Is Matthew 24:34 grounds for skepticism?

[brother Paul]

C.S. Lewis, author and lay Anglican theologian wrote the following (from 'The world's last night and other essays' - 1960):

"Say what you like" we shall be told, "the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are In heaven, neither the Son, but the Father"

I will admit that this issue makes me skeptical about Jesus. What do you say?

I say Lewis was sadly mistaken in a number of ways. His first error was to confuse "the apocalyptic beliefs" of some of the first Christians with what Christ had actually taught in this chapter. His second error was to interpret verse 34 as referring to the generation who was standing there listening instead of the one who would exist after all this had come to pass (how ever long that would take).

The key is on verse 3 of the same chapter where the disciples ask two questions:
a) WHEN shall these things be, and
b) what shall be the sign of your parousia (coming)

The answer to a) spans from verse 4 to verse 22 and clearly all those things had not happened yet. The key to b) is the word THEN which from verse 23 describes the world system and circumstance just prior to and at His return (the parousia or coming). So the generation (or true believers of that time period, because there will be many false believers and the elect that were deceived) who having experienced all these things will live to SEE the signs of the Son of Man coming in the Clouds (and we are getting close as many of the so-called "elect" are being deceived by a false chosen one who lies). However this generation has yet to see the abomination of desolation set up and empowered YET. But it is one of the generations very soon (maybe this one at some later time).

Because MANY (especially later Romanized theologians) have mis-interpreted the Hebrew apocalyptic thinking because of the Greek translational possibilities. Often the Greek was inadequate to correctly express the conceptuals of the Hebrew mindset. I will give you one example so as to not take up pages and pages of time. John uses the Logod in John 1:1 simply because it is closest to the Hebrew concept of the Memra (the Hypostasis in the flesh of YHVH) but because it is inadequate to really convey the idea he had in his mind he has to go on to elaborate that THIS Jesus IS the Memra (YHVH incarnate), He IS the Glory (that aspect God allows humans to see and hear - see John 5:18). He (YHVH) has come and dwelt (skeenoo - pitched tent or tabernacled) among us) God (YHVH) was IN CHRIST reconciling the world to Himself. And He would give the right or power to BECOME the children of God to all who would accept or receive Him. SO...the "this generation" refers to the we alive at this time (for those who have gone before are still alive "with Christ").

 

[Consecrated Life]

I do NOT assert that Christ was wrong. I am merely asking for a satisfactory explanation of Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:20 and Luke 21:32.

Apologies then on my behalf.
I had taken for granted by your OP that you were leaning strongly to C.S. Lewis's estimation that Jesus had misspoke
I myself was taken aback a little by Lewis's interpretation .
I had never heard that from him.
It is easy to see how such a mis-interpretation could happen with the separate timelines being alluded to by Jesus in the same talk.
Makes me wonder if it is possible that he ever came to revise his understanding of the passage in later writings?
I know that myself that it has happened that I read a passage of scripture that I had read previously and notice a detail that gives a whole new perspective.
I wonder if that could have happened with Lewis ?
Would not be the first time an author has addressed something they previously wrote as being not accurate

C.S. Lewis, author and lay Anglican theologian wrote the following (from 'The world's last night and other essays' - 1960):


I will admit that this issue makes me skeptical about Jesus. What do you say?

 

[journeyman]

I see.

When do you think the book of Revelation was written? I believe most scholars have it as 95AD.

It doesn't matter when it was written. The point of the revelation of Jesus the Messiah is how He is made known to us.


For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Lk.21:22 KJV

 

[Wheat Field]

The high priest who condemned our Lord was standing in the holy place.

Not the Holy of Holies though. This (the Passover) was Nissan not Tishri if I am not mistaken.

 

[Whatever]

The high priest who condemned our Lord was standing in the holy place.

No, in the Holy Place, the priest never opens his mouth. He only goes in there once a year and that is to sprinkle blood on the Ark.

Mat 26:57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

The scribes and elders would not have been in the Holy of Holies.
Mat 26:3 Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

I doubt that the palace of the High Priest was even on the Temple grounds.

 

[Wheat Field]

Surely it is worth noting that the desecration of the temple by the Romans in 70AD happened at the end of the siege. No one, including any Christians mindful of Jesus' words to flee (once they'd seen the 'abomination that causes desolation') would have had the opportunity to do so.

