BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

Matthew 24:34

T
todd Aug 16, 2006

Matthew 24 seems to be a very famous chapter concerning the end times. In it, Jesus warns of false Christs, wars and rumors of wars, nation rising up against nation, kingdom against kingdom, famines, earthquakes, tribulation, falling away, hate, false prophets, lawlessness, the abomination of desolation, the sun being darknened, the moon not giving it's light, the stars falling from the sky, the tribes of the earth mourning, the Son of Man coming in the clouds with power and great glory, the angel with the great trumpet to gather, and other such things that, it seems, most people still think haven't occured yet.

But then, in verse 34, after talking about all these things, Jesus says, "Truly I say to you, [i]this generation[/i] will not pass away until [i]all[/i] these things take place."

Earlier in the chapter we discover that Jesus was talking to his disciples here. He tells them that their generation, the one alive at that time, will not pass until all of the things he just told them about take place.

Why, then, are we still looking for these things to take place? Jesus said [i]that[/i] generation, the one alive around 30 AD, would see [i]all[/i] of those things come to pass, right? Is it possible that we've missed something here?

M
MSeaman Aug 16, 2006

Hi Todd,
Some people think it means the generation when Israel was made into a nation again. Meaning the generation in 1948.

P
philologos Aug 16, 2006

There is a an earlier passage in Matthew which may give some clues too.“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.”
(Matt 16:27-17:2 KJVS)Was this their first glimpse of the king in his kingdom?

T
todd Aug 17, 2006

Melissa,
I've never heard that before but I don't see how it could be understood that way when Jesus said "this generation," referring to the one that was alive back then.

Ron,
To answer your question, it does seem to me that it could have been their first glimpse. But, then again, I guess it could have been when He turned water into wine and began to "manifest His glory," right? But does this help us with the question at hand?


J
JFEdgar Aug 17, 2006

It is pretty clear He was speaking of the generation that see's those signs that he speaks of in the previous verses. In other words, when these things begin, it means that it will be within that generation that the end will come.

"This generation shall not pass until all of these things take place"

The generation that sees the first signs will not pass before the Lord comes in all of His glory.

At the end of this chapter and the beginning of the next chapter, He gives a very stern warning to all those who call themselves His disciples, who are not prepared for His coming.

J
JFEdgar Aug 17, 2006

Something else:

Scofield:


Gr. "genea," the primary definition of which is, "race, kind, family, stock, breed." (So all lexicons.) That the word is used in this sense because none of "these things," i.e. the world-wide preaching of the kingdom, the great tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect, occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The promise is, therefore, that the generation--nation, or family of Israel--will be preserved unto "these things"; a promise wonderfully fulfilled to this day.

Regardless of which of these is true (though ive always interpreted as the generation that sees the signs, or sees the 'fig tree when the branch is yet tender and and it putteth forth leaves' - that generation will not pass till the Lord comes in His glory) it is clear to me that the Lord has not come with Great glory (a second time) in the clouds to gather His people.

Matthew 24:30-31 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

If this has already happened then you and I are not christians. We are not his elect. We are not part of the bride. The bible does not apply to us, because it was written to the elect.

The good news for us is the nations of the earth have never mourned together because they saw the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, the stars have never fallen from the sky, the powers of the heavens have never been shaken, there has never been a mass dissappearance of the Christian church. It is a good thing too... it means we are His bride, we are the elect (if you have truly been born again), we are His church. We are those who wait for the return of the Bridegroom for His bride so we can appear with Him at the great wedding feast. We have not missed the feast... it did not occur in 70 AD, His bride is still on this earth waiting for His return.

T
todd Aug 17, 2006

Joe,
Thanks for your post. You have helped me see how people have traditionally understood this verse.

