How are we to live between Jesus’s first and second comings? Will we be found faithful when he comes, or will we be like the wicked servant who hides his master’s talent and proves unfruitful (Matt. 25:26)? Are we to be prophecy watchers who engage in numerological speculation, counting down until the next prophetic event? This speculation can go astray: In the best-seller The Late Great Planet Earth, author Hal Lindsey asserted that Jesus would return in 1988. One of his primary evidences for this claim came from the short phrase “this generation” in Matthew 24:34. Lindsay argued that “this generation” refers to the generation that sees the signs described in verses 5–33, “chief among them the rebirth of Israel.”[1] Thus, Lindsey claims that Jesus could return about forty-years after 1948, the birth year of the modern state of Israel.[2] You can imagine the shock and disappointment for many who saw 1988 come and go; something that they were told was sure, true, and biblical fell flat. One man recounts that those he knew in 1988 boarded their pets and sold their house in light of the rapture that would come upon “this generation.” How do we avoid such pitfalls? One way is to look closely at the text of Scripture and allow God’s Word to teach us. Matthew’s use of “this generation” can serve as a test case for this practice. Was Jesus talking about his own contemporaries only, an end-times generation, or all people across time who reject God’s salvation? Each of these three views has proponents, the most popular of which (in pop-evangelicalism at least) is probably the end-times view. However, I will contend that Jesus’s words are meant to fall much closer to their first-century home—yet still remain relevant for us today.
1. Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 54.
2. This kind of biblical arithmetic led to Edgar C. Whisenant’s poorly aged 88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be In 1988 (Nashville: World Bible Society, 1988).
In this article, I will contend that each of Jesus’s six uses of “this generation” in Matthew (Matt. 11:16; 12:41–42, 45; 23:36; 24:34) refer to those alive in his own day who reject him and his message, and that this first century generation typologically corresponds to (or “fulfills”) the wicked flood generation of Genesis 6–7, the wilderness generation of Exodus, and also looks forward to the final judgment.[3] Jesus presents himself as the righteous representative of God whose words must be heeded (both by us and his original hearers) in order for us to be delivered from the divine judgment pronounced against “this generation.” I will begin by first reviewing the Old Testament background of Jesus’s statements, particularly the way in which Moses connects the flood generation and the wilderness generation as types of wicked and rebellious generations who reject the word of God. Then, I will demonstrate how Jesus both drew on that Old Testament background and uniquely applied the negative identifier “this generation” in the gospel of Matthew.
3. In this article, I am primarily using the term “typology” to communicate a specific idea of how later biblical authors received and utilized earlier authors’ works. They do this through reading in line with author-intended meaning while appropriating it for their redemptive-historical context. For a helpful overview of typology, see Aubrey Sequeira and Samuel C. Emadi, “Biblical-Theological Exegesis and the Nature of Typology,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 21, no. 1 (2017): 11–34.
“This Generation” in the Old Testament
The Flood Generation
Following the descent into wickedness chronicled in Genesis 4 and 5, Moses begins chapter 6 of Genesis by telling his readers of the exceeding sinfulness of God’s creation. The Lord grieves upon seeing this wickedness, saying that he will blot out all flesh for their profound and detestable wickedness (Gen. 6:5–7). However, the evil that characterized the globe did not reach one man: Noah, son of Lamech (Gen. 6:8). He was righteous, having found favor in the eyes of God; Noah was blameless “in his generation” (Gen. 6:9). In Genesis 7:1, this sentiment is repeated: the Lord says that he sees Noah as righteous before him “in this generation.” What did Moses intend to communicate by repeatedly drawing our attention to the wickedness of Noah’s generation—and his distinction from them? Clearly, Moses wants us to know that Noah’s contemporaries were corrupt. Evil and unbelief in the goodness and justice of the Creator characterizes “this generation” (Gen. 6:5). We can even see the phrase “this generation” itself becoming a pejorative insult: “this generation” is wicked, but Noah is distinct. And they are not just a little wicked, but unfathomably so. We should understand the depth of their depravity in relation to the coming judgment of God. If the punishment fits the crime—and the punishment is utter annihilation of nearly all flesh—then the crime must be of the most heinous nature.
