"This generation will not pass away...": How is this true? Matthew 24:29-35

[ethereality]

My basic problem with Matthew 24 is that literally Jesus promises that the end of the world will come, with specific actions, to the generation he’s speaking to, nearly two thousand years ago.

27 For just as lightning comes from the east and is seen as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

34 Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

The Haydock commentary explains,

Ver. 34. This generation; i.e. the nation of the Jews shall not cease to exist, until all these things shall be accomplished: thus we see the nation of the Jews still continue, and will certainly continue to the end of the world. (Tirinus) — Then the cross, which has been a scandal to the Jew, and a stumbling-block to the Gentile, shall appear in the heavens, for the consolation of the good Christian. Hoc signum crucis erit in cœlo, cum Dominus ad judicandum venerit. — If it be to be understood of the destruction of Jerusalem, the sense may be, this race of men now living; if of the last day of judgment, this generation of the faithful, saith Theophylactus,[4] shall be continued: i.e. the Church of Christ, to the end of the world. (Witham) — This race, I tell you in very truth, shall not pass away till all this be finally accomplished in the ruin of Jerusalem, the most express figure of the destruction and end of the world. (Bible de Vence) — By generation, our Saviour does not mean the people that were in existence at that time, but the faithful of his Church; thus says the psalmist: this is the generation of them that seek the Lord. (Psalm xxiii, ver. 6.) (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxvii.)

The NABRE contains these footnotes; the USCCB explicitly rejects the explanations of Tirinus and Vence:

• [24:34] The difficulty raised by this verse cannot be satisfactorily removed by the supposition that this generation means the Jewish people throughout the course of their history, much less the entire human race. Perhaps for Matthew it means the generation to which he and his community belonged.

• [24:36–44] The statement of Mt 24:34 is now counterbalanced by one that declares that the exact time of the parousia is known only to the Father (Mt 24:36), and the disciples are warned to be always ready for it. This section is drawn from Mark and Q (cf. Lk 17:26–27, 34–35; 12:39–40).

I am tempted to despair and give up reading the Bible, because it appears that either I cannot understand it, or else it is clearly self-contradictory and false. A second problem is that the USCCB do not readily provide an explanation for this apparent problem: Being 2000 years old, surely this obvious problem is known, and if there is an answer, surely they would readily provide it alongside, if they are competent pastors. How is the United States Council of Catholic Bishops incompetent in providing explanations of the Bible?

Rephrasing this problem, it appears God delights in giving us reason and then contradicting it. The best explanations above suppose that God is being deliberately confusing, e.g. using the word ‘generation’ to mean ‘believer’ or ‘race’. Why does God force us to reject reason in favor of blind faith? “Even though reason dictates this understanding, I must discard it and instead embrace an ad hoc explanation because someone else told me to.” It is an example of what some critics say, “Science starts with data and derives a conclusion to fit; religion starts with a conclusion and then tries to make the data fit.”

What am I to think? How am I to understand all this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is the answer that I think makes sense:

gotquestions.org/not-taste-death.html

Question: “Was Jesus’ statement to the disciples in Luke 9:27 (also Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1) incorrect?”

Answer: Luke 9:27 says, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” See also Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 for the parallel quotes. In each of the synoptic Gospels, the next event immediately after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration. Rather than interpreting Jesus’ promise as referring to His coming to establish His kingdom on earth, the context indicates that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration. The Greek word translated “kingdom” can also be translated “royal splendor,” meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is—the King of heaven—which occurred in the transfiguration.

The “transfiguration” refers to the event described in the above cited passages when Jesus took Peter, James, and John to the top of the mountain, where He met with Moses and Elijah—representing the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament—and spoke with them. The disciples saw Jesus in all His glory and splendor, talking with a glorified Moses and Elijah. This is a glimpse of what will occur in Jesus’ kingdom. The disciples were dumbstruck at the sight and “fell on their faces” (Matthew 17:6).

It seems most natural to interpret this promise in Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; and Luke 9:27 as a reference to the transfiguration, which “some” of the disciples would witness only six days later, exactly as Jesus predicted. In each Gospel, the very next passage after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration, which shows Jesus in all His glory which will be seen again in the Kingdom of God. The contextual links make it very likely that this is the proper interpretation.

 

[ethereality]

Randy,

1. The Transfiguration is in Matthew 17, whereas I am quoting Matthew 24. Are you suggesting the Gospel according to Matthew is not given chronologically?
2. How does your explanation address what Jesus actually says, i.e. “all these things”? Literally, this includes what I quoted: It is not only witnessing Jesus’ glory, but also “gather[ing] his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other”, for example.