That Scofield reference is interesting, though do you think it could be biased? My Zodhiates lexical aid says:

"Genea: a coll. noun whose original meaning is generation, i.e., a multitude of contemporaries. In N.T. [Greek] [i]genea[/i] literally means space of time, circle of time, which only in a derived sense signifies the meaning of a time, a race; then generally in the sense of affinity of communion based upon the sameness of stock... The connection alone must decide whether the sense is limited to the state of society at a certain time or whether the word refers simply to race or stock."

Zodhiates then says, "The word [i]genea[/i] in Mt. 24:34 meant the type of Jew with whom Jesus was conversing during that particular time. He was telling them that this generation or type, such as the Sadducees and Pharisees of that day, would not pass away until all these things occured and until His coming again"

But how does he know that for sure?

After reading that stuff from the lexical aid, here's my initial thoughts. First, it seems he's saying that the most natural meaning of the word is "generation" meaning "a multitude of contemporaries." And that only in a derived sense it could maybe signify stock, kind, or race. But then he seems to claim with authority that Matt. 24:34 is referring to the derived sense. But my question is, what if it isn't?

In rereading the chapter, I noticed something interesting. In verse 3 it says, "And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sing of Your coming, and of the end of the Age?"

Jesus responds to them, "See to it that no one misleads [b]you[/b]."

He goes on throughout the chapter, in answering their question, saying to them "you." For example, in verse 6 He says, "And [b]you[/b] will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars; see that [b]you[/b] are not frightened..."

And in verse 15 Jesus tells His disciples, "Therefore when [b]you[/b] see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION..."

And in verse 33 He tells them, "even so [b]you[/b] too, when [b]you[/b] see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door."

Why would Jesus warn His disciples to be careful that nobody misleads them if all the things He was talking about weren't going to take place for 2000 years? Why would He tell them that they would hear of wars and rumors of wars, tell them not to be frightened, tell them they would see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION- that [i]they[/i] would see all those things?

Doesn't it seem like the clearest, most natural reading and interpretation of this chapter is that Jesus is talking to His disciples and telling them that they and their generation will see all these things?

I wonder if we haven't tried to fit this chapter into our understanding so that we can feel ok about it. Because, it might seem to us at first glance, that if Jesus really did mean that His contemporary disciples and that generation would see all those things come to pass, then He was wrong. But what if we simply haven't interpreted and understood all those things correctly, and they really did all take place before that generation passed? Could that be possible?

I'm wondering if men's intentions have been good in that they refused to believe that Jesus was wrong and tried to help other people understand. But what if these good-intentioned people have been wrong, and that this traditional understanding is wrong? What if?

C
Christinyou Aug 17, 2006

Mt 24:34
Verse 34. This generation, etc. This age; this race of men. A generation is about thirty or forty years. The destruction of Jerusalem took place about forty years after this was spoken. Cmt. on Mt 16:28.
Till all these things, etc. Till these things shall receive a full accomplishment. Till events shall take place that shall be a complete fulfillment, if there were nothing farther intended. He does not mean to exclude here the reference to the judgment, but to say that the destruction of Jerusalem would be such as to make appropriate the words of the prediction, were there nothing beyond. So when death was threatened to Adam, the propriety of the threatening would have been seen, and the threatening would have been fulfilled, had men suffered only temporal death. At the same time, the threatening had a fulness of meaning, that would cover also, and justify, eternal death in hell. Thus the words of Christ, describing the destruction of Jerusalem, had a fulness of signification that would meet also the events of the judgment, and whose meaning would not be filled up till the world was closed.

By Albert Barns, notes on the bible.

IN Christ: Phillip

P
philologos Aug 17, 2006

Ron,
To answer your question, it does seem to me that it could have been their first glimpse. But, then again, I guess it could have been when He turned water into wine and began to "manifest His glory," right? But does this help us with the question at hand?
Todd
I was taken with the contextualisation of Matthew's account. He counts six days from the promise of 'seeing the Son of man in his kingdom' to the experience of the transfiguration. Why would he start the count-down from that point? It seems that in Matthew's recollection and understanding there was some kind of connection between these two events.

