"this generation" in Matt 23

[Amazing Rando]

Amidst Jesus' blistering condemnation of the Pharisees in Matt 23, he makes the striking prediction of judgment that will come upon... well, just see for yourself:

33“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

37“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’"

Matthew's Jesus predicts dire judgment and destruction while addressing the Pharisees in his own day and age. And he tells them that it would occur to "this generation."

Interesting, eh?

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:yeahthat:

[Amazing Rando]

:yeahthat:

I agree! Now, let's see where else Matthew uses the phrase "this generation" and see what he's talking about:

16“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17“ ‘We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance; we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.’ 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

In this instance, he's comparing "this generation" with the children sitting in the marketplace and connects them explicitly with John the Baptist and the Son of Man. It's clear in this context that "this generation" means the generation that has seen and rejected John and the Son of Man. Next:

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”

39He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

43“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

Referring again to the generation he's presently speaking with. Are we sensing a pattern here?

Next comes the reference in the post above to Matthew 23:36:

"I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. "

-meaning the Pharisees- the very ones he was speaking with at that time.

And finally, 32“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

This is the disputed one in the great eschatology debate. Should we believe that in this last reference, Matthew has suddenly changed his mind as to what he meant when he used the phrase "this generation?" It's apparent to me at least that Jesus meant that this present generation, the one with whom he was currently speaking, would not pass away before these things came to pass.

[eschaton]

Amidst Jesus' blistering condemnation of the Pharisees in Matt 23, he makes the striking prediction of judgment that will come upon... well, just see for yourself:

33“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

37“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’"

Matthew's Jesus predicts dire judgment and destruction while addressing the Pharisees in his own day and age. And he tells them that it would occur to "this generation."

Interesting, eh?

Yeah, interesting. That is, it is interesting in light of the fact that it wasn't understood that way until preterists came along in the last couple of hundred years. Christians who acutally spoke and understood the language didn't understand it like that. If they did, Christianity probably wouldn't have survived the first century. If you're right, maybe it shouldn't have.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

If they did, Christianity probably wouldn't have survived the first century. If you're right, maybe it shouldn't have.

Then what does generation mean, Barney?

Regards
A-man

[Etcetera]

Then what does generation mean, Barney?

You know, Eschaton, I like you, I really do.

But I hafta admit your avatar is driving me steadily insane!!! :flaming:

Etcetera.

:wink:

[Amazing Rando]

Then what does generation mean, Barney?

Regards
A-man

Especially with regard to Matt 23- was Jesus predicting judgment on the Pharisees or not? :ahem:

[eschaton]

Then what does generation mean, Barney?

Regards
A-man

I thought you'd never ask.

I want to start out with some statements about Bible interpretation
in General. The Christological hermeneutic of the early church was
based on the writings found in the New Testament and the earlier
midrash methods of first century Judaism, which depended heavily on
allegory and typology.

The Christolgical understanding of scriptures was the preferred
method of interpretation through the time of Augustine. The church
became very protective of the scriptures and discouraged the average
person from Bible study for fear of incorrect interpretation and
heresy. Then the age of rationalists came along led by Erasmus. Since
then hermeneutics have focused on the literal. Language and history
have become the tools for interpretation rather than the message of
Christ.

I think it's fair to say that most of the church fathers believed
that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was a fulfillment of what
Jesus spoke of in the Luke, but not all did. I think it's
also fair to say that most of the church fathers didn't believe the
prophecies of the book of Revelation had been fulfilled yet.

I believe that both the preterist and premillennial doctrines of
today are derived from 16th century Jesuits as documented on this
page.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

Mr. Scheifler is a Seventh Day Adventist, and I am not, but I have
seen similar information elsewhere so I believe it to be accurate.
Regardless, both modern premill and modern preterism depend heavily
on the historical-literal interpretation of scripture that didn't
come about until around the 15th century. Admittedly such writings as
the Sybiline Oracles hinted at preterism, and Iraeneus, among others,
were chiliasts.

*1* "This generation," remains the cornerstone of the temple of
preterist interpretation (Mat24:34). The assumption is that Jesus
spoke of those physically alive when He spoke. I think Jesus used the
term in the same way He did in Mat 23:36, where He spoke of the
unfaithful murderers of Zechariah. Zechariah lived some 500 years
earlier, so "this generation" means something other than those
physically alive when Jesus spoke. Also, we don't assume that all of
those living would suffer condemnation in the resurrection (Mat
12:41,42). That would mean Peter, John and all the rest who were
alive would suffer condemnation in the resurrection if "this
generation" meant all who were physically alive when Jesus spoke.
So "this generation" always has an implied "spiritual" connotation
when Jesus uses it.

It would be nice if there were a book in the Bible that explained
exactly what was meant by generation. Actually, there is. It's
called "Generation," the Greek word for generation is Genesis. When
Jesus refers to the generation as vipers, and with OT references to
Jonah we can see the spiritual connotation he attaches to the word.
The generation He spoke to weren't literally snakes, but the were as
the offspring of their father Satan. Just like the Nephilim were the
offspring of fallen angels. We know the Pharisees and Sadducees
weren't literally fathered by Satan, but spiritually. When Jesus used
the word He used it spiritually to refer to the spiritually
disobedient.

Don't take my word for it. Take it directly from the horse's (church father's) mouth.

For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it. As then all these things came to pass, so shall those also come to pass, and most surely they shall submit then.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-80.htm#P7096_2171237

After this, that they might not straightway return to it again, and say, "When?" he brings to their remembrance the things that had been said, saying, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled!"6 All these things. What things? I pray thee. Those about Jerusalem, those about the wars, about the famines, about the pestilences, about the earthquakes, about the false Christs, about the false prophets, about the sowing of the gospel everywhere, the seditions, the tumults, all the other things, which we said were to occur until His coming. How then, one may ask, did He say, "This generation?" Speaking not of the generation then living, but of that of the believers. For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, "This is the generation of them that seek the Lord."7

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-83.htm#P7361_2255398

You can understand the way the generation is used in the context of the Bible when seen as a whole.

1. Revelation describes the end of the world.

2. The previous end of the world in the Bible and its cause.

3. The giants and their erradication in the promised land.

4. Devils in the gospel.

5. As it was in the days of Noah.

6. The causes of the end of the world in Revelation.

7. The apostle's interpretation of these things.


1. The Revelation may represent several things, but one thing it
surely describes is the end of the world. Whether this represents
the end of Rome, the end of a dispensation or the the literal end of
the world we may not agree on, but it does use allusions to similar
catastrophes in the Old Testament. I would like to look at
Revelation in light of the flood in the Old Testament in order to
gain a better understanding of Revelation.

I find what sounds like world ending language in several places in
Revelation, chapters six, eleven, fourteen, sixteen, nineteen, and
twenty. Perhaps the fact that the world seems to end over and over
is one thing that makes Revelation so confusing.

2. The first end of the world was by flood (2Pe3:6, Ge 7:10-2). God
sent the flood because of great evil in the world. This was
apparently related to the rebellion of the Sons of God (Gen 6:2-4).
The Sons of God took the daughters of men for wives, and the
offspring were the nephilim or giants.

3. There appears to have been a second outbreak of this evil, and
perhaps this is what the scripture means when it says "and also after
that," (Gen 6:4). Israel's spies reported that there were giants in
the land (Num 13:33,22 De 1:28 2:10 3:11 9:2 1Sa 17:4-7 2Sa 21:20-22
1Ch 11:23 ) The Israelites were ordered to totally wipe out the evil
inhabitants of the land (Deu 20:16-17, 7:1-4,16 Nu 21:2,3,35 33:52
Jos 6:17-21 9:24,27 10:28,40 Jos 11:11,12,14. So the giants were
once again designated to be destroyed from the earth. This time by
the sword of the Israelites.

4. While the giants aren't mentioned in the New Testament perhaps,
there is a correlation in the symbolism Jesus used to describe some
of His enemies. He referred to them as vipers (Mat 3:7,12:34,23:33,
Luke 3:7), and said that their father was the Devil (John 8:44). He
also described Judas as a devil (John 6:70, 13:2,27 Luke 22:3), and
the son of perdition (John 17:11). He once even addressed Peter as
Satan, and also told him that Satan desired him (Luke 22:31, Mat
4:10, Mark 8:33).

Jesus and His disciples cast devils out of the possessed. In one
instance the devils asked if Jesus had come to toment them before the
time. This is reminiscent of the punishment promised to the angels
that rebelled (2Pe 2:4 Jude 1:6).

5. Jesus declared that before the end of the world would be like the
days of Noah (Mat 24:37, Luke 17:26), and went on to describe the
suddeness with which judgment came. As noted before, in the time of
Noah the earth was filled with evil because of the rebellion of
angels (1 Pet 3:19,20 Ge 6:3,5,13).

