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]

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

Have certainly heard this argument before - so please let me ask you: how specific is your reading of v.15 of Matthew 24?

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—

Here is Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4):
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

I believe it is assumed this was written in c. 52AD

 

[Hidden In Him]

Have certainly heard this argument before - so please let me ask you: how specific is your reading of v.15 of Matthew 24?

“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—

Here is Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4):
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

I believe it is assumed this was written in c. 52AD

I take it literally, why?

 

[Wheat Field]

I take it literally, why?

I ask because this event is in contrast to all the signs that Jesus describes previously to it; they were abstract - this is very specific. It appears, to me at least, to be a sine qua non - much as Paul implies in 2 Thes. 2. If γενεὰ is rendered as you described, then v.34 seems to become almost redundant because Jesus has already told them the watershed future event. He would thus appear to be saying: Christianity won't pass till all these things happen (though, of course, I have just told you that I will send my angels to gather the elect (Christians) from the the four winds).

Of course preterists think that v.15 happened in 70AD. From my perspective, such internal conflict over what Jesus meant is pretty catastrophic for the Gospel. Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21

Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good,

I assume you believe that a future rebuilding of the Temple is necessary? Do you think that Jesus did not know that the Temple would have to be rebuilt? Jesus tells us what He did not know (i.e. the date and time of His return), but it seems he did not know this either.

 

[Wheat Field]

This generation, Matthew 24:34 means generational line of those who follow Christ and endure all things until the end of days and Christ returns. Generation can refer to a group of people, a period of time, or even a lineage

Please see #23.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are three disciples who wrote of the same witness as they testify of what Jesus gave as answers to the three questions the disciples asked Him. When shall these things be? What shall be the sign of they coming and the end of the world? Matthew 24:

Only in Matthew is Jesus asked about the sign of his coming and the end of the age.

The first thing Jesus proceeds to tell them is that of the destruction of the Temple of God that happened in 70AD and then proceeds to speak of the beginning of sorrows, Matthew 24:4-8, Rev 6:1-17, and not to be deceived nor be troubled for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

The problem remains that the destruction of the Temple in 70AD (where indeed no stone was left on another) appears to be conflated with the Parousia by Jesus Himself. Neither Mark nor Luke included a question about 'the end of the age', but Jesus does refer to as much.

Matthew 24:9-26 Jesus tells the disciples of the afflicting trials and tribulations that the abomination of desolations that Daniel spoke of, Daniel Chapter 7, 9, 11; Rev Chapter 13, that they must endure all the persecutions even to death while preaching the Gospel, Matthew 10:28, during the six seals, seven trumpets and seven vial judgments until Christ returns.

Jerusalem has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times, but God's covenant promises stand forever given to all who will come to Him by His mercy and grace through faith and believe in His only begotten Son Christ Jesus, John 3:16-17.

Interesting.

 

[Wheat Field]

Btw, the original post was by Wheat Field, who had originally posted this:

Lay Anglican theologian and author C.S. Lewis 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."

Lewis described this verse (Mathew 24:34, Luke 21:32 & Mark 13:30) as the 'most embarrassing verse in the Bible'.

Are the sceptics right that this represents a serious obstacle to faith?

Thanks HIM - yes. this was my position then and is so now. I am a sceptic, but remain very interested in Christ.

 

[Wheat Field]

I was taught that "this generation" is referring to the generation that sees "all these things" (vs 33). And "these things" are the things mentioned by Jesus about the signs that would preceed His second coming, which was a question from his disciples in Matthew 24:3. This interpretation is not dispositive, but it makes sense to me.

This was my thinking a while back, but (and to be rather pedantic), this renders v.34 a little awkward:
The generation that sees all these things will not pass till all these things happen.

Jesus does single out v.15 as critical - an abomination standing in the Holy Place - and v.34 does make sense if that is what Jesus meant by 'this generation'.

 

[Wheat Field]

“Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. Matthew 24:32-35

• this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

The generation that “sees these things” will by no means pass away.
The context of this sermon is founded upon the question….
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Matthew 24:3
Jesus spent Matthew 24-25 answering this question.
So contextually speaking “this generation” refers to the generation that “sees these things” and is the generation that will witness His coming and the end of the age.
Preterist’s love take this this scripture as their “proof text” for establishing their doctrine while ignoring the contextual framework that Jesus so carefully laid out.


