Was Jesus Wrong In Matthew 24:34?

[Hidden In Him]

Last year, a thread was created which declared Jesus to essentially be a false prophet. The posts stated:

"I am skeptical about Jesus being who he claimed to be (I'm not a Christian btw)... 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." Moses words in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 state, “But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared." Surely, either Jesus' prophecy is truthful or he is made a false prophet by Moses' words?

The actual verse in question is this: "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matthew 24:34)

The above mentioned thread was shut down since non-Christians are no longer allowed to post except in Questions and Answers, but to answer his "dilemma" here, it is simply this: The common translation of γενεὰ in the expression "οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη" using the word "generation" is actually in error. γενεὰ was used of an "age" as well, and that is what the Lord was referring to here. He was saying "This age - i.e. the church age, prior to the millennium - will not pass away until all these things are fulfilled."

Did the apostles interpret Him to mean He was returning in their time? Yes, it appears they did. But our Lord knew what He was saying, and warned them in that very same Chapter NOT to get lackadaisical, should He not return right away, lest they began to spiritually abuse His people. He was signaling He was well aware His return would not be soon, though it may have been to their benefit to believe it was.

44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. 45 "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. 47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. 48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' 49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, 51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 24:44-51)

Any other responses to the argument raised by the non-Christian are welcome. I am simply presenting mine.

Blessings in Christ,
Hidden In Him

 

[Wheat Field]

I respect your opinion, but disagree. As I said, the Church Fathers, and I as well, have believed that the Abomination of Desolation was something surrounding the 70 AD event. I personally believe it was the Roman Army, the "people of the ruler to come" in Dan 9.26.

My understanding is that not all the Church Fathers agreed - and how could they? The verses that follow v.15 in Matthew 24 make it clear that the tribulation was like no other and would never happen again. Verse 30 clearly describes Jesus' return. That did not happen in 70AD. The siege of Jerusalem was not preceded by a warning sign of an abomination standing in the Holy Place. Paul's 2 Thessalonians 2 description is pretty explicit. How is it remotely possible that occurred back then?

How was the Roman Army an "abomination?" It was because they were pagans desecrating territory devoted as holy to the Lord. How was the Roman Army a "desolator?" It was because they desolated both Jerusalem and the Temple. They were, in literal terms, the "Abomination of Desolation."

That is not equal to a man of sin standing in the Holy Place exalting himself above God. If Jesus' warning sign was to have any meaning it had to be crystal clear what He meant.

This term was used in two different ways in the book of Daniel, and applied to two different events. It was applied to Antiochus 4, who desolated Jerusalem during his reign. And it was applied to the "people of the ruler to come" in Dan 9, which I believe to be the Roman Army.

Jesus virtually identified who this AoD was by stating in his Olivet Discourse that Jerusalem would be surrounded by an Army. At that time it could only have been a Roman Army, since Rome ruled that part of the world. And that's literally what happened in 70 AD--a Roman Army laid seige to Jerusalem and ultimately broke through and destroyed both the city and the sanctuary.

Making it even more obvious we note that Luke's account can be synchronized with and compared with the other two accounts in Matt 24 and Mark 13. Those resources specifically reerenced the AoD. But Luke did not, and in its vey location within the Discourse mentioned this Army that would surround or lay seige to Jerusalem. The AoD must, therefore, be the Roman Army in 70 AD.

This event would lead to Israel's deportation and exile. And indeed, the 70 AD judgment of Israel led to the Jewish Diaspora of the NT era. This could not possibly be the Reign of Antichrist, which will be followed by Armageddon--not yet another Jewish exile and punishment! God said the final deliverance of Israel at Jesus' 2nd Coming would lead to no more Jewish punishments. "Never again" would Israel be destroyed and exiled.

It might be best to deal with this after you have replied.

Matt 24.13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

The Romans didn't enter the Temple until after the siege. By then it was to late.

 

[WIP]

Could you affirm that I'm the original poster please WIP?

Okay, I see that I am in error. I saw the first post in this discussion was made by Hidden In Him when in reality he created this discussion from something you started elsewhere. Sorry about that. For all others, Wheat Field is the OP, not Hidden in Him.

 

[Wheat Field]

No problem at all WIP. Thanks.

 

[RandyK]

My understanding is that not all the Church Fathers agreed - and how could they?

Most all of the Church Fathers saw Daniel's prophecy in Dan 9 and Jesus' prophecy in the Olivet Discourse as focused mainly on the events leading up to 70 AD. Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus were the exceptions, along with perhaps a few others, who held to a future 70th Week of Daniel, applying to the Antichrist.

