Why "this generation" CAN mean a future generation

[Athanasius]

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

This important verse is in all three of the Olivet accounts. No doubt, Jesus meant that ALL of these things will CERTAINLY happen before the last member of the generation he was talking about died.

For some time, critics of the Christian faith have argued that Jesus explicitely said here that He would return before the last member of the Generation He was addressing died. When I spent some time dialoging with the atheists and agnostics at infidels.org, that was one of their favorite criticisms of the Christian faith. Their logic is clear and piercing: If Jesus did not return in that generation, then He was wrong, and therefore He could not have been God, and the Christian faith is one big error.

Orthodox preterism is, I think, a respectable attempt to answer that challenge. But my question is this: are these critics of the Christian faith correct in their intepretation of this verse? We have been swallowing what they are saying hook line and sinker. But what if they are wrong?

What if Jesus here means "this generation I am talking about", rather than "this generation I am talking to?" If that is the case, then the contention of these critics of our faith is wrong! I think that we should consider this as a real possibility, and take some time to give their interpretation a critical evaluation.

At first glance, the idea that Jesus is referring to a generation far away in time seems to be wrong, because in NT Greek as well as in English, the word "this" is normally used to refer to something near, and the word "that" to something far away.

HOWEVER, something can be near in consideration, but far away in time or distance. Could that be the reason why Jesus used the word "this"?

There is an easy way to test this idea. If it is correct, then we should expect to find other places in the NT where the Greek word autay, translated "this" here, is used to refer to something near in consideration but far away in time.

I looked to see if there are such instances in the NT, and guess what? There are indeed.

When discussing Melchizidek, who lived thousands of years in the past, the writer of the book Hebrews used the word "this" to refer to him:

Hebrews 7:1

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him"

Here are other instances in the NT in which "this" (Strongs number 3778) is used to refer to things in the distant future or past:

Acts 7:37

This <3778> is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Acts 17:3

Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this <3778> Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Romans 9:9

For this <3778> is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Hebrews 8:10

For this <3778> is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Revelation 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This <3778> is the second death.

ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT is Titus 1:13, in which the phrase marturia autay has the same grammatical construction and word order sequence as the phrase genea autay in the three verses to the left.

Titus 1:13

This witness (marturia autay) is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Here, the “witness” that Paul is referring to is also very distant in time. It was given by the poet Epimenides around 659 BC. Yet, Paul uses the word "this" to refer to it.

This may explain why Jesus referred to the generation he was discussing as "this generation" rather than "that generation."

Therefore, it is erroneous to claim that Jesus' choice of words here means that he MUST have been referring to the generation of the apostles. These critics of our faith are wrong!

:smile:

[Popeye]

I like your post. Your references to "this" are unarguewithable(?). My point of disagreement is not whether "this generation" means his contemporaries or not. It is with the timing. The conversation was prompted by the temple and its destruction. The disciples asked about the events leading up to it. Sure, in and of itself "this generation" can mean more than one thing. Then again, the Bible also says "there is no God."

[Athanasius]

I like your post.

Thanks! I'm curious to see how well it will pass the scrutiny of additional peer review!

Sure, in and of itself "this generation" can mean more than one thing. Then again, the Bible also says "there is no God."

Are you referring to Isaiah 44:8?

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

I would really have to be pulling things out of context to match that! Of course, if Jesus is speaking of a future generation, there must be other clues to this in the text, and I believe that there are.

There are many, but the most notable is that when you compare all three of the Olivet discourse accounts, it becomes obvious that the disciples asked Jesus not one, but three questions.

All three accounts record the first question, "When shall these things be?" Mark and Luke both record the second question, "What will be the sign that they are about to take place?" Note that these first two questions concern the destruction of the Temple. The third question, recorded only in Matthew, concerns the return of Christ: "What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

[Darth Xena]

Dear Rusty:

Okay, this is added to my list. I am going to have fun taking this one apart. LOL... I kid 'cause I love. I will get to this as soon as I can.. I apologize for being such a notoriously slow responder.

[Hitch]

I reckon the place to look first is right there in Mat's book. Generation is is used 10 or 11 times and almost 100% are definately his generation,


Matt 12:39
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
(KJV)

Matt 12:42
42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
(KJV)


We know the 'sign if Jonas' is the Resurrection of our Lord so there is no question of when this generation lived.

Matt 16:4
4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
(KJV)

Matt 23:35-38
35 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.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
(KJV)



We also know Jerusalem was destroyed when the Lord judged them for the innocent blood thay and their fathers had shed. We also know that part of the judgment involved the destruction of the Temple, a major focus of chapter 24 . And very likely 'the generation' spoken of there is the same generation spoken of in the rest of the work

take care

Hitch

[drbrumley]

OK, so whats the point here?

[Darth Xena]

Dear DrB.... actually this probably isn't the one you want to jump in on because if I understand you correctly you agree that Jesus intended to mean that then living generation when He spoke those words, but there was an interruption in God's plan. That is not where Athanasius is coming from. He is taking the more mainstream futurist view.

[drbrumley]

I understand that Dee. I was asking Hitch this question. I should have been more specfic as to who this was addressed to.

[Darth Xena]

Oh...sorry!!

[Lizard]

Good post Antanasius. I have never heard that argument before. Here are my inital thoughts on it.

Every time "this" is used in the verses it is referring back to the same noun mentioned ealier in the passage.

Ex.

Hebrews 6:20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Your verse is the next verse (although a different chaper)

Hebrews 7:1 For this (this one that I just mentioned) Mechizedek, king of Salem.......

So this is referring to something recent in the context of the passage.

Like I said this is my initial thoughts on the matter. Even though I took a year of Greek in college, I lack the knowledge to know if my analysis is correct or not. Just food for thought until a real Greek scholar (Jaltus) comes in a corrects me. :tongue:

By the way have you seen my challenge in the Coaches Lounge. Based on your first post, I think you would make a worthy opponent, if you are in fact a traditional DF.

[Athanasius]

Hitch, thanks for your comments. If I am understanding you correctly, you are implying that because "this generation" refers to the contemporary generation elsewhere in Matthew, it must mean the contemporary generation in Matthew 24:34.

I know that is a popular Preterist argument, but it is a very inconclusive one. If I say "this car" 5 times, referring to my Ford Mustang, does that mean that the next time I say it, I must be speaking of my Ford? Of course not! I might be talking about my Toyota Celica instead. It is the context that will reveal what generation Jesus is talking about, not his use of this term in other conversations.

Let me counter that with an argument in favor of the futurist position: There is only one other place in the entire NT where the term "genea autay," with autay immediately following genea, is used outside of the Olivet Discourse, Mark 8:12. Elsewhere in Matthew and the rest of the NT, the word placement is different. Word placement is not as important in Greek as in English, but it can sometimes indicate stress or emphasis.

I know that's an inconclusive argument too, so we are even! :wink: So, if you accept that "this generation" can mean a future generation, let's talk about context, because that is what will be the determining factor.

[Darth Xena]

Faramir.. he would be a great and very competent opponent for you (though I do not know if Athanasius is dispensational, he is a very capable futurist). By the way, I have heard this argument before and will be posting some thoughts as soon as I can. But the ironic thing is.. and this is food for thought.. even though I can demonstrate that the proposition is incorrect, it would not matter even if it was. Hmmmm, what does Dee Dee have up her sleeve???

[Berean]

Dee Dee:
But the ironic thing is.. and this is food for thought.. even though I can demonstrate that the proposition is incorrect, it would not matter even if it was. Hmmmm, what does Dee Dee have up her sleeve???
I know, but I'm not telling:tongue:
I've seen you dismantle this argument before, Dee Dee.