Satan himself appears to be cast to earth before his final judgment.
In Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 Satan's fall is apparently described in
parables. Jesus said He saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning
after His disciples informed Him of their ability to cast out devils
(Luke 10:18).

6. In Revelation we see Satan thrown out of heaven (12:9) where there
was no place left for the dragon and his angels. He is later sent to
final judgment after a temporary binding (20:10). When Satan is
thrown into the lake of fire he is reunited with a couple of his
associates, the beast and the false prophet.

What is the relationship of these two beasts (therion) to the earlier
beasts in Revelation (zoon)? As earlier noted, before the first end
of the world great evil was caused by rebellious angels. The dragon
and his cohorts are also responsible for evil, deceiving and causing
men to worship them. So Satan and his angels rebel and are removed
from heaven (12:7,8). Once on the earth, Satan and his beastly pals
cause great evil. Christ wages war againt them, the earth is
destroyed, and wicked ones are sentenced to the lake of fire. The
final great deception causes the end of the old world (20:11).

In Noah's day angels left their first estate, caused evil in the
world, and the earth was destroyed by flood. So there appears to be
a similarity between Satan, his angels, the beast, and the false
prophet to rebellious angels and perhaps the giants.

7. So how does this help me to understand Revelation? I think the
key is to see how the New Testament writers interpreted the
scriptures. Paul said these OT stories were written for the benefit
of believers (1Cor 10:11 Rom 15:4). He even used the word allegory
in Galatians four. He spoke of mountains, women and cities to
describe the old and new covenants. Mountains, a woman, and a city
are also symbols in Revelation seventeen. Paul believed the symbols
were used allegorically to describe theological ideas.

Jude quotes from I Enoch, and uses its symbols to represent false
teachers. First Enoch also speaks of seven mountains and seven
stars, very similar to what is found in Revelation.

In 2nd Peter the angels that sinned are compared to false prophets
who bring in damnable heresies. Deception also plays a key role in
Revelation (Rev 2:20, 12:9 13:14 18:23 19:20 20:3,8,10)

So the whole point in all of this is that the puzzling symbols we see
in Revelation that are often drawn from the OT, were seen by NT
writers as represenative of theological ideas, such as the difference
between law and grace (Gal 4). The evil that led to the end of the
world in the OT represented heresies and false prophecies to the NT
writers. In Revelation we have Satanic beasts instead of rebellious
angels and giants. Both represent false heretical teachings that
deceive, and lead to the destruction of the world.

This view of the Revelation symbols is in contrast to the
conventional view that these same symbols represent political powers
and persecution.

Alan

http://www.lulu.com/content/113717

[eschaton]

You know, Eschaton, I like you, I really do.

But I hafta admit your avatar is driving me steadily insane!!! :flaming:

Etcetera.

:wink:

I like you too.

I love you.
You love me. Get it? I'm making fun of the Barney thing.

I did a post about Leviathan being a dinosaur, and I've fallen in love with the Barney avatar ever since.

Alan
http://www.lulu.com/content/113717

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Did you ever read through this thread, Barney?
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3167

Regards
A-man

[eschaton]

Did you ever read through this thread, Barney?
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3167

Regards
A-man

I haven't, but I promise to look through it.

Barney

[eschaton]

Did you ever read through this thread, Barney?
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3167

Regards
A-man

I did look through it. What strikes me is the approach to interpretation used by modern scholars as opposed to ancient scholars. I think modern hemeneutics were advanced by Erasmus in the 15th and 16th centuries. There's a link to an article about this in my new ebook that can be found in the link in my signature.

[Etcetera]

Eschaton:

I love you.
You love me.

:rofl:

Get it? I'm making fun of the Barney thing.

Nah, I missed that until you beat me over the head with it.

I did a post about Leviathan being a dinosaur, and I've fallen in love with the Barney avatar ever since.

Well, I sure haven't.

:smile:

In him.

Etcetera.

[eschaton]

Eschaton:



:rofl:



Nah, I missed that until you beat me over the head with it.



Well, I sure haven't.

:smile:

In him.

Etcetera.

Here's a new one.
Ask not what your country can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your country.

[Etcetera]

Ah, much better. Thanks, man!

This is kind of like that ask and it shall be given thing that somebody said a long time ago.

[eschaton]

I'm a believer in comparing scripture to scripture to gain understanding.