Today, Futurism, in the mold of Dispensationalism, has adopted the model of Irenaeus--not that of the vast majority of Church Fathers. They wish to see what I believe to be historically-fulfiled prophecies yet to be fulfilled in our time or beyond.

There is no question that there are bibical prophecies yet to be fulfilled. But there are also unquestionably biblical prophecies that have been historically fulfilled.

The verses that follow v.15 in Matthew 24 make it clear that the tribulation was like no other and would never happen again. Verse 30 clearly describes Jesus' return. That did not happen in 70AD.

Jesus identified this "Great Tribulation"--the worst that will ever be, as a "Jewish Punishment only beginning in 70 AD. It will last age-long and was a prophecy specifically directed at Jewish history. This is most clearly seen in Luke's version (ch. 21). Jesus will indeed return at the end of the current "Jewish Diaspora."

This is the worst punishment in Israel's history not just because of the extreme violence of any particular event, but more, because of the sheer longevity of the event, lasting the entire age and threatening the very existence of Israel in exile.

The siege of Jerusalem was not preceded by a warning sign of an abomination standing in the Holy Place. Paul's 2 Thessalonians 2 description is pretty explicit. How is it remotely possible that occurred back then?

The Roman Army, as I said, arrived twice, the 1st time under Cestius Gallus, giving Jesus' Disciples ample warning to "flee to the mountains." This Roman Army was the "Abomination of Desolation," as I see it.

A few years later the Roman Army arrived again, still being called the "Abomination of Desolation." The Disciples had been warned, and were still fleeing by the time this 2nd Army arrived. By 70 AD there was no time left to prepare to leave--the remaining Disciples simply had to "flee" with the clothes on their back.

Paul's description in 2 Thes 2, of Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God, is not related to the 70 AD event. Paul was well aware that the Temple would be destroyed, even though it was still funcitoning in his day.

So, I believe he was referring to Antichrist positioning himself simply in God's place, which Paul described as the Temple. Rulers did not sit in God's Temple in Jerusalem. Paul knew this. Not even Antichrist would do this.

Antichrist, therefore, will simply position himself in God's place, desribed as "the Temple," which is really in heaven. Antichrist positions himself as God on earth, as if he was God's presence within the old Temple of Solomon.

That is not equal to a man of sin standing in the Holy Place exalting himself above God. If Jesus' warning sign was to have any meaning it had to be crystal clear what He meant.

It might be best to deal with this after you have replied.

The Romans didn't enter the Temple until after the siege. By then it was to late.

 

[JLB]

That only by fitting in 'the generation that sees the abomination' into v.34 is it possible to make sense of Jesus' words:

Verily I say to you, the generation that sees the abomination shall not pass until all these things happen.

Making 'this generation'= 'the generation that sees these things' only yields an awkward:

Verily I say to you, the generation that sees these things shall not pass until all these things happen.

Yes sir. Thank you.

 

[Wheat Field]

Most all of the Church Fathers saw Daniel's prophecy in Dan 9 and Jesus' prophecy in the Olivet Discourse as focused mainly on the events leading up to 70 AD. Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus were the exceptions, along with perhaps a few others, who held to a future 70th Week of Daniel, applying to the Antichrist.

Today, Futurism, in the mold of Dispensationalism, has adopted the model of Irenaeus--not that of the vast majority of Church Fathers. They wish to see what I believe to be historically-fulfiled prophecies yet to be fulfilled in our time or beyond.

There is no question that there are bibical prophecies yet to be fulfilled. But there are also unquestionably biblical prophecies that have been historically fulfilled.

Jesus identified this "Great Tribulation"--the worst that will ever be, as a "Jewish Punishment only beginning in 70 AD. It will last age-long and was a prophecy specifically directed at Jewish history. This is most clearly seen in Luke's version (ch. 21). Jesus will indeed return at the end of the current "Jewish Diaspora."

This is the worst punishment in Israel's history not just because of the extreme violence of any particular event, but more, because of the sheer longevity of the event, lasting the entire age and threatening the very existence of Israel in exile.

The Roman Army, as I said, arrived twice, the 1st time under Cestius Gallus, giving Jesus' Disciples ample warning to "flee to the mountains." This Roman Army was the "Abomination of Desolation," as I see it.

A few years later the Roman Army arrived again, still being called the "Abomination of Desolation." The Disciples had been warned, and were still fleeing by the time this 2nd Army arrived. By 70 AD there was no time left to prepare to leave--the remaining Disciples simply had to "flee" with the clothes on their back.

