|
Did Jesus Wrongly Predict a First Century Return in
Matthew 24:34? |
|
A look at Partial Preterism, Full Preterism, Futurism, Double Fulfillment, and the view of C.S. Lewis. Are there any satisfying answers to one of the most persuasive challenges ever made against the Christian faith?
By Marshall "Rusty" Entrekin
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” - Matthew 24:34
This controversial verse is in all three of the Olivet Discourse accounts. (These accounts are to be found in Matthew 24:1-51, Mark 13:1-37, and Luke 21:5-33). For some time, critics of the Christian faith have argued that Jesus explicitly said here that all of the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse, including His return, would happen before the last person living at that time died.
When I spent some time dialoging with the atheists and agnostics
at http://www.infidels.org, this was
one of their favorite criticisms of the Christian faith. Jesus promised, they
claim, that He would return within that generation, but He did not. Since He
was wrong, they assert, He could not have been God, so the Christian faith,
they claim, is based on error. To bolster their argument, they claim that in
all of the other places in the Gospels where Jesus used the term “this
generation,” he was referring to the people living at that time. Some Christian Responses to That
Challenge
CS Lewis: "And He was wrong."
There have been various responses by Christians to this criticism of the Christian faith. Among these, one is particularly striking. We get a profound impression of just what a challenge this argument is to the integrity of the Christian faith when we realize that a great Christian thinker and apologist such as C.S. Lewis despaired at finding a solution to it. Lewis surrendered to the assertion of the skeptics that Jesus was wrong. He attributed this to the limited knowledge Jesus had in His incarnate human form. He correctly pointed out that Jesus himself said, in Matthew 24:36, that He did not know the exact time when He would return:
“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
Lewis despairingly wrote,
“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. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." 1
To this, the skeptic
may reply, “If Jesus incorrectly predicted His return within the
contemporaneous generation, but actually did not know that He was going to
return within that time frame, then why did He so confidently assert that all
of the words He had just spoken would come to pass in Matthew 24:35? He said,
‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.’ ” The skeptic has a good point here, one that forces most Christians to reject Lewis’ idea and look for another answer.
Full Preterits: The Second
Coming did happen, in 70 AD
Some Christians accept the idea that Jesus was speaking of the
generation of the apostles, but admirably refuse to believe that Jesus could
have been wrong about it. Full Preterits are such a group, but
unfortunately, they resort to redefining orthodox Christian doctrines to
accommodate their view that Christ returned before the generation of the
apostles died out. They claim that Jesus did return spiritually before
that generation passed away, in judgment on the nation of
I have some Full Preterits friends who firmly believe that Jesus predicted a first century return in Matthew 24:34. “If Jesus was wrong about this,” one of them has said, “I would be forced to reject Christianity.” This, he claims, has led him to embrace Full Preterism. “I do not want to hold to doctrines that other Christians find unorthodox and heretical,” he claims, “but I see no other solution.” That really is the proper attitude to have. One should not want to hold to an unorthodox theological view. But unlike this man, some Full Preterits seem to ardently defend Full Preterism because it is a cherished view. That is not the correct attitude. Shouldn’t an answer that does not deny orthodox doctrines be sought, hoped for and preferred, rather than strongly resisted? C.S. Lewis, for instance, did not want to believe that Jesus was wrong.
Some men have become
so attached to unorthodox doctrines that they are like the captive British
officer in the
No one should be so
unswervingly devoted to a highly problematic view, that when a better one
presents itself, he stubbornly defends his old view. Even if one has devoted
much valuable time to developing his view, he must lay it all on the altar of
truth for Christ. We must remember who we are fighting for! We should
not be fighting for a cherished opinion, but for Christ! So while one cannot help but admire the resolution of Full Preterits that Jesus could not have been wrong, we recognize the difficulties of this view. We should hope and look for a better answer, one that does not deny doctrines considered foundational to the faith.