 

[journeyman]

No, in the Holy Place, the priest never opens his mouth. He only goes in there once a year and that is to sprinkle blood on the Ark.

Mat 26:57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

The scribes and elders would not have been in the Holy of Holies.
Mat 26:3 Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

I doubt that the palace of the High Priest was even on the Temple grounds.

This has nothing to do with a man made building. He meant in place of Himself. In place of God.

 

[journeyman]

No, in the Holy Place, the priest never opens his mouth. He only goes in there once a year and that is to sprinkle blood on the Ark.

Mat 26:57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

The scribes and elders would not have been in the Holy of Holies.
Mat 26:3 Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

Mat 26:65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

I doubt that the palace of the High Priest was even on the Temple grounds.

Jesus wasn't referring to a man made temple. He meant in place of Himself. That is, in place of God.
When you see the man who stands in the holy place speak blasphemy against God, that's anti-Christ.

 

[journeyman]

Surely it is worth noting that the desecration of the temple by the Romans in 70AD happened at the end of the siege. No one, including any Christians mindful of Jesus' words to flee (once they'd seen the 'abomination that causes desolation') would have had the opportunity to do so.

It's also worth noting that desecrating the temple of His body, speaking against the Innocent God, is the only abomination that causes desolation.
It's also worth noting that believers from beginning to end are His Temple, so it makes sense that the beast is drpicted as different nations which existed in the past and will to the end
The point is all these prophecies should be understood by what happened to Jesus and the outcome of His victory over the man of sin.

 

[Wheat Field]

Everywhere. Please understand our Lord is referring to the unrepentant.

the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Jn.12:48

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Mt.23:38-39 (Both KJV)

All the scriptures testify that people who claimed to love God despised and murdered Him.
All the scriptures testify we are all sinners in need of Gods' mercy. Jesus showed Gods' mercy in a way that is unbelieveable, because He should have been honored but was spit on and so much worse.
Do you understand that God said He will forgive anyone who is truly sorry for whatever sins we've committed and proved it by the forebearance of Jesus?

All of these supposed contradictions disappear when people realize Jesus gave mankind a hands on example of how God wants us to live in this world.

He was falsed accused. Nailed to a cross while being mocked and spit on? Anyone who can't see what's wrong with that picture doesn't know the Lord very well.

It's also worth noting that desecrating the temple of His body, speaking against the Innocent God, is the only abomination that causes desolation.
It's also worth noting that believers from beginning to end are His Temple, so it makes sense that the beast is drpicted as different nations which existed in the past and will to the end
The point is all these prophecies should be understood by what happened to Jesus and the outcome of His victory over the man of sin.

I have read through all your posts on this thread (I'm not singling you out - I do intend to do it for everyone who has posted here) and I remain confused by your position. Jesus warns those that are true believers in him to watch out for a certain occurrence and then to flee:

Matthew 24:15-21
“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equalled again.

Jesus mentions the holy place and Judea, so he is talking about the temple in Israel; his warning is to Christians living in that land when there will be an unparalleled catastrophe. However, you interpret this as: '...speaking against the Innocent God...'

For Jesus warning to have any value at all, then the trigger event needed to be incontrovertible, surely?

 

[journeyman]

I have read through all your posts on this thread (I'm not singling you out - I do intend to do it for everyone who has posted here) and I remain confused by your position. Jesus warns those that are true believers in him to watch out for a certain occurrence and then to flee:

Matthew 24:15-21
“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equalled again.

Jesus mentions the holy place and Judea, so he is talking about the temple in Israel; his warning is to Christians living in that land when there will be an unparalleled catastrophe. However, you interpret this as: '...speaking against the Innocent God...'

For Jesus warning to have any value at all, then the trigger event needed to be incontrovertible, surely?

God was accused of blasphemy. God being nailed to a cross is an unparalleled catastrophe. It's the reason His wrath is on those who don't repent for sinning against Him. His testimony as a man in incontrovertible,

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had nothad sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. Jn.15:12 KJV

 

[Wheat Field]

God was accused of blasphemy. God being nailed to a cross is an unparalleled catastrophe. It's the reason His wrath is on those who don't repent for sinning against Him. His testimony as a man in incontrovertible,

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had nothad sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. Jn.15:12 KJV

I still don't understand why you have interpreted Jesus' Olivet discourse in the way that you have.