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Faramir.. he would be a great and very competent opponent for you (though I do not know if Athanasius is dispensational, he is a very capable futurist). By the way, I have heard this argument before and will be posting some thoughts as soon as I can. But the ironic thing is.. and this is food for thought.. even though I can demonstrate that the proposition is incorrect, it would not matter even if it was. Hmmmm, what does Dee Dee have up her sleeve???

Yes, he seems very competent. I hope I have not bitten off more than I can chew. :brow:

I look forward to your reply, oh queen bee preterist. :bow:

[Berean]

Yes, he seems very competent. I hope I have not bitten off more than I can chew.
I wish someone had warned me of this before I got into a discussion with him :bawl:. He's forced me to think much deeper about my eschatological position. (I still think preterism makes the most sense.)

[Darth Xena]

I think it is good to find the most competent persons on opposing sides of the spectrum. And of course preterism makes the most sense, because it is right. But no doubt, Athanasius is competent for which I am very glad he accpeted my invitation to come to TWeb... he is an asset to have posting here.

Now though in general to Berean... one thing I have to say though about futurism... there are varying levels of success at explaining away individual passages.. I know because I used to be the pro. In fact I am a much better defender of futurism than a lot of futurists I have debated.. but remember, it is the cumulative systematic case that just cannot be supported. At least in my could-be-more-humble opinion.

[Hitch]

I know that's an inconclusive argument too, so we are even! So, if you accept that "this generation" can mean a future generation, let's talk about context, because that is what will be the determining factor. Well usage was the lessor aspect. But it is far im my favor. The context I reckon I have dealt with already. Chapter 23 is about as pointed as it can get and you dont seem the type to go the the non-existant Apocalypse to find contextual support for a futuristic view of chapter 24. So i
ll be interested in how you go about it.

take care


Hitch

[Berean]

Now though in general to Berean... one thing I have to say though about futurism... there are varying levels of success at explaining away individual passages.. I know because I used to be the pro. In fact I am a much better defender of futurism than a lot of futurists I have debated.. but remember, it is the cumulative systematic case that just cannot be supported. At least in my could-be-more-humble opinion.
You're right, Dee Dee. Athanasius did a pretty decent job of explaining away the passages I brought up in the other thread.(That may have been my fault, I did not defend my position as well as I might have.) I abandoned futurism because the cumulative case could not be supported, as you said.

[Darth Xena]

Berean:

You're right, Dee Dee. Athanasius did a pretty decent job of explaining away the passages I brought up in the other thread.(That may have been my fault, I did not defend my position as well as I might have.) I abandoned futurism because the cumulative case could not be supported, as you said.

I am sure he did an excellent job of defending futurism. What thread are you referring to??

[Berean]

Well, the thread wasn't exactly about futurism (it was the "End of the Age" one). I ran into trouble by assuming he was pre-trib rapture. He also posted some links to his site that do a good job of defending individual passages, though not the whole system.

[Darth Xena]

Oh, okay, his website is very good. I will be posting some more on that particular thread somewhat soon. I am knee deep in Daniel 9 right now.

[Berean]

I am knee deep in Daniel 9 right now.
Isn't that one fun? Daniel 9 can keep you busy for the entire millennium.

[Athanasius]

Faramir, I will accept your challenge, after we give this thread some time to run. I want someone to ask me for the contextual support I see in Matthew 24 for Jesus referring to a future generation in verse 34.

Berean:
Athanasius did a pretty decent job of explaining away the passages I brought up in the other thread.(That may have been my fault, I did not defend my position as well as I might have.) I abandoned futurism because the cumulative case could not be supported, as you said.

And I thought I was explaining them! I thought you did a fine job, Berean, and kept me on my toes. You should continue the thread.

Dee Dee, you have heard this specific argument before, but have you ever encountered NT usage support for it? I look forward to hearing whatever it is you have up your sleeve!

[Darth Xena]

Dear Athanasius... until I look up my source material I cannot say if the presentation I have heard before uses the same NT examples that you did, but it does use NT examples, and I do look forward to disma.. err, dealing with it :tongue: LOL.. and I will also show why it would not matter anyways.. but that is another day.

[GrayPilgrim]

I still find it odd that BDAG puts generation as the secondary defintion of genea


• genea,, a/j, h` (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, En; TestSol C 13:7; TestJob, Test12Patr; GrBar 10:3; Philo, Joseph., SibOr, Just., Tat.) a term relating to the product of the act of generating and with special ref. to kinship, frequently used of familial connections and ancestry. Gener. those descended fr. a common ancestor, a ‘clan’ (Pind., P. 10, 42 the Hyperboreans are a i`era. genea,; Diod. S. 18, 56, 7; Jos., Ant. 17, 220), then

1. those exhibiting common characteristics or interests, race, kind gener. as in Lk 16:8 eivj th.n g. th.n e`autw/n the people of the world are more prudent in relation to their own kind than are those who lay claim to the light (difft. GBeasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mk 13, ’57, 99-102).

2. the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and freq. defined in terms of specific characteristics, generation, contemporaries


as does Lidell-Scott

genea,, a/j, Ion. geneh,, h/j( h`, Ep. dat. geneh/fi: (gi,gnomai): I. of the persons in a family, 1. race, stock, family, Hom., etc.; Pria,mou g. Il.; evk geneh/j according to his family, Ib.; geneh/| by birth-right, Od.; geneh.n Aivtwlo,j by descent, Il.:-of horses, a breed, Ib.:-generally, geneh,n in kind, Hdt.:-also a tribe, nation, Persw/n g. Aesch. 2. a race, generation, oi[hper fu,llwn geneh. toih,de kai. avndrw/n Il.; du,o geneai. avnqrw,pwn Ib. 3. offspring, Orac. ap. Hdt.; and of a single person, Soph. II. of time or place in reference to birth: 1. a birth-place, geneh. evpi. li,mnh| Gugai,h| Il.; of an eagle's eyrie, Od. 2. age, time of life, esp. in phrases geneh/| new,tatoj( presbu,tatoj youngest, eldest, in age, or by birth, Hom. 3. time of birth, evk geneh/j Hdt.; avpo. g. Xen.

Just food for thought of those who tyranize the lexical usage into one of the possible defintions.

[efta777]

This argument, while well thought out, doesn't really pose much of a threat to Preterism in my mind, after you look at chapter 24 in context with chapter 23 and the Generation that Jesus had just been talking about. If he's still talking about the same event, then he has to have the same generation in mind when he's saying it.

[Athanasius]

Hitch:
Chapter 23 is about as pointed as it can get and you dont seem the type to go the the non-existant Apocalypse to find contextual support for a futuristic view of chapter 24. So i
ll be interested in how you go about it.

I don't know what you meant by "non-existant," but I think there is more than enough support in chapter 24 for a futuristic view, so that one does not have to go the The Revelation, but it is always helpful to see what the rest of scripture says. I don't hold that the entire chapter is in the yet-to-be-fulfilled future. I see much of it as having 1st century fulfillment, and even more of it as having a first century fulfillment in the parallel account in Luke. Just not enough of it for me to be considered a partial preterist.

[Darth Xena]

Just not enough of it for me to be considered a partial preterist.

Ahh, but I have you in my tractor beam and will work my Jedi mind tricks. :tongue:

[Athanasius]

Gray Pilgrim, I agree with you (if that is what you think), that race could possibly be meant here. Outside of this discourse, there are only two other places in the entire New Testament in which the exact phrase genea autay, translated "this generation," is used. In each of them, genea may be understood as referring to Israel as a race, nation, or kind of men without any damage at all to the sensibility of the passage. And so we see that it is quite possible that Jesus meant that the Jewish people would not pass away before all of these things happen.