Partial Preterits: Jesus returned in 70 AD, but this was not the final coming of Christ
Partial Preterits find the idea of a resurrection that leaves
the body in the grave hardly credible. While also accepting the skeptic’s claim
that Jesus predicted a first century return, they do not resort to redefining
orthodox doctrines. Like Full Preterits, they believe that Jesus did
return, in 70AD, in judgment on the nation of
Difficulties with the Preterits views
Full Preterits do not accept Partial Preterism, because they believe that scripture does not teach multiple Comings of Christ. But doesn’t scripture have examples of our Lord coming in judgment on nations and individuals (Isaiah 19:1, Rev. 2:5, 16)? I ask my Full Preterits friends, would it not be preferable to adopt the orthodox Partial Preterits view, rather than one that contradicts doctrines that the church has held to be true for nearly two millennia? While Partial Preterism has its difficulties, they are fewer in number and less severe than those of Full Preterism.
However, although Partial Preterism is an admirable attempt to reconcile the rest of scripture with Matthew 24:34, I do see one particular difficulty with this view when it is applied to the Olivet Discourse. This difficulty applies to both the Partial Preterits and Full Preterits views. The Preterits view of the Olivet Discourse forces one to spiritualize or allegorize important portions of it, especially verses 30 and 31:
30 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.
These statements seem very plain. I think that the average skeptic would take them as intended to mean just what they seem to say. Let's be realistic: because of the allegorizing or spiritualizing required to make these words fit within a first century time frame, would the average skeptic find the Preterits interpretation of these verses very convincing? I doubt it. However, there are strengths to the Preterism, most notably the fact that the destruction of the temple foretold in Luke is an exact match of historical events. In light of that, it seems that a good solution would incorporate this and other strong elements of Preterism.
Futurism
Futurists believe that
much of the Olivet Discourse, most notably the portions describing the return
of Christ; refer to as yet unfulfilled events. Futurism has its strengths,
most notably the fact that it is orthodox, and takes the verses which refer
to the nature of Christ's return at face value. But it has weaknesses too,
particularly the fact that the events of 70 AD so closely match the
foretelling of the destruction of
Are there better answers?
Out of love and concern for my Full Preterits friends and other friends that they influence, I have spent many hours in scripture meditation, research, and agonizing prayer looking for better answers to this challenge to our faith. That has been my primary motivation, but my concern is not just for them. This objection to the Christian faith that we have been discussing is perhaps the most powerful challenge to our faith that has ever been presented. It is therefore no wonder that the atheists and agnostics at www.infidels.org were so quick to use it against me when I engaged in forum dialogue with them. During this dialogue, to see how they would react, I informed them of the Full Preterits view. They flatly rejected it as a desperate attempt to rescue the Christian faith! Most atheists and agnostics, upon hearing any of the three explanations above, would, I think, reject them due to their inherent difficulties.
In light of that, I have looked for answers to this objection to the Christian faith that do not force us to allegorize or spiritualize any portions of the Olivet Discourse. I have concluded that there is very convincing grammatical and contextual evidence for two traditional interpretations of the Olivet Discourse, and ask my Christian friends not to dismiss these views offhand, without first considering this evidence. When either of these is combined with the strongest element of Preterism, the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, we have a solution that can take on the skeptics very well, at least as far as the Olivet Discourse is concerned. This solution involves the double fulfillment of some aspects of the Olivet Discourse. To investigate the evidence for double-fulfillment more thoroughly, be sure to read the footnotes and the link provided.
I present this evidence not only to skeptics of the Christian faith, but also to Christians who have embraced Preterism or the view of CS Lewis, as a solution that allows us to accept the full import of all of Christ’s words in the Olivet Discourse. Most specifically, I present it to my Full Preterits friends, in hope and prayer that since they reject certain elements of Partial Preterism, they will find this to be an acceptable alternative to embracing unorthodox doctrines. I beg of them to read it with a heart that is open to being convinced by the scriptures and sound reason.
Strange bedfellows
No doubt, the orthodox Partial Preterits find themselves uncomfortable partners with the unorthodox Full Preterits when they argue for a first generation fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse. And both of these groups surely would prefer not to be strange bedfellows with Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, and liberal theologians in arguing that Jesus must have been referring to the contemporaneous generation in Matthew 24:34. Who would want to agree with one of the major contentions that the enemies of the Christian faith use to undermine the Christian view? It is my sincere hope that this will provide my Preterits friends with an acceptable way out of this uncomfortable situation.
The “Race” Interpretation
The church father Jerome believed that Jesus was referring primarily to the race of the Jews in Matthew 24:34. He wrote,
"By ‘generation’ here He means the whole human race and the Jews in particular. And He adds, ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,’ to confirm their faith in what has gone before; as though He had said, it is easier to destroy things solid and immovable, than that aught should fail of my words."
The Greek word genea, translated “generation” here, CAN also mean “race.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament provides the following definitions of this word:
1) a begetting, birth, nativity 2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members
of a genealogy 2b) metaph. a group of men very like each
other in endowments, pursuits, character 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation 3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time 4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by
each successive generation), a space of 30-33 years And so we see that one of the primary definitions of genea is that of a race or group of men of common descent.
Answers to Criticisms of the Race View
Most critics of the Christian faith and Preterits quickly dismiss Jerome’s interpretation. They point out that the KJV usually translates genea as “generation.” They are correct. In the King James Version, genea is translated "generation" thirty-seven times, "time" twice, "age" twice, and "nation" only once. But this argument is not as powerful as it appears at first glance.
This is because when the KJV was translated, “race” was one of the possible meanings of the English word "generation." My modern Merriam-Webster's Dictionary does not list this as a possible meaning, but my old 1908 Webster provides the following definition:
"6. Race; kind; family; breed; stock."
Shakespeare provides evidence of this old English use of the word:
"Thy mother's of my generation: what's she, if I be a dog?"
Since many of our modern versions have followed the precedent of the KJV, this possible meaning of genea has been lost to many readers of English translations, because of the limited modern definition of this word. That is unfortunate.
Therefore, when we read the New Testament we must be careful not to limit the meaning of genea to our modern definition of "generation." “Offspring” would probably be a better translation of genea for modern readers than “generation,” because it leaves open the idea of race or descendents.
Outside of the Olivet Discourse, there are only two other places
in the entire New Testament in which the exact phrase genea hautey,
translated "this generation," is used. In each of them, genea
may be understood as referring to
Mark
Luke
Commentators (Barnes, Gill, TFG) tell us that the meaning of this is that no sign will be given such as they demanded. Indeed, scripture does not indicate that any sign was given from heaven by Jesus at the request of the Jewish people to "prove" that He was the Messiah. The sign of Jonas the prophet was given, but this was not just for them, but for all men. They had not asked for this sign, however, nor would a sign be given that they had asked for. The prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, the miracles that He performed, and the truth and depth of His teachings were evidence enough for them, and these were all given when He willed it, not upon their demand.
Beyond that, in many of the other instances in which genea is translated generation in the KJV, it can likewise be translated "race".
Surely, if the learned and scholarly Church Father Jerome, who lived much closer to the time of the New Testament than we, took “race” as the meaning of genea in Matthew 24:34, we should also seriously consider this interpretation!
And so we see that it is quite possible that Jesus meant that the race of the Jews would not pass away before all of these things happen. These words would thereby be a source of comfort to all who wonder if the Jewish people will survive, especially those destined to endure horrible tribulations such as the Holocaust that threatened to wipe out the race.
And so the brute force of the skeptic’s argument is hereby taken way. He cannot accurately claim that Jesus made a false prediction based on the meaning of the word genea.
“But,” some Full Preterits contend, “Jesus said ‘This generation shall not pass, TILL all these things be fulfilled.’ The word ‘till’ implies that generation will eventually pass away.”
