:3 that’s particularly true to the original Greek. In the original, Mt 24:3 talks about the “συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος” (that is, “synteleias tou aionos”). You can see in “synteleias” the root “telos”, which means “end” or “goal” or “completion”, and “aionos” is the word which gives rise to the English word “eon” (meaning “era” or “age”).

So, it’s not really “the end of the system of things”; it’s “the completion of [this] era” – or, as it were, “the end of the world.”

(Edited to add:)

Also, it’s not a “sign of your presence” in any of the translations I’ve seen, IIRC. The word for “presence” in the text is παρουσίας (“parousias”). We continue to use this word in English: the parousia is the second coming of Jesus. So, the use of the word here is more than mere ‘presence’; it’s more like “arrival” or “coming”.

Not sure I’d say “more precise”. Rather, Matthew’s Gospel simply includes an additional question, regarding Jesus’ second coming. Now, we could discuss whether we think that the Gospel of Mark came first (and therefore, Matthew added extra detail), or that the Gospel of Matthew came first (and therefore, Mark omitted this detail), but it is accepted that Luke assembled his Gospel after both Matthew and Mark. Therefore, it seems that he followed Mark’s take on it in this verse – that is, omitting the question of the second coming. It’s an interesting question to consider: what should we make of Luke’s editorial decision?


The temple was taken down stone by stone by the Romans. Not a stone was left. The stones were hauled off. So the prophecy came to fulfillment.

Thanks…worth reading.

1 Like

The satanic system in opposition to God is the world that came into being when Adam sinned.

My text in ancient Greek follows Westcott and Hort’s text.

I have been reading the Greek new scriptures for almost 18 years.

No problem with the translation : “the end of the world”.

Yes I reported from memory Jws’ translation.

Presence is parousia and meant when a King prepared his Officers and sent them to a province to prepare for his coming.
Parousia=presence and arrival=erkomenon are not identical and you can prove it because you find the two words one immediately after the other in the new testament.

Jesus was “present” when the apostles asked for sign but the world was still in place.

They realized that things and time had to pass before reaching the end of the world.

His second coming will be very fast on the contrary.

The reply of Jesus is the basis of the whole chapter 24 and is: “beware no one misleads you”.

This basis will be repeated many times later and equals the sign of the son of man.

I have said before, NO inspired writer wrote in chapter and verse. The chapter and verse system was imposed on the Bible around 1200 AD.

Now as useful as it is, the chapter and verse arrangement imposes a structure that was NOT in the original, and that can lead us astray. We are better off to read the Gospels (or any other book) as the inspired writer MEANT them to be read, as a BOOK, from start to finish, before we start picking the text apart.

For Catholics, the parousia or Presence, occurs every time we go to Mass and the Eucharist is blessed.

1 Corinthians 10:16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?


Please don’t jump to other verses and don’t jump to other authors.

The sign of his parousia or presence is the body of Christ and only from him we must take food.

Yes. That is what Matthew chapter 24 is talking about. But I thought you wanted us to wait till we got up to that verse.

I was referring to verse four: “take care nobody misleads you” and the following words that signify as a sign “take spiritual food only from Jesus”. That is the sign.

Lol! You may have the wrong impression. This is a Catholic forum. Here, we study the Scriptures in accordance with Catholic Teaching.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

If you want to study Scripture, here, you’ll have to put up with a bit of Catholicism.

The sign of his parousia or presence is the body of Christ and only from him we must take food.

The Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

other authors.

Again, this is a Catholic Forum. I quoted the Catechism. In this forum, the Catechism or any other official Catholic Teaching is not considered an intrusion since all Scriptures are to be understood in accordance with Catholic Teaching. We do not subscribe to the error of Sola Scriptura.


Hasn’t the Church been doing that for 2000 years?

The warning having been given to four of the strongest apostles, there was some doubt about, and there is.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit