SPLIT: Discussion on John Reese's thread on Matt 23:36

[eschaton]

All due respect John, but I think your thread hightlights the difference in interpretation between modern interpreters, and what Jesus and the apostles passed on to the early church. Allow me to present a compendium of what the early church fathers taught that was compiled by Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274).


Mat 23:36

Chrys.:795 And to take away all excuse from them that they might not say, Because you sent them to the Gentiles thereat were we offended, He foretels that His disciples should be sent to them, and it is of their punishment that He adds, “Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.”

Gloss., ord.: He means not only those there present, but the whole generation before and after, for all were one city and one body of the Devil.

Jerome: The rule of the Scriptures is only to know two generations, one of good the other of bad. Of the generation of the good it is said, “The generation of the righteous shall be blessed.” [Ps 112:2] And of the bad it is said in the present passage, “Generation of vipers.” These then, because they did against the Apostles like things as Cain and Joas, are described as of one generation.

Chrys.: Otherwise; Because He delayed the punishment of hell which He bad threatened them with, He pronounces against them threats of present evil, saying, “All these things shall come upon this generation.”

Pseudo-Chrys.: As all the good things which had been merited by all the saints in each generation since the foundation of the world were bestowed upon that last generation which received Christ; so all the evil that all the wicked in every generation from the foundation of the world had deserved to suffer, came upon that last generation of the Jews which rejected Christ.

Or thus; As all the righteous of former saints, yea, of all the saints, could not merit that so great grace as was given to men in Christ; so the sins of all the wicked could not deserve so much evil as came upon the Jews, that they should suffer such things as these suffered from the Romans, and that in after time every generation of them to the end of the world should be cast off from God, and be made a mock by all the Gentiles.

For what is there worse than to reject and in such sort to put to death the Son coming in mercy and lowliness!

Or thus; Nations and states when they sin are not thereupon immediately punished by God, but He waits for many generations; but when He sees fit to destroy that state or nation, He then seems to visit upon them the sins of all former generations, and one generation suffers the accumulation of all that former generations have deserved. Thus this generation of the Jews seems to have been punished for their fathers; but796 in truth they suffered not for others, but on their own account.

Chrys.: For he who having seen many sinning yet remains uncorrected, but rather does the same or worse, is obnoxious to heavier punishment.

Mark 13:30

Bede: By generation He either means the whole race of mankind, or specially the Jews.


Theophylact: Or else, “This generation shall not pass away,” that is, the generation of Christians, “until all things be fulfilled,” which were spoken concerning Jerusalem and the coming of Antichrist; for He does not mean the generation of the Apostles, for the greater part of the Apostles did not live up to the destruction of Jerusalem. But He says this of the generation of Christians, wishing to console His disciples, lest they should believe that the faith should fail at that time; for the immoveable elements shall first fail, before the words of Christ fail; wherefore it is added, “Heaven and earth 269 shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.”



You see that the views of earlier Christians differs from those of modern secular scholars. The reason for that is that early Christians believed God inspired the scriptures and there was a design and purpose for them. It wasn't considered to be the product solely from the minds of ancient men, but was believed to have been written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is good to remember that Jesus and the apostles didn't sit in a modern hermeneutics class.

Modern interpreters try to approach the scriptures in a "scientific" way, without any preconceived ideas. It is impossible to understand the Bible that way. Disregarding the Spirit that inspires the scriptures is basically atheistic, althought the modern interpreter probably doesn't realize that. Check the page of athteist Farrell Till and you'll see that he interprets "this generation" in the same way you've presented.


http://www.theskepticalreview.com/AuthorFarrellTill3.html#preterism

[John Reece]

John can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he does not intend for this to be a debate thread, but a reference thread - so I think he would prefer to comments such as above to go into the debate thread that already exists on this topic.

I know as a reader, I am not looking for this as a debate, but a resource.

You are oh so right Xena.

However, I may offer a response to eschaton's post here, and request that hereafter any further comment go into the debate thread, as you have suggested.

[John Reece]

Allow me to present a compendium of what the early church fathers taught that was compiled by Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274).

Allow me to take a close look at what's in that compendium compiled by Aquinas:
Mat 23:36

Pseudo-Chrys.: As all the good things which had been merited by all the saints in each generation since the foundation of the world were bestowed upon that last generation which received Christ; so all the evil that all the wicked in every generation from the foundation of the world had deserved to suffer, came upon that last generation of the Jews which rejected Christ.

Or thus; Nations and states when they sin are not thereupon immediately punished by God, but He waits for many generations; but when He sees fit to destroy that state or nation, He then seems to visit upon them the sins of all former generations, and one generation suffers the accumulation of all that former generations have deserved. Thus this generation of the Jews seems to have been punished for their fathers; but in truth they suffered not for others, but on their own account.

That interpretation is in perfect accord with the interpretation of each of the three exegetical scholars I quoted here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2159364&postcount=1), here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2160547&postcount=2), and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2161328&postcount=4).

You see that the views of earlier Christians differs from those of modern secular scholars.

What I see is that some "earlier Christians" agreed with modern scholars who are not — as you wrongly presume in the case of the three I quoted — 'secular'.

The [snip] early Christians believed God inspired the scriptures and there was a design and purpose for them. It wasn't considered to be the product solely from the minds of ancient men, but was believed to have been written with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That's no less true of the modern Christian scholars I quoted than it was of the ancient Christian writers you quoted.

[TyRockwell]

Modern interpreters try to approach the scriptures in a "scientific" way, without any preconceived ideas. It is impossible to understand the Bible that way. Disregarding the Spirit that inspires the scriptures is basically atheistic, althought the modern interpreter probably doesn't realize that. Check the page of athteist Farrell Till and you'll see that he interprets "this generation" in the same way you've presented.

I agree with you, 100% When modern scholars put so much research and analysis into understanding the Bible, they are shutting out the Spirit of wisdom, knowledge, revelation and understanding, to a large degree. The carnal mind does not comprehend the things of the spirit. - Paul

[TyRockwell]

You are oh so right Xena.

However, I may offer a response to eschaton's post here, and request that hereafter any further comment go into the debate thread, as you have suggested.

There were no 'markers,' or 'for information only,' or, 'not a debate thread' parameters that I saw. It seems the 'intelligentsia' here are choosing to silence me, or ignore me.

I am not pleased with this behavior. Such failure is not a failure on my part.

[TyRockwell]

The purpose of this thread is to survey the comments of the best exegetical scholars regarding the term 'this generation' in Matthew 23:36.

You said 'survey.' In no way excluding critiques of those scholars. When you made clear the exclusive nature of the 'genea' thread, I stayed away.

The so-called 'notices' were after the fact of my one post, in which I was responding to eschaton, not you, and haven gone to the 'go to last post' button, having no way of knowing that this was not a regular thread. Your hostility is what is amazing.

I will leave your exclusive thread now, thank you for your hospitality.

[Hitch]

Ya know its, from the futurist perspective, as though Mat hadnt used the term 10 or 12 times on a row unqueationably referring to his comtemporaries....

Fine work John

As usual.

H

[maudman]

Chrys.: For he who having seen many sinning yet remains uncorrected, but rather does the same or worse, is obnoxious to heavier punishment.

Mark 13:30

Bede: By generation He either means the whole race of mankind, or specially the Jews.


Theophylact: Or else, “This generation shall not pass away,” that is, the generation of Christians, “until all things be fulfilled,” which were spoken concerning Jerusalem and the coming of Antichrist; for He does not mean the generation of the Apostles, for the greater part of the Apostles did not live up to the destruction of Jerusalem. But He says this of the generation of Christians, wishing to console His disciples, lest they should believe that the faith should fail at that time; for the immoveable elements shall first fail, before the words of Christ fail; wherefore it is added, “Heaven and earth 269 shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.”

[/box]




This is correct.

Christ in his first advent had established two perpetual generations.

Both created by his very appearance and claims. Once Christ set forth and established his person he indirectly created a Jew that would perpetually reject his right to his claims of messiahship. He that is Anti-Christ.

This Generation or perpetual generations of disbelievers would exist till all be fulfilled. It is perpetual within and until the closing of all things to be fulfilled within the grand scheme of things.

The warnings seem when this generation of disbelievers at some point and time sets up tribulation and persecution of the other perpetual generation of believers. This tribulation brings judgement that potientially can cause suffering, even to the believers because they are consumed by the cares of this world, which is being brought to nothing.

MDN

[John Reece]

Now that my research thread has been hijacked and used for other purposes, I am reluctant to see a thread that I started be used to propagate erroneous assertions sans any correction of those erroneous assertions.

There are those who view the writings of Christians in the early centuries of Church history to be authoritative for the interpretation of texts in the Greek New Testament. One of the presuppositions underlying that view is that those early Christian writers spoke Greek as their native language; thus, it is presumed, they had a better basis for interpreting the Greek texts than modern Christians for whom the Greek of the New Testament and other early Christian literature is not a conversational language.

However, early Christian writers who have been quoted above did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same native language; and, it so happens, they did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same understanding of the word rendered "generation" in our English versions.

