Troublesome Topic: What Is Meant Here by “This Generation”?

The word used here means “generation or age.” Another possibility is “race,” but is not the main idea of the word.  Context must determine which one is meant. In this verse “a generation of men” is the most natural meaning. Although Jesus has been speaking about the completion of that former age or era, this verse cannot refer to the “age” in that sense because it is accompanied by a verb that does not fit with the concept of fulfillment, rather the verb describes the “passing away” of men. Some commentators and translators have seen in this word the concept of “race,” but it is quite a stretch to force that meaning upon this sentence, and it creates more confusion that it resolves. The most natural meaning of this word in this context is “generation.”

If you believe this discourse is primarily about “end times” with a little bit about the destruction of the temple just to get us confused, these last two verses make no sense and all attempts to reconcile them to what we know fall short. However, if you see this discourse primarily as an explanation of what mattered most to the disciples, i.e. the end of the age in which they lived (the age of the Law) and the inauguration of the next era, then it makes perfect sense. He was letting His disciples know that the destruction of the temple and the acceptance of the gospel throughout the known world would be the confirmation they were seeking, but it would not come right away, it would be delayed. However, the delay would not stretch out for lifetimes; the confirmation would come within the reasonable life span of their generation. If we see it as the confirmation they desired, not only does it make sense, but it was fulfilled with complete accuracy.

This was one of the few times that God gave a window of time in which the action would be fulfilled. The other time that comes to mind was when He told the Israelite prophets that they would be in captivity in Babylon for 70 years. It turned out to be 67 years or 70 years, depending on which events you choose as starting and stopping points. Usually God does not tell us when something will happen, only that it will.

The use of the word “generation” in this verse is considered by many to be one of the most difficult statements to interpret in the New Testament. However, it is quite easy to understand if you keep in mind how the passage begins and the questions Jesus was answering. The “signs of the end of the age” refer to the fulfillment of the age they were still in, the age of the Law. The reason some writers have sought to interpret the use of the word “generation” in this verse as a “race” is that they have assumed this discourse, or this part of the discourse, is primarily about events still in the future. If we see it as answers to the concerns the disciples had about the fulfillment of the era in which they were living, with a bit of double fulfillment added in, it makes perfect sense. The problem is not the word Jesus used here; the problem is our assumptions about this passage as a whole.

Those who try to make this use of the phrase “this generation” mean “this race” ignore the fact that Jesus started the statement by waving a yellow flag and saying, “Pay attention, this is going to be important.” He was giving His disciples the assurance they desired, even though His kingship and the demonstrations of His power were going to be different than they expected. Most of Jesus’ ministry was different than they expected. He did not fit in their carefully constructed box, nor anyone else’s box. He called for special focus on these words because He was about to give them another confirmation, and this one would be more personal. Amidst all their questions as to whether or not He was the true Messiah He was offering some points of confirmation and here He was telling them that they would happen within the lifespan of those among them that lived to old age. His call for them to pay attention seems irrelevant if you choose to interpret this as the human race, but it fits perfectly if you see it as referring to their generation.

What are we to make of the words “all these things?” Two of their requests were a confirming sign of the revelation of His power and a confirming sign for the end of the era in which they were living. Both would be fulfilled, at least in part, in AD 70.

You and I have knowledge that His disciples did not have; we know that there will be an additional fulfillment of Jesus’ words in parts of Matthew 24 beyond what happened in AD 70. Such double fulfillments can be seen in various cases in the Bible (See the example of Isaiah 7:14). Some aspects of what was said will be fulfilled later which were left unfulfilled in AD 70.

If we focus solely on the fact that the revelation of Jesus’ complete power would have a double fulfillment, the words “all these things” cause us problems. But if we put ourselves in the place of those who first heard His words, they make perfect sense. The purpose of the Bible study method I employ is to interpret what was written as closely as possible to how the original audience would have interpreted it. I believe doing so enables us to understand the difficult parts of Scripture; like this one.

Consider the parallel passage in Mt 16:27-28 where Jesus says:

Notice that in this instance Jesus did not use the words “this generation,” rather He said, “there are some of the ones standing here who no not will taste death until…” This helps us understand that in Matthew 24 the use of “this generation” means exactly what it sounds like it means. It also tells us that the last part of Mt 16:28, is also talking about the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

This tells me that we are too stuck on a final judgment and don’t think enough about the other ways God judges us on a daily basis, punishing or rewarding what we have done, in order to draw us to Him while there is still time for repentance. Such judgment is going on constantly and there will also be a final judgment; the Bible includes both.

Ushering in a New Age is a Big Deal

In Matthew 24, seeing Jesus “coming in His kingdom” does not mean the end of time as we know it. The phrase “in His kingdom” has to do with Jesus using His power and authority to accomplish His goal of ruling in the hearts of men, one person at a time.

The completion of one era and the inauguration of a new era were a big deal; not just any powerful person could accomplish this. Kings and conquerors had come and gone without bringing their age to completion and initiating the next one. So what Jesus was claiming was a big deal and it meant He was indeed the Messiah they had been waiting for even though He did not free them from Roman rule as they had expected a Messiah to do. This was such a big even that it was accompanied by very impressive and impactful signs of confirmation (the elimination of the sacrificial system and the spread of the Gospel through the known-world). Such a feat, confirmed by such powerful signs were indeed indications of the true power of Jesus and a demonstration of His true purpose – to rule in the hearts of men, not over kingdoms and governments.

