The interpretaion of this generation

[eschaton]

John Reece correctly points out points out that Pseudo-Chrysostom gives a literal interpretation of "generation." Here is information about the writer Aquinas quotes. From ccel.org:

The Areopagitica were formerly supposed to have made their first appearance, or rather to have been first noticed by Christian writers, in a few pseudo-epigraphical works which have now been proved to be the products of a much later period; as, for instance, in the following: Pseudo-Origenes, "Homilia in diversos secunda"; Pseudo-Athanasius, "Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem", Q. viii; Pseudo-Hippolytus, against the heretic Beron; Pseudo-Chrysostom, "sermo de pseudo-prophetis."

I think this highlights the difference between the earlier and later christian interpreters. Compare to this information from Hippolytus (died 235).

(On this): The city is the Church ; and these months they are to persecute her and kill, when the false Christ [St. Matth. xxiv. 24] shall come, because she worships him not. Now of this said Daniel, He shall approve the covenant for many, one week; in the half of the week shall cease the sacrifice [Dan, ix. 27]. The half of the week: that is, three years and a-half; and these make the forty and two months which are mentioned. The sacrifice he speaks of is not that of sheep, but the prayers of the upright. And the holy city he speaks of is the righteous, i. e. [those] who are oppressed and trodden under foot by the horn that sprang up in the midst [Dan. vii. 8, 20, 21, 25], which is Antichrist, as Daniel said.

Hippolytus 12 otherwise interprets that which is said in the Gospel, When indeed ye shall see the pollution of desolation [St. Matth. |138 xxiv. 15] : for he says that it is not concerning the Jews, and the laying waste of Jerusalem, that these things are said, but concerning the end of Antichrist. The elect [ib. 22] he speaks of are the Christians who are in this conflict. And He says, Pray that ye fly not on the Sabbath or in winter [ib. 20] : i. e. He advises that we be not overtaken by those things that are coming on us, when we are unoccupied in righteousness, as the Jews [are unoccupied] on the Sabbath, or troubled with worldly cares and sins, as one that is in a winter storm. There shall be tribulation such as there was not like it since the beginning of the world, etc. [ib. 21 ; cp. Dan. xii. 1].

On this Hippolytus says, that in the siege of Vespasian this did not come to pass; for nothing new happened to the world in his days beyond the things that were before. If you speak of war, many times it has happened in former times : and if again of captives, there have not lacked massacres or blood-shedding that was more than that [of the siege]. And if of the eating of children and unclean beasts, lo also in the days of Ahab 13 these things were [2 Kings, vi. 28]. Accordingly it is not concerning Jerusalem that the Lord said this; for when He willed to speak concerning her, He said, When ye shall see the army compassing the city, know that the desolation thereof is nigh [St. Luke, xxi. 20]. Hence the pollution of devastations He speaks of is Antichrist. And Daniel said, [In] the half of the week standeth the abomination in the sanctuary [Dan. ix. 27 ; cp. xi. 31]. Now "Vespasian did not set up in the temple an idol, but that Legion 14 which Trajanus Quintus placed, a chief man of the Romans : he set up the idol there which is called Kôre. |139

Also the Apostle has written that these things are concerning Antichrist, Except if there come first a falling away, and the Man of iniquity be revealed, so that he as God shall sit in the temple, whom our Lord Jesus shall consume, etc. [2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 8]. From these [words] it is evident that Vespasian did not call himself God, nor did he sit in the temple, nor was he killed by the Spirit of the Lord. Accordingly it is manifest that in the end tribulation arises against the Church, such as was none like it.'

Check this modern list of interpretation rules.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/3.htm

Where is the call for prayerful study (2 Tim 2:15), comparing scripture to scripture as the Bereans (Acts 17:11), and reliance on the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 3:6)? The spirit is made subserviant to history in modern rules that were developed after the reformation. Where is the reliance on Christ as the center of interpretation (John 5:39)? Where do the modern rules rely on the fact that the scriptures are divinely inspiried (2 Tim 3:16)? Modern rules simply rely on the surface, literal, dictionary level without regard to deeper wisdom (1 Cor 1:24). It is the wisdom of God that defines "this generation" (Luke 11:49,50), not the letter of the Law.