For Greek speaking early Christian writers, the word genea had a meaning that overlapped but was not identical with the semantic range of the semitic word dōr (DWR) for which genea was the rendering in the Greek Old Testament and in the Greek NT accounts of the sayings of Jesus.

As I am demonstrating again here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=101858), the word used by Jesus and his disciples never meant "race"; thus, early Christian writers were unwittingly mistaken in attributing that meaning to genea in the Gospels.

[gooner]

Now that my research thread has been hijacked and used for other purposes, I am reluctant to see a thread that I started be used to propagate erroneous assertions sans any correction of those erroneous assertions.

There are those who view the writings of Christians in the early centuries of Church history to be authoritative for the interpretation of texts in the Greek New Testament. One of the presuppositions underlying that view is that those early Christian writers spoke Greek as their native language; thus, it is presumed, they had a better basis for interpreting the Greek texts than modern Christians for whom the Greek of the New Testament and other early Christian literature is not a conversational language.

However, early Christian writers who have been quoted above did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same native language; and, it so happens, they did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same understanding of the word rendered "generation" in our English versions.

For Greek speaking early Christian writers, the word genea had a meaning that overlapped but was not identical with the semantic range of the semitic word dōr (DWR) for which genea was the rendering in the Greek Old Testament and in the Greek NT accounts of the sayings of Jesus.

As I am demonstrating again here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=101858), the word used by Jesus and his disciples never meant "race"; thus, early Christian writers were unwittingly mistaken in attributing that meaning to genea in the Gospels.

:thumb:

[eschaton]

Now that my research thread has been hijacked and used for other purposes, I am reluctant to see a thread that I started be used to propagate erroneous assertions sans any correction of those erroneous assertions.

There are those who view the writings of Christians in the early centuries of Church history to be authoritative for the interpretation of texts in the Greek New Testament. One of the presuppositions underlying that view is that those early Christian writers spoke Greek as their native language; thus, it is presumed, they had a better basis for interpreting the Greek texts than modern Christians for whom the Greek of the New Testament and other early Christian literature is not a conversational language.

However, early Christian writers who have been quoted above did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same native language; and, it so happens, they did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same understanding of the word rendered "generation" in our English versions.

For Greek speaking early Christian writers, the word genea had a meaning that overlapped but was not identical with the semantic range of the semitic word dōr (DWR) for which genea was the rendering in the Greek Old Testament and in the Greek NT accounts of the sayings of Jesus.

As I am demonstrating again here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=101858), the word used by Jesus and his disciples never meant "race"; thus, early Christian writers were unwittingly mistaken in attributing that meaning to genea in the Gospels.


Don't put words in my mouth Reece. That is not at all what I'm saying, and if you read what I wrote you know that.

[John Reece]

Don't put words in my mouth Reece. That is not at all what I'm saying, and if you read what I wrote you know that.

:huh:

Where did I quote you and say "that is all eschaton is saying"?

What are the "words" that I put in your mouth?

[eschaton]

:huh:

Where did I quote you and say "that is all eschaton is saying"?

What are the "words" that I put in your mouth?


Well, I'm the one that interrupted so I assumed the remarks were directed at me. BTW, I responded to post 3 in this thread an it has been conveniently removed. Anyways, thanks for responding. I would like your opinion on something. I hope the link works.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

If not try going to:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/index.html

Click on "Notes on the Septuagint" and then "The Septuagint in the New Testament"

Why was the Greek OT quoted in the NT much more than the Hebrew?

You said:

However, early Christian writers who have been quoted above did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same native language; and, it so happens, they did not share with Jesus and his disciples the same understanding of the word rendered "generation" in our English versions.

Jerome was fluent in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Weren't Greek, Latin, and Hebrew spoken in the Holy Land? How do you know that Jesus, and His disciples didn't speak Hebrew, Greek, or Latin?

[John Reece]

Jerome was fluent in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Weren't Greek, Latin, and Hebrew spoken in the Holy Land? How do you know that Jesus, and His disciples didn't speak Hebrew, Greek, or Latin?

I have not asserted that Jesus or any of his disciples did not speak Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. I do submit that the native/conversational language of Jesus and his disciples was semitic rather than Greek or Latin.

With regard to the scriptures, I demonstrated in 2003 that in the Greek OT genea (genea) is a rendering of DWR (dōr), the semantic range of which overlaps but is not identical to that of genea in extra-biblical culture and literature.

Being a rendering of DWR (dōr), the sense of the word genea in the Greek OT is that of DWR (dōr):1. singular : circuit, lifetime, generation (from a man’s birth to the birth of his first son; the totality of (adult) contemporaries; a time with its noteworthy events and people)
2. plural : generations
— A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited by William L. Holladay.