 

[sudy]

I’ve always supposed that by generation, he means the new creation… like it says in 2 Corinthians 5:17 So for anyone who is in Christ, there is a new creation: the old order is gone and a new being is there to see.

 

[Micosil]

This is the answer that I think makes sense:

gotquestions.org/not-taste-death.html

Question: “Was Jesus’ statement to the disciples in Luke 9:27 (also Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1) incorrect?”

Answer: Luke 9:27 says, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” See also Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 for the parallel quotes. In each of the synoptic Gospels, the next event immediately after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration. Rather than interpreting Jesus’ promise as referring to His coming to establish His kingdom on earth, the context indicates that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration. The Greek word translated “kingdom” can also be translated “royal splendor,” meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is—the King of heaven—which occurred in the transfiguration.

The “transfiguration” refers to the event described in the above cited passages when Jesus took Peter, James, and John to the top of the mountain, where He met with Moses and Elijah—representing the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament—and spoke with them. The disciples saw Jesus in all His glory and splendor, talking with a glorified Moses and Elijah. This is a glimpse of what will occur in Jesus’ kingdom. The disciples were dumbstruck at the sight and “fell on their faces” (Matthew 17:6).

It seems most natural to interpret this promise in Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; and Luke 9:27 as a reference to the transfiguration, which “some” of the disciples would witness only six days later, exactly as Jesus predicted. In each Gospel, the very next passage after this promise from Jesus is the transfiguration, which shows Jesus in all His glory which will be seen again in the Kingdom of God. The contextual links make it very likely that this is the proper interpretation.

Not saying their explanation is wrong, but I tend to avoid GotQuestions whenever possible. I’ve seen some of their articles “explaining” Catholicism, and they get everything wrong.

gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html

“I am a Catholic. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?”

:doh2::banghead:

 

[Micosil]

My basic problem with Matthew 24 is that literally Jesus promises that the end of the world will come, with specific actions, to the generation he’s speaking to, nearly two thousand years ago.

The Haydock commentary explains,

The NABRE contains these footnotes; the USCCB explicitly rejects the explanations of Tirinus and Vence:

I am tempted to despair and give up reading the Bible, because it appears that either I cannot understand it, or else it is clearly self-contradictory and false. A second problem is that the USCCB do not readily provide an explanation for this apparent problem: Being 2000 years old, surely this obvious problem is known, and if there is an answer, surely they would readily provide it alongside, if they are competent pastors. How is the United States Council of Catholic Bishops incompetent in providing explanations of the Bible?

Rephrasing this problem, it appears God delights in giving us reason and then contradicting it. The best explanations above suppose that God is being deliberately confusing, e.g. using the word ‘generation’ to mean ‘believer’ or ‘race’. Why does God force us to reject reason in favor of blind faith? “Even though reason dictates this understanding, I must discard it and instead embrace an ad hoc explanation because someone else told me to.” It is an example of what some critics say, “Science starts with data and derives a conclusion to fit; religion starts with a conclusion and then tries to make the data fit.”

What am I to think? How am I to understand all this?

This is also perplexing to me. In the official Bible of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, which I own, 1 Peter 5:13 mentions “Babylon”, which most Catholic Bible commentaries identify as a reference to Rome. This Bible claims it is something else. Go figure.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

1. The Transfiguration is in Matthew 17, whereas I am quoting Matthew 24. Are you suggesting the Gospel according to Matthew is not given chronologically?
2. How does your explanation address what Jesus actually says, i.e. “all these things”? Literally, this includes what I quoted: It is not only witnessing Jesus’ glory, but also “gather[ing] his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other”, for example.

My apologies. Thoughts on Matthew 24 from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

"A closer look at Jesus’ words in the context of ancient Judaism reveals a better interpretation. Namely, Jesus was predicting the demise of the Jerusalem Temple–the architectural symbol of the Old Covenant. Jesus’ entire discourse is an extension of his cryptic comment about the Temple: “There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down” (Mt 24:2)…From this perspective, Jesus stands vindicated since his words did come to pass within the lifetime of his contemporaries.

"…Like many religions in the the Near East, the Israelites regarded their Temple as a miniature replica or microcosm of the world; it was an architectural model of the universe fashioned by God. Conversely, the universe itself was a macrotemple, where God also dwells with His people.