I was hoping for an explanation. I'm not even saying you are wrong.

 

[journeyman]

I still don't understand why you have interpreted Jesus' Olivet discourse in the way that you have.

I was hoping for an explanation. I'm not even saying you are wrong.

There is only one abomination which occurs on earth which is different from all others and will never be repeated. It's the defilement of His Temple. Not a man made structure, but His body. We are made part of His Temple, but it's because we are "in Christ" that the abomination against Gods' Temple occurs.

We need to understand this first, or the scriptures are locked. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[Wheat Field]

There is only one abomination which occurs on earth which is different from all others and will never be repeated. It's the defilement of His Temple. Not a man made structure, but His body. We are made part of His Temple, but it's because we are "in Christ" that the abomination against Gods' Temple occurs.

We need to understand this first, or the scriptures are locked. Do you understand what I'm saying?

I understand, yes - but I am wondering about your logic. Is it possible to reason out your conclusion? I guess what I am saying is why couldn't Jesus have just said that? He specifically spoke about the Daniel reference...though it seems even that isn't definitively understood.

I do feel a sense of frustration that there often seems to be grey areas of this type in scripture. I am reminded of the Jews at the time of Jesus (and even now) who thought the messiah would come as a conqueror. So when Jesus read from Isaiah 61 he stops before reading: 'and the day of vengeance of our God...'

 

[journeyman]

I understand, yes - but I am wondering about your logic. Is it possible to reason out your conclusion? I guess what I am saying is why couldn't Jesus have just said that? He specifically spoke about the Daniel reference...though it seems even that isn't definitively understood.

I do feel a sense of frustration that there often seems to be grey areas of this type in scripture. I am reminded of the Jews at the time of Jesus (and even now) who thought the messiah would come as a conqueror. So when Jesus read from Isaiah 61 he stops before reading: 'and the day of vengeance of our God...'

He did come and conquer, but not the way they thought He would.

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal
Zec.14:4-5 KJV

The valley Gods' people escape by reaches the top of the mountain not because they run uphill, but because our Savior turns the land into a plain, level ground.

This is from another passage, but this is the idea,

Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: Isa.40:4

The outpouring of His Spirit is an event that began back then and continues until His 2nd coming in Person,

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. Zec.14:8

which is why Jesus didn't include the part about vengence yet.

Do you see what I'm so far

 

[Wheat Field]

He did come and conquer, but not the way they thought He would.

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal
Zec.14:4-5 KJV

The valley Gods' people escape by reaches the top of the mountain not because they run uphill, but because our Savior turns the land into a plain, level ground.

This is from another passage, but this is the idea,

Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: Isa.40:4

The outpouring of His Spirit is an event that began back then and continues until His 2nd coming in Person,

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. Zec.14:8

which is why Jesus didn't include the part about vengence yet.

Do you see what I'm so far

Sorry, I'm not entirely clear journeyman - perhaps you could explain further?

Regarding the specifics of this thread - previously here you have said:
The "abomination which causes desolation" is the rejection of Gods' Word, which is what happened when Jesus was condemned.

Surely this is problematic since Jesus tells his followers to flee Judea when this occurs. I am not aware of a mass flight of Christians from Judea when Jesus 'was condemned', which must have happened if you are correct in your definition (and assuming Jesus' followers thought the same). According to wikipedia:

The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Jewish Christians had been warned to flee to Pella in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River.

As far as I am aware, nothing occurred at the time Jesus was condemned that necessitated an immediate departure such that even retrieving possessions was something Jesus warned against.

 

[journeyman]

Sorry, I'm not entirely clear journeyman - perhaps you could explain further?

Regarding the specifics of this thread - previously here you have said:
The "abomination which causes desolation" is the rejection of Gods' Word, which is what happened when Jesus was condemned.

Surely this is problematic since Jesus tells his followers to flee Judea when this occurs. I am not aware of a mass flight of Christians from Judea when Jesus 'was condemned', which must have happened if you are correct in your definition (and assuming Jesus' followers thought the same). According to wikipedia:

The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Jewish Christians had been warned to flee to Pella in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River.