Being steeped in the biblical literature, and speaking a native/conversational language that was semitic, it is not surprising the the sense of genea (genea) in the NT is consistently that of the LXX rendering of DWR (dōr) — the semantic range of which is not coterminous with that of genea (genea) in the native/conversational language of the Early Church Fathers.

[eschaton]

I don't understand the significance of what you're saying here. Does that mean the NT doesn't convey the true meaning of what Jesus said, or are you saying that the ECF couldn't understand what Jesus was saying because the had a different understanding of the Greek, because they didn't understand language it was translated from?

[John Reece]

I don't understand the significance of what you're saying here. Does that mean the NT doesn't convey the true meaning of what Jesus said

The NT does indeed convey the true meaning of what Jesus said.

or are you saying that the ECF couldn't understand what Jesus was saying because the had a different understanding of the Greek, because they didn't understand language it was translated from?

If and insofar as the ECF did not rightly understand the sense and usage of genea as a rendering of DWR in the Greek OT, and the semitic vernacular of Jesus and his disciples — but instead read into the word (as used in the scriptures) the sense of the word as used in their own culture — they misunderstood and misinterpreted the biblical text.

[eschaton]

So, you assume that there was not oral spreading of the gospel in the early church, but ECF only had written Greek texts to learn from? I suppose I can't prove that there was teaching in the church about these things, or anything else really.

One thing I never see you address is the context of the Olivet discourse. According to you everything depends on the modern dictionary meaning of words, without regards to the context, or that seems like what you're saying. Should the entire Olivet discourse only be understood for the literal meaning of words? Is it possible that any of that sermon is a parable?

I think you only mentioned Jerome who said it was possible that Jesus meant "race". Origen was considered the leading Christian scholar in Alexandria in the third century, where the great library with ancient texts from all over the world were found. From what I understand, archeology shows that Alexandria was a mixing pot of culture from all over the world. Origen said it was the uninformed who interpret the word as you do. All the other ECF I quoted agreed that Jesus had a spiritual meaning for the word we translate as generation. What do you think of that? I think you only mentioned "race," which Jerome gave as a possibility.

Another NT verse I would like to get your opinion on is this one.

2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

What do you think Paul was saying in this verse?

[John Reece]

So, you assume that there was not oral spreading of the gospel in the early church, but ECF only had written Greek texts to learn from? I suppose I can't prove that there was teaching in the church about these things, or anything else really.

One thing I never see you address is the context of the Olivet discourse. According to you everything depends on the modern dictionary meaning of words, without regards to the context, or that seems like what you're saying. Should the entire Olivet discourse only be understood for the literal meaning of words? Is it possible that any of that sermon is a parable?

I think you only mentioned Jerome who said it was possible that Jesus meant "race". Origen was considered the leading Christian scholar in Alexandria in the third century, where the great library with ancient texts from all over the world were found. From what I understand, archeology shows that Alexandria was a mixing pot of culture from all over the world. Origen said it was the uninformed who interpret the word as you do. All the other ECF I quoted agreed that Jesus had a spiritual meaning for the word we translate as generation. What do you think of that? I think you only mentioned "race," which Jerome gave as a possibility.

Another NT verse I would like to get your opinion on is this one.

2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

What do you think Paul was saying in this verse?

If you wish to communicate with me, you will have to limit yourself to a single point, question, or text per post.

I have not sufficient energy or interest to deal with multiple texts and topics simultaneously.

Also, on this thread, I will limit myself to the thread topic. I am not volunteering to be serially cross-examined about other topics.

[eschaton]

I don't know why you are so evasive with me. Then again, maybe I do.

[Ted]

The NT does indeed convey the true meaning of what Jesus said.

If and insofar as the ECF did not rightly understand the sense and usage of genea as a rendering of DWR in the Greek OT, and the semitic vernacular of Jesus and his disciples — but instead read into the word (as used in the scriptures) the sense of the word as used in their own culture — they misunderstood and misinterpreted the biblical text.

Perhaps an observation on a related perspective might help.

The apostles had direct teaching from Christ. (I'm assuming that Paul did, too. This is based on his assertion in Galatians.) Thus, their teachings and writings were revelatory and confessional in the main. Along the way, they added some exegetical notes, such as things that "fulfilled what was written" or "as it is written" and so on.

The ECF's didn't have such an advantage. Polycarp certainly was taught by John, but what other ECF was taught by an apostle? We have a very thin list. And the ones that have been cited aren't on it. Thus, the ECF's under discussion are exegeting. And they are trying to make sense of writings handed to them. Thus, while their comments are indicative of the thought of the day, they are indeed not authoritative. They may be erroneous in various ways, some possibly related to local use of the Greek, or even due to linguistic drift.