Yahweh killed the flood generation for their transgressions. If we characterize “this generation” (i.e., Noah’s generation) the way that Moses did (see above), then we must exclude Noah from it by virtue of his righteousness.[4] Thus, we must say that not one man of the flood generation survived (Gen. 7:21).[5] As will be manifest below, this creates a paradigm for later biblical narratives: the wicked are destroyed while the righteous are delivered from divine wrath (cf. Matt. 24:37–41). We conclude, then, that in Genesis 6–9 “this generation” has both chronological and moral dimensions. It is chronological because “this generation” was made up of those living about the time of Noah’s own life; and it is moral because it was limited to the wicked and markedly sinful.[6]
4. Evald Lövestam, Jesus and ‘This Generation’: A New Testament Study, (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995), 13-14.
5. That is, due to the description in Genesis 7:21 that reads, “And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.” Thus, if all mankind perished, Noah and his progeny must be a distinct class from “this generation” of Genesis 7:1.
6. Lövestam concludes that the flood generation was the wicked, emphasizing the moral element of the generation, but sees it as less timebound than I argue. Jesus and ‘This Generation,’ 12.
The Wilderness Generation
The next time we meet “this generation” in the Old Testament is immediately after the Exodus. Following Joseph’s unwilling sojourn to Egypt, his prosperity leads to posterity for his father’s house (Genesis 37–49). In Egypt, the people of Israel dwelt for a time, suffering harsh service and calling out to the God of their fathers (Exod. 2:23). The Lord answers their pleas, sending Moses to lead them out of Egypt and into the promised land (Exodus 3). However, before they could enter Canaan, “this generation” began to bear the marks of those who perished in the deluge (Deut. 1:35). Their hard, unbelieving hearts became a stumbling block for them, leading them to continually rebel against Yahweh and provoke him to anger. This culminated in a horrifying divine verdict against them: they would perish in the wilderness, and their bones would dry in the dust between Egyptian slavery and promised abundance (Num. 26:65).
Moses calls Israel in the wilderness “this wicked generation” for their constant grumbling and blatant faithlessness despite the number of miracles they witnessed (Deut. 1:35). Like the generation of the flood, those in the wilderness allowed sinful and unbelieving hearts to fester within them. They were worse than the flood generation, however, as they had encountered the covenant God of Israel in all his saving glory! Yet, stiff-necked they remained. The Lord judged them by excluding them from the realm of life (Canaan, the promised land) and allowing them to die in an untamed and wild land. Instead of a flood, Yahweh let time pass over them, bringing about the same destructive and punitive result.
In the same way that God delivered Noah and his family from the judgment he inflicted on their generation, so too God spared Caleb and Joshua from death in the wilderness because of their faithfulness (cf. Num. 14:30). When the twelve spies entered Canaan to spy out the land, Caleb and Joshua alone believed the promises of God (Numbers 13–14). Yahweh had promised to bring his people out of Egypt and into a land flowing with milk and honey, but the assembly did not believe him, thus incurring divine wrath (Numbers 14:1–10). In both cases, judgment falls on “this generation” (i.e., the wicked), but the righteous are spared. Therefore, we should understand that in the worldview of the biblical authors the righteous are excluded from the generation of their contemporaries despite living at the same time and place. “This generation” has a moral quality that excludes the righteous, and a chronological bearing that speaks of those alive at a particular time. Along with conceptual correspondences, there are several points of lexical connection between the two generations. Moses calls both the flood generation and the wilderness generation wicked using the same Hebrew word (Gen. 6:5 [ra-ah]; Deut. 1:35 [ra-ah]). Also, both are identified as “ha-dōr ha-zeh” (i.e., this generation, Gen. 7:1; Deut. 1:35). This construction is only found in these two places, making this repeated term all the more significant.
