Matthew 23:36 - This Generation

[rhutchin]

For context,w e have--

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 “and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.
33 “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
34 “Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
35 “that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36 “Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
38 “See! Your house is left to you desolate;
39 “for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

Christ speaks to the Scribes and Pharisees who say, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." (v30) They count themselves righteous; Christ now explains that they are not.

Christ lumps these Scribes and Pharisees into that group of people to whom Christ will, in the future, "send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city." (v34) and regarding their past actions, "that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."(v35)

Then, in v36, Christ refers to "all these things" coming upon "this generation." By "all these things," Christ is emphasizing that those to whom He spoke (and their followers) would certainly persecute and murder the prophets sent to them in the future.

The actual Scribes and Pharisees to whom Christ directed His comments on that day obviously did not murder Berechiah nor would they necessarily murder the prophets sent in the future. When speaking to these Scribes and Pharisees, Christ is speaking more broadly to all of Israel (or at least that people who are party to all that the Scribes and Pharisees are doing as depicted when He says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem..." (v37)). They are considered part of a group of people (that generation) of whom it could be said that they opposed God (they murdered the prophets in the past and would murder the prophets in the future). The term, "this generation," refers to people who lived in the past and would live in the future and who opposed God. They are those who murdered the prophets that God sent to Israel. It is these people to whom Christ refers in v37 when He says, "you were not willing." Finally, it is to this generation that Christ makes His final declaration, "See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

The point that Jesus makes is that the Scribes and the Pharisees are no different than those who preceded them and no different than those who would come after them. They are an obstinate people who refuse to obey God. Their house is desolate until they submit to Christ.

What do others think about this?

[TyRockwell]

Hi, rhutchin,

Some here at tweb, preterists, would have a problem with your more broad application of Jesus' meaning of desolation. They might disagree with any application of a judgment that lasts beyond the first century, confining the days of desolation to only the days of vengence of the one generation Jesus addressed. Hope you'll check out my debate with Darth Xena on this topic soon.

Ty Rockwell

[eschaton]

For context,w e have--

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 “and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.
33 “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
34 “Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
35 “that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36 “Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
38 “See! Your house is left to you desolate;
39 “for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

Christ speaks to the Scribes and Pharisees who say, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." (v30) They count themselves righteous; Christ now explains that they are not.

Christ lumps these Scribes and Pharisees into that group of people to whom Christ will, in the future, "send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city." (v34) and regarding their past actions, "that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."(v35)

Then, in v36, Christ refers to "all these things" coming upon "this generation." By "all these things," Christ is emphasizing that those to whom He spoke (and their followers) would certainly persecute and murder the prophets sent to them in the future.

The actual Scribes and Pharisees to whom Christ directed His comments on that day obviously did not murder Berechiah nor would they necessarily murder the prophets sent in the future. When speaking to these Scribes and Pharisees, Christ is speaking more broadly to all of Israel (or at least that people who are party to all that the Scribes and Pharisees are doing as depicted when He says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem..." (v37)). They are considered part of a group of people (that generation) of whom it could be said that they opposed God (they murdered the prophets in the past and would murder the prophets in the future). The term, "this generation," refers to people who lived in the past and would live in the future and who opposed God. They are those who murdered the prophets that God sent to Israel. It is these people to whom Christ refers in v37 when He says, "you were not willing." Finally, it is to this generation that Christ makes His final declaration, "See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

The point that Jesus makes is that the Scribes and the Pharisees are no different than those who preceded them and no different than those who would come after them. They are an obstinate people who refuse to obey God. Their house is desolate until they submit to Christ.

What do others think about this?


Excellent. No doubt about it. Why didn't I say that?

[eschaton]

I might add that Jesus meant those who would say "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!," and really mean it, not those who would betray Him and have Him crucified.

[Lady Gooner]

For context,w e have--

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 “and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt.
33 “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
34 “Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,
35 “that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36 “Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
38 “See! Your house is left to you desolate;
39 “for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

Christ speaks to the Scribes and Pharisees who say, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." (v30) They count themselves righteous; Christ now explains that they are not.

Christ lumps these Scribes and Pharisees into that group of people to whom Christ will, in the future, "send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city." (v34) and regarding their past actions, "that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."(v35)

Then, in v36, Christ refers to "all these things" coming upon "this generation." By "all these things," Christ is emphasizing that those to whom He spoke (and their followers) would certainly persecute and murder the prophets sent to them in the future.

The actual Scribes and Pharisees to whom Christ directed His comments on that day obviously did not murder Berechiah nor would they necessarily murder the prophets sent in the future. When speaking to these Scribes and Pharisees, Christ is speaking more broadly to all of Israel (or at least that people who are party to all that the Scribes and Pharisees are doing as depicted when He says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem..." (v37)). They are considered part of a group of people (that generation) of whom it could be said that they opposed God (they murdered the prophets in the past and would murder the prophets in the future). The term, "this generation," refers to people who lived in the past and would live in the future and who opposed God. They are those who murdered the prophets that God sent to Israel. It is these people to whom Christ refers in v37 when He says, "you were not willing." Finally, it is to this generation that Christ makes His final declaration, "See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

The point that Jesus makes is that the Scribes and the Pharisees are no different than those who preceded them and no different than those who would come after them. They are an obstinate people who refuse to obey God. Their house is desolate until they submit to Christ.

What do others think about this?

Are you trying to make the point that something can be near in consideration, but far away in time or distance?

Does Luke 11:37-54 support your statements?

[rhutchin]

Are you trying to make the point that something can be near in consideration, but far away in time or distance?

Does Luke 11:37-54 support your statements?

Not sure what you meant by the first comment.

Luke is more cryptic but I think it supports what I said. One problem is that the actual, living-at-that-time Scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus spoke in 30 or so AD and "that generation" probably came to an end by 50 AD or so. So, was Jesus speaking to those who made up that physical generation or was he speaking in much broader terms of a type of generation/people defined as those who reject God?

I guess the issue is what Jesus had in mind if He meant only those to whom He was speaking when He used the term, "this generation." I don't see that they were special, so my conclusion is that Jesus was speaking in much broader terms (which, at least, is consistent with Mark's testimony that Jesus always spoke in parables).

[rhutchin]

Hi, rhutchin,

Some here at tweb, preterists, would have a problem with your more broad application of Jesus' meaning of desolation. They might disagree with any application of a judgment that lasts beyond the first century, confining the days of desolation to only the days of vengence of the one generation Jesus addressed. Hope you'll check out my debate with Darth Xena on this topic soon.

Ty Rockwell

I looked at Darth Xena's explanation of these verses (in her introduction to her commentary on Matt 24) and she seems to side with the corporate responsibility of the Jews for killing the prophets past and future. She does state that judgment was to fall on those to whom Jesus was speaking in Matthew 23 (around 30 AD or so) but these guys were likely dead by 50 AD or so and certainly few would have been living in 70 AD if that is the proposed judgment. So, even the preterists would seem to have an extended view of the term, "this generation," to span several physical generations further supporting a corporate responsibility by all the Jews for the actions Jesus describes.

The debate, I guess, is whether the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is that judgment or it is that spoken by Jesus in v33, "How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" The preterists can have Jerusalem. I will go with hell as the judgment on that generation.

[TyRockwell]

A very good point! :thumb:

[dizzle]

:rofl:

Ty forgets what point he is arguing and that he contradicts himself within days - this will be fun. He's already negated his own prior position even before we started.

Keep giving me ammo Ty. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Rhutchin, I would submit that you are misreading or misapplying my comments - however, I will save my comments for Ty since he is desparate to save face and will likely poorly parrot what you said and I will dispatch him at that point.

Ty is so embarassed at this point he would amen a Mormon if they disagreed with a preterist, he was tanned so thoroughly.

[rhutchin]

Rhutchin, I would submit that you are misreading or misapplying my comments...

Well, I do find your commentary on Matt 24 a little confusing at times, so I could have easily have misread it. I was not really sure where you were going on the section providing the explanation of Matthew 23. Hopefully, it will get sorted out in the future.

[Lady Gooner]

Not sure what you meant by the first comment.

no matter your response is sufficient :smile:

Luke is more cryptic but I think it supports what I said. One problem is that the actual, living-at-that-time Scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus spoke in 30 or so AD and "that generation" probably came to an end by 50 AD or so. So, was Jesus speaking to those who made up that physical generation or was he speaking in much broader terms of a type of generation/people defined as those who reject God?


I guess the issue is what Jesus had in mind if He meant only those to whom He was speaking when He used the term, "this generation." I don't see that they were special, so my conclusion is that Jesus was speaking in much broader terms (which, at least, is consistent with Mark's testimony that Jesus always spoke in parables).