Rules today ignore the Holy Spirit. There is no search for overall design and purpose. That's why both fundamentalists and atheists can use the same rules.

[TyRockwell]

There is no search for overall design and purpose.

Why do you suppose, none of the early church commentators see that the person of whom, in Dan. 9:26, "desolations are decreed," was Jesus, in Matthew 23:38 and Matthew 24:2? Then jumping to the assumption that the 'He' of Dan. 9:27 is the 'antichrist,' and not Jesus?

[Mickey]

Check this modern list of interpretation rules.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/3.htm
None of the following violates the interpretation rules:

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24: 33, 34).

In verse 33 we see that the Lord used the pronoun "ye" in regard to those who will see the signs that will precede His coming. And earlier the same day He used the same pronoun in regard to those who were not members of the then present generation but instead belonged to a previous generation:

"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" (Mt. 23: 35).

The blood of Zacharias was shed by a past generation of Jews, but despite this fact the Lord Jesus said, "whom ye slew between the temple and the altar". So when He used the pronoun "ye" we can see that He was not necessarily referring to those who were members of the generation of Jews then living. We can see the same principle just four verses later:

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt. 23: 39).

Earlier His disciples had indeed said,"Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt. 21: 9) so if we are to believe the words of the Lord Jesus then at some time in the future there will be some Jews belonging to a future generation who will say those words. And the Lord used the pronoun "ye" to refer to those who will belong to a future generation.

So the word "ye" in the following verse can refer to Jews belonging to a future generation:

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24: 33, 34).

Even preterist Dr. Kenneth Gentry recognizes that the word "ye" in the same discourse can refer to a future generation. Let us examine his ideas in regard to the events that happen after Matthew 24: 35:

"The following events (Matt. 24: 36-51) relate to some other event that was not to occur in ‘this generation’… it is clear that His focus is on ‘that’ singular day, when Christ (‘the Lord’) comes to punctuate the end of history (vv. 36, 50) and to bring final judgment upon men (v. 51)" (Gentry, "The Transition Text of Matthew 14").

According to him the following verses did not happen to the generation then living but instead remain in the future:

"Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come…Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh…" (Mt. 24: 42, 44).

Here the Lord Jesus uses the word "ye" in regard to a future generation. And with that established we can understand that the following verses can also be in regard to a future generation:

"So likewise , when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24: 33, 34).

When the Lord Jesus uses the word "ye" in verse 33 he is referring to the generation who will see the signs which He had described earlier. With that established we can now explain the meaning of the word "this" as used in verse 34.

The word "this" is translated from the Greek word "houtos", and one of the meanings of that word is: "It refers to a subject immediately preceding, the one just named" ("Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon").

The subject immediately preceding "this generation" is the people (ye) who will see the signs:

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24: 33-34).

"The Same Generation"

We can see the same principle when the Lord Jesus spoke about Judas at the Last Supper:

"And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same (houtos) shall betray me" (Mt. 26: 23).

Here the translators used the words "the same" to translate the Greek word "houtos". The subject immediately preceding the word "houtos" is "he"--"he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish". Therefore Matthew 24: 33, 34 could be translated in the following way:

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, The same generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Mt. 24: 33, 34).

The same generation who sees the signs shall not pass until all the things are fulfilled.

In His grace,
Mickey

[eschaton]

None of the following violates the interpretation rules:




You're right Mickey, but you miss the point of my post. You'll never completely understand the Bible using those rules. The early Christians interpreted the Bible differently.

[Mickey]

You're right Mickey, but you miss the point of my post. You'll never completely understand the Bible using those rules. The early Christians interpreted the Bible differently.
The early Christians did not believe that all of the prophesised events took place in 70 AD and were fukfilled at the time of the generation then living.

Hippolytus believed that the fulfillment of the 70th Week remained in the future:

“Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, ‘And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.’ By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations” [emphasis mine] (Hippolytus,”Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”, Section 43).

