? from an agnostic

[Jac3510]

The phrase "This Generation" is Matthew is a literary device that refers to people who reject the things of God because they are from God. For a full defense of this issue, see "This Generation" in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective" (JETS 38, no. 3 (1995): 338) by Neil D. Nelson.

I would also recommend a paper titled "The meanig of 'This Generation' in Matthew 24:23" by J. B. Hixo, available here:

http://www.hixson.org/docs/Eschatology/ ... ration.pdf

Have fun!

edit: Note that Hixon disagrees with my view and espouses one that I consider to be very strong. In any case, I recommend it to show the variety of options one has in considering this verse. It by no means presents any problems for the inerrancy of Scripture.

[DannyM]

Hello all,

As my tag says I'm agnostic- I believe in something and try to follow Jesus's moral teachings but I can't honestly say that I'm a Christian, mainly because I believe the Bible was written by men (not God) with little if any divine inspiration. My wife is a Christian though and I go to church with her on a weekly basis. After reading Rich Deem's well written essays that discuss empirical evidence of God's existence and indirect evidence of the Bible's status as divine revelation I remembered something that always gave me pause when reading the Bible...

In Matthew 24:34 (KJV) Jesus says: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled"

According to Jesus's earlier statements, "all these things" refer to the tribulation, the sun and moon darkening, false Christs and Jesus's second coming. These things will happen before "this generation shall pass." "This generation" is obviously refering to that of the disciples. Since we know that Jesus's second coming and the tribulation haven't occurred (at least not in the way described by every Christian I have ever met) there seems to be a glaring contradiction here. My question is this... has the fact that Jesus hasn't returned after 2000 years, even though he said he would be back before the disciple's died, made anyone else question the inerrancy of the Bible?

Hi Agnostic,

I think you only need to realise that some of Jesus' teachings were clearly apocalyptic and he took on such tones during his ministries. Many of Jesus's apocalyptic teachings turned out to be untrue. But this does not have to be a fault on his side. Jesus was around at a time of the (very Jewish) hyperbole of "apocalypticists" who were convinced the kingdom of God was "imminent" and Jesus took on a very apocalyptic ministry. "Truly I tell you, some of those standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God has come". Mark 9: 1 , and you only need look at the parable of the fishing net to see what Jesus thought.

But the key for me is that, although Jesus was and is the only "man" to live without sin, Christ, in assuming the shape and the role of a human, was undoubtedly subject to human limitations. In Mark, Jesus admits to not knowing the precise date of the coming of the kingdom.

So this "apocalyptic coming", and in the heat Jewish hyperbole, can I think be excused on the part of Christ.

Dan

[cslewislover]

"Truly I tell you, some of those standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God has come". Mark 9: 1 , and you only need look at the parable of the fishing net to see what Jesus thought.

Mark 9:1 needs to be taken in context. Jesus was referring to the transfiguration that followed, in vv 9:2-12. Peter, James, and John indeed see the kingdom of God when they witnessed the transfiguration. Before this, Jesus was telling them of his impending death, and he mentioned it afterwards as well - the transfiguration showed the kingdom and power of God for believers, and what it will be like after our bodies die. Jesus also said to them in v 12 that Elijah had already come, preparing the way.

[pyroputz]

Just my $0.02..

The OT seems to paint 2 very different pictures of the messiah - in my opinion, 2 pictures that cannot occur at the same time. Almost 2 different kingdoms, if you will. One kingdom will be defined by love and humility, the one sent will mend the lives of sinners, will be led to slaughter like a lamb, and will be pierced for our transgressions (Isaiah 53). Another kingdom is painted in the OT however of a very different messiah: one that will crush the lives of sinners, that will trample nations in anger (Isaiah 63), who has vengeance in his heart. Obviously, the two cannot occur at the same time.

I believe in the verses you've referenced, Jesus is answering his disciples as to when the kingdom he came to inaugurate would be fully established. He explains signs that would characterize the full ushering of the beginning of his new kingdom, as this was all he was sent for at that time. I believe throughout the discourse, he is only giving details of his kingdom, here in ~33AD. His kingdom would be fully inaugurated by his death, resurrection, pentacost, and the destruction of the temple, which is profound in my opinion, as it physically and factually ends the sacrificial system of the Old Testament (and is conveniently replaced by a new system that no longer requires animal sacrifice).

As he finishes describing his kingdom, he goes on to answer the disciples' last question "what will be the sign ... of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3) His answer? "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36)

Why would he answer in this fashion? Again, he was sent to establish the peaceful and substituationary (foregiveness of sins) kingdom that the OT describes. As for this other kingdom his disciples are asking about, not even he knows, as this was his mission in 30AD.

Again, just my $0.02; I could be wrong..