“…the termination of the the Old Covenant world prefigures the destruction of the universe, God’s macrotemple, and the judgment of all nations by Christ. Thus, Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Mt 24-25) is initially fulfilled in the first century as he said (Mt. 24:34). But imbedded in Christ’s words are spiritual truths that point forward to his Second Coming and the end of the visible world.”

There is much more on this in the Study Bible which provides many scriptural cross-references for this concept.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is also perplexing to me. In the official Bible of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, which I own, 1 Peter 5:13 mentions “Babylon”, which most Catholic Bible commentaries identify as a reference to Rome. This Bible claims it is something else. Go figure.

Yes, Babylon in that verse is referring to Rome where Peter was living at the time he wrote that letter after moving there in AD 42.

 

[Micosil]

Yes, Babylon in that verse is referring to Rome where Peter was living at the time he wrote that letter after moving there in AD 42.

I tend to agree with you. The question is, why don’t Spanish bishops.

 

[Kliska]

My basic problem with Matthew 24 is that literally Jesus promises that the end of the world will come, with specific actions, to the generation he’s speaking to, nearly two thousand years ago.

I can tell you how I, as a protestant, have heard it interpreted. You have to ask what is “this generation.” It is interpreted not as those literal people standing there, but those in the immediate context of seeing all of those things approaching at the end of time. In short, when humans, esp. the Jewish people, see those specific things happening, then the end will be there within a generation. In essence each phrase has to be looked at both in immediate context and also overall context to sus out the meaning.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I tend to agree with you. The question is, why don’t Spanish bishops.

Dunno.

Peter, Mark and Rufus in Rome
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-biblical-easter-egg-in-passion-of.html

First, St. Peter says in 1 Peter 5:13:

She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

“Babylon” was an early Christian reference for “Rome,” so Sts. Peter and Mark are sending their greetings from Rome.

Second, this is also the testimony of the Church Fathers, who testify that Mark is Peter’s disciple and interpreter in Rome. St. Irenaeus, writing c. 180 A.D., says:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Eusebius says the same thing, as does St. Jerome:

Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon “She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son.” So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example.

This makes Mark’s Gospel all the more powerful: he’s declaring that Jesus, not Caesar, is the true Son of God from the heart of the Roman Empire.

That first point is pretty well known, but this next one is not (at least, as far as I know): Rufus, the son of Simon of Cyrene, and his mother were Christians living in Rome. We know this from a seemingly throwaway line in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 16:13),

Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.

This explains why Mark would choose to mention that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Rufus and Alexander: those wouldn’t have been random names to his original readers, but actual people that they knew. This detail is significant for several reasons.

First, it’s another indication of the historicity of the Gospel: anyone doubting the veracity of Mark’s account could go ask Rufus and Alexander.

Second, it shows the harmony of the New Testament accounts: by comparing multiple sources (Mark and Paul), a more coherent picture emerges.

Finally, it points to something momentous and beautiful: that Simon of Cyrene’s encounter with the Cross brought about his conversion and the conversion of his whole family.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

First things first, can we agree that the events in Matthew 24:29-30 have not happened (yet)?

 

[JurisPrudens]

First things first, can we agree that the events in Matthew 24:29-30 have not happened (yet)?

In my opinion, they happened in regard of what Jesus promised to the Apostles (St. John saw all those things on Pathmos, this is one of the interpretations of the fragment), but did not in respect of the reader of the Gospel (i.e., us).

 

[PJM]

My basic problem with Matthew 24 is that literally Jesus promises that the end of the world will come, with specific actions, to the generation he’s speaking to, nearly two thousand years ago.

The Haydock commentary explains,

The NABRE contains these footnotes; the USCCB explicitly rejects the explanations of Tirinus and Vence:

I am tempted to despair and give up reading the Bible, because it appears that either I cannot understand it, or else it is clearly self-contradictory and false. A second problem is that the USCCB do not readily provide an explanation for this apparent problem: Being 2000 years old, surely this obvious problem is known, and if there is an answer, surely they would readily provide it alongside, if they are competent pastors. How is the United States Council of Catholic Bishops incompetent in providing explanations of the Bible?

Rephrasing this problem, it appears God delights in giving us reason and then contradicting it. The best explanations above suppose that God is being deliberately confusing, e.g. using the word ‘generation’ to mean ‘believer’ or ‘race’. Why does God force us to reject reason in favor of blind faith? “Even though reason dictates this understanding, I must discard it and instead embrace an ad hoc explanation because someone else told me to.” It is an example of what some critics say, “Science starts with data and derives a conclusion to fit; religion starts with a conclusion and then tries to make the data fit.”