Moses ties the two wicked generations of the flood and the wilderness together through common description and repeated words. He establishes a pattern of a wicked generation being judged by God for their sin. At the same time, Moses establishes a pattern of the righteous being delivered from “this generation.” Those counted righteous are those who respond in faith to God’s prophetic utterances. While the rest of their generation is destroyed, the righteous are saved—precisely because they are not counted as belonging to their generation.[7]
7. Further, centuries after Moses, Jeremiah picked up on this pattern, appropriating it for his own context. When one looks at the amazing correspondence between Deuteronomy 32 and Jeremiah 2, it is clear that Jeremiah was surely applying the Song of Moses to the people of his day (Jer. 2:2, 31). This fits well with a typological reading as Jeremiah is utilizing Moses’s description of the wilderness generation and applying it to his own. As Moses understood a pattern with the two wicked generations, he may well have expected “this generation,” a uniquely evil people, to crop up again. Jeremiah sees this pattern fulfilled in his own day, using similar language to that of Moses to make the connection. See Kenneth E. Guenter “This Generation in the Trilogy of Matthew 24:34-35,” Bibliotheca Sacra 175, no. 698 (December 31, 2018): 185-86.
“This Generation” In Matthew
The theme of “this generation” extends outside of the Old Testament context. In the New Testament, this term occurs twenty times (almost exclusively in the Gospels): nine times in Luke, six times in Matthew, and three times in Mark. In this article, I will only address Matthew’s use of the phrase and show his reliance upon its Old Testament connotation. I will trace the six uses of “this generation” through Matthew, pointing out the correspondences to the flood and wilderness generations.
Matthew 11
The first place in which we meet “this generation” in Matthew is in 11:16–17. Jesus says,
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,
‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’
This puzzling statement only makes sense in light of both the Old Testament background for “this generation” which we have already covered and the context in which it occurs in Matthew. Prior to this statement, Jesus had been doing miracles of healing and restoration along with preaching repentance from sin in anticipation of the coming of the kingdom (Matthew 8–10). Then, following his missionary discourse, Jesus answered questions regarding both himself and John the Baptist: who were they and what had they come to do (Matthew 11)? In the course of his explanation, Jesus indicts those who have encountered both him and John and yet found fault. Those who were guilty of this obstinance are identified as “this generation” (Matt. 11:16–17). Jesus then explains his illustration, saying, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.’” (Matt. 11:18–19). Jesus’s generation is condemned because they reject God’s word and kingdom—both as proclaimed by John and embodied in Jesus.
One scholar rightly notes that the children chiding the others for not giving their preferred responses (i.e., dancing, mourning) are like “this generation” in that they wanted messengers of God (i.e., John and Jesus) to conform to their desires, not to fulfill their divinely appointed prophetic charge: they spoke against Jesus and John.[8] He connects this parable to the wilderness generation via the idea of “speaking against.”[9] Throughout their wilderness sojourn, Israel “spoke against” Moses, Aaron, and Yahweh. One notable instance of this is Numbers 21, where “The people spoke against God and Moses” and were then struck with the presence of fiery serpents of judgment (Num. 21:5–6). This speaking against God’s messengers (or God himself!) characterizes the wilderness generation in the Pentateuch.[10] Similarly, those in Jesus’s generation spoke against him and his instruction, contending with him frequently (cf. Matt. 9:3; 12:2, 10, 14, 24; 15:1; 16:1; 19:3–12).
8. Lövestam, 42.
9. Lövestam, 42.
10. Lövestam provides a helpful and damning case for the dominance of the theme of contention and strife among the wilderness generation. Jesus and ‘This Generation’, 43.