In the Olivet discourse Jesus said:

Mat24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

He continues a few verses later saying:

Mat24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
also: Mk 13:33-37 Lu 21:34-36 Mt 25:1-13 25:20-23

In Luke 12 Jesus taught very similar things.

Luke12:36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

Peter was confused as to who He was speaking to. He asked:
12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

Jesus answered:
42 And the Lord said,Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
also: Mt 24:45-51 25:14-23

A.Jesus was speaking to the spiritual servants.
B.Jesus was talking to "this generation."
C.The spiritual servants are "this generation."

This generation is not limited to specific lifetimes and dates. The message is spiritual. That's why John Chrysotym can say:

For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, "This is the generation of them that seek the Lord."7

[John Reece]

This generation is not limited to specific lifetimes and dates. The message is spiritual. That's why John Chrysostom can say:

For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, "This is the generation of them that seek the Lord."7

The word genea/generation does have a semantic range that includes the above.

However, the occurrence of the word in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34 has this definition in BDAG:


genea
the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and frequently defined in terms of specific characteristics, generation, contemporaries . . . ; Jesus looks upon the whole contemporary generation of Israel as a uniform mass confronting him h genea auth [= "this generation" - JR] . . . Mt 24:34 . . . Mt 23:36 . . .

A time-specific question requires a time-specific answer.

In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Jesus a time-specific question:


As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (ESV).

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus gave the disciples a time-specific answer:


Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (ESV)

[eschaton]

The word genea/generation does have a semantic range that includes the above.

However, the occurrence of the word in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34 has this definition in BDAG:


genea
the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and frequently defined in terms of specific characteristics, generation, contemporaries . . . ; Jesus looks upon the whole contemporary generation of Israel as a uniform mass confronting him h genea auth [= "this generation" - JR] . . . Mt 24:34 . . . Mt 23:36 . . .

A time-specific question requires a time-specific answer.

In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Jesus a time-specific question:


As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (ESV).

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus gave the disciples a time-specific answer:


Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (ESV)

Hi John,

I respect your scholarship on the Greek language. In turn I think you should respect the opinions of the church fathers. They were Greek scholars themselves. I think the attitude of many scholars today is somewhat arrogant when it comes to these things.

If your knowledge of the Greek language dictates the meaning of what Jesus said, then why do few, if any of them agree with you on this? Should we dismiss the teachings of the early church as ignorant? If so, then maybe we should dismiss the teachings of Jesus an the apostles as well.

My learning is in no way superior to yours, but I suggest that you study a couple of books about how the Bible should be interpreted. Phlocalia by Origen and De Doctrina Christiana by Augustine.

I know the ancients weren't perfect, but neither are today's scholars. I think there is way to much strife about words. There should more attention paid to the truth of what is said than to the way it is said.

Respectfully,
AF

[John Reece]

Hi John,

I respect your scholarship on the Greek language. In turn I think you should respect the opinions of the church fathers. They were Greek scholars themselves. I think the attitude of many scholars today is somewhat arrogant when it comes to these things.

If your knowledge of the Greek language dictates the meaning of what Jesus said, then why do few, if any of them agree with you on this? Should we dismiss the teachings of the early church as ignorant? If so, then maybe we should dismiss the teachings of Jesus an the apostles as well.

My learning is in no way superior to yours, but I suggest that you study a couple of books about how the Bible should be interpreted. Phlocalia by Origen and De Doctrina Christiana by Augustine.

I know the ancients weren't perfect, but neither are today's scholars. I think there is way to much strife about words. There should more attention paid to the truth of what is said than to the way it is said.

Respectfully,
AF

Hi AF,

As a student of the Early Church Fathers, perhaps you can inform me (an old man in declining health who doesn't have sufficient energy left to learn the Early Church Fathers) how the Early Church Fathers would respond to my last post above, in which I presented these facts:

A time-specific question requires a time-specific answer.

In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Jesus a time-specific question:


As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (ESV).

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus gave the disciples a time-specific answer:


Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (ESV)

Blessings,

John

[eschaton]

Hi AF,

As a student of the Early Church Fathers, perhaps you can inform me (an old man in declining health who doesn't have sufficient energy left to learn the Early Church Fathers) how the Early Church Fathers would respond to my last post above, in which I presented these facts:


Blessings,

John

I don't want to beat up on an old guy. I'm not really a spring chicken myself. Anyway, I would imagine they would respond in much the same way that I did in my previous posts in this thread, and in the same way John Chrysotom(sp?} wrote, that I quoted previously. That's the reason for my remarks.