What am I to think? How am I to understand all this?

Here is the explanation from Haydock’s Commentary:

Ver. 34. This generation; i.e. the nation of the Jews shall not cease to exist, until all these things shall be accomplished: thus we see the nation of the Jews still continue, and will certainly continue to the end of the world. (Tirinus) — Then the cross, which has been a scandal to the Jew, and a stumbling-block to the Gentile, shall appear in the heavens, for the consolation of the good Christian. Hoc signum crucis erit in cœlo, cum Dominus ad judicandum venerit. — If it be to be understood of the destruction of Jerusalem, the sense may be, this race of men now living; if of the last day of judgment, this generation of the faithful, saith Theophylactus,[4] shall be continued: i.e. the Church of Christ, to the end of the world. (Witham) — This race, I tell you in very truth, shall not pass away till all this be finally accomplished in the ruin of Jerusalem, the most express figure of the destruction and end of the world. (Bible de Vence) — By generation, our Saviour does not mean the people that were in existence at that time, but the faithful of his Church; thus says the psalmist: this is the generation of them that seek the Lord. (Psalm xxiii, ver. 6.) (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxvii.)

Ver. 35. Shall pass away: because they shall be changed at the end of the world into a new heaven and new earth. (Challoner) END QUOTE

As for God being confusing

WHY do you suppose that is?

Because the practice of religions is termed FAITH; & FAITH is relaint upon God. Amen

Blessings,
PJM

 

[JurisPrudens]

My basic problem with Matthew 24 is that literally Jesus promises that the end of the world will come, with specific actions, to the generation he’s speaking to, nearly two thousand years ago.

The Haydock commentary explains,

The NABRE contains these footnotes; the USCCB explicitly rejects the explanations of Tirinus and Vence:

I am tempted to despair and give up reading the Bible, because it appears that either I cannot understand it, or else it is clearly self-contradictory and false. A second problem is that the USCCB do not readily provide an explanation for this apparent problem: Being 2000 years old, surely this obvious problem is known, and if there is an answer, surely they would readily provide it alongside, if they are competent pastors. How is the United States Council of Catholic Bishops incompetent in providing explanations of the Bible?

Rephrasing this problem, it appears God delights in giving us reason and then contradicting it. The best explanations above suppose that God is being deliberately confusing, e.g. using the word ‘generation’ to mean ‘believer’ or ‘race’. Why does God force us to reject reason in favor of blind faith? “Even though reason dictates this understanding, I must discard it and instead embrace an ad hoc explanation because someone else told me to.” It is an example of what some critics say, “Science starts with data and derives a conclusion to fit; religion starts with a conclusion and then tries to make the data fit.”

What am I to think? How am I to understand all this?

I’ve just read the fragment, calling God to help me. After lots of thinking, I’ve got an idea! :newidea:

It seems to me, the prophesy of the Lord is addressed personally tothe Apostles and to the readers in general.

The prophesy to the Apostles is contained in the description of the main Tribulation (Mt.15-22) and contains some practical advice to survive the destruction of Jerusalem. The darkenning of the skies was then technically fulfilled in st. John’s vision on Pathmos.

The main prophecy is to the reader. The message is that the Second coming will be sudden, without a real public apocalyptic event to warn of its approach. But there are signs, similar to the fig tree leaves, by which a faithful Christian might identify the imminent disaster, namely proclamation of the Gospel to all the nations and persecution of Christians. There might also happen something epicly apocalyptic, but most of the anti-Christians will not pay heed to it. The Lord tells us “this generation shall not away until…” - i.e., our generation, of the readers, as soon as we see the signs, should be prepared to see the Second Coming in our lifetime. We might be mislead, but it is better to be vigillant than to be carefree.

 

[mikekle]

I’ve always supposed that by generation, he means the new creation… like it says in 2 Corinthians 5:17 So for anyone who is in Christ, there is a new creation: the old order is gone and a new being is there to see.

The problem with that is, when God is talking to us, meaning any human being, he knows he must use words and terms that WE KNOW and recognize.

Its similar to ‘time’ we all know Gods version of time is much different than our definition, but God also is fully aware of how we view time and how our time works, it wouldnt make sense for God to refer to HIS version of time when talking to us, as we have no idea about what a ‘generation’ is in Gods time.

You have to user words and terms your audience is able to relate to and recognize, in this case, a generation is whatever WE call a generation, or whatever the people living at the time, considered a generation.