This reflects a misunderstanding of the NT usage of the word translated “till” in this verse. Jesus used the very same Greek word (Strongs’s 2193) in Matthew 22:44: "The LORD said unto my Lord, 'Sit thou on my right hand, till <2193> I make thine enemies thy footstool?'"
Does this mean that Jesus will no longer sit at the Fathers’ right hand after the Father makes His enemies His footstool? Of course not!
Or consider Matthew 27:8: “Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto <2193> this day.”
Does this mean that field was no longer called “The field of blood” after Matthew penned those words? Obviously, the answer is no.
In addition, 1 Corinthians 15: 51-52 teaches us that all of the
elect who are alive at Christ’s coming will be changed in a twinkling of an
eye, and will not “sleep”, or die:
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not
all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Therefore, the generation that is alive at Christ’s coming will never completely pass away. The meaning and emphasis of Jesus, therefore, was not that the generation He was speaking of will eventually pass away. Rather, it was that the generation He was speaking of will survive until His coming.
By way of further example, notice how I used the word “until” in
the last sentence. I did not mean that the generation Jesus was
speaking of will eventually die. This objection to the
“race” view, therefore, is without solid foundation. The Future Generation View
Why "This Generation" CAN Mean a Future Generation
“I reject the ‘race’ interpretation,” many Preterits and skeptics would answer, “because in every other place in the New Testament where Jesus used the words ‘this generation,’ He has the generation of that time in view.”
As we have demonstrated, Jesus may have had the race of the Jews in mind in some of those instances. But for the sake of argument, let’s give the skeptics the benefit of the doubt. What if they are right and genea does not mean race in Matthew 24:34, but rather a group of people living at a certain time? If “this generation” refers to the contemporary generation in other contexts, does this mean that Jesus must have been speaking of the contemporary generation in Matthew 24:34?
Absolutely not. This is a very fallacious argument and it should be exposed as such. The Greek word hautey, translated “this” in Matthew 24:34, is a demonstrative adjective. A demonstrative adjective answers the question, “Which?” In this case, it answers the question, “Which generation?” The very purpose behind using the word “this” was to single out the generation Jesus was talking about from all other possible generations. And how do we determine “which” generation Jesus was speaking of? From the context!
Since there were many possible generations Jesus could have been speaking of, it is the context of the surrounding verses, not other contexts that should be the determining factor as to Jesus’ meaning! His use of genea in other contexts certainly very strongly demonstrates the possibility that He could have been referring to the contemporaneous generation, but it in no way indicates that He must have been speaking of the contemporaneous generation.
To illustrate, if I say "this car" 5 times, referring to my Ford Mustang, does that mean that the next time I say it, I must be speaking of my Ford? Of course not! The next time I say “this car,” I might be talking about my Toyota Celica instead! Only the context of my statement will reveal exactly what car I am talking about.
The Greek word hautey (translated “this”) is also context dependent, as a computer survey of the usage of this word in the New Testament easily confirms.
And so it is the context that will reveal to us exactly what generation Jesus is talking about.
This leads us to a striking conclusion: Jesus may have meant "this generation I am talking about", rather than "this generation I am talking to”!
The “This” and “That” Objection
However, the critic of the Christian faith still has arrows left in his quiver:
“The idea that Jesus is referring to a generation far away in time must be wrong, because in NT Greek as well as in English, the word ‘this’ is normally used to refer to something near, and the word 'that' to something far away."
The Preterits reluctantly agrees.
But they are both overlooking the fact that something can be
near in consideration, but far away in time or distance. Jesus may be
referring to a generation that is near in consideration. There is an easy way to test this idea. If it is correct, then we should expect to find other places in the NT where the Greek word hautey (Strong’s # 3778), translated "this" here, is used to refer to something near in consideration but far away in time.
When we look to see if there are such instances in the NT, guess what? There are indeed.
When discussing Melchizedec, who lived thousands of years in the past, the writer of the book of Hebrews used the word "this" to refer to him:
Hebrews 7:1, “For this Melchizedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him.”