I could live with a "broad" conclusion, except that it isn't specific :ahem:

The people to whom he was speaking were special because they rejected Him: And whilst people of today deny his claims it is the 1st Century that is the pivotal point of History not now.

If Jesus wasn't talking solely to his own spiritual offspring immediately before him, does that not require that you give "this generation" of verse 34 a meaning which Jesus nowhere else gives it? Everywhere He uses it, it refers to those contemporaneous to Himself.

He is specifically directing his statement towards a people group; Israelites who rejected Him as messiah, More than that when Jesus speaks here, He speaks as God.

The Prophets he refers to spoke for God, but Jesus speaks not only for but as God. He is passing Judgement. He has the authority to do so and does.

History has specifically verified our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation, so for us, yes broadly speaking, we only need realise that rejection of Jesus as God’s promised Messiah is a most serious matter, as it leads to God’s eternal judgment.

[dizzle]

Well, I do find your commentary on Matt 24 a little confusing at times, so I could have easily have misread it. I was not really sure where you were going on the section providing the explanation of Matthew 23. Hopefully, it will get sorted out in the future.

I tend to ramble, but there is a tweb member who has generously been giving me his time to go through and advise me on errors and ways to word things better. He has been a great help.

[eschaton]

Jesus speaks in a timeless manner about spiritual matters because He is God.

Luke 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

It is the wisdom of God that speaks these things, and the wisdom of God is timeless and not limited to human literal understanding. The wisdom of God was ordained before the beginning of the world, not the first century.

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

The lesson is the same as is taught in Hebrews about the heroes of faith.

Heb 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Luke is more cryptic but I think it supports what I said. One problem is that the actual, living-at-that-time Scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus spoke in 30 or so AD and "that generation" probably came to an end by 50 AD or so. So, was Jesus speaking to those who made up that physical generation or was he speaking in much broader terms of a type of generation/people defined as those who reject God?


I guess the issue is what Jesus had in mind if He meant only those to whom He was speaking when He used the term, "this generation." I don't see that they were special, so my conclusion is that Jesus was speaking in much broader terms (which, at least, is consistent with Mark's testimony that Jesus always spoke in parables).

Lady Gooner
I could live with a "broad" conclusion, except that it isn't specific :ahem:

The people to whom he was speaking were special because they rejected Him: And whilst people of today deny his claims it is the 1st Century that is the pivotal point of History not now.

If Jesus wasn't talking solely to his own spiritual offspring immediately before him, does that not require that you give "this generation" of verse 34 a meaning which Jesus nowhere else gives it? Everywhere He uses it, it refers to those contemporaneous to Himself.

He is specifically directing his statement towards a people group; Israelites who rejected Him as messiah, More than that when Jesus speaks here, He speaks as God.

The Prophets he refers to spoke for God, but Jesus speaks not only for but as God. He is passing Judgment. He has the authority to do so and does.

History has specifically verified our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation, so for us, yes broadly speaking, we only need realize that rejection of Jesus as God’s promised Messiah is a most serious matter, as it leads to God’s eternal judgment.[/FONT]

I think that there may be an issue regarding the audience for Jesus' remarks.

Matthew 23 begins--

23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
3 “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works;...
8 “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.
9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father...
10 “And do not be called teachers...
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you...
14 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you...
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you...

In v13, Jesus seems to direct His sermon to the Scribes and Pharisees. This would not require that they be present but we might assume that they were and Jesus was using them as a specific example/contrast. However, while Jesus might have been physically speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees present at that time, it seems clear that His comments were intended for all Scribes and Pharisees and even all those who were similarly indoctrinated by the Scribes and Pharisees.

Jesus main point is that the religious leaders had missed the mark. He says, "Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.(v28)" Paul picks up on this same theme in Romans 10, where he says, "they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.(v3)" For this reason, Jesus condemned them to hell (Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?(v33)).

When Jesus says, "See! Your house is left to you desolate."(v38), I think He is referring to their lack of salvation and the inability of them and their families to be saved if they were to continue in that same mode. This context suggests that Matthew 23 has everything to do with salvation and nothing to do with 70AD or any specific judgment on the Jews other than judgment for their sins.

So, I agree with you that Christ is speaking to His contemporaries, but we should recognize that His remarks extend to all like them (and thereby to people today).

Just as a note, I think that Jesus use of the term, "this generation," in chapter 24 is set within an entirely different context and has nothing to do with the Scribes and Pharisees and is not even related to salvation. In Matt 24, Jesus does refer to the end of the world and the generation that would see that event.

[eschaton]

I agree.

When these verses and the Olivet discourse come up people always ask who his audience was. I think the simplest answer is everybody (Mark 13:37).

Parts of the Olivet discourse are scattered throughout the gospels, particularly in Luke 12-21. At one point Peter directly asked Him who he was talking to.


Luke 12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

Jesus answered:

42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?


Jesus spesks in spiritual parables and His audience is the spiritually discerning (Mat 11:15, Luke 14:35, Rev 2:7). That's the reason He spoke in parables (Mat 13:13, Mark 8:18, 2 Cor 4:3-4).

[Lady Gooner]

Rhutchin, Eschaton

I appreciate that Jesus speaks more broadly here, and not just to the scribes and Pharisees, but to all Jerusalem. So whilst the scribes and Pharisees must bear their guilt as leaders, the people of Jerusalem must bear their guilt for choosing to follow the wrong leaders, and thus for their participation in the death of Jesus.

The Lord loved Jerusalem and His chosen people deeply. And yes this discourse warns “all” men of the eternal consequences of sin, foremost of which is rejecting Him as our Saviour.

However verses 29-31 follow the typical prophetic figurative language common in the OT, Jesus gives no indication to those disciples that He is changing time frames. You cannot supplant what we understand Jesus’ words to mean, over what that generation would have understood.

It is possible to say that Jesus is speaking present tense, and future tense but the range is limited. I don’t believe you can claim a 21st century reference.

The entire Old Testament prophetic message pointed to the coming of the Jewish Messiah. When Jesus came, His coming marked the fulfillment of this long held expectation. He takes no delight in the eternal destruction of lost sinners:

For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! Ezekiel 18:32

History verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation, so with hope we can acknowledge His authority and accuracy about the judgment which is still future. That judgment will come upon all men who reject Him as the Messiah, and that God’s only provision for eternal salvation is through Jesus Christ.

[TyRockwell]

Note to all, including Rhutchin, Eschaton, and Lady Gooner:

Please see my post on this topic, in Gym Debate, Wrestling Ring, in my debate with Darth Xena. Thank you.

TyRockwell

[dizzle]

I didn't even see that you had posted a few days ago, and just saw it this morning.

[rhutchin]

Rhutchin, Eschaton

I appreciate that Jesus speaks more broadly here, and not just to the scribes and Pharisees, but to all Jerusalem. So whilst the scribes and Pharisees must bear their guilt as leaders, the people of Jerusalem must bear their guilt for choosing to follow the wrong leaders, and thus for their participation in the death of Jesus.

The Lord loved Jerusalem and His chosen people deeply. And yes this discourse warns “all” men of the eternal consequences of sin, foremost of which is rejecting Him as our Saviour.

I agree concerning this. However, by Jerusalem, I think Christ extends His remarks to all of Israel because all of Israel listened and learned from the scribes and Pharisees (their religious leaders) and it was because Israel followed the scribes and Pharisees that Christ then can say in v37, "How often I wanted to gather your children together...but you were not willing!" Thus, their house is left desolate - without salvation (v38).


However verses 29-31 follow the typical prophetic figurative language common in the OT, Jesus gives no indication to those disciples that He is changing time frames. You cannot supplant what we understand Jesus’ words to mean, over what that generation would have understood.

I suspect you meant v34-36.

I am not sure what "typical prophetic figurative language common in the OT" is.

What Jesus meant and what "that generation" understood Him to mean should not be the same. Those to whom Jesus spoke rejected Him so it seems that they would have rejected (i,e., misunderstood) His message also. Witnesses against Jesus claimed that He said that He would destroy the temple and build it again in three days and we know that Jesus meant Himself as the temple. We are to understand the words of Jesus as explained by the Scriptures themselves and not in the manner that those who physically heard Him would explain those words. Jesus purposely spoke in parables so that only certain people would understand Him. However, if those who were listening did conclude that He was talking about them, then most of them probably died thinking that Jesus was a false prophet as Jesus was crucified and they were not.


It is possible to say that Jesus is speaking present tense, and future tense but the range is limited. I don’t believe you can claim a 21st century reference.

What limits the range? The range extends beyond the hearers on that particular day as others (notable Saul) would persecute the disciples in the future. I see nothing that prohibits us viewing the audience as those like-minded people who lived in the OT times and those who would live in the future who can be described as rejecting God. This certainly applies as Jesus says, "you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”(v39) Is that not true for all the lost and typified by the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees?