However, in the King James Version, genea is translated "generation" thirty-seven times, "time" two times, "age" two times, and "nation" only one time. Because of this, my preferred interpretation is that by “this generation” Jesus refers to the generation He is talking about, the “fig tree" generation of Matthew 24:32, rather than the generation He is talking to, and that is the view my post was argued from. But this is also a possible and I think, respectable interpretation. Again, I think that it is a close study of the context that will reveal what Jesus had in mind here.

[Athanasius]

Preterist Captain Dee Dee:

Ahh, but I have you in my tractor beam and will work my Jedi mind tricks...


I'm a futurist! Jedi mind tricks donta work with me! Only scripture...

But that tractor beam..."Power to the warp engines, Scotty! Try to break us free from the Preterist Ship!"

"Cap'n, the warp engines are overheat'n! If I give it any more juice, I'm afraid she's gonna blow! I 've never before encountered a tractor beam with this kind of pull!"

"You heard my order, Scotty!"

"Aye, Cap'n. If any ship can do it, I reckon the Futura can."

[GrayPilgrim]

02-21-2003 @ 07:32 AM
Athanasius:

Gray Pilgrim, I agree with you (if that is what you think), that race could possibly be meant here. Outside of this discourse, there are only two other places in the entire New Testament in which the exact phrase genea autay, translated &quot;this generation,&quot; is used. In each of them, genea may be understood as referring to Israel as a race, nation, or kind of men without any damage at all to the sensibility of the passage. And so we see that it is quite possible that Jesus meant that the Jewish people would not pass away before all of these things happen.


I guess I am just reacting to what seems to be a lexical falacy of forcing a particualr translation upon the text. There is an ambiguity to language that the Biblical authors use for communicative purposes that is often lost when we force one particular English gloss upon a text. I find it particilarly nettelsome when an interprative system relies so heavily upon one such semantic domain of a word which has a wide variety of meanings

Louw-Nida[LN]
genea, a/j f (a) same generation 11.4 (b) people of same kind 10.4 (c) descendants 10.28 (d) age 67.144

None of these would do violence to the text. I would agree that (a) does indeed seem most likely to our vantage point, but then we bring all of our interprative and theological baggage to the text, we fail to see that we could be missing what was plain to Matthew in the first century when he chose this ambiguous word. Thus we must explore all the potentialities and then pull out all the threads that do not fit in the co-text, instead of going with the first read that we come up with.

GP

[Jaltus]

Actually, c would be right out. a, b, or d are all viable.

[Hitch]

02-21-2003 @ 12:19 PM
Athanasius:



I don't know what you meant by &quot;non-existant,&quot; but I think there is more than enough support in chapter 24 for a futuristic view, so that one does not have to go the The Revelation, but it is always helpful to see what the rest of scripture says. I don't hold that the entire chapter is in the yet-to-be-fulfilled future. I see much of it as having 1st century fulfillment, and even more of it as having a first century fulfillment in the parallel account in Luke. Just not enough of it for me to be considered a partial preterist. The common practice of futurists is to set the context of M24 from the Apocalypse.


At the time our Lord made these proclaimations the Revelation had niether been seen nor recorded. It did not exist , still, the words of Christ are and must be true, to us today, and true in the direct sense to his listeners.

Of course its helpful to consider all Scripture but one could never ser the context of the expulsion from the Garden from Judges. The context comes from the former not the latter.

Take care

Hitch

[GrayPilgrim]

02-21-2003 @ 11:13 AM
Jaltus:

Actually, c would be right out. a, b, or d are all viable.

True, I overlooked C before.

[Athanasius]

Gray Pilgrim:
None of these would do violence to the text. I would agree that (a) does indeed seem most likely to our vantage point, but then we bring all of our interprative and theological baggage to the text, we fail to see that we could be missing what was plain to Matthew in the first century when he chose this ambiguous word. Thus we must explore all the potentialities and then pull out all the threads that do not fit in the co-text, instead of going with the first read that we come up with.

I could not agree with you more. We meet in a church that practices participatory meetings according to 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. Because of this, Paul's (and the Holy Spirit's) intended meaning of the words laleo and sigao in verse 34 were of great importance to us. As I dug deeper into this passage and studied the NT usage of these words, I began to realize just how much some on both sides of this issue had allowed their theological baggage to influence their interpretation of these words which, like genea, can have different meanings, depending on the context in which they are used. [If this particular issue (which is off the subject) is of interest to anyone and you are curious as to the conclusions I came to, you may read them at http://www.thingstocome.org/silence.htm .]

[Athanasius]

In my first post, I gave reasons why I believe that genea autay does not have to mean the contemporary generation. As someone pointed out, the fact that it can mean this does not mean that it does. So what I would like to point out now are what I believe are the textual indicators that Jesus was referring to a future generation in Matt 24:34.

To begin with, I should point out some of the hermeneutic principles that I am taking for granted.

1. A belief in the in the inerrancy and full inspiration of the scripture autographs (down to the very letters, word endings, tenses, etc.).
2. A belief that God has been actively preserving His Word (However, I'm open to considering variant readings, because I believe that textual criticism is one of the means by which God preserves His word).
3. As you might imagine, this leads me to regard passages some consider to be parallel, such as the Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain, as different events.

Apply this hermeneutic approach to the Olivet discourse, and you end up with some interesting results, because there are significant differences between Matthew and Mark's accounts, and Lukes! This especially becomes apparent when you compare the three accounts phrase by phrase, as Andy Doerksen and I did at http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm.

Our notes point out these differences. These differences lead someone who takes our hermeneutic approach to one of two conclusions:

1) Matthew and Mark record a private conversation Jesus had with four of the disciples on the Mount of Olives, and Luke records a conversation with a different group in the temple (this is the approach that Bullinger takes), or

2)The words of Jesus regarding the attack on Jerusalem have double fulfillment. Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, stresses the 70 AD fulfillment, but Matthew and Mark an as-yet-unfulfilled attack that will involve the abomination of desolation (In support of this, Zechariah speaks of an as yet unfulfilled attack of Jerusalem. "And I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle..." Zech 14:2). This is the approach Andy and I take.

Give it a read and let me know what you think!

[GrayPilgrim]

02-22-2003 @ 12:32 PM
Athanasius:

http://www/thingstocome.org/silence.htm .]

I could not get this link to work.

[Berean]

Berean:
Athanasius did a pretty decent job of explaining away the passages I brought up in the other thread.(That may have been my fault, I did not defend my position as well as I might have.) I abandoned futurism because the cumulative case could not be supported, as you said.
Athanasius:
And I thought I was explaining them! I thought you did a fine job, Berean, and kept me on my toes. You should continue the thread.

I only meant explaining them away so that they were not a problem for your position. Thanks,and I do plan on continuing the thread. I have not had much interaction with your particular brand of futurism, so I am having to do some research first. I think all futuristic interpretations suffer from the same problems, but some futurist positions are more obviously wrong than others. Of course, after Dee Dee's finished,there probably won't be much more I can say.

[Athanasius]

Hi Gray Pilgrim, I've got that link fixed. It is http://www.thingstocome.org/silence.htm. I'm sorry for the mistake.

[John Reece]

What if Jesus here means "this generation I am talking about", rather than "this generation I am talking to?"

Well, the answer to that is that the generation he was talking to was the generation he was talking about: the same generation he was talking to and about in Matthew 23:

13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
16 "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Or Luke 7:
31 "To what then shall I compare the people of this generation , and what are they like?

Or Luke 11:
29When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, "This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.
30 For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation .
31 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
32 The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation ,
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation .

The above are some the many statements made by Jesus in which he used the words rendered "this generation", always referring to the generation living in the first century AD.

It is highly unlikely that Mattew 24:34 refers to any generation other than the one referred to in all the other statements in which Jesus referred to his contemporaries as "this generation".

