• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Did Jesus teach he would be back in the first century?

Bella Vita

Sailor in the U.S.N
May 18, 2011
1,937
98
36
✟25,239.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus never tells us when he is coming back. His very words were that he will come like a thief in the night only the father knows the hour.

That's why when people start saying the end is near I ignore them. The Bible is clear none of us will know when he is coming back.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
A lot of skeptics point to Matthew 24:34, and say Jesus was saying he would back in the lifetimes of the people listening to him. How do Baptists interpret these verses?
Who are these skeptics? Would you be able to provide a couple quotes to provide evidence for this view of Matt 24:34?

Oz
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
49
Pa
✟6,506.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I think what He said was some shall not taste death untill they see the kingdom of heaven. What he meant was when the church started is was heaven on earth, people sold everything and divided it among the church everyone had everything they needed, no one went with out. That is heaven on earth because all of them had The Holy Spirit with them. God does not lie that simple. satan is the father of lies that simple.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 16, 2009
3,039
134
Kentucky
✟27,610.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think what He said was some shall not taste death untill they see the kingdom of heaven. What he meant was when the church started is was heaven on earth, people sold everything and divided it among the church everyone had everything they needed, no one went with out. That is heaven on earth because all of them had The Holy Spirit with them. God does not lie that simple. satan is the father of lies that simple.

Very good post. And satan will try to replicate globally, between all religions just before Christ does return for His bride.:prayer:
 
Upvote 0

USCGrad90

Seeker
Mar 19, 2013
518
21
Greenwood, South Carolina, USA
✟23,424.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Who are these skeptics? Would you be able to provide a couple quotes to provide evidence for this view of Matt 24:34?

Oz

I believe the skeptics that Matt is referring to are general critics of the Christian faith, such atheists and agnostics. This argument sometimes comes up in debates, with people arguing that Jesus failed in his prophecy of when he would return.

The verse states: "Verily I say unto you, THIS generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

If you take the verse alone without the context of the rest of the verses, it can be interpreted that Jesus is saying: "THIS generation of people living right now.”

BUT because, this is part of larger discourse with Jesus answering a series of 3 questions, I believe that Jesus meant "THIS generation I just mentioned" which makes more sense in the context of all of the verses together.
 
Upvote 0

ThisBrotherOfHis

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2013
1,444
115
On the cusp of the Border War
✟2,181.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A lot of skeptics point to Matthew 24:34, and say Jesus was saying he would back in the lifetimes of the people listening to him. How do Baptists interpret these verses?
The Greek genea, translated "generation" in the NASB in the verse, actually would be better rendered "nation" here, and Israel has never truly passed away, given that there has always been a faithful remnant. By that, I mean those who are Israel who know Christ. which will be the ultimate requirement for Israel to be saved.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
A lot of skeptics point to Matthew 24:34, and say Jesus was saying he would back in the lifetimes of the people listening to him. How do Baptists interpret these verses?
This is a rather tricky verse that has caused lots of debates over the years. It states: 'Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place' (ESV).

It has created a number of challenges with interpretation, so much so that it has been included in this wonderful resource that is now available as a pdf document online: Gleason L. Archer 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Regency Reference Library (Zondervan Publishing House). Available at: http://www.tsbalan.com/books/Difficulties.pdf.

Gleason Archer makes the following comments on Matt 24:34 on pp 343-344 (I have reformatted from pdf to make it html friendly):

Did Jesus mean in Matthew 24:34 that all the signs of His second coming were really fulfilled before His generation passed away?

Matthew 24:34 reports our Lord as saying, "Truly I say to you, this generation [genea] will not pass away until all these things take place" (NASB). What things? The rise of false teachers and prophets, the persecution and martyrdom of believers, and all the horrors of the Great Tribulation will occur (vv. 9-22). Also, there will be false Christs, deceitful miracles, and strange phenomena in the heavens (vv. 23-29). Then at last the "sign of the Son of Man" (v.30) will appear in the heavens; and all the world will witness His return to earth with power and great glory, when he sends forth His angels to gather together all the "elect" from every part of the earth.

Obviously these apocalyptic scenes and earth-shaking events did not take place within the generation of those who heard Christ's Olivet discourse. Therefore Jesus could not have been referring to His immediate audience when He made His prediction concerning "this genea." What did He mean by this prophecy?

There are two possible explanations. One is that genea ("generation") was used as a synonym of genos ("race," "stock," "nation," "people"). This would then amount to a prediction that the Jewish race would not pass out of existence before the Second Advent. Whatever other races would die out before that event—and most of the races contemporaneous with Jesus of Nazareth have in fact died out already--the Jewish race, however persecuted and given from one country to another, would survive until our Lord's return. No other nation has ever managed to live through all the dispersions and persecutions and uprooted conditions to which the Jews have been subjected. Yet they live on until this day and have reestablished their independence in the State of Israel. Although this meaning for genea is not common, it is found as early as Homer and Herodotus and as late as Plutarch (cf. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., [Oxford: Claredon, 1940], p. 342).