The entire Old Testament prophetic message pointed to the coming of the Jewish Messiah. When Jesus came, His coming marked the fulfillment of this long held expectation. He takes no delight in the eternal destruction of lost sinners:

For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! Ezekiel 18:32

History verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation, so with hope we can acknowledge His authority and accuracy about the judgment which is still future. That judgment will come upon all men who reject Him as the Messiah, and that God’s only provision for eternal salvation is through Jesus Christ.

How does history verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation? Most of the scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus might have directed His comments would probably have died prior to 70 AD. It is the next generation that was basically impacted by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, after the cross and Pentecost, Jerusalem has no real significance as the sacrificial system accomplishes nothing and is reduced to a pagan rite practiced by pagans. Who cares that Jerusalem as destroyed in 70 AD? Obviously not God as He does not inspire any of His prophets to note its destruction in the years following 70 AD, nor do the apostles make much of it considering that which we find in the writings of the early church fathers. Why then should we give it a second thought if no one else did?

[rhutchin]

John Reece is providing commentary on Matthew 23;36 from various sources. This is the first.

'This generation has primarily a chronological thrust: it will all happen in the lifetime of the present generation. But since something akin to the Babylonian Exile is being envisaged, an impact on those who make up 'this generation', and not simply the scribes and Pharisees themselves, is to be expected. — John Holland, in The New International Greek Testament Commentary The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans: 2005).

I find the commentary of little use (at least the part quoted by John). The author says, "...it will all happen in the lifetime of the present generation." Like others who have said the same, he does not explain what he means by the lifetime of the present generation given that the supposed impact (the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) is still about 40 years away. Does he mean the lifetimes of the scribes and Pharisees or their children or their grandchildren? Many of the scribes and Pharisees would likely be dead within 40 years. He expands it to include many who are not scribes and Pharisees and supposedly many who in 70 AD others might describe as comprising another generation.

Is it really true that, "...something akin to the Babylonian Exile is being envisaged..."? It would have been nice if Holland had explained how he came to that conclusion through some means other than a personal opinion.

Matthew 23:36 is ripe to be exegeted and deserves more than the superficial treatment it receives here even granted that this is a commentary on Matthew and not just this one verse. The commentary says very little about the verse and nothing about the issues raised by the verse perhaps assuming that the reader is already familiar with those issues so he adds his 2 cents and then moves on.

[rhutchin]

This is from the International Critical Commentary series, the authors of which are firmly premillennial in their eschatological perspective (brackets added):
36. This verse may enlarge the prophetic condemnation beyond the scribes and Pharisee: 'this generation', which follows its corrupt leaders, is also corrupt. Perhaps , however, the point is just that judgment will fall now, in the days of 'this generation'. In either case the verse prepares for the lamentation over Jerusalem (v. 37) and anticipates the tribulations of the eschatological discourse.

amhn legw umin, hxei tauta panta epi thn genean tauthn [Truly I say to you, all this will come upon this generation]. [...] tauta panta ['all this' (literally, 'all these things')] is Matthean, and its combination with 'this generation' anticipates 24:34, where the sense is eschatological, as here. [...]

'This generation' refers not to 'the "unbelieving and perverted" in the whole of Israel's history' but to the contemporaries of Jesus and his followers. This is clearly the meaning throughout the First Gospel (11:16; 12:41-42, 45; 24:34). Thus it seems likely that Matthew saw a partial or initial fulfillment of 'all this' in the tragedy of AD 70. — W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew 19-28 (ICC).

This commentary says, "...it seems likely that Matthew saw a partial or initial fulfillment of 'all this' in the tragedy of AD 70." They presumably advocate a date for Matthew after 70 AD. If that is the case, then why does Matthew not refer to that event. Given not only the great impact it had on Israel but the fulfillment of prophecy, why would Matthew leave out some comment especially given his other pronouncements, "This was done..." (1:22; 21:4; 26:56) to identify a fulfilled prophecy? This must be why they say, "...it seems likely..." to denote their speculation on this point.

Does this verse really anticipate 24:34? perhaps it was anticipated by Matthew 11:16 and Matthew brings to a conclusion that which he records Christ to have said there. Maybe it could better be said to anticipate 24:2.

Finally the authors say, "Perhaps , however, the point is just that judgment will fall now, in the days of 'this generation.'" By "perhaps" they mean to say that they do not know and are only speculating. However, such speculation deserves a few words to tie those who hear the prophecy together with those who, 40 years hence, allegedly find themselves viewing the fulfillment of the prophecy.

[gooner]

Finally the authors say, "Perhaps , however, the point is just that judgment will fall now, in the days of 'this generation.'" By "perhaps" they mean to say that they do not know and are only speculating. However, such speculation deserves a few words to tie those who hear the prophecy together with those who, 40 years hence, allegedly find themselves viewing the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Funny isn't it that when someone admits that they don't know something for certain that is taken as a sign of incompetance. I guess that if I say loudly enough that I am correct that somehow makes me correct !:blush:
I left pre millenialism because the force of Matt 24.34 is overrwhelming....except if you need it to mean something other than it's natural meaning. You may continue to call red orange to your hearts content. Your gymnastics with genea are laughable. Do you have a Bible that translates Genea in Mat 1.17 in the English singular? There are 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus but maybe the text should say that all 42 = one.


How does history verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation? Most of the scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus might have directed His comments would probably have died prior to 70 AD. It is the next generation that was basically impacted by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

:lol: the next generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.

[Lady Gooner]

I am not sure what "typical prophetic figurative language common in the OT" is.

Jesus "came" in judgment against that generation of apostate Jews (Matthew 23). He used the Romans to exact that judgment. This is typical of God's "comings" in the OT when He judged nations and people by giving them into the hands of their enemies (e.g. judgment on Edom, Egypt, Babylon and Israel).

What Jesus meant and what "that generation" understood Him to mean should not be the same.

Why not?

Those to whom Jesus spoke rejected Him so it seems that they would have rejected (i,e., misunderstood) His message also.

The Scribes and Pharisees didn’t misunderstand it they wilfully rejected it and attributed Christ’s work to Beelzebub.

Witnesses against Jesus claimed that He said that He would destroy the temple and build it again in three days and we know that Jesus meant Himself as the temple. We are to understand the words of Jesus as explained by the Scriptures themselves and not in the manner that those who physically heard Him would explain those words.

Yes, what the Bible meant when it was originally written, not what it means in the day and age of the commentator, particularly his own community. You seem determined to explain the text with little or no concern for the context of the passage applied.

Jesus purposely spoke in parables so that only certain people would understand Him.

John 1:11 "He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him."

Jesus continually teaches the right interpretation of the scriptures

However, if those who were listening did conclude that He was talking about them, then most of them probably died thinking that Jesus was a false prophet as Jesus was crucified and they were not.

:ahem:

V 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The Jews continued their worship ceremonies but the One whose house it had been would never return. The expression "your house is forsaken and desolate" draws on Old Testament language and situations when Jerusalem had been judged by God and destroyed

What limits the range? The range extends beyond the hearers on that particular day as others (notable Saul) would persecute the disciples in the future.

Saul may not have been there but he confirms Jesus’ words because he (Saul) persecutes the apostles, prophets, and evangelists that Jesus has sent


I see nothing that prohibits us viewing the audience as those like-minded people who lived in the OT times and those who would live in the future who can be described as rejecting God. This certainly applies as Jesus says, "you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”(v39) Is that not true for all the lost and typified by the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees?

Jesus does not give up hope, but pronounces redemption for those who will believe in him, his statement ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ offers hope in the midst of tragedy.

However, his statement "For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’" has decided eschatological implications.


How does history verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation? Most of the scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus might have directed His comments would probably have died prior to 70 AD. It is the next generation that was basically impacted by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, after the cross and Pentecost, Jerusalem has no real significance as the sacrificial system accomplishes nothing and is reduced to a pagan rite practiced by pagans. Who cares that Jerusalem as destroyed in 70 AD? Obviously not God as He does not inspire any of His prophets to note its destruction in the years following 70 AD, nor do the apostles make much of it considering that which we find in the writings of the early church fathers. Why then should we give it a second thought if no one else did?

:ahem:

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Finally the authors say, "Perhaps , however, the point is just that judgment will fall now, in the days of 'this generation.'" By "perhaps" they mean to say that they do not know and are only speculating. However, such speculation deserves a few words to tie those who hear the prophecy together with those who, 40 years hence, allegedly find themselves viewing the fulfillment of the prophecy.

gooner
Funny isn't it that when someone admits that they don't know something for certain that is taken as a sign of incompetance. I guess that if I say loudly enough that I am correct that somehow makes me correct !:blush:
I left pre millenialism because the force of Matt 24.34 is overrwhelming....except if you need it to mean something other than it's natural meaning. You may continue to call red orange to your hearts content. Your gymnastics with genea are laughable. Do you have a Bible that translates Genea in Mat 1.17 in the English singular? There are 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus but maybe the text should say that all 42 = one.