If Jesus had meant to refer to any generation other that the one in which he and his audience were living, he would have used a different modifying pronoun to make that distinction: that generation.

[The Curtmudgeon]

02-22-2003 @ 12:52 PM
Athanasius:
Apply this hermeneutic approach to the Olivet discourse, and you end up with some interesting results, because there are significant differences between Matthew and Mark's accounts, and Lukes! This especially becomes apparent when you compare the three accounts phrase by phrase, as Andy Doerksen and I did at http://www.thingstocome.org/olivet.htm.


Oh, GLORIOUS! Bless you, Athanasius--I had long ago come to the conclusion that there were two separate questions being asked and answered in the OD, but had never gotten around to doing the homework. (By the by, I claim that this is "original" with me, in the sense that I was never taught it nor had read it in any of my previous study; that of course doesn't preclude the fact that others came to the same realisation, and with a fuller understanding, long before I understood it.)

I've only gotten through your page to the point where you separate the questions, so I'll keep reading to savour all of it, but already you get an :angel: from me, Athan (we seem to be out of gold stars today).

Or if you'd rather, :cheers:

The (bookmark that site!) Curtmudgeon

[Athanasius]

If Jesus had meant to refer to any generation other that the one in which he and his audience were living, he would have used a different modifying pronoun to make that distinction: that generation.

Hi John Reece,

I'm glad you joined us, but you must have missed some important posts. My first post, the thread starter, answers your objection above, and cites scriptural examples to demonstrate that the word "this" is used to refer to events in scripture far away in time, but near in consideration.

It is highly unlikely that Mattew 24:34 refers to any generation other than the one referred to in all the other statements in which Jesus referred to his contemporaries as "this generation".

In post number 21280 above I responded to the very same objection by Hitch, and show how this is a very inconclusive argument. Please give them a read, and I will look forward to your response to them.

[John Reece]

the word "this" is used to refer to events in scripture far away in time, but near in consideration.
I did not respond to that assertion, because I do not consider it relevant to the subject of this thread.

The subject is Jesus' use of the phrase rendered "this generation". How the word rendered "this" may or may not be used in any other context is not relevant to the subject.


In post number 21280 above I responded to the very same objection by Hitch [i.e., that Jesus' use of the phrase rendered "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 corresponds to his use of the same phrase in Matthew 23:36], and show how this is a very inconclusive argument. Please give them a read, and I will look forward to your response to them.

References to brands of American automobiles do not show me anything relevant to Jesus' use of the phrase rendered "this generation" twice in the same way in the context of Matthew 23-24.

[John Reece]

There is only one other place in the entire NT where the term "genea autay," with autay immediately following genea, is used outside of the Olivet Discourse, Mark 8:12. Elsewhere in Matthew and the rest of the NT, the word placement is different.

The word rendered "this" is the Greek word houtos [pronounced something like WHO-toss]. In that form/spelling, it is the nominative case, masculine gender, singular number of the Greek version of the demonstrative pronoun and adjective "this". What you refer to as "autay" [the Greek is pronouced something like HAU-tey] is the nominative, feminine, singular form of the word.

In verses such as Matthew 11:16, the phrase rendered "this generation" is in a predicate position, so the word rendered "this" in the phrase "this generation" in such contexts is spelled tauthn [pronounced something like TAU-teyn], because that's the accusative, singular, feminine form that the word has when the word it is modifying is in a predicate position in the context of the sentence.

In Greek, whether the phrase is in the nominative position or the predicate position of a sentence makes a difference only in the way the pronoun is spelled and pronounced; however, the meaning of the phrase itself is not at all changed. Nor is there any change in the word order or word placement of the words within the phrase itself.

[Athanasius]

John Reece:
I did not respond to that assertion, because I do not consider it relevant to the subject of this thread.

That assertion was the thread starter, so I am surprised that you would say that! I think it is very relevant, because it demonstrates that Jesus could have been referring to a generation far away in time.

John Reece:
References to brands of American automobiles do not show me anything relevant to Jesus' use of the phrase rendered "this generation" twice in the same way in the context of Matthew 23-24.

I think that the relevance of the point I made is evident enough to anyone who reads it, and I fail to see how using a modern illustration to make that point invalidates it in any way. Let me encourage you too look past that and grapple with the message behind the illustration instead.

Thanks for correcting my transliteration of hautey. I do have an excuse for that mistake; the convenient Online Bible software that I prefer to use over my Greek New Testament does not include breathing marks!

Thanks as well for pointing out my error regarding the word placement. That error, unlike the one above, was inexcusable. I wrote that remark too hastily, but I think that it is obvious from the context that I made it with the intention of it being a humorous tit-for-tat (one inconclusive argument for another). At least I did acknowledge that it was an inconclusive point!

With that aside, let me encourage you to look past these minor distractions and concentrate instead on my primary message, which was not hastily written. I believe that the points made in my first post, as well as the point behind the automobile illustration, deserve to be grappled with, despite the fact that you have not yet acknowledged them.

[John Reece]

My apologies, Athanasius, I came in late and did not start at the beginning.

My problem with your thesis is that you take the pronoun rendered “this” and then go in search of texts in which it is used with reference to something not contemporaneous with the time of the writer.

I just do not see how the fact that you are able to find such uses of the pronoun divorced from the context of the full phrase and Jesus' use of it is at all helpful in ascertaining the meaning of Jesus' statements.

You seem to have a desire to assert the possibility of a meaning that supports a personal presupposition, rather than seeking to ascertain the meaning of Jesus' words by studying how he used to same words in all the contexts in which spoke them.

Peace

(edited to correct spelling)

[Athanasius]

Hi John,

My apologies, Athanasius, I came in late and did not start at the beginning.

You are forgiven, brother. I'm sure you have enough demands on your time without reading through a long thread!

John Reece:
You seem to have a desire to assert the possibility of a meaning that supports a personal presupposition, rather than seeking to ascertain the meaning of Jesus' words by studying how he used to same words in all the contexts in which spoke them.


Actually, I did go on present many contextual reasons to support my "presupposition" (your other word, "theses," was friendlier).

It is undeniable that in the NT, the antecedent of the pronoun hautey is sometimes far off in time, when the antecedent is under close consideration. My motive for asserting the possibility that Jesus was using hautey in the same way was to lay the foundation for the many contextual indicators of meaning that I later presented (through the link I provided).

If a person is convinced that genea could not possibly mean a future generation, then what is the use of pointing out what I believe are the contextual indicators that refer to a future generation?

John Reece:
My problem with your thesis is that you take the pronoun rendered “this” and then go in search of texts in which it is used with reference to something not contemporaneous with the time of the writer.

My point was precisely to demonstrate what you have just admitted, that the pronoun rendered "this" can refer to something not contemporaneous with the writer!

Given that possibility, I urge you not to a priori dismiss the viability of such an interpretation. I encourage you to at least take the time to weigh what Andy and I believe are the important textual indicators that Matthew 34:34 does indeed refer to a future generation.

Additional support for this is the fact that genea is used to refer to a future generation in the NT. Acts 8:33 is a translation or paraphrase into Greek of Isaiah 53:8. Isaiah 53:8 was a prophecy of a future generation, the one that was to live at the time of the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Acts 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation (genea)? for his life is taken from the earth.

This opens the door even wider to the possibility that Jesus may have been referring to a future generation that was under close consideration in Matthew 24:34.

Nevertheless, your point regarding the other instances of "this generation" in the gospels is well taken. Jesus’ use of genea in other contexts certainly very strongly demonstrates the possibility that He was referring to the contemporaneous generation. But would you not agree that it is the context of the surrounding verses, not other contexts, that should be the determining factor as to His meaning?

In our future dialogue, I would be pleased if we were to focus on that.