 

[TimothyH]

My basic problem with Matthew 24 is that literally Jesus promises that the end of the world will come, with specific actions, to the generation he’s speaking to, nearly two thousand years ago.

What am I to think? How am I to understand all this?

Matthew 24 is the Olivett Discourse. The Olivett Discourse is not about the end of the world.

There is an eschatological sense to the scripture but the literal sense of what Jesus is talking about is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and end of Temple Judaism which took place at that time.

Everything Jesus spoke about was literally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD.

-Tim-

 

[JurisPrudens]

Matthew 24 is the Olivett Discourse. The Olivett Discourse is not about the end of the world.

There is an eschatological sense to the scripture but the literal sense of what Jesus is talking about is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and end of Temple Judaism which took place at that time.

Everything Jesus spoke about was literally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD.

-Tim-

In this fragment Jesus also mentioned that the “tribulations” would be “immediately” followed by darkening of the sky, stars falling on Earth and Son of Man appearing in the East.

I know that there is an interpretation that it was fulfilled in St. John’s vision on Pathmos. Nevertheless, this discourse has not yet been fulfilled “literally”.

 

[JurisPrudens]

My basic problem with Matthew 24 is that literally Jesus promises that the end of the world will come, with specific actions, to the generation he’s speaking to, nearly two thousand years ago.

The Haydock commentary explains,

The NABRE contains these footnotes; the USCCB explicitly rejects the explanations of Tirinus and Vence:

I am tempted to despair and give up reading the Bible, because it appears that either I cannot understand it, or else it is clearly self-contradictory and false. A second problem is that the USCCB do not readily provide an explanation for this apparent problem: Being 2000 years old, surely this obvious problem is known, and if there is an answer, surely they would readily provide it alongside, if they are competent pastors. How is the United States Council of Catholic Bishops incompetent in providing explanations of the Bible?

Rephrasing this problem, it appears God delights in giving us reason and then contradicting it. The best explanations above suppose that God is being deliberately confusing, e.g. using the word ‘generation’ to mean ‘believer’ or ‘race’. Why does God force us to reject reason in favor of blind faith? “Even though reason dictates this understanding, I must discard it and instead embrace an ad hoc explanation because someone else told me to.” It is an example of what some critics say, “Science starts with data and derives a conclusion to fit; religion starts with a conclusion and then tries to make the data fit.”

What am I to think? How am I to understand all this?

I’ve just read the fragment, calling God to help me. After lots of thinking, I’ve got an idea! :newidea:

It seems to me, the prophesy of the Lord is addressed personally tothe Apostles and to the readers in general.

The prophesy to the Apostles is contained in the description of the main Tribulation (Mt.15-22) and contains some practical advice to survive the destruction of Jerusalem. The darkenning of the skies was then technically fulfilled in st. John’s vision on Pathmos.

The main prophecy is to the reader. The message is that the Second coming will be sudden, without a real public apocalyptic event to warn of its approach. But there are signs, similar to the fig tree leaves, by which a faithful Christian might identify the imminent disaster, namely proclamation of the Gospel to all the nations and persecution of Christians. There might also happen something epicly apocalyptic, but most of the anti-Christians will not pay heed to it. The Lord tells us “this generation shall not away until…” - i.e., our generation, of the readers, as soon as we see the signs, should be prepared to see the Second Coming in our lifetime. We might be mislead, but it is better to be vigillant than to be carefree.

 

[PJM]

I’ve just read the fragment, calling God to help me. After lots of thinking, I’ve got an idea! :newidea:

It seems to me, the prophesy of the Lord is addressed personally tothe Apostles and to the readers in general.

The prophesy to the Apostles is contained in the description of the main Tribulation (Mt.15-22) and contains some practical advice to survive the destruction of Jerusalem. The darkenning of the skies was then technically fulfilled in st. John’s vision on Pathmos.

The main prophecy is to the reader. The message is that the Second coming will be sudden, without a real public apocalyptic event to warn of its approach. But there are signs, similar to the fig tree leaves, by which a faithful Christian might identify the imminent disaster, namely proclamation of the Gospel to all the nations and persecution of Christians. There might also happen something epicly apocalyptic, but most of the anti-Christians will not pay heed to it. The Lord tells us “this generation shall not away until…” - i.e., our generation, of the readers, as soon as we see the signs, should be prepared to see the Second Coming in our lifetime. We might be mislead, but it is better to be vigillant than to be carefree.

OK!

Easter Blessings,

PJM