Paul's description in 2 Thes 2, of Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God, is not related to the 70 AD event. Paul was well aware that the Temple would be destroyed, even though it was still funcitoning in his day.

So, I believe he was referring to Antichrist positioning himself simply in God's place, which Paul described as the Temple. Rulers did not sit in God's Temple in Jerusalem. Paul knew this. Not even Antichrist would do this.

Antichrist, therefore, will simply position himself in God's place, desribed as "the Temple," which is really in heaven. Antichrist positions himself as God on earth, as if he was God's presence within the old Temple of Solomon.

Before I reply in detail Randy - may I ask you, are you confident that Jesus was totally unambiguous and transparent in his Olivet Prophecy? Do you understand why this issue might be a cause for scepticism among those who aren't believers?

 

[RandyK]

Before I reply in detail Randy - may I ask you, are you confident that Jesus was totally unambiguous and transparent in his Olivet Prophecy? Do you understand why this issue might be a cause for scepticism among those who aren't believers?

I don't think there's much I'm unaware of in regard to the Olivet Discourse. I memorized it back in the early 70s, and have been studying it ever since. I've not held one but several different views on it. The view I hold now is the product of looking at all positions, and selecting the parts that I see as most likely correct.

Albert Schweitzer, a liberal theologian, cast doubt on Jesus' prediction that he was coming imminently because that has not come to pass. Surely Jesus' was just "human" and was mistaken?

A lot of skeptics simply have latched onto some errant view of what Jesus said. And it isn't difficult to refute them.

 

[Wheat Field]

I don't think there's much I'm unaware of in regard to the Olivet Discourse. I memorized it back in the early 70s, and have been studying it ever since. I've not held one but several different views on it. The view I hold now is the product of looking at all positions, and selecting the parts that I see as most likely correct.

It certainly is an important passage. Well done for having memorized it.

Albert Schweitzer, a liberal theologian, cast doubt on Jesus' prediction that he was coming imminently because that has not come to pass. Surely Jesus' was just "human" and was mistaken?

According to Britannica:
In this and other works he stressed the eschatological views (concerned with the consummation of history) of Jesus and St. Paul, asserting that their attitudes were formed by expectation of the imminent end of the world.

I do find it mystifying that a follower of Christ is able to accommodate Jesus getting this prophecy wrong (especially when knowing that false prophets were to be put to death).

A lot of skeptics simply have latched onto some errant view of what Jesus said. And it isn't difficult to refute them.

Okay, here we disagree. Though I do remain uncertain that I have fully understood all aspects of the prophecy, even just the fact that Christianity is seemingly at war with itself over this is grounds for scepticism. Have you debated sceptics / atheist on this?

 

[Wheat Field]

Most all of the Church Fathers saw Daniel's prophecy in Dan 9 and Jesus' prophecy in the Olivet Discourse as focused mainly on the events leading up to 70 AD. Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus were the exceptions, along with perhaps a few others, who held to a future 70th Week of Daniel, applying to the Antichrist.

Okay.

Today, Futurism, in the mold of Dispensationalism, has adopted the model of Irenaeus--not that of the vast majority of Church Fathers. They wish to see what I believe to be historically-fulfiled prophecies yet to be fulfilled in our time or beyond.

There is no question that there are bibical prophecies yet to be fulfilled. But there are also unquestionably biblical prophecies that have been historically fulfilled.

Jesus identified this "Great Tribulation"--the worst that will ever be, as a "Jewish Punishment only beginning in 70 AD. It will last age-long and was a prophecy specifically directed at Jewish history. This is most clearly seen in Luke's version (ch. 21). Jesus will indeed return at the end of the current "Jewish Diaspora."

Luke's account perhaps differs the most from the other two in that there is no mention of the abomination and it declares that Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles. This does considerably complicate interpretation I would say. Since the assumption is is that all three accounts are of the same speech, then I assume one should read the discourse as an amalgam of all three - would you agree?

This is the worst punishment in Israel's history not just because of the extreme violence of any particular event, but more, because of the sheer longevity of the event, lasting the entire age and threatening the very existence of Israel in exile.

The Roman Army, as I said, arrived twice, the 1st time under Cestius Gallus, giving Jesus' Disciples ample warning to "flee to the mountains." This Roman Army was the "Abomination of Desolation," as I see it.

But no one actually stood in the Holy Place as described by Paul.