[John Reece]

Athanasius,

You are a very gracious communicator. You have earned my respect, so I'll try to be less contrary.

My point was precisely to demonstrate what you have just admitted, that the pronoun rendered "this" can refer to something not contemporaneous with the writer!
That is a point that really does not need to be demonstrated. I would have assumed, without bothering to look for confirmation of the fact, that there are countless contexts within the scriptures in which the pronoun rendered "this" refers to something distant in time and/or geography. The pronoun is so frequently used in so many contexts that the nature of literature practically guarantees that such usage as you posit would occur in many cases. It is not the range of possible meanings of the pronoun rendered "this" that is in question. What is in question is the phrase rendered "this generation" which Jesus used many times in a number of contexts.

If a person is convinced that genea could not possibly mean a future generation
I can only speak from my own perspective, which is that I would assume as a truism that genea could possibly mean a future generation in a context devoid of indications to the contrary.

Jesus’ use of genea in other contexts certainly very strongly demonstrates the possibility that He was referring to the contemporaneous generation.
Given the fact that there is no question that in all the other cases in which Jesus used the phrase rendered "this generation" he was referring to the generation in which his contemporaries were living, it is not just a "possibility" that there is no change in the meaning of his use of the phrase in M 24:34. Probability is a more appropriate word than possibility.

But would you not agree that it is the context of the surrounding verses, not other contexts, that should be the determining factor as to His meaning?

I would not divorce the context of the surrounding verses from the context of the entire Bible, especially not from Jesus' own statements as recorded throughout the Gospels. My understanding of "the context of the surrounding verses" is the whole of chapters 21-25.

I need to stop here, but I've not finished responding to your last post.

More later.

Blessings,

John

[John Reece]

Athanasius,

Additional support for this is the fact that genea is used to refer to a future generation in the NT. Acts 8:33 is a translation or paraphrase into Greek of Isaiah 53:8. Isaiah 53:8 was a prophecy of a future generation, the one that was to live at the time of the Messiah.
There you go again :smile: , divorcing the use of a single word from the context of Jesus' use of the phrase "this generation".

Blessings,

John

[Athanasius]

There you go again , divorcing the use of a single word from the context of Jesus' use of the phrase "this generation".

This generation is a phrase that is ambiguous as to referrent apart from context. That is the very reason why Jesus recognized the need to use the word "this," to single out the generation he was talking about from all other possible generations. Your argument that Jesus must have been speaking of the contemporaneous generation in this Olivet Discourse because that is the generation he spoke of in other contexts seems quite dubious to me.

However, due to time constraints, I must let you (and whoever else wants to make additional comments) have the last word on this. I see many indications in the text that Jesus was speaking of a future generation, but I can't seem to get you to go beyond even admitting the possibility, based on NT word usage, that my interpretation could be the intended meaning behind Jesus words.

I have made my case, and leave you with opportunity to further make yours. I will leave it to the reader to read my posts and decide for themselves whether or not they believe I have made a good case.

2 Timothy 2:24a
And the Lords servant must not strive...

[John Reece]

Athanasius,

This generation is a phrase that is ambiguous as to referent apart from context.
Quite so.

That is the very reason why Jesus recognized the need to use the word "this," to single out the generation he was talking about from all other possible generations.

Jesus had a well-established habit of referring to his contemporaries quite emphatically as "this generation". On the same occasion (the visit to the Temple that was the setting for the Olivet Discourse) that he used the phrase in Matthew 24:34, he also used the phrase in 23:36, as the concluding statement in his diatribe against the scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites - his contemporaries.

That being the case, it boggles the mind to read, as an argument against the accepted consensus (that the usage in 24:34 is no exception to the usage elsewhere), that 'Jesus recognized the need to use the word "this," to single out the generation he was talking about from all other possible generations.'

Your argument that Jesus must have been speaking of the contemporaneous generation in this Olivet Discourse because that is the generation he spoke of in other contexts seems quite dubious to me.

Not so much an argument as an observation and a judgment made after decades of reading and rereading the Greek New Testament.

I can't seem to get you to go beyond even admitting the possibility, based on NT word usage, that my interpretation could be the intended meaning behind Jesus words.

I know it's quite frustrating when you think you see something that you can't get others to agree to. I'll admit that you are probably right about many things, and that I am probably wrong about many things. But this is not one of them.

Blessings,

John

[Hitch]

Yup.
The only way to a futuristic view is complete disregard of the previous usage in Mat's book.

And I cant think of any quote from Jesus that can be used as a basis for futurism, in fact just the opposite.

take care

Hitch

[John Reece]

Well stated, Hitch.

[The Curtmudgeon]

03-02-2003 @ 12:44 PM
Hitch:
And I cant think of any quote from Jesus that can be used as a basis for futurism, in fact just the opposite.


Matthew 24:14
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.


Since the Gospel was never preached in all the world prior to the modern period, and certainly not prior to 70 AD, this is a clear quotation from Jesus supporting futurism. Despite your repeated claims that futurists have to "explain away" Jesus' words to justify futurism, this is at least one clear passage that preterists have to explain away to support that position. There is no sensible way to make this verse refer to the period prior to 70 AD without razzle-dazzle and hand-waving.

The (given that a good chunk of the world wasn't even known until a few centuries ago) Curtmudgeon

[John Reece]

Since the Gospel was never preached in all the world prior to the modern period, and certainly not prior to 70 AD
That's contrary to what is written in the scriptures:

Regarding the fulfillment of the stated prerequisite for the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14, consider the following Scriptures and exegetical information: In the sentence, this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world, the word "world" represents the Greek word OIKOUMENH, which is the word used in Luke 2:1 - "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." The two words "Roman world" are here used in the NIV to translate the single Greek word OIKOUMENH. Likewise in Acts 11:27-28 (NIV): During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.). Here again, the two words "Roman world" translate the single word OIKOUMENH. In Acts 17:6 ...they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: "These men who have caused trouble all over the world (OIKOUMENH) have now come here. In Acts 24:5 "...We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world (OIKOUMENH)." In Romans 10:17-18 "...Consequently, faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world (OIKOUMENH)." So the word "world" (OIKOUMENH) in Matthew 24:14 does not bear the sense and connotations the word world bears at the beginning of the 21st century.

Furthermore, we have even clearer confirmation that the precondition stated in Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled before AD 70. In Romans 1:8 Paul wrote "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world (KOSMOS)." In Colossians 1:6 Paul wrote "...all over the world (KOSMOS) this gospel is bearing fruit and growing." And in verse 23 of the same chapter he wrote ...This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven."

[The Curtmudgeon]

03-08-2003 @ 04:24 PM
John Reece:


That's contrary to what is written in the scriptures:

Regarding the fulfillment of the stated prerequisite for the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14, consider the following Scriptures and exegetical information: In the sentence, this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world, the word &quot;world&quot; represents the Greek word OIKOUMENH, which is the word used in Luke 2:1 - &quot;In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.&quot; The two words &quot;Roman world&quot; are here used in the NIV to translate the single Greek word OIKOUMENH. Likewise in Acts 11:27-28 (NIV): During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.). Here again, the two words &quot;Roman world&quot; translate the single word OIKOUMENH. In Acts 17:6 ...they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting: &quot;These men who have caused trouble all over the world (OIKOUMENH) have now come here. In Acts 24:5 &quot;...We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world (OIKOUMENH).&quot; In Romans 10:17-18 &quot;...Consequently, faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: &quot;Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world (OIKOUMENH).&quot; So the word &quot;world&quot; (OIKOUMENH) in Matthew 24:14 does not bear the sense and connotations the word world bears at the beginning of the 21st century.

Acts 17:31: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead. Do you then believe that God will only judge the Roman world as it was known in the first century? It's the same word.