I think we all agree that Jesus is speaking prophetically and as He is speaking He is also “seeing” the things He is speaking about. In other words He is “there” in real time as well as there with His disciples, so to Him, (or anyone who operates in visions and prophetically) He is speaking in the moment to the Church; to those to whom it applies.

• and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

• So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Please see #26.

 

[Wheat Field]

In sum, Jerusalem would fall "in this generation," ie in the generation that the temple is destroyed by the Roman Army, which would then lead to an age-long Jewish Diaspora. In this time Christians would at times be rejected or persecuted.

Before we move on to the rest of your post - please could tell me how Jesus can be referring to the 70AD destruction? Which verse specifically please? If you are referring to v.34 (i.e. Matthew 24), then Jesus is referring to the abomination of v.15 which, if it is to have any delineation at all, cannot have occurred in 70AD (the entering of the Temple by the Romans after the 5 month siege does not equate with a warning sign for the Jews / Christians there...obviously they were under siege).

...and yet the Temple was destroyed as described...to the very last stone.

From a non-believer's perspective, this does look very awkward.

 

[Wheat Field]

Hi JLB.
A very long time ago I was a staunch supporter and promoter of the idea that the last half of the "70th Week" is future and is synonymous with the 3.5 years of Antichrist's Reign. I gave up that position because the argument against it was too strong to resist.

I was told that the 70th Week would make no sense if it is disconnected from the previous 69 Weeks by any period of time, let alone for 2 millennia! The minute you separate the 70th Week from the preceding 69th Week they cease to be part of the same time frame and specified period of fulfillment.

After all, if you say I'll be home in 10 minutes, and show up 10 years later, you cannot say that you actually did come home in 10 minutes--it's just that the 9th minute and the 10th minute were separated by 10 years! ;)

So I gave up on that misinterpretation, being irrational, and eventually settled on the view of the Church Fathers, which is that the 70th Week was the final Week of a 70 Week period. But in the end the 70th Week and completion of this period was confirmed by a Roman ruler, who terminates Temple Worship. He terminated "sacrifice and offering," and in doing so, confirmed the Messianic covenant sealed by his blood.

After all, the background to this prophecy was all about the Temple's restoration and its future. In the 1st 7 Weeks the Temple is rebuilt, and then for another 62 Weeks it stands until the Messiah is cut off, followed by the destruction of that Temple in his generation. This is precisely what Jesus predicted in his Olivet Discourse--Luke is the most graphic in this.

The final Week was therefore ended when Christ was cut off, which was to be followed by the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. That is what happened, and that is what the Church Fathers believed. So do I.

There was no abomination standing in the Holy Place in 70AD - none that would serve as a clear sign for followers of Jesus to flee immediately.

 

[Wheat Field]

According to Apologetics Press:
What did atheistic author Mike Davis allege was the “smoking gun” that proved to him once and for all that “Christianity could not possibly be true”? What “sealed the issue” and led him to believe “Jesus was wrong…and no more deserving of our belief than any other guy”? When did the case against the Bible and Christianity become “closed”? In chapter one of his book, The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity, Davis explained that Matthew 24:34 was the deciding factor.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I ask because this event is in contrast to all the signs that Jesus describes previously to it; they were abstract - this is very specific. It appears, to me at least, to be a sine qua non - much as Paul implies in 2 Thes. 2. If γενεὰ is rendered as you described, then v.34 seems to become almost redundant because Jesus has already told them the watershed future event. He would thus appear to be saying: Christianity won't pass till all these things happen (though, of course, I have just told you that I will send my angels to gather the elect (Christians) from the the four winds).

Of course preterists think that v.15 happened in 70AD. From my perspective, such internal conflict over what Jesus meant is pretty catastrophic for the Gospel. Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21

Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good,

I assume you believe that a future rebuilding of the Temple is necessary? Do you think that Jesus did not know that the Temple would have to be rebuilt? Jesus tells us what He did not know (i.e. the date and time of His return), but it seems he did not know this either.

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

 

[Wheat Field]

Interestingly, Apologetics Press goes with Wayne Jackson's (Christian Courier) apologetic:

Now here is the point: Matthew 24:34 is a clear, literal statement from the Lord relative to the events previously discussed. This text, therefore, must be a prevailing guideline in the interpretation of this inspired narrative.