Not incompetence. However, if someone is smart enough to write a commentary, he should be smart enough to make a simple argument. Should he argue as you do??

I checked several greek texts for Matt 1;17. They all have geneai which is plural and should be translated as generations as it is. So, I don't understand your point about me calling red orange. Any chance you could avoid the attempted abuse (or humor) and make a sensible argument?


rhutchin
How does history verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation? Most of the scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus might have directed His comments would probably have died prior to 70 AD. It is the next generation that was basically impacted by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

gooner
:lol: the next generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.

Maybe you could actually exegete Matthew 24 and - using the Scriptures - make a sound argument to identify "this generation." Better yet, ask Lady Gooner to do it. She writes better than you.

[rhutchin]

thutchin
I am not sure what "typical prophetic figurative language common in the OT" is.

Lady Gooner
Jesus "came" in judgment against that generation of apostate Jews (Matthew 23). He used the Romans to exact that judgment. This is typical of God's "comings" in the OT when He judged nations and people by giving them into the hands of their enemies (e.g. judgment on Edom, Egypt, Babylon and Israel).

From memory, I remember that God would often identify the "enemy" that He would use to judge Israel. If Matthew followed that pattern, Jesus would have identified the Romans as His agent to judge Israel. In John 11:48, it is the scribes and the Pharisees who argue that to let Jesus run around loose was to invite Roman retaliation. Not quite the same situation as a prophecy in my view. What in the OT excited you enough to link it to Matthew 23?


thutchin
What Jesus meant and what "that generation" understood Him to mean should not be the same.

Lady Gooner
Why not?

Two reasons.
1. They did not grasp that Christ was their Messiah (given that they had Him killed).
2. Jesus stated that He spoke in parables to prevent the scribes and Pharisees from understanding Him.

What verse in the NT makes you think otherwise?


thutchin
Those to whom Jesus spoke rejected Him so it seems that they would have rejected (i,e., misunderstood) His message also.

Lady Gooner
The Scribes and Pharisees didn’t misunderstand it they wilfully rejected it and attributed Christ’s work to Beelzebub.

If the scribes and Pharisees understood Jesus, would they have attributed His miracles to Beelzebub? Given that they did so, doesn't that argue that they did not understand what they were witnessing and hearing?


thutchin
Witnesses against Jesus claimed that He said that He would destroy the temple and build it again in three days and we know that Jesus meant Himself as the temple. We are to understand the words of Jesus as explained by the Scriptures themselves and not in the manner that those who physically heard Him would explain those words.

Lady Gooner
Yes, what the Bible meant when it was originally written, not what it means in the day and age of the commentator, particularly his own community. You seem determined to explain the text with little or no concern for the context of the passage applied.

I am all for context - Biblical context. The Bible is sufficient to explain what it says without having to go to imperfect resources outside the Bible to make it say what you want.

What do you mean by context?


thutchin
Jesus purposely spoke in parables so that only certain people would understand Him.

Lady Gooner
John 1:11"He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him."

Jesus continually teaches the right interpretation of the scriptures.

OK. The next question is, "Why didn't his own people accept him." I say that it was because He spoke in parables and they did not understand the parables. However, Jesus did miracles that only God could do and they still did not accept Him. Probably related to their totally depraved nature.

So, what is your explanation for the people not accepting Jesus?



thutchin
However, if those who were listening did conclude that He was talking about them, then most of them probably died thinking that Jesus was a false prophet as Jesus was crucified and they were not.

Lady Gooner
:ahem:

V 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The Jews continued their worship ceremonies but the One whose house it had been would never return. The expression "your house is forsaken and desolate" draws on Old Testament language and situations when Jerusalem had been judged by God and destroyed.

That's a good start. Because of their sin, God judged Israel and no longer blessed them by protecting them from their enemies. So, in Matthew 23, it is Israel's sin that will again lead God to reject Israel. Who is it that is God's primary agent to bring people against Israel? Is it not Satan?

In Matthew 23, Jesus makes the following contrast
38 “See! Your house is left to you desolate;
39 “...you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

In v34-39, Jesus expands on-
33 “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

Context suggests that the desolation Jesus has in mind is much greater than that which Israel experienced in the OT and which were only pictures of that desolation to which Jesus refers in this passage. So, we have two ways to go. One desolation begins immediately with the rejection of Jesus by Israel. The second (your contribution) seems to pale in significance. Jesus was not concerned with material things and neither should we be concerned.


thutchin
What limits the range? The range extends beyond the hearers on that particular day as others (notable Saul) would persecute the disciples in the future.

Lady Gooner
Saul may not have been there but he confirms Jesus’ words because he (Saul) persecutes the apostles, prophets, and evangelists that Jesus has sent

So, can we extend the range to include Paul? Can we extend it further to all, like Paul, who would persecute the apostles, prophets, and evangelists that Jesus has sent?

How far are you willing to give on this point?


thutchin
I see nothing that prohibits us viewing the audience as those like-minded people who lived in the OT times and those who would live in the future who can be described as rejecting God. This certainly applies as Jesus says, "you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”(v39) Is that not true for all the lost and typified by the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees?

Lady Gooner
Jesus does not give up hope, but pronounces redemption for those who will believe in him, his statement ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ offers hope in the midst of tragedy.

However, his statement "For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’" has decided eschatological implications.

OK, punt if you will. This message is getting long enough.


thutchin
How does history verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation? Most of the scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus might have directed His comments would probably have died prior to 70 AD. It is the next generation that was basically impacted by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, after the cross and Pentecost, Jerusalem has no real significance as the sacrificial system accomplishes nothing and is reduced to a pagan rite practiced by pagans. Who cares that Jerusalem as destroyed in 70 AD? Obviously not God as He does not inspire any of His prophets to note its destruction in the years following 70 AD, nor do the apostles make much of it considering that which we find in the writings of the early church fathers. Why then should we give it a second thought if no one else did?

Lady Gooner
:ahem:

Of course. You should be speachless at this point.

[TyRockwell]

Originally posted by Lady Gooner
thutchin
How does history verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation? Most of the scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus might have directed His comments would probably have died prior to 70 AD. It is the next generation that was basically impacted by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, after the cross and Pentecost, Jerusalem has no real significance as the sacrificial system accomplishes nothing and is reduced to a pagan rite practiced by pagans. Who cares that Jerusalem as destroyed in 70 AD? Obviously not God as He does not inspire any of His prophets to note its destruction in the years following 70 AD, nor do the apostles make much of it considering that which we find in the writings of the early church fathers. Why then should we give it a second thought if no one else did?

Lady Gooner

Of course. You should be speachless at this point.

I think the reason that many, the religious leaders, could not understand Jesus' parables was that their religiousity, their self-importance, and their attitude of superiority made them 'blind guides.' It was not that they could not possibly understand, at all, but that in their self-absorbed thinking, they saw truth only possible within the bounds of their expectations.

Some knew that a judgment, a 'day of the Lord,' as with Babylon was coming, but they wouldn't hear it from the likes of John the baptist and Jesus. When both Jesus and John condemned them, they considered them no better than the common people, who could, and many did understand the parables because they were not self righteous. The religious leaders had the opportunity to be like Nicodemas. They brought their own destruction upon themselves. They did not have to be told it would come through Rome.

The common people who believed Jesus and John the baptist knew also that disaster would come, but like Paul said, of Jesus, "who delivers us from the wrath to come," they also knew that repentance and trusting in Jesus would offer hope to "escape the coming wrath," as John had put it. The believers' focus was on deliverance through humble repentance and faith in God's messengers, John the B and Jesus. The religious intelligentsia's focus was on survival by hoping to remain in good standing with both God and Rome based upon their own standards of righteousness.

What do you think?

[rhutchin]

Originally posted by Lady Gooner
thutchin
How does history verifies our Lord’s authority and accuracy regarding that generation? Most of the scribes and Pharisees to whom Jesus might have directed His comments would probably have died prior to 70 AD. It is the next generation that was basically impacted by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, after the cross and Pentecost, Jerusalem has no real significance as the sacrificial system accomplishes nothing and is reduced to a pagan rite practiced by pagans. Who cares that Jerusalem as destroyed in 70 AD? Obviously not God as He does not inspire any of His prophets to note its destruction in the years following 70 AD, nor do the apostles make much of it considering that which we find in the writings of the early church fathers. Why then should we give it a second thought if no one else did?