The other possibility is that genea does indeed mean "generation" in the usual sense of the word, but refers to the generation of observers who witness the beginning of the signs and persecutions with which the Tribulation will begin. Many of these will live to see the Lord Jesus come back to earth, as Conqueror and Judge, with great power and glory. This interpretation has the merit of preserving the more common and usual meaning of the word. But it suffers from the disadvantage of predicting what would normally be expected to happen anyway. Whether the Tribulation will last for seven years or for a mere three and a half years, it would not be so unusual for most people to survive that long. Seven years is not a very long time to live through, even in the face of bloody persecution.

Perhaps it should be added that if the Olivet Discourse was originally delivered in Aramaic (as it probably was), then we cannot be certain that the meaning of this prediction hinged entirely on the Greek word used to translate it. Genea and genos are, after all, closely related words from the same root. The Aramaic term that Jesus Himself probably used (the Syriac Peshitta uses sharbeta' here, which can mean either "generation" or "race") is susceptible to either interpretation, and thus could mean the Jewish race rather than the circle of Christ's own contemporaries.

In Christ,
Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I would take it in a straightforward manner, the 'this generation' was the generation at the time, obviously Jesus was wrong.
The explanation I provided at #10 contradicts this view - as does the Greek language of the text.
 
Upvote 0
A

All Souls

Guest
The explanation I provided at #10 contradicts this view - as does the Greek language of the text.

Yes, you do contradict my view in #10, obviously I am unpersuaded by your case since it rests upon a logical flaw in its claim:

Obviously these apocalyptic scenes and earth-shaking events did not take place within the generation of those who heard Christ's Olivet discourse. Therefore Jesus could not have been referring to His immediate audience when He made His prediction concerning "this genea." What did He mean by this prophecy?

Your interpretation is driven by the need to explain away why Jesus was wrong, I simply let Jesus speak for himself.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, you do contradict my view in #10, obviously I am unpersuaded by your case since it rests upon a logical flaw in its claim:
It is most unhelpful when you blame my response on 'a logical flaw' and then don't identify what that flaw is and quote the flaw that I made.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
The flaw is that you claim that Jesus could not have been referring to His immediate audience BECAUSE these apocalyptic scenes and earth-shaking events did not take place within the generation of those who heard Christ's Olivet discourse. That is, from the very get go, you've prejudiced your conclusion.
Earlier you called it a 'logical flaw'. What's the name of the logical flaw that I committed?

I provided exegesis from Gleason Archer to support my view so that does not make it a 'logical flaw' but a hermeneutical understanding that is different from yours.
 
Upvote 0
A

All Souls

Guest
Earlier you called it a 'logical flaw'. What's the name of the logical flaw that I committed?

Argument from (personal) incredulity and thereby a False dilemma.

I provided exegesis from Gleason Archer to support my view so that does not make it a 'logical flaw' but a hermeneutical understanding that is different from yours.

Ok, so you were quoting Archer who commits the Argument from (personal) incredulity and who thereby provided a false dilemma.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Your interpretation is driven by the need to explain away why Jesus was wrong, I simply let Jesus speak for himself.
Not it is not. It is driven by a studied examination of the meaning of 'genea' in the Greek language.

However, I do have a presupposition: The Almighty Trinitarian God does not lie or contradict himself. Any supposed contradiction in Scripture is related to our fallible human hermeneutics. This is consistent with Numbers 23:19:
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (ESV)
We as human beings are the ones who have fallible interpretations.
 
Upvote 0

ThisBrotherOfHis

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2013
1,444
115
On the cusp of the Border War
✟2,181.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Argument from (personal) incredulity and thereby a False dilemma.
Excuse me for horning in, but Oz was not presenting a false dilemma. A false dilemma is to introduce an option not previously discussed, and hold it up as the "either/or" solution to the stated problem.

Oz provided lexical evidence of the proper translation of the word genea, as I had done before him. That is not logical in nature, but evidentiary. It is not a situation that requires conjecture or logic to resolve, but is a finite point that is defined in absolutes. There is no dilemma. The word is known, defined, and can be exegeted within its context.

You're making up an excuse for not accepting the truth of the passage. And Jesus is not "wrong." He never is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Argument from (personal) incredulity and thereby a False dilemma.

Ok, so you were quoting Archer who commits the Argument from (personal) incredulity and who thereby provided a false dilemma.
I have not committed the False Dilemma Fallacy, as described in this definition of the fallacy:

The False Dilemma Fallacy states:
Also Known as: Black & White Thinking.
Description of False Dilemma

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

  1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
  2. Claim Y is false.
  3. Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false.
I have not engaged in this kind of thinking as described. I have not provided black and white thinking fallacy because I've been seeking the meaning of 'genea' in the verse under discussion. I've reached a hermeneutical conclusion different from yours, but that is not a False Dilemma Fallacy.

It is exegetical reasoning, using the tools of the Greek language. I may be wrong; you may be wrong; we could both be wrong. But it is an issue of hermeneutics and not black and white thinking.

In Christ,
Oz
 
Upvote 0