For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, "This is the generation of them that seek the Lord."7

We should discuss this more, but it may be some time before I write again. I'll be traveling for a while.

Take care with your time and health,
God bless you,
Alan

[John Reece]

For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, "This is the generation of them that seek the Lord."7


Alan,

As Chrysostom noted in the quote above, there are occurrences of genea/"generation" that are not distinguished by times only.

The fact that there are occurrences of the word genea/"generation" in which time is not the only distinguishing factor does not ipso facto rule out time as a factor in any occurrence of the word.

Chapters 23 and 24 of Matthew share the context that begins with chapter 21. The fact that the occurrence of genea/"generation" in 23:36 is specifically related to the character of the religious leadership of the Jews during that time does not rule out the factor of time, which is expressly referenced in 24:3 and 24:34.

You have repeated your original quote of Chrysostom; I trust you won't mind if I repeat my original response :smile: :


A time-specific question requires a time-specific answer.

In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Jesus a time-specific question:


As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (ESV)

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus gave the disciples a time-specific answer:


Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (ESV)

May God keep you safe in all your travels.

Blessings,

John

[Hitch]

Interesting that the more specific the Scriptures are the more vague the interpretations, at least as regards eschatology.

[eschaton]

Alan,

As Chrysostom noted in the quote above, there are occurrences of genea/"generation" that are not distinguished by times only.

The fact that there are occurrences of the word genea/"generation" in which time is not the only distinguishing factor does not ipso facto rule out time as a factor in any occurrence of the word.

Chapters 23 and 24 of Matthew share the context that begins with chapter 21. The fact that the occurrence of genea/"generation" in 23:36 is specifically related to the character of the religious leadership of the Jews during that time does not rule out the factor of time, which is expressly referenced in 24:3 and 24:34.

You have repeated your original quote of Chrysostom; I trust you won't mind if I repeat my original response :smile: :


A time-specific question requires a time-specific answer.

In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Jesus a time-specific question:


As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (ESV)

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus gave the disciples a time-specific answer:


Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (ESV)

May God keep you safe in all your travels.

Blessings,

John

Hi John,

I am back from my travels and I would like to discuss this with you further. I may not be understanding you.

A time-specific question requires a time-specific answer.
In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Jesus a time-specific question:

Let me ask you a question. In Luke 12:41, that I referred to before, was Peter asking a time specific question? How did Jesus answer Him?

Here's the section from Chrysotym again:

After this, that they might not straightway return to it again, and say, "When?" he brings to their remembrance the things that had been said, saying, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled!"6 All these things. What things? I pray thee. Those about Jerusalem, those about the wars, about the famines, about the pestilences, about the earthquakes, about the false Christs, about the false prophets, about the sowing of the gospel everywhere, the seditions, the tumults, all the other things, which we said were to occur until His coming. How then, one may ask, did He say, "This generation?" Speaking not of the generation then living, but of that of the believers. For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, "This is the generation of them that seek the Lord."7
6 Matt. xxiv. 34. [R. V., "pass away" and "accomplished."]

7 Ps. xxiv. 6.

Chrsotym does not limit to those living in 24:33.

How then, one may ask, did He say, "This generation?" Speaking not of the generation then living, but of that of the believers.

If you will read all of what he says in context you will see that he is no preterist. None in the early church were the kind of preterist we have today. And they also understood Greek, as you know. The preterism of today was nonexistant, and I wouldn't be surprised if it would have been considered heretical.

Chrysotym was no preterist. He goes on to say:

But not so the righteous, but they were passing their time in tribulation and dejection. Whereby He shows, that when Antichrist is come, the pursuit of unlawful pleasures shall be more eager among the transgressors, and those that have learnt to despair of their own salvation. Then shall be gluttony, then revellings, and drunkenness. Wherefore also most of all He puts forth an example corresponding to the thing For like as when the ark was making, they believed not, saith He; but while it was set in the midst of them, proclaiming beforehand the evils that are to come, they, when they saw it, lived in pleasure, just as though nothing dreadful were about to take place; so also now, Antichrist indeed shall appear, after whom is the end, and the punishments at the end, and vengeance intolerable; but they that are held by the intoxication of wickedness shall not so much as perceive the dreadful nature of the things that are on the point of being done. Wherefore also Paul saith, "as travail upon a woman with child," even so shall those fearful and incurable evils come upon them.

The early church was not preterist, and that is the best evidence today that there is little or no truth in the preterist view.