Lady Gooner

Of course. You should be speechless at this point.

TyRockwell
I think the reason that many, the religious leaders, could not understand Jesus' parables was that their religiousity, their self-importance, and their attitude of superiority made them 'blind guides.' It was not that they could not possibly understand, at all, but that in their self-absorbed thinking, they saw truth only possible within the bounds of their expectations.

Some knew that a judgment, a 'day of the Lord,' as with Babylon was coming, but they wouldn't hear it from the likes of John the baptist and Jesus. When both Jesus and John condemned them, they considered them no better than the common people, who could, and many did understand the parables because they were not self righteous. The religious leaders had the opportunity to be like Nicodemas. They brought their own destruction upon themselves. They did not have to be told it would come through Rome.

The common people who believed Jesus and John the baptist knew also that disaster would come, but like Paul said, of Jesus, "who delivers us from the wrath to come," they also knew that repentance and trusting in Jesus would offer hope to "escape the coming wrath," as John had put it. The believers' focus was on deliverance through humble repentance and faith in God's messengers, John the B and Jesus. The religious intelligentsia's focus was on survival by hoping to remain in good standing with both God and Rome based upon their own standards of righteousness.

What do you think?

I think you are describing how total depravity infects a person's thinking, especially with respect to themselves. Paul says it this way, "...[Israel] being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God."

Regarding the understanding of parables, Jesus explains it this way--

10 But when [Jesus] was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable.
11 And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables,
12 “so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’”

There is no inherent ability to understand parables in the mind of the totally depraved. It is Christ (God) who makes it possible for anyone to understand the parables that Jesus crafted to explain the things of God.

[TyRockwell]

There is no inherent ability to understand parables in the mind of the totally depraved. It is Christ (God) who makes it possible for anyone to understand the parables that Jesus crafted to explain the things of God.

We essentially agree except I think that rather than 'totally depraved' they were extremely selfserving and self blinded by selfrighteousness. After all, in light of Nicodemas, repentance was available, and would not that result in the ability to perceive as many of the common people did?

[gooner]

Maybe you could actually exegete Matthew 24 and - using the Scriptures - make a sound argument to identify "this generation."


Mat 24:3 ¶ And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (age)
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. ....................

a whole lot of events follow....

Mat 24:32 ¶ Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus is speaking in the present and assures those listening to him that this generation shall not pass until..... If He spoke of a generation other than the present generation the translaters could express it with the word that as opposed to this


(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., referring to the one nearer in place, time, or thought; opposed to that): This is Liza and that is Amy.)

If Jesus wanted to describe a type of person he could have used gennema as in Matt 12.34 or genos as in 1 peter 2.9. Matt 24 specifies this generation to indicate it's place in history as opposes to the royal generation of 1 Peter or generation of vipers in Matt 12. If Jesus had in mind a future generation He could have used that in place of thisJesus had the vocab available to express what you want Him to say if He actually wanted to say what you really need Him to say.
So......no I will not presume to exegete Matt 24 as that's a bit too tough for me but even I can understand that this is a time /space indicator as it would be so expressed in everyday English.


Better yet, ask Lady Gooner to do it. She writes better than you.

:teeth: yep.

[TyRockwell]

So......no I will not presume to exegete Matt 24 as that's a bit too tough for me but even I can understand that this is a time /space indicator as it would be so expressed in everyday English

It ought to be easy to see that the 'this generation' of Matthew 24:34 refers back to "they will see," the second coming generation, separate from the time/space "when you see " of Matthew 24:4-26

If He spoke of a generation other than the present generation the translaters could express it with the word that as opposed to this

The Greek word for 'this' in 24:34 is a different word than 'this' in 23:36. In 24:34 it has the nuance of 'all the people of that time' which will be the case at Jesus' return, "and ALL the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming..."

In contrast the 'this generation' of 23:36 are those Jesus was rebuking, the "evil and adulterous generation," but not everyone of that time, because there were many who believed him who were not included with the unbelievers.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Maybe you could actually exegete Matthew 24 and - using the Scriptures - make a sound argument to identify "this generation."

gooner
Mat 24:3 ¶ And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (age)
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. ....................

a whole lot of events follow....

Mat 24:32 ¶ Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus is speaking in the present and assures those listening to him that this generation shall not pass until..... If He spoke of a generation other than the present generation the translaters could express it with the word that as opposed to this


(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., referring to the one nearer in place, time, or thought; opposed to that): This is Liza and that is Amy.)

If Jesus wanted to describe a type of person he could have used gennema as in Matt 12.34 or genos as in 1 peter 2.9. Matt 24 specifies this generation to indicate it's place in history as opposes to the royal generation of 1 Peter or generation of vipers in Matt 12. If Jesus had in mind a future generation He could have used that in place of thisJesus had the vocab available to express what you want Him to say if He actually wanted to say what you really need Him to say.
So......no I will not presume to exegete Matt 24 as that's a bit too tough for me but even I can understand that this is a time /space indicator as it would be so expressed in everyday English.

We agree that the term, "this," is an indicator of space/time. However, the distinction between that and this is not future and present. A person might use "this" to denote that to which he is currently speaking and "that" to something previously spoken of.

The key here is the identification of the phrase, "all these things," in v33 and v34 for this leads us to the identification of the generation Jesus has in mind. It is "this generation" that will see the fulfillment of "all these things."

To exegete the passage, it is necessary to list the events/items that you would include under "all these things." It is "all these things" that define "this generation" because "this" is tied to "all these things." A literal reading of the Greek has Jesus saying, "The generation of this," or "the generation of all these things." When you presume that "this generation" refers to those whom Jesus was speaking, you ignore that which Jesus actually says.

[gooner]

We agree that the term, "this," is an indicator of space/time. However, the distinction between that and this is not future and present. A person might use "this" to denote that to which he is currently speaking and "that" to something previously spoken of.

exactly. You are making my point. This is nearer than that


The key here is the identification of the phrase, "all these things," in v33 and v34 for this leads us to the identification of the generation Jesus has in mind. It is "this generation" that will see the fulfillment of "all these things."

Not in relation to the OP it isn't. The OP is re the use of the words this generation. I agree that the "all these things" = the content of what this generation will see.

To exegete the passage, it is necessary to list the events/items that you would include under "all these things." It is "all these things" that define "this generation" because "this" is tied to "all these things."

I already said I am not up to exegeting the passage but if you wish to do so I'm all ears. I don't need to exegete the whole passage since we agree that the generation that see's all these things is this generation. All I need to understand is that Jesus gives no hint of a qualifier to direct the listener to the possibility that this generation will be other than the present one. It is a theological presumption to say that this generation is a future one and it is faulty exegesis to state that this is actually that . Your theology may or may not be correct but that does not allow you to change the meaning of simple phrases without qualifiers that suggest or imply that you can.


A literal reading of the Greek has Jesus saying, "The generation of this," or "the generation of all these things." When you presume that "this generation" refers to those whom Jesus was speaking, you ignore that which Jesus actually says.

Your first statement is supposed to be a critique of the poor standard of Bible translation then? Here are six translations including Young's Literal that reject your reading.
NIV,NAS,NKJV,AV,ESV.Youngs..
Since this is a point of huge theological significance is it not surprising that the more modern versions have not adjusted the standard translation?
As for your second statement I am seriously at a loss. Maybe you could re phrase and /or spell it out. Maybe what you meant to say is that if I am claiming this generation is a first century ref ....then I am ignoring what Jesus says....is that what you mean?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The key here is the identification of the phrase, "all these things," in v33 and v34 for this leads us to the identification of the generation Jesus has in mind. It is "this generation" that will see the fulfillment of "all these things."

gooner
Not in relation to the OP it isn't. The OP is re the use of the words this generation. I agree that the "all these things" = the content of what this generation will see.

The OP deals with Matt 23:36. That verse appears in a different context than Matthew 24. They are not necessarily related and require that you (or someone) crosswalk one to the other and tie them together to support the claim that they are related.


rhutchin
To exegete the passage, it is necessary to list the events/items that you would include under "all these things." It is "all these things" that define "this generation" because "this" is tied to "all these things."

gooner
I already said I am not up to exegeting the passage but if you wish to do so I'm all ears. I don't need to exegete the whole passage since we agree that the generation that see's all these things is this generation. All I need to understand is that Jesus gives no hint of a qualifier to direct the listener to the possibility that this generation will be other than the present one. It is a theological presumption to say that this generation is a future one and it is faulty exegesis to state that this is actually that . Your theology may or may not be correct but that does not allow you to change the meaning of simple phrases without qualifiers that suggest or imply that you can.