But how do we know that Jesus was drawing on the Old Testament when he spoke about his own generation? Couldn’t he have just been talking about what was in front of him using the first words that came to mind? There are two reasons pieces of evidence that “this generation” is informed by the Old Testament. First, it is commonly noted that the Hebrew ha-dōr ha-zeh underlies the Greek hē genea hautē.[11] The word order is semitic, not Greek, showing its Hebrew-derivative nature. Secondly, as noted above, ha-dōr ha-zeh is not a frequent occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, but is found in association with the flood and wilderness generations. Thus, Matthew’s incorporation of this construction is already a subtle allusion to the Hebrew context of ha-dōr ha-zeh. Even staying within the Greek, an informed reader would have noted the lexical connection to the Old Testament Scriptures in their Greek translation. Genesis 7:1 (LXX) reads, “And the Lord God said to Noah, ‘Go in, you and all your house, to the ark, for I saw you as righteous before me in this generation (hē genea tautē)”. This is one of only two usages of hē genea hautē in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible).[12] These facts come together to show that “this generation” in Matthew is surely growing out of rich, Hebrew soil.
11. BDF §292; TDNT, s.v., “γενεὰ;” Lövestam, Jesus and ‘This Generation,’ 18; NIDNTTE, s.v., “γενεὰ.”
12. The second and final instance is in Psalm 12:7 (LXX 11:8): “su, kurie, phulaxeis hēmas kai diatērēseis hēmas apo tēs geneas tautēs kai eis ton aiōn.” David, too, may have wished to connect his enemies to the flood generation as he identifies the wicked as ha-dōr zū. While not the exact construction found in either Genesis 7:1 or Deuteronomy 1:35, Psalm 12 could very well be picking up on the same idea due to how close the constructions are.
Matthew 12
The second context in which “this generation” is found is Matthew 12:38–45. Here, “this generation” occurs three times alongside the more ambiguous “generation.” After Jesus’s confrontation with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath, he rebukes them, a “brood of vipers,” for crediting Satan with Jesus’s miracles (Matt. 12:24). This shows not only the people’s unbelief, but also their active criticism of Jesus and his ministry. After this discussion of whose power is operative in Jesus’s healings and other miracles, the scribes and Pharisees ask for a sign from Jesus (Matt. 12:38). Let us not miss the irony here: those criticizing Jesus for his signs ask for yet another sign. For what purpose, we are not told. But Jesus’s response is what demands our attention— “An evil and adulterous generation demands a sign” (Matt. 12:39). He goes on to speak of the people of Ninevah and the queen of the south rising up in judgment against “this generation” who failed to repent at the presence of something greater than Jonah and Solomon (Matt. 12:41–42).
The Pharisees’ continual demanding of signs, however, is nothing new. The exodus generation, who witnessed many mighty works of God—including the exodus itself, the Old Testament’s greatest miracle—repeatedly asked for more signs of God’s presence through provision (cf. Exod.17:3, 7). Lövestam astutely notes that some rabbinic writings agree with this assessment as “the people in the desert were not honest in their demands. The real purpose was in fact to find an excuse to free themselves from God.” [13] Likewise, those before Jesus had seen or heard of his miracles time and time again, but they continued to seek signs (Matt. 12:38). Therefore, by asking for a sign despite Jesus’s repeated displays of authority, “this generation” identifies itself with the wilderness generation.
13. See Sifre to Numbers § 95 (26a; R. Shimeon b. Jochai). For parallels (Sifre to Numbers § 86 [23b]; Tosefta Sota 6:7; Sifre to Deuteronomy § 31), see K.G. Kuhn, Der tannaitische Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1959), 253n1. Cited in Lövestam Jesus and ‘This Generation,’ 24, 24n69.
Further, in Matthew 12:38–45, “an evil and adulterous generation” is synonymous with “this generation” in 12:41–42, 45. Given our previous study, such derogatory descriptors of “this generation” are not surprising. In the first place, the generation being “evil” should jog the memory of the informed reader. Deuteronomy 1:35, as we have seen before, calls the wilderness generation “this evil generation.”[14] Thus, Jesus calling the generation to whom he speaks “evil” is meant to invoke remembrance of the wilderness generation and their sinful character.