Hebrews 2:5: For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Do you then believe that the "world to come" is only the Roman world as it was known in the first century? It's the same word.

I certainly agree that the Greek word 'OIKOUMENH' is frequently used in that specific sense. But you cannot argue that it is always used in that specific sense.

Furthermore, we have even clearer confirmation that the precondition stated in Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled before AD 70. In Romans 1:8 Paul wrote &quot;First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world (KOSMOS).&quot; In Colossians 1:6 Paul wrote &quot;...all over the world (KOSMOS) this gospel is bearing fruit and growing.&quot; And in verse 23 of the same chapter he wrote ...This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven.&quot;

The difference being that these verses express Paul's understanding of "the world", whereas Jesus' quote in Matthew 24:14 expresses His understanding of "the world", which is considerably different. Just because Paul thinks that the Gospel is being or has been preached throughout the (known) world in his day, doesn't mean that he correctly understood what Jesus was saying. Jesus, as a person of the Trinity, certainly knew that there were parts of the world, and peoples in the world, not covered by contemporary knowledge, and I believe that He did not use words lightly.

Oh, and by the way, you show yourself that Paul wasn't even using the same word as Jesus did. So it's stretching things a bit to even claim beyond a doubt that Paul was talking about the same "world" that Jesus was talking about, or else why didn't he use the very word Jesus had used?

The (there's glory for you) Curtmudgeon

[John Reece]

Curtmudgeon,

I was responding to the following statement:
Since the Gospel was never preached in all the world prior to the modern period, and certainly not prior to 70 AD
The scriptures you have quoted in rebutal change the subject and the context.

[Berean]

Athanasius,
I know I'm entering the discussion a liitle late, but I might as well add my two cents worth. :smile:
I think the position that “this generation” refers to the generation Jesus was talking to is supported by the context Jesus spoke these words in, but I also think there is support for this view outside of the Matthean passage. Before I get to that, however, I have to lay some groundwork. I checked out your link to the Olivet Discourse accounts in parallel.
(I read the commentary as well.) I believe I understand your position correctly, but my apologies in advance if I misrepresent anything in what follows.
You hold that the account in Matthew records three questions Jesus’ disciples asked Him:
When we compare all three accounts, we see that the disciples asked Jesus three questions. All three accounts record the first question, "When shall these things be?" Mark and Luke both record the second question, "What will be the sign that they are about to take place?" Note that these first two questions concern the destruction of the Temple. The third question, recorded only in Matthew, concerns the return of Christ: "What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
It seems reasonable that Jesus would have answered all three questions in His reply.- R.E.
The third question is what I want to focus on here. I think you would agree that the disciples were asking about the end of the age they were living in, that much seems obvious. We differ as to when this age would end; I hold it to have ended in the first century, and you hold it to end in the future. You hold Matthew 24:9 - 34 as an answer to the third question, so whatever generation saw the things in these verses would see the end of the age. If the disciples asked about the end of the age in which they were living, and if that age ended in the first century, then “this generation” must refer to the generation Jesus was speaking to. This is the view I take, and many reasons can be offered in support of it(most contextual). The others are doing a good job of that, so I will bring up one outside text that I don’t think has been mentioned yet. In spite of its mistranslation of “aion”, the quotation is from the KJV. I am writing this post offline, and it is the only Bible I have easy access to.
1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world(aion) are come.
From the verses before, it is obvious that Paul has a first century audience in mind.
Paul said that the end of the age had come upon people then living, and
is warning them to live righteously for that reason.
This places the end of the age Jesus and the disciples lived in as happening in
the first century. Since “this generation” refers to the generation that would see the end
of the age, “this generation” must be the generation Jesus was talking to.

[Athanasius]

Hi Berean,

I appreciate you taking the time to read my posts and to view the link. In the Greek, aionon, translated "world" in the KJV, is plural, and literally means "ages." The verb is past tense, and literally means, "have arrived."

Green's literal translation renders it more accurately than the KJV: 1 Cor 10:11
And all these things happened to those as examples, and it was written for our warning, on whom the ends of the ages have come.

Paul is speaking not about the end of one age, but about the endings (telay) of multiple ages. He speaks of these endings of the ages as already having come upon his Generation.

There is only one event that had already come upon that Generation that resulted in the endings of the ages, and that was the Death of Christ on the cross. The words that Paul spoke here are full of deep and mysterious meaning, and deserve thoughtful contemplation.

Hebrews 9:26 makes it very clear that this refers to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross:

Hebrews 9:26
since He must often have suffered from the foundation of the world. But now once for all, at the completion of the ages, He has been manifested for putting away of sin through the sacrifice of Himself.

The related word sunteleia is used here, and it means, according to Thayer, "completion, consummation, end."

[Athanasius]

Some additonal thoughts:

The last two verses quoted above may indicate that all of the ages ruined by sin, past, present, and future, had their fulfillments and endings in the sacrifice of Christ. In His sacrifice, he judged and brought an end to the sinful and sin-stained thoughts and works of these ages. The ending of these ages also means the dawning of a new Age. But since His sacrifice reached through time, consummating ages past, present and future, the New Age that has begun exists side by side with the current sinful Age.

In the Olivet Discourse, the disciples are not speaking of this endings of the ages in Christ when they ask, "what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" They are speaking of the ending in time of a singular age. Nor are they speaking of the end of the "Old Covenant Age;" they don't know yet that the Old Covenant will end. They are speaking of the Age that will end at the coming of Christ as Messiah and world ruler. They were looking to the rule of Israel, under the Messiah, over the entire world, just as the Jews today currently await that.

[Berean]

Athanasius,
I am giving your posts some thought and will respond as soon as I can. It may be a day or so, as your posts are forcing me to sharpen my position. Also, my knowledge of Greek is limited, but I'm sure you'll point out any mistakes I make there. :smile:

[Athanasius]

I am giving your posts some thought and will respond as soon as I can. It may be a day or so, as your posts are forcing me to sharpen my position.

The debate that is going right now in the "Boxing Ring" between Faramir and I touches on many of the issues we have discussed in this thread. You can view it at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1539. I welcome comments in the Arena concerning the debate (as well as additional comments in this thread).

[Berean]

Athansius,
I finally got around to posting here again. I apologize for the delay. Ready for round two? :fight:
Athanasius:
In the Greek, aionon, translated "world" in the KJV, is plural, and literally means "ages." The verb is past tense, and literally means, "have arrived."Green's literal translation renders it more accurately than the KJV: 1 Cor 10:11 " And all these things happened to those as examples, and it was written for our warning, on whom the ends of the ages have come. ”

Paul is speaking not about the end of one age, but about the endings (telay) of multiple ages. He speaks of these endings of the ages as already having come upon his Generation.

There is only one event that had already come upon that Generation that resulted in the endings of the ages, and that was the Death of Christ on the cross. The words that Paul spoke here are full of deep and mysterious meaning, and deserve thoughtful contemplation.

Hebrews 9:26 makes it very clear that this refers to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross:
Hebrews 9:26 "since He must often have suffered from the foundation of the world. But now once for all, at the completion of the ages, He has been manifested for putting away of sin through the sacrifice of Himself. ”

The related word sunteleia is used here, and it means, according to Thayer, "completion, consummation, end."
Your arguments here threw me for a while, because I had not thought deeply enough about my own. After consideration, I think my point (Paul and the Olivet Discourse speak of the same thing) still stands. It doesn't matter that Paul refers to "ages" and the OD refers to "age." (More on that later.)

To properly understand the disciples' question about the end of the age, we must put it in the context of first century Jewish thought.