Irenaeus,who studied under Polycarp (who was regarded as a disciple of the Apostles themselves), placed the events described in the 9th chapter of Daniel in the future:

“And then he (Daniel) points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week” (Irenaeus,”Against Heresies”,Book 5,Section 3,4).

Irenaeus placed the events described in Daniel 9:27 as belonging in the future and therefore he did not believe that they had already happened in the first century as the preterists teach.

In His grace,
Mickey

[eschaton]

The early Christians did not believe that all of the prophesised events took place in 70 AD and were fukfilled at the time of the generation then living.

Hippolytus believed that the fulfillment of the 70th Week remained in the future:

“Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says, ‘And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.’ By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations” [emphasis mine] (Hippolytus,”Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”, Section 43).

Irenaeus,who studied under Polycarp (who was regarded as a disciple of the Apostles themselves), placed the events described in the 9th chapter of Daniel in the future:

“And then he (Daniel) points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week” (Irenaeus,”Against Heresies”,Book 5,Section 3,4).

Irenaeus placed the events described in Daniel 9:27 as belonging in the future and therefore he did not believe that they had already happened in the first century as the preterists teach.

In His grace,
Mickey


Once again you're right about Hippolytus and Irenaeus, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. Are you a dispensationalist?

[eschaton]

Actually, I shouldn't say it doesn't have anything to do, because it does. My point it that the ECF looked beyond the literal level of interpretation. They sometimes tied together what might appear to be unrelated scriptures to some modern readers.

[eschaton]

There is no search for overall design and purpose.

Why do you suppose, none of the early church commentators see that the person of whom, in Dan. 9:26, "desolations are decreed," was Jesus, in Matthew 23:38 and Matthew 24:2? Then jumping to the assumption that the 'He' of Dan. 9:27 is the 'antichrist,' and not Jesus?

You're suggesting desolations are decreed about Jesus, and that Jesus destroys the temple?

[eschaton]

Mickey,


You said earlier:


The same generation who sees the signs shall not pass until all the things are fulfilled.

And you correctly point out that the ECF believed that "this generation" was not about 70 AD.

But can you show that the ECF agreed that the same generation that saw the signs was the one Jesus was talking about? Here is a collection of commentary from church fathers I gave earlier. I don't see them expressing the same opinion you have.


Origen: The uninstructed refer the words to the destruction of Jerusalem, and suppose them to have been said of that generation which saw Christ’s death, that it should not pass away before the city should be destroyed. But I doubt that they would succeed in thus expounding every word from that, “one stone shall not be left upon another,” to that, “it is even at the door;” in some perhaps they would succeed, in others not altogether.

Chrys.: All these things therefore mean what was said of the end of Jerusalem, of the false prophets, and the false Christs, and all the rest which shall happen down to the time of Christ’s coming, That He said, “This generation,” He meant not of the men then living, but of the generation of the faithful; for so Scripture uses to speak of generations, not of time only, but of place, life, and conversation; as it is said, “This, is the generation of them that seek the Lord.” [Ps 24:6]

Herein He teaches that Jerusalem shall perish, and the greater part of the Jews be destroyed, but that no trial shall overthrow the generation of the faithful.

Origen: Yet shall the generation of the Church survive the whole of this world, that it may inherit the world to come, yet it shall not pass away until all these things have come to pass. But when all these shall have been fulfilled, then not the earth only but the heavens also shall pass away; that is, not only the men whose life is earthly, and who are therefore called the earth, but also they whose conversation is in heaven, and who are therefore called the heaven; these “shall pass away” to things to come, that they may come to better things.

But the words spoken by the Saviour shall not pass away, because they effect and shall ever effect their purpose; but the perfect and they that admit no further improvement, passing through what they are, come to that which they are not; and this is that, “My words shall not pass away.” And perhaps the words of Moses and the Prophets have passed away, because all that they prophesied has831 been fulfilled; but the words of Christ are always complete, daily fulfilling and to be fulfilled in the saints. Or perhaps we ought not to say that the words of Moses and the Prophets are once for all fulfilled; seeing they also are the words of the Son of God, and are fulfilled continually.