The transfiguration is curious because Moses and Elijah both appear and are recognisable to Peter, James and John. In what 'body' did they appear? Moses was buried and Elijah never died but here they are together. Strange things happen when eternity touches times and sometimes different time scales operate at the same time.

I was reading Jeremiah this morning and reflecting on God's ways with time. “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”
(Psa 90:4 KJVS)

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
(2Pet 3:8 KJVS) Suppose we had two maps, one to a scale of a thousand miles to the inch and another to a scale of half a mile to the inch. In our finite capacity we could work at one scale or the other. We would use the larger scale for a panoramic view and the smaller scale to trace a narrow footpath. Human beings are wonderful but we are very much either/or creatures. (Hence the conversations we have on these forums. ;-)) But God is able to think and work to both scales at the same time. To Him a thousand years are as a day and a day as a thousand years AT THE SAME TIME.

I have always loved and envied the way in which artists (painters, scuptors, writers) are able to freeze a moment in time to give us chance to examine it. There is a thousand years in one day we just don't aren't able to slow the tape down... or to speed it up to see the passage of a thousand years in a single day.

I like to think of the scriptures in this way too. We have macro revelation where the whole flow of history unveals the character and purpose of God and the unit of measurement is in millennia. But the scriptures is such that every 'jot and tittle' are vital. At different times in our understanding we think in one scale or the other. This is the relative advantage of translations and paraphrases; they both have their place.

When eternity touches time of the earth-time axes time seems to get disjointed, as we would view it. There is another example of this in...“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
(Matt 27:50-53 KJVS) This unit of time stretches from the cross to the resurrection but almost reads as if it happened all at the same time. And which resurrection is this we are reading about? If we read the passage carefully we discover it was 'after his resurrection'. What happened to these people? They appeared to 'many' in Jerusalem. They appear briefly on the radar and then no more! Some say they were around until the ascension but my Bible doesn't say so. Did they get their own private rapture? or did they experience the same rapture that we identify in 1 Thess 4? Have they already experienced in the past what has not yet happened from the perspective of we who still await his coming?

Curious things happen when eternity touches time and we have to be able to hold different scales of time in our hearts at the same time to even begin to grasp what is happening. That is what I was hinting at in my post.

Peter, James and John glimpsed an 'eternal moment' where time no longer holds things in ordered rows. If Moses was seen in the body he must have experienced resurrection but then Christ is the firstfruits, how could Moses have risen before Christ's resurrection. He didn't. In 'time' his resurrection is yet to be but in this glimpse of the king in his kingdom all 'times' have flowed into an eternal present moment.

Do you understand what I mean?

...me neither. :-D

O
OverSeer Aug 17, 2006

Why, then, are we still looking for these things to take place? Jesus said that generation, the one alive around 30 AD, would see all of those things come to pass, right? Is it possible that we've missed something here?

Todd, the theological viewpoint that you have brought to bear on this thread would be called either "partial-preterism" or "preterism." Partial-preterists believe that the events of AD 70 (the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple) historically fulfilled the Tribulation, but they don't believe that Jesus has come back yet. Full Preterists believe that everything including Christ's return has been historically fulfilled in AD 70.

I disagree with both viewpoints based on these reasons. (1) I believe that the prophecies of the end-times in Matthew 24 are given by the Lord in chronological order as to how they will be fulfilled. (A) The Lord prophesied of the destructioin of Jerusalem and the temple from Matthew 23:38 - 24:2. This prophecy was literally and historically fulfilled in AD 70. (B)The Lord prophesied of "birth-pangs" that would [i]deliver[/i] to tribulation in Matthew 24:4-8. (C) The Lord prophesied about the characteristics of the tribulation in Matthew 24:9-14). (D) The Lord prophesied about the Great Tribulation (the great wrath of Satan - see Revelation 12:12) and the revealing of the Antichrist (which Titus of AD 70 doesn't match in Scripture - see 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10) in Matthew 24:15-28. (E) The Lord prophesied about the Day of the Lord (the wrath of God - which is what we are promised to be saved from) and His return in Matthew 24:29-31.