As far as I am aware, nothing occurred at the time Jesus was condemned that necessitated an immediate departure such that even retrieving possessions was something Jesus warned against.

It is a problem. It's a problem to say,

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the powerof the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Lk.10:19 KJV,

but then tell people to run enemy. I believe our Savior was speaking spiritually like this,

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Rev.18:4 KJV

This is about Babylon, but the idea is the same. It's not leaving a physical location that keeps us safe. It's abiding in Christ that protects us from all harm.

in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. Rev.18:24

That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel Lk.11:50-51 KJV

How is God going to reqire the the blood of Abel from the generation of Jesus' day, seeing they never even met. They were centures apart.

 

[Wheat Field]

It is a problem. It's a problem to say,

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the powerof the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Lk.10:19 KJV,

but then tell people to run enemy. I believe our Savior was speaking spiritually like this,

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Rev.18:4 KJV

This is about Babylon, but the idea is the same. It's not leaving a physical location that keeps us safe. It's abiding in Christ that protects us from all harm.

in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. Rev.18:24

That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel Lk.11:50-51 KJV

How is God going to reqire the the blood of Abel from the generation of Jesus' day, seeing they never even met. They were centures apart.

In the Olivet discourse Jesus makes many specific points that are to be warning signs. You are suggesting that his warning about the abomination isn't literal - but why stop there? Indeed, where do we draw the line - literal or metaphor? So for example Matthew 24:7-8

Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Why wouldn't we take this literally?

A couple of things I have noticed whilst reading the various accounts we have of the Olivet discourse:

1. In Mark 13:35-37 Jesus says regarding the 'day and hour' which only the Father knows:

“Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”

Is Jesus explicitly stating that his Olivet discourse is for the ears of all believers in him, whether present at that time or not; and even to those not yet born?

2. In the Mathew account we have (vv. 36-41):

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

This is in stark contrast to the signs Jesus gives for the coming destruction of the temple where, 'and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came,' would not be the case. It would not apply to Jews living in Judea in 70AD who were under siege in Jerusalem and suffering a terrible tribulation (if we are to take Josephus's account as true).

I assume Jesus's reference to one being taken and the other left is a reference to one being of the elect and the other not?

 

[Consecrated Life]

He did come and conquer, but not the way they thought He would.

He has not yet come as conquering King .
When He does there will be no doubt in the minds of those He lays waste to that this a literal event , literally happening to them on that day

The LORD Gives Dominion to the King.​

(Mat 22:44; Act 2:34, 35 )

Psa 110:1-5
[[A Psalm of David.]] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.

 

[journeyman]

In the Olivet discourse Jesus makes many specific points that are to be warning signs. You are suggesting that his warning about the abomination isn't literal - but why stop there? Indeed, where do we draw the line - literal or metaphor?

It is literal. The Bible uses symbolism to describe events occuring on earth. The Priests who ministered in the holy place condemned Jesus. They sinned against Jesus, speaking blasphemy against God... accusing Him of sin. This is the abomination which bring desolation.

So for example Matthew 24:7-8

Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Why wouldn't we take this literally?

We should, but He said He came to bring division between people who believe and people who don't. He said son't be alarmed by these "birth pangs." What does a womans pain in bearing a child have to do with all this?

A couple of things I have noticed whilst reading the various accounts we have of the Olivet discourse:

1. In Mark 13:35-37 Jesus says regarding the 'day and hour' which only the Father knows:

“Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”

Is Jesus explicitly stating that his Olivet discourse is for the ears of all believers in him, whether present at that time or not; and even to those not yet born?

Yes because throughout history, all believers are members of His body. Look at the "signs" in the text. Distrees among nations with persecution against Gods' people as the gospel is preached This is how we see Him "coming in the clouds", or shrouded by a covering.

2. In the Mathew account we have (vv. 36-41):

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other

This is in stark contrast to the signs Jesus gives for the coming destruction of the temple where, 'and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came,' would not be the case. It would not apply to Jews living in Judea in 70AD who were under siege in Jerusalem and suffering a terrible tribulation (if we are to take Josephus's account as true).

I assume Jesus's reference to one being taken and the other left is a reference to one being of the elect and the other not?

Yes, but the Messiah wasn't referring to antichrist defiling a temple made of stone.
He meant first Himself and then his body.