Matt 24:34"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Noibody has ever shown me any reason to consider that THIS generation of the Olivet Discourse is any different than the THIS generation of Matthew 23.
Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples:
(It is very important to remember the context and audience. The religious leaders were there too since He gave them the “woes to youâ€Â)
Mat 23:35 So all the righteous blood shed on the earth will be charged to you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Mat 23:36 I assure you: All these things will come on
this generation!
Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!
Mat 23:38 See, your house is left to you desolate.
Mat 23:39 For I tell you, you will never see Me again until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!"
(who knows what else Jesus may have said, but what is clear, is that it was in public during the day and in the temple since Matthew 24:1 has Jesus and the disciples leaving for the Mt. of Olives. My point will simply be to show that Jesus did say more about Jerusalem and its fall while still in the Temple and in public on this very subject.)
Luk 20:1 One day as He was teaching the people in the temple complex and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the scribes, with the elders, came up….
(The point to note here is that Luke is recording the same Temple discourse that Matthew 22 & 23 is recording. Both have the “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s dialogue and the widow and the mite, etc. The fact that they are not exactly the same speaks to the fact that Jesus said a lot more than was able to be recorded. If Jesus taught for hours then a small Gospel book by our standards would have to carefully pick and choose what to include.)
Luk 21:37 During the day, He was teaching in the temple complex, but in the evening He would go out and spend the night on what is called the Mount of Olives.
Luk 21:38 Then all the people would come early in the morning to hear Him in the temple complex
(Just so you know how extensive Jesus’ teachings were, Luke feels that it is necessary to state this fact that Jesus came in the morning to teach during the day. And when they day was over, He went to the Mt of Olives for the night. So if Jesus conservatively taught 6 hours out of 12 available hours in the Jewish day, just how many equivalent N.T pages would it fill if recorded verbatim?)
Luk 21:5 As some were talking about the temple complex, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, He said,
(Do you see anywhere in this passage where it is recorded that Jesus left the Temple? Luke who is so careful about what He states in Luke 21:37-38 doesn’t mention that Jesus is on his way to leave when the question is asked about the buildings. After all Jerusalem’s house is to be left desolate as Matthew recorded. The buildings were beautiful. Jesus felt the need to respond that they would crumble. And then the disciples asked when?
So, we could say that Jesus decided to ignore them from that point on and walked back in silence to the Mt of Olives to retire for the night before the dialogue continues. But is that who Jesus is? Is Jesus going to ignore the question of His disciples into whom He is pouring His life and teaching? Is He going to make them ask again as if He were aloof or in a dour mood? This is Jesus’ last week and the imparting of important last minute teaching was imperative and I will argue that Jesus taught as many hours as humanly were possible during the day in the Temple and did not pass up any questions or opportunities to extend His teaching. Would this be the Jesus you would expect?Of course alternatively, the disciples could have been the quite ones and mulled it over until later that night and Luke just failed to mention it.)
Mat 24:3 While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately…
Mar 13:3 While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives across from the temple complex, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately,
(The issue is that you have to come to terms with the when and where of Luke 21. Did Jesus teach one in public and the other in private? If Luke was so diligent about recording Luke 1:1-4 and Luke 21:37-38,then why would he miss such an important transition from public to private and from the Temple to the Mt of Olives?)
Mar 4:34 And He did not speak to them without a parable. Privately, however, He would explain everything to His own disciples.
(There were patterns in Jesus’ teaching that reflected the public teaching and the private explanation. See also Matt 13:36)
(My point would be that Matthew 24 is part of a private explanation of what was taught in public in Matthew 23 and Luke20-21.)
(Now just so you know I’m not trying to hide anything, the weakest part of my argument that I am still working through is the apparent parallelism in structure between the three accounts of Luke 21, Matthew 24, Mark 13. Though there are significant variations, particularly in the discussion of armies surrounding Jerusalem verses the abomination of desolation. Did Jesus really explain it to the disciples using the same general outline? In other instances there were more marks that were indicative of explanation, but that doesn’t mean that Matthew and mark are devoid of the either.)
Mat 24:8 All these events are the beginning of birth pains.
Mar 13:8 …These are the beginning of birth pains.
(This explanation is not recorded in Luke)
Mat 24:15 …let the reader understand.
Mark 13:14 …let the reader understand.
(This admonishment to understand the meaning is not recorded in Luke.)
Mat 24:9 "Then they will…
Mar 13:9 …They will…
Vs.
Luk 21:12 But before all these things, they will….
(The timing is opposite in Luke.)
(Matt24:22-28 parallels Mark 13:20-23. And where these are supposed to parallel with Luke, there is one verse, Luke 21:24. Rather than speaking of the necessity to cut the days short or to watch out for false christs, Luke simply speaks of the time of the Gentiles. One could say that Matthew and mark provide new and different information as an explanation thus showing that in at least three places Jesus is providing explanation while no such explanations are available in Luke 21 other than Luke’s observation of verses 37-38.)
(There are also a lot of things in Luke that are not recorded in Matthew or Mark or are recorded differently. Some have argued that Luke was more precise and that he just interpreted it all for us? Is this your Bible? Is this your Bible where the very disciples cannot write what Jesus meant and that an outsider like Luke is able to do an investigation into these matters per the thesis of the book and have more inspired and clearer words from the Holy Spirit? Rather than deal with these oddities and uncomfortable doctrinal issues that comparing these passages brings up, is it not more likely that Jesus had plenty of opportunity to teach what I takes you 5 minutes to read many times in one day if needed? Isn’t it more likely that Jesus took whatever time remained in his sojourn on earth to explain not only answer their questions but to explain it ten times over if need be? We do know as a fact that Jesus spoke of these things at least one more time. Luke 17:22-37 records a similar teaching. )
…recognize that He is near--at the door!
Mat 24:34 I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.
…know that He is near--at the door!
Mar 13:30 I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.
Vs.
…recognize that the kingdom of God is near.
Luk 21:32 I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all things take place.
(So my main point would not to convince you that “this generation†is speaking literally of a 1st century generation in one place and of the generation that sees these things happen in another as others have argued from context.
No, my point would be to show you that you can also not say that they are definitely the same generation on the basis of the variations between Luke 21 and the private teachings on Matthew 24 and Mark 13.)