Crucial to understanding this verse, and the context overall, is the term “generation.” The Lord clearly indicated that “this” generation, i.e., his generation, would not “pass away,” until the events depicted in verses 4-33 were “accomplished,” i.e., fulfilled.

Jackson makes no attempt to explain how the abomination took place in 70AD. There is also no ruling out the possibility of the reassignment of the pronoun 'this' given the specifics of those whom Jesus is addressing in v.15ff. Jesus says 'When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place....'. Those alive at Jesus' time did not see that happen.

 

[WIP]

This discussion is in the Questions and Answers forum and the rules of this forum require that posts address the oringinal posters questions only. If you wish to discuss replies posted by others, you must start a new discussion thread in another forum. Any further posts that violate this rule will be removed.

 

[for_his_glory]

Please see #23.

Only in Matthew is Jesus asked about the sign of his coming and the end of the age.

The problem remains that the destruction of the Temple in 70AD (where indeed no stone was left on another) appears to be conflated with the Parousia by Jesus Himself. Neither Mark nor Luke included a question about 'the end of the age', but Jesus does refer to as much.

Interesting.

I'm sorry, but this is the Q&A forum and all replies must be addressed to Hidden In Him who started this thread according to the ToS.

 

[Wheat Field]

I'm sorry, but this is the Q&A forum and all replies must be addressed to Hidden In Him who started this thread according to the ToS.

? The thread is a reposting of my thread. It is for unbelievers or new believers to post a question and get replies from believers...that is my understanding.

 

[Wheat Field]

This discussion is in the Questions and Answers forum and the rules of this forum require that posts address the oringinal posters questions only. If you wish to discuss replies posted by others, you must start a new discussion thread in another forum. Any further posts that violate this rule will be removed.

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

 

[JLB]

Please see #26.

What’s your point?

 

[RandyK]

There was no abomination standing in the Holy Place in 70AD - none that would serve as a clear sign for followers of Jesus to flee immediately.

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.

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."

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.

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.

Mark 13.13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out.

Luke 21.19 Stand firm, and you will win life.
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

 

[RandyK]

Before we move on to the rest of your post - please could tell me how Jesus can be referring to the 70AD destruction? Which verse specifically please? If you are referring to v.34 (i.e. Matthew 24), then Jesus is referring to the abomination of v.15 which, if it is to have any delineation at all, cannot have occurred in 70AD (the entering of the Temple by the Romans after the 5 month siege does not equate with a warning sign for the Jews / Christians there...obviously they were under siege).

...and yet the Temple was destroyed as described...to the very last stone.

From a non-believer's perspective, this does look very awkward.

There were two advances of the Roman Army to Jerusalem, laying seige to it. The 1st one was in 66 AD and led by Cestius Gallus did not penetrate the walls of Jerusalem. When Gallus withdrew from Jerusalem this not only became a preliminary warning sign to Jesus' Disciples, who had been warned of the gathering of eagles, but it gave them time to prepare their things and leave.

Pregnant women had more difficulty doing this than others. And Sabbath rests hampered preparations, as well. Those who stayed the longest had an immediate need to leave when the 2nd Army approached under Titus, who would succeed in penetrating the walls, and destroying both Jerusalem and the Temple.

Jesus gave a number of preliminary signs to his disciples to confirm what he was saying. He called them "birth pains." And instead of this resulting in a successful childbirth this would be more of a still birth. Not only would the fig tree not produce fruit, but it would be uprooted. Perhaps the only "fruit" that Israel would successfully bear would be the Christians who had to flee this terrible judgment?

The signs Jesus listed would include rumors of coming war, and actual nearby wars, indicating that Rome was in a "fighting mood," putting down rebellions, such as Israel was contemplating.

There would also be the sign of Israel's rebellion, being unwilling to repent before Jesus' preaching, and facing certain judgment as a result. The Jews would persecute Christians, and lose their spirituality and love, choosing hostility and sin in place of true obedience to God.

There would be other signs of God's disfavor towards the Jews, including the dread of the whole range of divine punishment, described as the "roaring of the seas." There would be signs in the heavens, indicating divine judgment against fallen angels and earthly rulers previously appointed by God. There would also be famines and earthquakes. All this was to happen in Jesus' generation, after he was rejected by Israel and put to death by the Romans.

 

[Wheat Field]

What’s your point?

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.