If you cannot exegete the entire passage, then work on that section related to "this generation" and "all these things' and work with just that portion necessary to sort out that which is included in "all these things" and how this determines our understanding of "this generation."


rhutchin
A literal reading of the Greek has Jesus saying, "The generation of this," or "the generation of all these things." When you presume that "this generation" refers to those whom Jesus was speaking, you ignore that which Jesus actually says.

gooner
Your first statement is supposed to be a critique of the poor standard of Bible translation then? Here are six translations including Young's Literal that reject your reading.
NIV,NAS,NKJV,AV,ESV.Youngs..
Since this is a point of huge theological significance is it not surprising that the more modern versions have not adjusted the standard translation?
As for your second statement I am seriously at a loss. Maybe you could re phrase and /or spell it out. Maybe what you meant to say is that if I am claiming this generation is a first century ref ....then I am ignoring what Jesus says....is that what you mean?

Not really. The term, "this," is a demonstrative pronoun that refers to an antecedent. Here, it is used to modify the word, "generation," but we still look for the antecedent for clarification of the "generation" in view. In both English and Greek, it seems to work the same. Even in English, the phrase, "this generation," can be read as "generation of this (and consequently to its antecedent)."

In this case, "this" is the antecedent for "all these things" which is the nearest antecedent to which we can trace it. If you have traced the term, "this," back to its antecedent (all these things) and then determine that "all these things" occurred in the 1st century, then you can conclude that "this generation" is a 1st century reference. Based on your arguments to date, I suspect that you did not do "this" which means that you have likely jumped to a conclusion (which may or may not be correct) and ignored that which Jesus said.

[gooner]

If you cannot exegete the entire passage, then work on that section related to "this generation" and "all these things' and work with just that portion necessary to sort out that which is included in "all these things" and how this determines our understanding of "this generation."

I assume that this generation refers to the generation of the disciples and the scribes/pharisee's. ie the generation of 30-70AD. I do not start with the assumption that generation has a more spiritual meaning as is the case in 1 Peter: because genea in the NT is never used in that sense anywhere else. Of course that in itself is not conclusive but it is heavy evidence for it being conclusive. I'd say 99%.
Now given my assumption I look for a first century fulfillment of verses 4- 34 and find that this does not present any major problems given a basic knowledge of the OT and the Apocolyptic genre. When I compare the Preterist view of the Great Trib with the alternative's of Historicism and Futurism the Preterist view makes sense, the Historicist has far more problems and the futurist is just plain incredible. Are there problems with the Preterist view ? Sure. Some of the ECF testimony is a problem and there are other external evidences that present difficulties but the text of 4-34 is most certainly not a problem. The futurist insistence on seeing literal astral fireworks is childish and completely unecessary. The language is typical figurative Bible speak to refer to the end of kingdoms and dominions. The end of the age is the end of OT Israel...I think given the testimony of history Matt 24 1-34 is actually easy to understand. Hence my utter scepticism wrt any claim that this generation could be read in any way other than the most normal English sense of the phrase.

[Lady Gooner]

2 Peter 3:9 teaches that God does not want anyone to perish but, rather, that all would come to repentance. His desire is that all people would turn to Him and seek understanding of the truths of His Word. Through the parables he could enlighten those whose hearts were sincere and receptive and who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness (Mtt 5:6).

The reason the scribes and pharisees didn't receive Jesus message is simple they weren't seeking after righteousness.


Only one generation could see the abomination of desolation-- we cannot expect those events to directly impact everyone throughout all generations. Jesus told the disciples with Him on the Mount of Olives to "look up and lift up" their heads when they saw the signs of His coming--why? Their redemption drew NEAR. Paul spoke of a salvation being closer than when they first believed--it was the completion of their salvation.

Something very transitional happened when Christ "came" in judgment in A.D. 70. The Old Covenant was made obsolete and vanished away (Heb. 8)--the New Covenant in His blood emerged victorious.


Matthew 24 Verses 1-3 details Christ quitting the temple, and his public addresses cease. In the close of Matthew 23, (yep back there again :ahem: ) Your house is left unto you desolate; and then in Matt 24 He made his words good; He went out, and departed from the temple. The manner of expression is observable; he not only went out of the temple, but departed from it, God departed, never to return to it any more; and then immediately there follows a prediction of its ruin.

The Desecration - Through idolatry and sin Israel desecrated and defiled the Temple.. Matt. 21:13.
The Desolation - Matt. 23:38 - The people still carried out all the ancient rituals, but God was gone! Sadly, they didnt even notice! 1 Sam. 4:21 - Ichabod!)
The Destruction - Matt. 24:1-2 - The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD


It is REASONABLE to take words in their most common meanings. :ahem: And if we do not take them in their most common meanings, why not? :hrm:

[gooner]

2 Peter 3:9 teaches that God does not want anyone to perish but, rather, that all would come to repentance. His desire is that all people would turn to Him and seek understanding of the truths of His Word. Through the parables he could enlighten those whose hearts were sincere and receptive and who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness (Mtt 5:6).

The reason the scribes and pharisees didn't receive Jesus message is simple they weren't seeking after righteousness.


Only one generation could see the abomination of desolation-- we cannot expect those events to directly impact everyone throughout all generations. Jesus told the disciples with Him on the Mount of Olives to "look up and lift up" their heads when they saw the signs of His coming--why? Their redemption drew NEAR. Paul spoke of a salvation being closer than when they first believed--it was the completion of their salvation.

Something very transitional happened when Christ "came" in judgment in A.D. 70. The Old Covenant was made obsolete and vanished away (Heb. 8)--the New Covenant in His blood emerged victorious.


Matthew 24 Verses 1-3 details Christ quitting the temple, and his public addresses cease. In the close of Matthew 23, (yep back there again :ahem: ) Your house is left unto you desolate; and then in Matt 24 He made his words good; He went out, and departed from the temple. The manner of expression is observable; he not only went out of the temple, but departed from it, God departed, never to return to it any more; and then immediately there follows a prediction of its ruin.

The Desecration - Through idolatry and sin Israel desecrated and defiled the Temple.. Matt. 21:13.
The Desolation - Matt. 23:38 - The people still carried out all the ancient rituals, but God was gone! Sadly, they didnt even notice! 1 Sam. 4:21 - Ichabod!)
The Destruction - Matt. 24:1-2 - The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD


It is REASONABLE to take words in their most common meanings. :ahem: And if we do not take them in their most common meanings, why not? :hrm:


did I say you could post? don't you have kids to take care of?

[rhutchin]

I assume...
Now given my assumption... Hence my utter scepticism wrt any claim that this generation could be read in any way other than the most normal English sense of the phrase.

Assumptions aren't generally worth much other than to get a person that which he seeks when all else fails.

Remember the three rules of Biblical interpretation--
1. Context rules the interpretation.
2. Context rules the interpretation.
3. Context rules the interpretation.

Why would you assume anything unless you couldn't make context play your game?

[rhutchin]

2 Peter 3:9 teaches that God does not want anyone to perish but, rather, that all would come to repentance. His desire is that all people would turn to Him and seek understanding of the truths of His Word. Through the parables he could enlighten those whose hearts were sincere and receptive and who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness (Mtt 5:6).

The reason the scribes and pharisees didn't receive Jesus message is simple they weren't seeking after righteousness.

Only one generation could see the abomination of desolation-- we cannot expect those events to directly impact everyone throughout all generations. Jesus told the disciples with Him on the Mount of Olives to "look up and lift up" their heads when they saw the signs of His coming--why? Their redemption drew NEAR. Paul spoke of a salvation being closer than when they first believed--it was the completion of their salvation.

I agree that the "abomination of desolation" is included among "all these things" that would be witnessed by "this generation." So now, what is the "abomination of desolation" within the context of Scripture and when did, or will, it occur?


Something very transitional happened when Christ "came" in judgment in A.D. 70. The Old Covenant was made obsolete and vanished away (Heb. 8)--the New Covenant in His blood emerged victorious.

That would make two opinions on this. Most commentators would say that the New Covenant in His blood emerged victorious with the resurrection of Jesus.


Matthew 24 Verses 1-3 details Christ quitting the temple, and his public addresses cease. In the close of Matthew 23, (yep back there again :ahem: ) Your house is left unto you desolate; and then in Matt 24 He made his words good; He went out, and departed from the temple. The manner of expression is observable; he not only went out of the temple, but departed from it, God departed, never to return to it any more; and then immediately there follows a prediction of its ruin.

The physical ruin of the temple seems inconsequential to the end of the sacrificial system (for which the temple existed in the first place) with the final offering of Christ on the cross. After the cross, the temple became a pagan monument in which pagan sacrifices were offered to a god that did not exist because the true and living God (Christ) had been rejected. The later destruction of the temple is nothing more than a footnote, if that.