The events of AD 70 fulfilled the Lord's first prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and His Parable of the Landowner in Matthew 21:33-44.

(2) I believe that the parables of the end-times from Matthew 24:32 - 25:46 teach several elements about the return of the Lord. (A) We can't know the day and the hour but we can know the season - Matthew 24:32 Jesus used a fig tree as the illustration but Luke 21:29 says, "Behold the fig tree [i]and all the trees[/i]." I submit to you that Jesus wasn't talking about Israel becoming a nation again in 1948 but He was talking about the birth-pangs, tribulation, and great tribulation being precursors to the Day of the Lord and His return. (B)When this happens it will result in the judgment of the world. (C) There was going to be a delay of the Lord's return - "Now while the bridegroom was delaying" (24:5) and "Now [i]after a long time[/i] the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them (25:19). In His prophesies the Lord wasn't delaying after the tribulation - "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" - so for the events of AD 70 to fulfill the tribulation - Jesus would have already come and already established His millenial reign. The world wouldn't be as it is today if that were so.

This is why I am still looking for these things to take place. I pray that this makes sense.

Grace and peace
Olan

T
todd Aug 17, 2006

I don't really get the second part of the Barnes commentary, but I think the first part is interesting and helpful. He seems to take the position that I have been considering lately.

Ron,
I think I agree with you, at least to some degree. But I'm not totally sure. But I'm still wondering how this helps us with the question at hand. What's the connection/application?

Olan,
Thank you for clarifying. I didn't know those terms you mentioned such as "preterist." What does that word mean, anyway? I'm not sure I fit into those camps, but it's interesting to me that they exist. Are there any good books out there about them?

O
OverSeer Aug 17, 2006

Preter = a prefix meaning "beyond," "by," "past."

Preterit = a verb tense referring to a past, completed, action or state.

Therefore a preterist believes the tribulation along with the Lord's return has been historically fulfilled - that it is a past, completed, action or state.

Todd, I am not sure that I have read any books on preterism but I do know that I have read articles in various publications.

Grace and peace
Olan

P
philologos Aug 17, 2006

These [url=http://wiki.biblebase.com/index.php/The_Revelation]links to schools of eschatological schools of thought[/url] will give you an easy access to various ways of interpreting the doctrines of the second coming and later.

P
philologos Aug 17, 2006

todd's

Ron,
I think I agree with you, at least to some degree. But I'm not totally sure. But I'm still wondering how this helps us with the question at hand. What's the connection/application?

There is a subtle variation in the record of Luke. “And when these things [u]begin to come to pass[/u], then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”
(Luke 21:28 KJVS) The period referred to in scripture as 'the last days' is an era rather than a calendar date. Christ's presentation to Israel through the ministry of John Baptist was its commencement. (which is why, I suspect, the replacement for Judas had to have been a witness to the era's commencement. (Acts 1:22)) Peter's explanation of the significance of the outpouring of the Spirit was that is was a sign of the 'last days'. “And it shall come to pass in [u]the last days[/u], saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:”
(Acts 2:17 KJVS) We are still on the 'same page', still on the same 'day'. We have been in the era of the last days since John declared "repent for the kingdom of heaven has arrived".

The events that would overtake jerusalem in the lifetime of Christ's hearers were a certain sign that the ages were coming to their culmination. The revolution followed by civil war followed by the Roman's retribution which culminated in AD70 brought a physical end to the Old Covenant. (the spiritual end was Calvary) On July 17th AD 70 the desperate defenders of the Temple ran out of lambs for the morning sacrifice and the Old Covenant was over. The conditions described in Matthew, which I presume is pre-ad70, were hideously fulfilled in the disintegration of the nation, its culture and its priesthood in AD 70.