Here are other instances in the NT in which "this" (Strong’s number 3778) is used to refer to things in the distant future or past:
Acts 7:37, “This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.”
Acts 17:3, “Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.”
Romans 9:9, “For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.”
Hebrews
Revelation
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT is Titus 1:13, in which the phrase marturia hautey has the same grammatical construction and word order sequence as the phrase genea hautey in Matthew 24:34.
Titus 1:13, “This witness (marturia hautey) is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.”
Here, the “witness” that Paul is referring to is also very distant in time. It was given by the poet Epimenides around 659 BC. Yet, Paul uses the word "this" to refer to it.
Therefore, it is erroneous to claim that Jesus' choice of words here means that he MUST have been referring to the generation of the apostles. As the examples above demonstrate, He may have been referring to a future generation that was near in consideration.
This has important implications for us when it comes to interpreting the Olivet Discourse. It means that the words and grammar of Matthew 24:34 do not force us to conclude that Jesus must have been speaking of the generation of the apostles.
We may now allow the context of this verse, rather than an overly narrow definition of one little word, to determine what genea Jesus is speaking of. The tail is no longer wagging the dog!
The Contextual Evidence
The critic of the Christian faith has two arrows left in His quiver that seem reasonably straight. Some of my Preterits friends use these arguments, too.
The Second Person Pronoun Argument
“What is the point of arguing that Jesus could have meant the generation he was talking about, when there is an indication in the context of the Olivet Discourse that very plainly demonstrates
He was referring to the generation
of the Apostles? Jesus often used the word “you” in this discourse. For
instance, Mark
Mark
The word ‘ye,’ ” our skeptic continues, “referred to the apostles. ‘This generation’ therefore must be the generation of the apostles.”
To this we reply that the Olivet Discourse was spoken privately to only four disciples:
Mark 13:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately…
However, if the discourse was intended only for these four, then what do we make of Matthew 24:9?
Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
If the skeptic is right, these four men, or at least some of them, would bear the great misfortune of being hated by all nations! This ridiculous conclusion, which flows from our skeptic’s contention, makes it clear that by the word “you” Jesus had all of His followers throughout history in mind, not just these four disciples.
The Tautology Argument
Some skeptics, and some Preterits as well, may raise yet another objection:
“Your interpretation is tautological (circular). If it were true, it would be as though Jesus had said, ‘This generation living when all of these things take place will not pass away until all of these things take place.’ Such a statement is meaningless.”
This objection makes use of a common logical fallacy – the straw man argument. A straw man argument misrepresents an opponent’s viewpoint, in order to make it look ridiculous. If the misrepresentation is subtle and difficult to detect, as is the case here, then the strategy will be all the more effective. This straw man argument cleverly takes advantage of the fact that Matthew uses the phrase “all these things” in both verses 24:33 and 24:34:
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 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.
31 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.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Look carefully at verse 33. What does “it is near” refer to?
Answer: The Second Coming of Christ and the gathering of the elect, just mentioned in verses 30-31.
This means that “all
these things” in verse 33 is qualified – it does not include the Second
Coming. “All these things” in verse 34, however, is not qualified. It
includes the Second Coming. And so we see that Jesus meant, “When all of these signs and events come to pass, My Coming will be so near, that the generation alive at that time will not pass away until all of these things I have foretold, including my Parousia, are fulfilled.”
There is no tautology in this.
How could all of the Olivet Discourse possibly be literal?
At this point, although the skeptic may grow silent, some Preterits may have two further objections:
“Jesus said in Matthew 24:29, ‘Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.’ How could these events be literal?”
Even if the language in this verse is symbolic, there is nothing in it that ties it to the generation of the apostles. One can hold to a future coming and take this verse as symbolic.
It may not be
symbolic, however. The burning cities, fields, and forests that accompany war
have been observed to darken the sun and block out the light of the moon. In
Bible times, meteorites and comets were considered to be stars (see
Why the scope of the Olivet Discourse was not limited to a single generation
Lastly, some Preterits object,
“The Olivet Discourse was spoken in reply to questions about the temple. The temple was destroyed before the generation of the apostles died out. So Jesus must have had the contemporaneous generation in mind.”