Jerome: Or, by “generation” here He means the whole human race, and the Jews in particular. And He adds, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away,” to confirm their faith in what has gone before; as though He had said, it is easier to destroy things solid and immovable, than that aught should fail of my words.

Hilary: For heaven and earth have in their constitution no necessity of existence, but Christ’s words derived from eternity have in them such virtue that they must needs abide.



You said the interpretation you gave didn't violate the rules, but I'm saying early interpreters looked at more than the literal level.

[TyRockwell]

You're suggesting desolations are decreed about Jesus, and that Jesus destroys the temple?

Jesus is the one who decreed desolations about Jerusalem and the Temple. It was prophesied that Messiah would decree desolations in Daniel 9:26, where it says, "and desolations are decreed."
The result of the decrees are:
1. The end of sacrifice and offering at the end of Jesus' three and a half year ministry. His sacrifice on the cross put an end to all Judaism's old covenental sacrifices. This was in the middle of Daniel's 70th week. Daniel 9:27, "He will put an end to sacrifice and offering."
2. the second half of the 70th week is the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, 66-70 AD, concluding with the 70 AD destruction of the Temple. This was prophesied in Daniel 9:27, "until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolate (temple)."
Jesus' two decrees of desolation: 1. "Behold, your house is left to you desolate." 2. "Not one stone will be left standing upon another that shall not be cast down."
I guess you could say that by the power of Jesus' words, he did destroy the temple in pronouncing those two desolations.

[eschaton]

Ty,

1. This wasn't the first time the sacrifices had been stopped. Israel had been without a temple and sacrifices before, such as during the captivity. The sacrifices never really saved anybody anyway, but were a shadow of things to come (Heb 10:1-5)

2. The Jews accused Jesus of threatening to destroy the temple (Mat 26:61, 27:40, Mark 14:58, 15:29), but that was not what He said (John 2:19-21).

[TyRockwell]

1. This wasn't the first time the sacrifices had been stopped. Israel had been without a temple and sacrifices before, such as during the captivity. The sacrifices never really saved anybody anyway, but were a shadow of things to come (Heb 10:1-5)

2. The Jews accused Jesus of threatening to destroy the temple (Mat 26:61, 27:40, Mark 14:58, 15:29), but that was not what He said (John 2:19-21).

You are right about other stoppages, but that is not the point. According to Daniel 9:27, Jesus put an end to sacrifice an offering, and along with Hebrews 9:26, "by the sacrifice of himself."

Sacrifice was no longer legitimate after the cross. It ended the old covenant's sacrifice system. Jesus thereby CONFIRMED (fulfilled, same word) THE COVENANT (Dan. 9:27) He had said, I have not come to destroy the law and prophets, but to CONFIRM (fulfilled, same word) them. Confirmed, fufilled, and completed the reason for the system of sacrifice, a foreshadowing Jesus fulfilled, uh,... confirmed.

[eschaton]

1. This wasn't the first time the sacrifices had been stopped. Israel had been without a temple and sacrifices before, such as during the captivity. The sacrifices never really saved anybody anyway, but were a shadow of things to come (Heb 10:1-5)

2. The Jews accused Jesus of threatening to destroy the temple (Mat 26:61, 27:40, Mark 14:58, 15:29), but that was not what He said (John 2:19-21).

You are right about other stoppages, but that is not the point. According to Daniel 9:27, Jesus put an end to sacrifice an offering, and along with Hebrews 9:26, "by the sacrifice of himself."

Sacrifice was no longer legitimate after the cross. It ended the old covenant's sacrifice system. Jesus thereby CONFIRMED (fulfilled, same word) THE COVENANT (Dan. 9:27) He had said, I have not come to destroy the law and prophets, but to CONFIRM (fulfilled, same word) them. Confirmed, fufilled, and completed the reason for the system of sacrifice, a foreshadowing Jesus fulfilled, uh,... confirmed.

My point was that the sacrifice system never was a legitimate means of salvation anyway. It was just a shadow of what was to come. That's why Jesus fulfilled the covenant, because the sacrifice system was only a shadow of His reality, not the reality itself.

[TyRockwell]

A distinction without a difference from what I said.