The Preterist says 'it was then and is over'. The Futurist says 'it is on its way'. My perspective is that it is all 'in process' and has been since the era began. This is only a couple of days from one of God's perspectives. Will there be future destructions in store for Jerusalem? I don't know. It is not necessary to my understanding of the last days for there to be a further judgment. I don't say it won't, just that I don't know and all the protestations of the Futurists leave me unconvinced.

T
todd Aug 17, 2006

Thanks Olan.

Ron,
Wow, I have just stumbled upon a whole new realm of understanding with all of this. Thanks for that link. Very helpful. The Partial Preterist view seems the most intriguing to me at this point. And what if it's true? What a paradigm shift!

I was surprised by this quotation from that site you linked to:
"Thus partial preterists are in agreement and conformity with the historic ecumenical creeds of the Church and articulate the doctrine of the resurrection held by the early Church Fathers."

And I've never even been exposed to this view in my 5 or so years of my Christian walk! Strange...

I am open to the idea of more of a "both and" possibility as opposed to a strict "either or" concerning the fulfillment of these things, as you seem to suggest. Like that there could be different "senses" in which these things are fulfilled.

Thanks again.

T
todd Aug 18, 2006

I was just rereading the Partial Preterist section from that link you provided and found this quotation:

"Partial Preterism is generally considered to be an historic orthodox interpretation as it affirms all items of the ecumenical Creeds of the Church. Still, Partial Preterism is not the majority view among American denominations founded after the 16th century and meets with significant vocal opposition, especially by those denominations which espouse Dispensationalism."

Isn't that fascinating? Wouldn't you think the early church fathers knew what they were talking about? I mean, they might not have got it all perfectly right. But I just can't believe I've never been told any of this before.

P
philologos Aug 18, 2006

Isn't that fascinating? Wouldn't you think the early church fathers knew what they were talking about? I mean, they might not have got it all perfectly right. But I just can't believe I've never been told any of this before.

The thing to remember is that those early church fathers (who certainly didn't get it all right!) would not have described themselves as Preterist. They would have looked upon their own day as being right on the heels of those AD 70 etc destructions and seem to have expected a soon return. Only history calls them Preterists.

This may be significant. Each generation seems to interpret the prophetic scriptures in the light of its own contemporary setting. Each generation reads the phrase “He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen.... feels the truth of it in their heart and replies Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”
(Rev 22:20 KJVS)Oh and BTW, as with many wiki entries, the entry on Partial Preterism was probably written by a Partial Preterist! :-D

W
W_D_J_D Aug 18, 2006

Dual prophecy like Psalm 83 or Gog and Magog scriptures.

to simple?

L
Logic Aug 18, 2006

Isa 53:8 .....and who shall declare his generation?......
Have you concidered this?
[url=http://www.raptureready.com/rap101.html].....and who shall declare his generation?..... Isaha 53:8[/url]
This is a good way to think about "His generation"

T
todd Aug 18, 2006

Thanks for the clarifying points Ron.

WDJD,
I'm not sure what you mean there. Maybe you could expand?

Logic,
I breifly read through that article and, while somewhat helpful, I don't understand a few things. For example, the author states:

"Some believe that the generation Jesus was talking about in the Olivet Discourse was the generation that passed away in 70 A.D. But that does not fit within the context of a literal return of Christ back to earth, as described in the Scriptures preceding and following the parable of the fig tree."

But who knows if the parable of the fig tree is describing a [i]literal[/i] return? That doesn't seem clear at all to me. But I do find that part of the Matthew 24 very interesting because Jesus, talking to His disciples, tells them:

"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when it's branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, [i]you[/i] know that summer is near; even so [i]you[/i] too, when [i]you[/i] see [i]all[/i] these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door."

I think a summery of Matthew 24 might be this: Jesus seems to be bascially saying, "Look guys. Here's all the signs (which you asked me about). When you see all this stuff taking place, you know it's about to happen, so be ready."

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 30 posts