It is REASONABLE to take words in their most common meanings. :ahem: And if we do not take them in their most common meanings, why not? :hrm:

Just as a test, what do you think is the common meaning of fasting and does this agree with God's description of fasting? Is that meaning which seems common to you (or anyone else) necessarily the same as that which God declares?

[Lady Gooner]

I agree that the "abomination of desolation" is included among "all these things" that would be witnessed by "this generation." So now, what is the "abomination of desolation" within the context of Scripture and when did, or will, it occur?

Daniel 9:27
Matthew 24:15
Mark 13: 14-31

Abomination (Gk. bdelugma) refers to that which is abhorrent, detestable, and utterly repulsive to God.

Jesus Christ said that the abomination of desolation would happen in Jerusalem, in Judea.

"And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains" (Matthew 24:14-16)


Incidentaly Josephus' account lists all those things which did indeed fulfill the very words of Christ about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem...

That would make two opinions on this. Most commentators would say that the New Covenant in His blood emerged victorious with the resurrection of Jesus.

the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 was proclaimed by Jesus at Passover, inaugurated at Calvary with the blood of Christ, and fulfilled in Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit:

Jeremiah prophesied to Judah that when men put their trust in buildings and places instead of in God, then they would be disappointed

Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.' "For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers for ever. "Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba'al, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, 'We are delivered!' --only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house which is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. (Jeremiah 7:4-14, RSV).

The physical ruin of the temple seems inconsequential to the end of the sacrificial system (for which the temple existed in the first place) with the final offering of Christ on the cross. After the cross, the temple became a pagan monument in which pagan sacrifices were offered to a god that did not exist because the true and living God (Christ) had been rejected. The later destruction of the temple is nothing more than a footnote, if that.

The removal of the Jewish temple was absolutely necessary to relieve the stress on and give hope to the first century Christians who were suffering from persecution from the Jews.


Just as a test, what do you think is the common meaning of fasting and does this agree with God's description of fasting? Is that meaning which seems common to you (or anyone else) necessarily the same as that which God declares?

I'll get back to you on this in due course, afterall one must always study for exams :smile: and I have Kids to attend to :hehe: :tongue:

[gooner]

Assumptions aren't generally worth much other than to get a person that which he seeks when all else fails.

Nonsense.....life is lived for the most part on assumptions...most of them safe and reasonable. I would assume that you are going to reply to this thread. Is that an example of "getting a person that which he seeks when all else fails". You are trying to tell me that someone coming fresh to Matt 24.34 would assume anything other than that the phrase refers to those contemporary to Jesus? and I say you are playing games.

Remember the three rules of Biblical interpretation--
1. Context rules the interpretation.
2. Context rules the interpretation.
3. Context rules the interpretation.

so what is contextually problematic with this generation refering to Jesus' contempories? what in Matt 24 3-34 prevents the context being first century?



Why would you assume anything unless you couldn't make context play your game?

I assume you are a Christian so I assume you are seeking after the truth of the matter. Why not state your objections to a first century context and then we can move on.

[dizzle]

Bravo gooner for cutting through the holy baloney.

[Mickey]

so what is contextually problematic with this generation refering to Jesus' contempories?
gooner, it is not difficult to see why the "context" prohibits the idea that the words "this generation" refer to the Lord Jesus' contempories:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

There was no judgment that came upon the whole earth in the first century. The words of the Lord Jesus which I quoted were in answer to the disciples question as to what will be the signs of the "end of the age."

Earlier the Lord had made it plain that at the "end of the age" there would be a world wide harvest:

"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13: 37-43).

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age", the "end of this age". He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field, and He says that the "field is the world."

This did not happen in the first century so it certain that the following verses are not describing the generation that lived during the first century:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

In His grace,
Mickey

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I agree that the "abomination of desolation" is included among "all these things" that would be witnessed by "this generation." So now, what is the "abomination of desolation" within the context of Scripture and when did, or will, it occur?

Lady Gooner
Daniel 9:27
Matthew 24:15
Mark 13: 14-31

Abomination (Gk. bdelugma) refers to that which is abhorrent, detestable, and utterly repulsive to God.

Jesus Christ said that the abomination of desolation would happen in Jerusalem, in Judea.

"And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains" (Matthew 24:14-16)

Incidentally Josephus' account lists all those things which did indeed fulfill the very words of Christ about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem...

What Jesus said was that the key event was the Abomination of Desolation standing in the "Holy Place." What then is the "Holy Place" after the cross? The cross made the temple in Jerusalem with its animal sacrifices a pagan temple for pagan sacrifices to a god who was not God.


rhutchin
That would make two opinions on this. Most commentators would say that the New Covenant in His blood emerged victorious with the resurrection of Jesus.

Lady Gooner
The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31, was proclaimed by Jesus at Passover, inaugurated at Calvary with the blood of Christ, and fulfilled in Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit:

Jeremiah prophesied to Judah that when men put their trust in buildings and places instead of in God, then they would be disappointed

Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.'... (Jeremiah 7:4-14, RSV).

On this we agree. Now, does this leave any room for your statement that, " Something very transitional happened when Christ "came" in judgment in A.D. 70. The Old Covenant was made obsolete and vanished away (Heb. 8)--the New Covenant in His blood emerged victorious." Was not the New Covenant victorious from Pentecost onward when, for example, three thousand were saved on one day and the church exploded? The transitional event was Pentecost from what I can see.


rhutchin
The physical ruin of the temple seems inconsequential to the end of the sacrificial system (for which the temple existed in the first place) with the final offering of Christ on the cross. After the cross, the temple became a pagan monument in which pagan sacrifices were offered to a god that did not exist because the true and living God (Christ) had been rejected. The later destruction of the temple is nothing more than a footnote, if that.

Lady Gooner
The removal of the Jewish temple was absolutely necessary to relieve the stress on and give hope to the first century Christians who were suffering from persecution from the Jews.

That's an interesting concept. Can you get the Scriptures to say the same thing?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Assumptions aren't generally worth much other than to get a person that which he seeks when all else fails.

gooner
Nonsense.....life is lived for the most part on assumptions...most of them safe and reasonable. I would assume that you are going to reply to this thread. Is that an example of "getting a person that which he seeks when all else fails". You are trying to tell me that someone coming fresh to Matt 24.34 would assume anything other than that the phrase refers to those contemporary to Jesus? and I say you are playing games.

I claim that Jesus often spoke in parables because the Bible tells us this. Because of this, the Scriptures can be very difficult to understand. I claim that we can only understand any one passage in the Scriptures in context with everything else in the Scriptures because we are told to compare the spiritual with the spiritual. I don't think that is playing games.

For someone to excise Matthew 24 from the Scriptures and explain it without reference to those Scriptures is playing games as evidenced by the imagination that so many bring to the table when offering an explanation for this passage.


rhutchin
Remember the three rules of Biblical interpretation--
1. Context rules the interpretation.
2. Context rules the interpretation.
3. Context rules the interpretation.

gooner
so what is contextually problematic with this generation referring to Jesus' contemporaries? what in Matt 24 3-34 prevents the context being first century?

Nothing if you can support that conclusion. Context tells us that "this generation" will see the fulfillment "of all these things." Consequently, it is necessary to identify first "all these things" and having identified "all these things" to then determine the time period in which "all these things" will occur. That determines the time period in which "this generation" lives.


rhutchin
Why would you assume anything unless you couldn't make context play your game?

gooner
I assume you are a Christian so I assume you are seeking after the truth of the matter. Why not state your objections to a first century context and then we can move on.

My objection is to the use of assumptions to avoid the work of sound exegesis.


Bravo gooner for cutting through the holy baloney.

Why do you seem to rejoice in, and seek to encourage, poor scholarship? Is it not poor scholarship and superficial exegesis that are the necessary ingredients to making holy baloney?

[Mickey]

Context tells us that "this generation" will see the fulfillment "of all these things."
rhutchin,

It is not difficult to see why the "context" prohibits the idea that the words "this generation" refer to those living in the first century:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

There was no judgment that came upon the whole earth in the first century. The words of the Lord Jesus which I quoted were in answer to the disciples question as to what will be the signs of the "end of the age."

Earlier the Lord had made it plain that at the "end of the age" there would be a world wide harvest:

"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13: 37-43).

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age", the "end of this age". He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field, and He says that the "field is the world."

This did not happen in the first century so it certain that the following verses are not describing the generation that lived during the first century:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

In His grace,
Mickey

[gooner]

Bravo gooner for cutting through the holy baloney.

:wink:

[rhutchin]

rhutchin,

It is not difficult to see why the "context" prohibits the idea that the words "this generation" refer to those living in the first century:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

There was no judgment that came upon the whole earth in the first century. The words of the Lord Jesus which I quoted were in answer to the disciples question as to what will be the signs of the "end of the age."