Here are some examples of what Jesus likely meant when He talked about “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” When Paul arrived at a new city and the Gospel message he shared was well received, resulting in many converts, that was Jesus “coming in His kingdom.” When the door was opened for Paul to share the Gospel with Caesar’s family, and possibly Caesar himself, that was Jesus coming in His kingdom. In the book of Acts, when God visited punishment on people such as Ananias and Sapphira, the magician who tried to buy the power of the Holy Spirit, or King Herod when people called him a god and he did not stop them, this was Jesus “coming in His kingdom.” The same could be said about 70 AD and the destruction of the temple; it was a demonstration of God’s power to fulfill His purpose, which, in that case, was the removal of the sacrificial system to leave only the sacrifice of Jesus. That was Jesus “coming in His kingdom.” Any time in which we see Jesus or God fulfilling His purpose it can be referred to as Jesus “coming in His kingdom.” This is true of small things as well as big things.

A Mind-Blowing Realization

Get ready! This is sure to blow your mind. Take a deep breath. Are you ready now? Well, ready or not, here it comes.

According to the words of Jesus Himself, if we look at the large-scale “comings” of Jesus, the first one was His birth in human form, His second one was the destruction of the temple to eliminate the sacrifice of bulls and sheep, and the one we are still waiting for will be His third coming. What we call His second coming will actually be His third coming!

I will give you a moment to pick your teeth up off of the floor, even if you don’t wear dentures.

I am trying to train myself to refer to Christ’s coming that is yet in the future simply as His “coming again.” I recommend that you also stick with saying that Jesus is “coming again.” If you do feel it would be beneficial to explain to someone that we are awaiting His third coming, choose carefully when to do so; choose opportunities when you know you will have the time to get into all this stuff, otherwise you will be seen as a heretic or a member of some kind of cult. They will think that you only have two brain cells, one of which is lost and the other is out lookin’ for it! (I borrowed that from Emerson Eggeriches.) Don’t be ashamed of this new understanding of truth, but realize there will be situations in which, because of a shortage of time needed to explain everything involved, it would be better to just say He is coming again.

The only time the New Testament includes anything similar to the phrase “second coming” is in Hebrews 9:28 which talks about Jesus coming “a second time.” Our first question should be: Was the Epistle to the Hebrews written prior to the destruction of the temple in AD 70, or after? Most Bible scholars have assumed it was written before that event in large part because the author consistently refers to the sacrifices and other action within the temple in the present tense. I also think it was penned prior to the temple’s destruction, specifically during the 4 months siege of Jerusalem by Titus. Jesus had said something similar to, “when it happens you will know it,” and He had said the destruction of the temple would happen during the lifespan of their generation. The author of Hebrews put the two together and realized “this is it.” He was confident that the events which Jesus explained in what we call Matthew 24 and Luke 21 were at hand so he wrote something that would be helpful for the Jewish Christians in the transition away from the temple system to Jesus alone. If it is true that Hebrews was written before the destruction of the temple as most scholars suppose, or if it was written during the siege, the author’s reference to Christ appearing “a second time” would refer to the actual destruction of the temple and we are indeed awaiting His third coming.

A number of Early Church Fathers attributed the Epistle of Hebrews to Paul, therefore I think Paul had something to do with its authorship. Some of them called it “The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.” However, the words “of David” in the Psalms can mean, “by David, for David, about David, by a descendent of David, in the style of David, or pertaining to David in some way.” Thus I think the Early Church Fathers were simply saying that Paul was connected in some way to the writing of this epistle. We know Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:36), so Paul and Barnabas probably talked about priestly things many times. Paul may have wanted to write a letter to the Hebrew Christians to get them ready for the destruction of the temple which Jesus foretold, but I think he never did so, or he started it but never finished it. I am convinced that Hebrews was not written by Paul because it sounds nothing like Paul and uses arguments Paul never used. The author of Hebrews uses the Greek language in ways that Paul never did. Barnabas is a very popular option for the authorship of Hebrews. It is thought by some some that Barnabas was in Rome when he wrote this letter, thus the reference to Timothy coming to him, would mean Timothy going to see him in Rome. Some say Barnabas Died in AD 61, others say he died in AD 73 (after the destruction of the temple). Paul died around AD 65, give or take a couple years on either side. If the later date is correct for the death of Barnabas, it is possible that, after the death of Paul, he wrote the letter that he and Paul had talked about writing. If Barnabas did not write it, then someone who was connected to him or to both Paul and Barnabas, wrote it or finished it. This person had to possess a thorough knowledge of priestly activities; he had to think like a priest. The connection to Barnabas and Paul was enough to cause many to attribute it to Paul in a vague way that did not mean that Paul wrote it.

Because I cannot prove the date of the writing of Hebrews, nor the year of Barnabas’ death, I cannot say dogmatically that the coming we are waiting for is the third coming of Jesus, but it does make everything fit together nicely. Likewise, due to the teachings of Jesus Himself about the destruction of the temple, I don’t think anyone can make a strong case that the coming of Jesus we are waiting for is definitely His second coming, not His third coming. This is yet another reason to simply say He is coming again.

The next lesson is: This Is Strong Assurance