A few years later the Roman Army arrived again, still being called the "Abomination of Desolation." The Disciples had been warned, and were still fleeing by the time this 2nd Army arrived. By 70 AD there was no time left to prepare to leave--the remaining Disciples simply had to "flee" with the clothes on their back.

The Matthew account equates this critical moment (the abomination) with a tribulation like no other (or no flesh will be saved), with signs in the heavens and with Christ's return. It just doesn't seem to commute.

Paul's description in 2 Thes 2, of Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God, is not related to the 70 AD event. Paul was well aware that the Temple would be destroyed, even though it was still funcitoning in his day.

When you say Paul was well aware - you mean he would have known about the Olivet prophecy?

So, I believe he was referring to Antichrist positioning himself simply in God's place, which Paul described as the Temple. Rulers did not sit in God's Temple in Jerusalem. Paul knew this. Not even Antichrist would do this.

Antichrist, therefore, will simply position himself in God's place, desribed as "the Temple," which is really in heaven. Antichrist positions himself as God on earth, as if he was God's presence within the old Temple of Solomon.

I'm not following you. Are you saying that the coming antichrist does not require the rebuilding of the Temple? Jesus' followers asked him about the literal building and Jesus responded talking literally. Matthew 24:15 - the abomination standing in the Holy Place. - would have to be no less literal, surely?

 

[Wheat Field]

On the road so I will have to give you a very short answer. But v. 15 is one of the concluding events whereas v.34 is a reminder that all of it will eventually come to pass.

As for His knowing the temple would have to be rebuilt, He certainly predicted accurately that it would be torn down, and if you interpret 2nd Thessalonians 2:4 as the church does, you regard all of scripture as “Spirit-breathed,” which means Jesus was actually aware both that it would be torn down and rebuilt. He was also confirming He knew in Matthew 24:15-16.

Back later today. Blessings,
- H

If Jesus had known that it would be destroyed and then rebuilt then surely saying so would have prevented much of the ensuing confusion?

 

[Hidden In Him]

If Jesus had known that it would be destroyed and then rebuilt then surely saying so would have prevented much of the ensuing confusion?

Wheat field, what you don't understand is that it is not about proving things to you or me or anyone else. He could do that very easily. There is and has been a spiritual war going on, and the Lord does not always telegraph his moves. The enemy very clearly believed the time was at hand during Christ's ministry because the demons asked Him why He was there to torment them before the time. Those who are costantly asking questions like yourself are approaching the question from a self-concentric perspective that doesn't take many things into account other than what they think might help them not be so confused.

I'm not confused, nor am I one to just take things on faith, so there is a discrepancy between the way we are approaching the question. I've spent a lifetime walking with the Lord and having him confirm Himself to me in more ways than I could ever count. So all I can tell you is to call out to Him. If you keep approaching such questions from a place of having no faith, you will never grow to the place where experience allows you to have any.

Blessings,
- H

 

[Wheat Field]

Wheat field, what you don't understand is that it is not about proving things to you or me or anyone else. He could do that very easily.

I don't understand - how else is one supposed to know if there is truth in it other than testing it? I quoted 1 Thessalonians 5: 20-21.

There is and has been a spiritual war going on, and the Lord does not always telegraph his moves.

I am unaware of that.

The enemy very clearly believed the time was at hand during Christ's ministry because the demons asked Him why He was there to torment them before the time. Those who are costantly asking questions like yourself are approaching the question from a self-concentric perspective that doesn't take many things into account other than what they think might help them not be so confused.

This forum is the where such questions are to be asked.

I'm not confused, nor am I one to just take things on faith, so there is a discrepancy between the way we are approaching the question. I've spent a lifetime walking with the Lord and having him confirm Himself to me in more ways than I could ever count. So all I can tell you is to call out to Him. If you keep approaching such questions from a place of having no faith, you will never grow to the place where experience allows you to have any.

I'm to put faith in someone who seemingly has confused his followers? This thread is just one issue that is confusing for a non-believer.

I'm not sure this approach is going to get us very far...but appreciated HIH.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I'm to put faith in someone who seemingly has confused his followers? This thread is just one issue that is confusing for a non-believer.

As I've shown you, it doesn’t confuse me in the least. And as for any supposition that it confused CS Lewis to the point of questioning his faith, that is obviously not the case. And as for the non-believer, I'm sorry but my statements still stand. Remaining faithless and waiting for "proof" to fall on you is not going to happen. You will have to put faith in Him first before you will ever see Him respond.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I'm not sure this approach is going to get us very far...but appreciated HIH.

Worth a shot. I will close this thread then.

Blessings,
- H