Earlier the Lord had made it plain that at the "end of the age" there would be a world wide harvest:

"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13: 37-43).

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age", the "end of this age". He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field, and He says that the "field is the world."

This did not happen in the first century so it certain that the following verses are not describing the generation that lived during the first century:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

In His grace,
Mickey

I read this the first time around. I have no problem with what you say.

However, you still need to establish that the final judgment is included in "all these things" of Matthew 24. If it is, then we can say that "this generation" will be the one that witnesses "all these things" including judgment which then establishes the time in which "this generation" will exist.

[gooner]

gooner, it is not difficult to see why the "context" prohibits the idea that the words "this generation" refer to the Lord Jesus' contempories:

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (Lk.21:32-35).

There was no judgment that came upon the whole earth in the first century. The words of the Lord Jesus which I quoted were in answer to the disciples question as to what will be the signs of the "end of the age."

Earlier the Lord had made it plain that at the "end of the age" there would be a world wide harvest:

"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13: 37-43).

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age", the "end of this age". He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field, and He says that the "field is the world."

This did not happen in the first century so it certain that the following verses are not describing the generation that lived during the first century:



Yeah...it did happen. The righteous are now shining forth in the Kingdom and the harvest is now taking place in the field.

[TyRockwell]

Yeah...it did happen. The righteous are now shining forth in the Kingdom and the harvest is now taking place in the field.

The part of that which has not happened yet is the removal of the tares by the angels sent out in the days prior to Jesus' return.

[gooner]

Yeah...it did happen. The righteous are now shining forth in the Kingdom and the harvest is now taking place in the field.

The part of that which has not happened yet is the removal of the tares by the angels sent out in the days prior to Jesus' return.

I beg to differ; many tares have been gathered in in the last 2000 years.

[rhutchin]

Mickey
Yeah...it did happen. The righteous are now shining forth in the Kingdom and the harvest is now taking place in the field.

TyRockwell
The part of that which has not happened yet is the removal of the tares by the angels sent out in the days prior to Jesus' return.

gooner
I beg to differ; many tares have been gathered in in the last 2000 years.

Some commentators explain that there will be a harvest at the end of the age at which time the tares will be gathered, stand before God to be judged and then cast into hell.

Are you saying that all this is already taking place as tares (unsaved) die, so that the unsaved have already been, and are continuously being, gathered up by the angels and cast into hell?

[gooner]

Some commentators explain that there will be a harvest at the end of the age at which time the tares will be gathered, stand before God to be judged and then cast into hell.

Are you saying that all this is already taking place as tares (unsaved) die, so that the unsaved have already been, and are continuously being, gathered up by the angels and cast into hell?

yes....efffectivley.

[dizzle]

Well said

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Some commentators explain that there will be a harvest at the end of the age at which time the tares will be gathered, stand before God to be judged and then cast into hell.

Are you saying that all this is already taking place as tares (unsaved) die, so that the unsaved have already been, and are continuously being, gathered up by the angels and cast into hell?

gooner
yes....efffectivley.

OK. Then you don't buy into the white throne judgment at which others say that all are judged at the same time and some enter heaven and some are rejected and cast into hell.

What is your take on this--


9 ...the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,...

[gooner]

OK. Then you don't buy into the white throne judgment at which others say that all are judged at the same time and some enter heaven and some are rejected and cast into hell.

What is your take on this--


9 ...the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,...

essentially ....it is now but not yet; these things take place in eternity. The day of judgement is the day of the Lord.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin]/b]
OK. Then you don't buy into the white throne judgment at which others say that all are judged at the same time and some enter heaven and some are rejected and cast into hell.

What is your take on this--


9 ...the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,...

[b]gooner
essentially ....it is now but not yet; these things take place in eternity. The day of judgment is the day of the Lord.

Do you see the "day of the Lord" and "Day of judgment" as a single, unique day in the future or as a period of time beginning somewhere (and where is that)?

What do you make of the phrase, "to reserve the unjust"?

[gooner]

Do you see the "day of the Lord" and "Day of judgment" as a single, unique day in the future or as a period of time beginning somewhere (and where is that)?

no....I see the day of the Lord as the time of His judgement but that does not necessarily exclude a final 24 hour day.



What do you make of the phrase, "to reserve the unjust"?

look at the verse....

the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,...

the Lord knows

so first and foremost I take comfort from the fact that the Lord knows how all this works and He instructs me not to live in fear of history but in the fear of the Lord. Mickey and his futurist buddies want you to be anxious about apparently imminent events that are long gone. I don't know exactly how it all pans out in the end but I know that my Lord knows.
That said I'll offer an opinion. The reserve the unjust idea could be likened to a sentenced criminal awaiting public execution. Sentance is passed ....we merely await it's execution.

[rhutchin]

That said I'll offer an opinion. The reserve the unjust idea could be likened to a sentenced criminal awaiting public execution. Sentence is passed ....we merely await it's execution.

That gets us nowhere as the sentence was passed before the foundation of the earth and before God even created Adam and Eve.

However, if you do agree that we are awaiting the execution, then that execution must, presumable, still be in the future. Earlier, you said that the unsaved were continuously being gathered up by the angels and cast into hell suggesting that the execution of the sentence was being accomplished on an ongoing basis. Are you still of that mind or do the unsaved wait for the execution of their sentence?

[gooner]

That gets us nowhere as the sentence was passed before the foundation of the earth and before God even created Adam and Eve.

no problem with that but I think the Arminians may take issue:lol: woops...let's keep this to one issue at a time.:wink:


However, if you do agree that we are awaiting the execution, then that execution must, presumable, still be in the future. Earlier, you said that the unsaved were continuously being gathered up by the angels and cast into hell suggesting that the execution of the sentence was being accomplished on an ongoing basis. Are you still of that mind or do the unsaved wait for the execution of their sentence?

I don't think we are awaiting execution as we are the righteous but I think we are getting way off topic here :ahem: there is a sense in which future generations face the same judgement; ie the judgement of God; as the first century generation in Matt 23 and the Bible does teach an ultimate judgement when even Hell itself is thrown into the Lake of Fire at the end of the Millenium. So there is a sense in which all the wicked can be likened to that first century generation. But that cannot be inferred from Matt 23.36 because it is a specific time indicator; that is to say it is not the generation that murdered Isaiah or Zechariah that has "filled up the measure of their fathers" but this generation......if that is the point you are making....sorry I am assuming again:blush:

[rhutchin]

Mickey
Earlier the Lord had made it plain that at the "end of the age" there would be a world wide harvest:

"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt. 13: 37-43).

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age", the "end of this age". He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field, and He says that the "field is the world."

gooner
Yeah...it did happen. The righteous are now shining forth in the Kingdom and the harvest is now taking place in the field.

TyRockwell
The part of that which has not happened yet is the removal of the tares by the angels sent out in the days prior to Jesus' return.

gooner
I beg to differ; many tares have been gathered in in the last 2000 years...

That said I'll offer an opinion. The reserve the unjust idea could be likened to a sentenced criminal awaiting public execution. Sentence is passed ....we merely await it's execution.

rhutchin
However, if you do agree that we are awaiting the execution, then that execution must, presumable, still be in the future. Earlier, you said that the unsaved were continuously being gathered up by the angels and cast into hell suggesting that the execution of the sentence was being accomplished on an ongoing basis. Are you still of that mind or do the unsaved wait for the execution of their sentence?

gooner
I don't think we are awaiting execution as we are the righteous but I think we are getting way off topic here :ahem: there is a sense in which future generations face the same judgment; ie the judgment of God; as the first century generation in Matt 23 and the Bible does teach an ultimate judgment when even Hell itself is thrown into the Lake of Fire at the end of the Millenium. So there is a sense in which all the wicked can be likened to that first century generation. But that cannot be inferred from Matt 23.36 because it is a specific time indicator; that is to say it is not the generation that murdered Isaiah or Zechariah that has "filled up the measure of their fathers" but this generation......if that is the point you are making....sorry I am assuming again:blush:

The context for this discussion begins with a comment by Mickey regarding Matthew 13 (despite the OP focus on Matthew 23). Matthew 13 refers to events at the "end of the age." Your response back seemed to indicate your belief that the end of the age was a period of time beginning in the first century and continuing to the end of the world. Along the way you stated that the wicked were being gathered by the angels and cast into hell. I then asked what your take was on 2 Peter which referred to the unjust/wicked being "reserved" for the Day of Judgment with special attention to the sense you read into "reserved." This has nothing (that I can see) to do with Matthew 23.

So, I guess my question to you is, What is your take on the unjust being "reserved" for the Day of Judgment given your comment that you thin