J.P. Holding has some helpful comments in his OD essay:
( http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html )
What "age" is referred to here? The answer is found in knowing that the Jews divided time into two great ages: the age of law, and the age of the Messiah. This belief is commonly reflected in the Jewish apocalyptic era [Harrington, Matthew commentary, 352]. As Wright puts it [New Testament and the People of God, 299-300]: The present age was a time when the creator god seemed to be hiding his face; the age to come would see the renewal of the created world. The present age was the time of Israel's misery; in the age to come she would be restored. In the present age wicked men seemed to be flourishing; in the age to come they would receive their just reward. In the present age even Israel was not really keeping the Torah perfectly, was not really being YHWH's true humanity; in the age to come all Israel would keep Torah from the heart.
There were various views about what this age would constitute; not all views involved a Messianic figure, and the disciples themselves show some confusion when they ask if the kingdom will be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6). They are in line with certain messianic expectations when they ask this; they are expecting that now that the Age of the Messiah has dawned, Israel will be restored properly again. It boils down to this: the "end of the age" refers back to the destruction of the Temple and the end of the covenant, and the beginning of the new covenant. "The age to come, the end of Israel's exile, [was seen] as the inauguration of a new covenant between Israel and her god." [NTPG, 301]
There are a couple of reasons why I believe the desciples' question found its fulfillment in the first century:

1. It doesn't make sense that the desciples would ask about a
future coming of Jesus, because their conception of the
Messiah didn't allow for it. I'm sure you would agree that the
disciples misunderstood Jesus' mission until after His
resurrection. (Even then He had to explain it to them...again.)
They were expecting a messiah who would conquer their
enemies and restore Isrial. The idea of the Messiah suffering,
dying, rising, leaving, and coming back in the future,
never entered their heads.

2. The disciples' question was prompted by Jesus' prediction of
the temple's destruction. You said in your second reply that
the disciples could not be speaking about the end of the Old
Covenant because they did not know it would end. I can't
agree here because:
a) The observation by N.T. Wright that I quoted earlier,
suggests that Jews had some kind of conception of an end
of the covenant they were under.
b) Jesus had just predicted the temple would be destroyed.
This would make the practice of the old covenant impossible.

The word translated "end" is the Greek word "Sunteleia."
Acording to Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament
Words: Sunteleia signifies a bringing to
completion,marking the completion or consummation of the
various parts of a scheme.
When you consider the facts that the Jews divided time into
two great ages, and they recognized Jesus' incarnation as the
commencement of the "Messianic age" along with a) and b)
above, it is clear that the disciples question concerned the
destruction of the temple.

Now, how does all of this fit in with the Paulene passage I brought up, and the Hebrew passage you compared it to? I made the case above that the end of the age referred to the first advent of Jesus. The disciples were right about that, but they were wrong about the nature of the advent.
You are correct that the "ends of the ages" refers to what Christ accomplished on the cross. Scripture teaches that Jesus was the fulfillment of all the covenant promises. The disciples were thinking Messianically, so they narrowed Jesus' mission down to that event ( the coming of Christ as King). Thus, they framed the question singularly. Jesus often corrected His disciples' misapprehensions and narrow focus of His Kingship.Scripture teaches that Christ has already been crowned as King (just not in the way the disciples originally expected), so there is no reason to put it in the future. (Acts 2:29 - 36)

Paul, along with the author of Hebrews, simply focused on the broader work of Christ and divided the Old Covenant into "ages" or covenants. God made covenants with man at significant points in history. Covenant Theology similarily divides the Old Covenant. It recognizes Scripture as progressive revelation, identifies the major covenants (I've noticed here on TWeb that there is some variance to this identification), and explores the differences ( and continuity ) of each one. Dispensationalists do the same thing, but I think they generally overlook the continuity.

The singular use of "age" in the Olivet Discourse, can not be used to show that Paul and the Hebrew author are speaking of an event different from it.

Please excuse any incoherence in this post, it is late, and my eyes have been half shut since I began this reply. If anything is unclear, I will be glad to explain it better.:smile:

[John Reece]

Clear enough for me, Berean.

:thumb:

[Berean]

Clear enough for me, Berean.
Thanks JR. I hope it is clear to the others. Trouble is, so much can be said on this topic. My mind is wanting to pursue so many strands of thought, that I sometimes find it difficult to fully develope an argument before jumping to the next one. Posting late doesn't help any.:smile:

[Athanasius]

Hi Berean,

I'm sorry that it has taken so long for me to get back to you.

It doesn't make sense that the desciples would ask about a future coming of Jesus, because their conception of the
Messiah didn't allow for it.

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?

You are correct that the "ends of the ages" refers to what Christ accomplished on the cross.

I'm glad that you agree with me on this point. There is really no other interpretation I am aware of that fits.

You said in your second reply that
the disciples could not be speaking about the end of the Old
Covenant because they did not know it would end. I can't
agree here because:
a) The observation by N.T. Wright that I quoted earlier,
suggests that Jews had some kind of conception of an end
of the covenant they were under.

I agree with you that the disciples concept of "the end of the age" marked the beginning of the Messianic age. But did they think that would bring an end to the law? The very OT passages which cause some dispensationalists to believe that the sacrificial system will be in place during the Millennium surely would have caused them to believe that it would not come to an end. They may have thought that it would be modified somewhat, however.

b) Jesus had just predicted the temple would be destroyed.
This would make the practice of the old covenant impossible.

Did the destruction of Solomon's temple bring an end to the law?

The disciples were thinking Messianically, so they narrowed Jesus' mission down to that event ( the coming of Christ as King). Thus, they framed the question singularly....

...The singular use of "age" in the Olivet Discourse, can not be used to show that Paul and the Hebrew author are speaking of an event different from it.

But did you not just acknowledge that Paul is speaking of the Cross in 1 Cor 10:11, but that the disciples are speaking of the coming of Christ as King in the Olivet Discourse? Jesus himself uses the singular for "end" in the OD.

[Berean]

Hello Athanasius,

You quoted me:
It doesn't make sense that the disciples would ask about a future coming of Jesus, because their conception of the Messiah didn't allow for it.
you responded with:
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?
You only quoted the first sentence of what I said. My use of "future coming" was narrower than you allowed for, which is clear when you read the whole paragraph:
It doesn't make sense that the disciples would ask about a future coming of Jesus, because their conception of the
Messiah didn't allow for it. I'm sure you would agree that the
disciples misunderstood Jesus' mission until after His
resurrection. (Even then He had to explain it to them...again.)
They were expecting a messiah who would conquer their
enemies and restore Israel. The idea of the Messiah suffering,
dying, rising, leaving, and coming back in the future,
never entered their heads.
The emphasis was on the idea of Jesus leaving the world and returning at some future time. That was completely incompatible with Messianic thought.
Berean:
You said in your second reply that the disciples could not be speaking about the end of the Old
Covenant because they did not know it would end. I can't
agree here because:
a) The observation by N.T. Wright that I quoted earlier,
suggests that Jews had some kind of conception of an end
of the covenant they were under.
Athanasius:
I agree with you that the disciples concept of "the end of the age" marked the beginning of the Messianic age. But did they think that would bring an end to the law? The very OT passages which cause some dispensationalists to believe that the sacrificial system will be in place during the Millennium surely would have caused them to believe that it would not come to an end. They may have thought that it would be modified somewhat, however.
It doesn't matter whether or not the disciples thought the law would come to an end, be modified, or whatever. They believed the arrival of the Messiah would bring an end to the present
order of things. Jesus' predicted destruction of the temple would bring an end to the present order ( the sacrificial system of that temple ). That's what prompted the disciples' question. It does not matter what they thought would happen afterwards.
Berean:
b) Jesus had just predicted the temple would be destroyed. This would make the practice of the old covenant impossible.
Athanasius:
Did the destruction of Solomon's temple bring an end to the law?
My above comment was ill-considered:doh:, and is unnecessary to my argument. I have no problem withdrawing that statement.
Berean:
The disciples were thinking Messianically, so they narrowed Jesus' mission down to that event ( the coming of Christ as King). Thus, they framed the question singularly....