Of course, there is no doubt that the first century and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD were in view in the Olivet Discourse (this is especially evident in Luke). However, there is ample contextual evidence that the scope of the Olivet Discourse was not limited to that event, or to the first century.
Below are just a few of these evidences:
1. Jesus was asked not one, but three questions. When we compare all three of the Olivet accounts, we see that the disciples asked Jesus three questions.2 All three accounts record the first question, "When shall these things be?" Mark and Luke both record the second question, "What will be the sign that they are about to take place?" Note that these first two questions concern the destruction of the temple. The third question, recorded only in Matthew, concerns the return of Christ: "What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" It seems reasonable that Jesus would have answered all three questions in his reply. Therefore, the context of the Olivet Discourse does not tie the destruction of the temple to the same time period as the Second Coming.3
2. Jesus indicated that the Jews Will
Recognize Him as the Messiah when He returns. The third question
concerning Christ's coming was likely provoked by the last statement Jesus
had made concerning it in Matthew 23:39, "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.’" Surely, the Jews did not cry that while Titus
and His armies were destroying their temple and city, and carrying their
wives and children into slavery! Jesus therefore must have had a different
kind of coming in mind, one in which He will be recognized as the Messiah by
the Jews. Paul foretold a day in which the nation of
Romans
3. The “times of the gentiles” goes beyond the
first century. In the account of the Olivet Discourse in Luke 21, the
"times of the Gentiles" in verse 24 clearly goes beyond the scope
of the first century. It is a period that lies between the destruction of
Luke 21:24, “They will fall by the sword and
will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after
those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be
shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.”
4. Jesus will return visibly. Verse 27 above is in all three of the Olivet accounts. It indicates that men will SEE the Son of Man coming. This clear statement must be allegorized or spiritualized to fit it within a first century time frame. These words were echoed again by John in Revelation 1:7:
"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every
eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of
the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." The words “every eye” indicate that John understood Jesus literally, not figuratively.
"They which pierced him" probably refers to the nation of the Jews (but it may indicate that even the spirits of the dead will be supernaturally enabled to see the Parousia). These words in turn echo Zechariah 12:10:
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
Acts 1: 9-11 provides further evidence that
the return of Christ will be visible. In it reference is made to seeing with
the eyes five times: 11 When he had spoken these things, while they
beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly
toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of
Since his ascension was visible to the naked eye, and He will return in “like manner,” we may also reasonably expect that his return will also be visible. Like the Olivet Discourse, this passage also uses “cloud” language. Since the disciples saw Jesus departing in a cloud in Acts 1:9-11, what reason, other than theological preconception, do we have to believe that the meaning in Luke 21:27, which uses similar language, is any different?
5. Jesus instructed ALL believers, not just those in Judea, to
be ready for His coming. The illustrations and parables which conclude the Olivet
Discourse (the days of Noah, the two men in the field, the thief in the
night, the unprofitable servant, the ten virgins, etc.) beginning in Matthew
24:36, stress the importance of ALL believers being ready for his coming, not
just those living in Judea, where the siege of Jerusalem took place in 70AD.
This is powerful evidence that in verse 31, Jesus is speaking of a coming
other than a coming in judgment on
Why would Jesus close the Olivet Discourse with multiple illustrations of a coming that He had not even mentioned? It is true that in Luke, some of these parables do not appear in the Olivet Discourse. But even in Luke, they obviously illustrate the Second Coming. If, on the basis of some of these parables appearing elsewhere in Luke, one argues that they were not a part of the original Olivet Discourse, then we still must ask the question, “Why did Matthew place them after the Olivet Discourse, if not to illustrate the promise of Christ’s coming just mentioned?”