14. While the Greek word for “evil” (ponēros) that Jesus uses in “an evil and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39) is not used in “this evil generation” in Deuteronomy 1:35, that Hebrew word for evil (“roʿ”) is often rendered into Greek by ponēros. Per a search on Logos Bible Software, of the 347 instances of “roʿ” in the Hebrew Bible, the LXX renders it as some form of the “ponē-” root at least 239 times. This demonstrates a close connection between the words, which further links Matthew 12:39 to Deuteronomy 1:35.
Matthew 23 and 24
Perhaps the most significant instances of “this generation” take place in Jesus’s final, eschatological discourse. At this point in the narrative of Matthew, tensions have reached a boiling point between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. Jesus has entered Jerusalem where he knows he will be crucified (Matt. 20:17–19); now the gloves are off, and his condemnation of these hypocrites will be loud and unapologetic. One dominant theme in this section is the condemnation of “this generation” (Matt. 23:36; 24:34). The woes against the scribes and Pharisees culminate in their designation as “offspring of vipers” who will not escape hell (Matt. 23:33). To add to their sentence, Jesus will send them “prophets and wise men and scribes” whom they will persecute and murder (Matt. 23:34). These martyrs will be killed so that on the scribes and Pharisees “may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you [i.e., the scribes and Pharisees] murdered between the sanctuary and the altar” (Matt. 23:35).
This indictment is coupled with a condemnation: “Truly all of these [i.e., the catastrophic events Jesus is about to describe in Matthew 24:4–28] things will come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36). As John Nolland rightly notes here, “‘This generation’ has primarily a chronological thrust: it will all happen in the lifetime of the present generation.”[15] But why do they suffer for the sins of their fathers? Jesus’s generation were not the ones who killed Abel or Zechariah—why are they punished? To reach a satisfactory answer to this, we must take the Babylonian exile as paradigmatic (see note 7). The exile generation as held accountable for the cumulative sins of their people, leading to their captivity in Babylon.[16] Thus, the scribes and Pharisees, while not personally guilty of the sins of their ancestors (cf. Matt. 23:31), are continuing in their example, “filling up the measure of their guilt” (Matt. 23:32).[17] “This generation,” then are the wicked contemporaries of Jesus who stand in the place of unfaithful Israel. As we have seen, this representation is fitting. The Jewish leaders are like the wicked generations of old who likewise disobeyed God, bringing wrath upon themselves.
15. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 948.
16. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 94.
17. Lövestam also keenly notes, “In accordance with the meaning of ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη [hē genea hautē] in the Synoptics it is about filling up the measure of their fathers in the sense that they persecute and kill the messengers of him who is the fulfillment of the prophetically given promises in the Scriptures about the eschatological Saviour.” Jesus and ‘This Generation’, 79.
Having set the stage, let us consider how the typology of “this generation” already developed in the Old Testament factors into this text. First, we should understand this text as adding another layer of complexity to the relationship between “this generation” and the generations of the Old Testament. “This generation” not only stands in the place of previous generations but is presented as the culmination of their wickedness. There is an escalation as “this generation” has sinned against the greatest revelation of God and therefore deserves the greatest punishment. As France rightly notes, “Matthew’s gospel indicates that ‘this generation’ [i.e., Jesus’s contemporaries] is uniquely culpable, and is therefore ripe for judgment.”[18] Note that as they are responsible for the blood of the righteous, from Abel to Zechariah, this includes the sins of the flood and wilderness generations discussed above (Matt. 23:35). Further, this fits with a typological reading with the escalation of both revelation and judgement. As the wilderness generation sinned against lesser revelation and thus received lesser judgment (i.e., physical death), so these who have encountered the greatest revelation will receive the greatest judgment for their rejection of it: condemnation to hell (Matt. 23:33).