JR's discussion seems irrefutable. And, as you may recall from my parsing of Matthew 24, I agree with it. But my parsing allows it to apply to AD70, while the DOL segments in verse 36ff are not AD70, but a distant parousia.

Ted

[eschaton]

I don't entirely disagree with you, but you are assuming there wasn't any oral teaching in the church about the subject, and that the early Christians weren't influenced by the Holy Spirit along these lines.

I'm sure that Reece's dictionary definition of generation is correct. That doesn't have much to do with what Jewsus was saying when He said "this generation." That's the true point of the discussion. I don't doubt that Origen and the majority of other ECF's mentioned in regards to "this generation" were quite right. I'm sure they knew a world more about it than dictionary searchers today.

What about the Olivet discourse? Could it have been a parable?

[Ted]

I don't entirely disagree with you, but you are assuming there wasn't any oral teaching in the church about the subject, and that the early Christians weren't influenced by the Holy Spirit along these lines.

I'm sure that Reece's dictionary definition of generation is correct. That doesn't have much to do with what Jewsus was saying when He said "this generation." That's the true point of the discussion. I don't doubt that Origen and the majority of other ECF's mentioned in regards to "this generation" were quite right. I'm sure they knew a world more about it than dictionary searchers today.

What about the Olivet discourse? Could it have been a parable?

Actually, I'm not assuming no oral teaching. At the same time, the oral teaching could easily lead to interpretive drift, in that the Gentile churches are not known for being in a society with the detailed oral recitation of the Jews. Recall that Jewish kids were to be able to quote the entire Torah. The Rabbis could quote major portions of the Tanakh as well.

In my church, I will guarantee that by time my morning class is recalled in the afternoon, some things I said will be repeated incorrectly.

The ECF's were generations removed from the tight oral teaching of the Jews. If you read works such as Dialog with Trypho, a Jew, you will find a considerable antiSemitic bias. A lot of this came from Christians being lumped with Jews in persecution. They wished to be different, and safe. (This is one of the motivations in the Sabbath to Sunday switch.)

I can't see the Olivet Discourse as a parable. It's a long, direct answer that attempts to separate the two questions in the Disciples' query in Matt. 24:3.

Ted

[eschaton]

Actually, I'm not assuming no oral teaching. At the same time, the oral teaching could easily lead to interpretive drift, in that the Gentile churches are not known for being in a society with the detailed oral recitation of the Jews. Recall that Jewish kids were to be able to quote the entire Torah. The Rabbis could quote major portions of the Tanakh as well.

In my church, I will guarantee that by time my morning class is recalled in the afternoon, some things I said will be repeated incorrectly.

The ECF's were generations removed from the tight oral teaching of the Jews. If you read works such as Dialog with Trypho, a Jew, you will find a considerable antiSemitic bias. A lot of this came from Christians being lumped with Jews in persecution. They wished to be different, and safe. (This is one of the motivations in the Sabbath to Sunday switch.)

I can't see the Olivet Discourse as a parable. It's a long, direct answer that attempts to separate the two questions in the Disciples' query in Matt. 24:3.

Ted


It is interesting to me that you don't see the Olivet discourse as a parable, since it appears to be made up of parables. According to the NT Jesus always taught the public in parables which He explained to the disciples later (Mat 13:34). Most of the Olivet discourse can be found in Jesus' public teachings in other parts of the Gospels, particularly scattered throughout Luke 12-21. Maybe it isn't proper to call the whole thing a parable, but it is certainly made up of parables. In Matthew's longer version we see:

24:32 is the parable of the fig tree
24:42-44 the parable of the faithful householder
24:45-51 the parable of the wise servant
25:1-13 the parable of the ten virgins
25:14-30 the parable of the talents

Actually, in Luke 21 Jesus appears to be on the temple grounds as He spoke, and therefore the audience would have included more than the disciples. If Mat 13:34 is correct, then the whole thing would have been parables. He was speaking publicly in Luke 17:20-37 when He explained the kingdom of God and the days of Noah. Compare to Mat 24:24-38 and Mat 24:36-41.

As far as the term in question, "this generation" (Mat 24:34) I find it interesting that two verses earlier Jesus actually uses the word parable. The generation Jesus is talking about is found in a parable. What was the subject of the parable? As always Jesus talked about the spiritual condition of man and the coming of the Kingdom, like in his answer to Peter in Luke 12:42-53.

So when the ECF say "this generation" is about a spiritual generation, I find that their exegesis is superior to that of modern exegetes. Origen was quite right about the uninformed saying that the generation was those alive when Jesus spoke.