Therefore, the context of the Olivet Discourse leads us to the conclusion that the scope of it is not limited at all to the generation of the Apostles. Some of the things it describes, such as the signs preceding Christ’s coming, and the “times of the Gentiles,” extend far beyond the time of the apostles.
Conclusion
Genea hautey can mean “this race”, “this generation I am talking about,” or “this contemporaneous generation,” depending on the context. It is not other contexts, but the context of Matthew 24:34 that should be the determining factor as to what Jesus meant by the word genea. The context of the Olivet Discourse leads us to believe that Jesus was speaking either of the race of the Jews, or of a future generation that was near in consideration.
Therefore, we are not forced into difficult aspects of the Partial Preterits view, which allegorize and spiritualize important portions of the Olivet Discourse. Nor must we resort, as Full Preterits do, to asserting that the Second Coming and the Resurrection must have happened invisibly in 70 AD, when it is plain to everyone that church history records none of these events, and the bodies of all men are still in their graves. Nor need we despair, as CS Lewis did. Despite his remarkable intellect and his usual able defenses of the Christian faith, he was quite wrong in thinking that the facts force us to admit Jesus made an embarrassing mistake.
Instead, we may confidently accept the full import of Jesus’ words in the Olivet Discourse!
“TRULY, I say to you,” Jesus assured us, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” He promised that all of the events He had just foretold would happen before the genea He was speaking of passed away. The enemies of our faith have directed a storm of criticism at this promise. They have rained torrents of words; they have thundered in bellicose voices. Like CS Lewis, some of us have at times had our view blocked by these dark clouds. But these low hanging storm clouds have only obscured the words of our Lord; they have not washed them away! When the mists clear, what do we see?
We see a great and mighty mountain of solid rock, far more enduring than anything made by human hands. It dwarfs and outlasts the ancient pyramids; it reaches far beyond the tallest modern skyscrapers. Though even the mountains of this world erode, the word of the Lord will endure forever. The saints build their fortress city on this rock. All who build on His word dwell in confident security. Have you built your home on this rock?
The words of our Lord again prove true, solid, faithful and trustworthy. Did He not tell us that they would?
Why have many doubted, when He concluded what He foretold with the following words?
~ Endnotes 1 Essay "The
World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385 2 It is very helpful to
view all three of the Olivet Discourse accounts side by side, and to compare
them phrase by phrase. Andy Doerksen and I have prepared all three of the
accounts in parallel at http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm.
3 Why are there differences in the Olivet discourse
accounts? A) Details are included in some accounts that
are missing in others. It is natural that one eyewitness will mention details
of an event that the other eyewitnesses will omit. B) It is believed that Jesus spoke in Aramaic,
so what we read in the Greek manuscripts are inspired (and therefore correct
and truthful) interpretations of what He said, each of which brings out
different aspects of his original meaning. In instances where a prophecy by
Jesus was to have double-fulfillment, the Gospel accounts may bring out the
different fulfillments. C) The gospel accounts may have drawn a good
deal from an Aramaic or Hebrew source mentioned by Papias. It was compiled by
Matthew, and known as the Logia, a collection of the sayings of Jesus.
This may have been the Gospel of Matthew, written originally in Hebrew or
Aramaic. Some of what we read may be an inspired interpretation in Greek of
some of this Hebrew or Aramaic source material. Papias, who testified that he
heard the apostle John, wrote, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the
Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he
could.” (Fragments of Papias: from the Exposition of the Oracles of our
Lord.) 4 “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
My words shall not pass away.” In Mark and Luke, and the majority of the
Greek manuscripts of Matthew, these words of Jesus appear exactly the same
in all three of the Olivet accounts. © 2003 Marshall "Rusty" Entrekin. All rights reserved. This article may be printed and copied on paper for free distribution provided it is published in it's entirety, with no changes, alterations, or omissions, and a reference to this website is included. Quotes should also include a reference to this website. This article may not be published for sale, or on the internet, or placed in an html frame without the permission of the author. The author may be contacted by email at rentrekin@earthlink.net. |