18. R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 217.
This brings us to the last instance of “this generation” in Matthew: “Truly I say to you, this generation will surely not pass away until all of these things have taken place” (Matt. 24:34). Much ink has been spilled over the meaning of “this generation” here. Matthew 24 reads like an end-times prophecy: there are false Christs (Matt. 24:4–5), wars, famines, and tribulations (Matt. 24:6–8), a great tribulation and the abomination of desolation (Matt. 24:15–28), and the whole passage culminates in the coming of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt. 24:29–31). However, it is difficult to reconcile this passage as an end-times prophecy when the whole discussion begins as a prophecy of the destruction of the temple which occurred in AD 70 (Matt. 24:1–2) and Jesus explicitly states that “all these things” will fall upon “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). There are at least four potential options:
a) Jesus was talking about the end-times exclusively and used “this generation” in a metaphorical way.
b) Jesus was talking exclusively about the destruction of the temple and spoke of his own coming in a metaphorical way.
c) Jesus was wrong. He thought the destruction of the temple in AD 70 would be the end of the world and bring his second coming, and defined “this generation” as only those alive in his day, but that was false.
d) “This generation” has a typological significance, and refers first to Jesus’ contemporaries but allows Jesus to shift his focus from the destruction of the temple to the second coming.
In this last option, the destruction of the temple would be understood as a typological foreshadowing of final judgment and thus lead naturally into a discussion of the end-times.
In order to frame our discussion, we must note what “all these things” are which will come upon “this generation” (Matt. 23:36). Donald Hagner compellingly argues that because Jesus references the parable of the fig tree here (Matt. 21:18–22; 24:32–35), the phrase “all these things” cannot include the coming of the Son of Man. The lesson of the fig tree is that summer is near, not that it is present, and so “all these things” merely mark Jesus’s nearness, not his presence. Further, “The phrase [“all these things”] refers not only to general marks of the interim period such as tribulation, distress, pseudo-messiahs, and false prophets but specifically, and dramatically, to the desecration of the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Matt 24: 15–22).”[19] If taken this way, then much of the dispute surrounding the role of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is resolved as the second coming is not in view, but the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That is, “this generation” once again refers to Jesus’s contemporaries and no change of usage has occurred in this last instance of the phrase.
19. Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 350.
In line with that offered above, France also argues that we ought not divorce this usage of “this generation” from the other instances in Matthew. He rightly says that the disagreement over the meaning of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is purely due to “the embarrassment caused by supposing that Jesus was here was talking about his Parousia [i.e., Second Coming].”[20] Rather, “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is composed of Jesus’s contemporary opponents and the events which will occur before their fate regard the temple’s destruction, not the eschaton.
20. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 632.
But where does this leave us as interpreters of Matthew 24? Returning to the list of options above, we must affirm that view “d)” is the correct interpretation of Matthew’s use of “this generation” in Matthew 24. This interpretation does justice to the typological connections and progression argued for in the other instances of “this generation,” and allows Jesus’s words to have true significance for his original hearers. Further, this impacts how we think about the eschaton since the signs in Matthew 24:5–31 are often thought of as future, marking the return of Christ. However, in the reading advocated for in this article, the specific signs of Matthew 24:5–31 have passed with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Yet with our recognition of the typological content of the situation, we can also affirm that the destruction of the temple foreshadows the eschatological destruction of the wicked and salvation of the righteous and thus has significance for us today.
Conclusion
As we saw with those selling their possessions and giving away their money in 1988, a poor understanding of “this generation” can set up many well-meaning Christians to fail and perhaps lose hope. Our understanding of the end-times and our role in them can motivate us to make drastic decisions. But if we approach “this generation” on its own terms, we need not fear awful, end-time events, or allow our hope to ebb and flow based on world news. We are freed to separate ourselves from “this generation” by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and obeying his call to obedience. Go, labor, invest the talent (Matt. 25:14–30), bring oil for your lamp (Matt. 25:1–13), care and provide for those in your charge (Matt. 24:45–51). Do all of these things as you believe and obey the Son, the final and full revelation of our covenant God (Heb. 1:2). Ultimately, our eschatology must be focused on the gospel, not wild predictions or ticker-tape exegesis. The Lord Jesus is the final prophet who represents God to his people; he is the priest who makes intercession for his saints; and he is the king who rules over all things. The person and work of the Lord Jesus as the eschatological prophet is central to Matthew’s eschatology. Will we obey him, or will we join “this generation?”