...The singular use of "age" in the Olivet Discourse, can not be used to show that Paul and the Hebrew author are speaking of an event different from it.
But did you not just acknowledge that Paul is speaking of the Cross in 1 Cor 10:11, but that the disciples are speaking of the coming of Christ as King in the Olivet Discourse? Jesus himself uses the singular for "end" in the OD.
I said Paul was referring to the broad purpose of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection inaugurated the New Covenant; Which did bring an end to the law (made official by the temple's destruction),
and He was crowned as King upon His ascension. So the cross accomplishes three things:
1) New Covenant
2) End of Old Covenant
3) Jesus crowned as King

The above fits exactly with first century Messianic thought. (Remember, it doesn't matter what was thought would happen after the system they lived under was ended.)

Therefore, I conclude that there is a link between the cross and the OD.

[Athanasius]

Hi Berean,

The scriptures speak of different ages, so we must be careful discern what age or ages are being referred to in a given passage. I think that has resulted in some confusion, and that we have both gotten so bogged down in arguing certain details that we are starting to lose sight of the forest for the trees. So let's take a few minutes to climb a lookout tower and overview the landscape.

You believed that the "end of the age" in Mat 24:3 corresponded to the "ends of the ages" 1 Cor 10:11.

My point is that the "ends of the ages" in 1 Cor 10:11 refers to the cross, and that this idea is supported by Heb 9:26. The ending of the ages in the cross marked the dawning of a new age, the church age. This is a spiritual age. I would contend that 70 AD did not mark the dawn of this new age. The cross did, and the sunrise of that age was complete by Pentecost.

However, the "end of the age" in Mat 24:3 refers to end of the current age of rule by man, marking the subsequent beginning of the Messianic age, in which the Messiah rules the Earth. I think that you also agree with me that this is what the disciples had in mind when they framed their question regarding the end of the age.

You wrote,
I said Paul was referring to the broad purpose of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection inaugurated the New Covenant; Which did bring an end to the law (made official by the temple's destruction),
and He was crowned as King upon His ascension. So the cross accomplishes three things:
1) New Covenant
2) End of Old Covenant
3) Jesus crowned as King

The above fits exactly with first century Messianic thought. (Remember, it doesn't matter what was thought would happen after the system they lived under was ended.)

Therefore, I conclude that there is a link between the cross and the OD.

I would agree that an age ended in 70 AD. The age that ended was an age of nationhood for the Jewish people, and the ending of that age marked the beginning of the "times of the gentiles." A dark part of the stroke of that mark was the destruction of the temple.

I think there is a link between that age and the cross, for that age had it's ending in the cross. But the subsequent "times of the gentiles" has its ending in the cross as well.

Since we are both orthodox, I think that we would agree that this current church age will end at the Parousia. Our disagreement would be concerning whether or not the current age is the millenium.

However, for the reasons above, I don't think that 1 Cor 10:11 can be successfully used as a proof text for a preteristic, amillennial or postmillennial interpretation of the OD.

[Hitch]

However, the "end of the age" in Mat 24:3 refers to end of the current age of rule by man, marking the subsequent beginning of the Messianic age, in which the Messiah rules the Earth. I think that you also agree with me that this is what the disciples had in mind when they framed their question regarding the end of the age.


Where in Scripture is the 'rule by man' age mentioned?

Has not Christ finished his earthly tasks?

Has not Christ ascended to the highest deat of authority?

Take care

Hitch

[Berean]

Athanasius:
The scriptures speak of different ages, so we must be careful discern what age or ages are being referred to in a given passage. I think that has resulted in some confusion, and that we have both gotten so bogged down in arguing certain details that we are starting to lose sight of the forest for the trees. So let's take a few minutes to climb a lookout tower and overview the landscape.

I agree, but our identification of the ages are determined by our different views of the passages in question (which involves lots of details). It is easy to get bogged down in details in a discussion such as this, because it is very difficult to separate them from the big picture.
Athanasius:
You believed that the "end of the age" in Mat 24:3 corresponded to the "ends of the ages" 1 Cor 10:11.

My point is that the "ends of the ages" in 1 Cor 10:11 refers to the cross, and that this idea is supported by Heb 9:26. The ending of the ages in the cross marked the dawning of a new age, the church age. This is a spiritual age. I would contend that 70 AD did not mark the dawn of this new age. The cross did, and the sunrise of that age was complete by Pentecost.
I think you have some confusion concerning my idea of what marked the "end of the age." My view is that the entire first advent of Christ marked the consummation of the age/ages. So the cross is included here.

Hitch said it very well in another thread (I can't remember which one).He pointed out that the end of the age was not a black line, but a generational one.

The destruction of the temple was a visible sign that the age had come to a close, but it in itself is not what inaugurated the new age.

This view is consistent with Scripture and the Messianic thought of the time.

You are correct that Matthew 24:3 refers to the beginning of the Messianic age. The disciples accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They had no notion that He would be leaving. They believed that Jesus would set up His kingdom in what we refer to as His first advent. Jesus never corrected their understanding of this, but He did correct their understanding of the nature of His kingdom. Scripture teaches that the Messianic age was inaugurated with Jesus' first advent (Acts 2:29-36, and others).
Athanasius:
However, for the reasons above, I don't think that 1 Cor 10:11 can be successfully used as a proof text for a preteristic, amillennial or postmillennial interpretation of the OD.
This concerns an incorrect understanding (probably my fault) of my position. 1 Cor. 10:11 can be used in support of the interpretation I outlined in this post.

[kendemyer]

TO: Athanasius

You wrote:

Therefore, it is erroneous to claim that Jesus' choice of words here means that he MUST have been referring to the generation of the apostles. These critics of our faith are wrong!

I couldn't agree with you more and I think your discussion of the Greek and contextual matters was helpful. I think those who assert that this verse is a clear and compelling verse against futurism would do well to strongly consider the Greek and contextual commentary you have provided.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Darth Xena]

Ken do you really think that we haven't? Are you that arrogant?

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

Your ad hominem was noted. I think we should just agree to disagree here. Obviously, I do not believe the preterist are adequately taking into account the Greek/contextual issues in regards to Mathew 24:34

Sincerely,

Ken

[Darth Xena]

Way to answer the question. Your typical avoidance is duly noted.

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

My revised post crossed your response.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Darth Xena]

Why am I not surprised? Ken what preterist works have you read to come to that determination? Surely you would not be able to come to that determination without reading what preterists have actually done with that issue.... or WOULD YOU?

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

I know you have highly encouraged TWEB members to read preterists works. I was wondering if you had read praeterist writings of the Jesuit Alcasar and if so how similar they are to modern preterist works. I know if I wish to read the first writing of undisputed futurist I read Papias, Iranaeus, and other Early Church Fathers. I asked this question in my thread devoted to this subject.

Secondly, you still have not told me which of the prominent historic premillennialists authors you have read that were cited by www.blueletterbible.org (Ladd, Walter Martin, etc).

Sincerely,

Ken

[Darth Xena]

Ken you have poor reading comprehension for I did indeed tell you which HPM I have read in some detail and told you that I think you should agree to a trade of information.. What ones have you read? None. Pathetic.

Want to answer the question in this thread Ken? You made an assertion. He who asserts must prove. What preterist works have you read to come to the conclusion that preterist scholarship does not deal with those issues? Which ones Ken? Surely you have actually read some BEFORE coming to a conclusion?

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

I think you need to apply the historian Fischer's rules in regards to your last post. I regret I cannot give you any pearls for your last post.

Sincerely,

Ken