Best rregards,
Alan

[John Reece]

Hi John,

I am back from my travels and I would like to discuss this with you further. I may not be understanding you.

Let me ask you a question. In Luke 12:41 that I referred to before was Peter asking a time specific question? How did Jesus answer Him?

Here's the section from Chrysostom again:

After this, that they might not straightway return to it again, and say, "When?" he brings to their remembrance the things that had been said, saying, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled!"6 All these things. What things? I pray thee. Those about Jerusalem, those about the wars, about the famines, about the pestilences, about the earthquakes, about the false Christs, about the false prophets, about the sowing of the gospel everywhere, the seditions, the tumults, all the other things, which we said were to occur until His coming. How then, one may ask, did He say, "This generation?" Speaking not of the generation then living, but of that of the believers. For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, "This is the generation of them that seek the Lord."7
6 Matt. xxiv. 34. [R. V., "pass away" and "accomplished."]

7 Ps. xxiv. 6.

Chrysostom does not limit to those living in 24:33.

How then, one may ask, did He say, "This generation?" Speaking not of the generation then living, but of that of the believers.

If you will read all of what he says in context you will see that he is no preterist. None in the early church were the kind of preterist we have today. And they also understood Greek, as you know. The preterism of today was nonexistent, and I wouldn't be surprised if it would have been considered heretical.

Chrysostom was no preterist. He goes on to say:

But not so the righteous, but they were passing their time in tribulation and dejection. Whereby He shows, that when Antichrist is come, the pursuit of unlawful pleasures shall be more eager among the transgressors, and those that have learnt to despair of their own salvation. Then shall be gluttony, then revilings, and drunkenness. Wherefore also most of all He puts forth an example corresponding to the thing For like as when the ark was making, they believed not, saith He; but while it was set in the midst of them, proclaiming beforehand the evils that are to come, they, when they saw it, lived in pleasure, just as though nothing dreadful were about to take place; so also now, Antichrist indeed shall appear, after whom is the end, and the punishments at the end, and vengeance intolerable; but they that are held by the intoxication of wickedness shall not so much as perceive the dreadful nature of the things that are on the point of being done. Wherefore also Paul saith, "as travail upon a woman with child," even so shall those fearful and incurable evils come upon them.

The early church was not preterist, and that is the best evidence today that there is little or no truth in the preterist view.

Best regards,
Alan

Hi Alan,

Judging from the context you posted above, it seems obvious that Chrysostom did not present a preterist perspective of the Olivet Discourse.

My response was to the original excerpt that you quoted from Chrysostom's commentary. In terms of biblical exegesis and the wording of the excerpt, I stand by my response to it.

Your quote of the context of the excerpt shows that Chrysostom's view and mine differ. I'm content to leave it at that, as I am inclined to not engage in debate whenever I have the grace to avoid doing so — especially when there is a simple disagreement that is likely to persist no matter how much energy may be expended in dialogue about it (the primary focus of the disagreement being my putting all my eggs in an exegetical basket that consists solely of biblical texts, and your valuing the writings of the Early Church Fathers as interpretive standards — do I have that right, on your part?).

You are a very pleasant and edifying fellow. I have learned from your comments. For that I thank you.

Blessings,

John

[eschaton]

Hi Alan,

Judging from the context you posted above, it seems obvious that Chrysostom did not present a preterist perspective of the Olivet Discourse.

My response was to the original excerpt that you quoted from Chrysostom's commentary. In terms of biblical exegesis and the wording of the excerpt, I stand by my response to it.

Your quote of the context of the excerpt shows that Chrysostom's view and mine differ. I'm content to leave it at that, as I am inclined to not engage in debate whenever I have the grace to avoid doing so — especially when there is a simple disagreement that is likely to persist no matter how much energy may be expended in dialogue about it (the primary focus of the disagreement being my putting all my eggs in an exegetical basket that consists solely of biblical texts, and your valuing the writings of the Early Church Fathers as interpretive standards — do I have that right, on your part?).

You are a very pleasant and edifying fellow. I have learned from your comments. For that I thank you.

Blessings,

John

If there's one thing I'm sure of it's that you are more edifying and pleasant than I am. Especially considering the remarks I made about preterism. Like you said, we'll leave it at that for now. I'm back to the I love you, you love me thing. Maybe I'll change my avatar back.

AF

[eschaton]

Hi AF,

As a student of the Early Church Fathers, perhaps you can inform me (an old man in declining health who doesn't have sufficient energy left to learn the Early Church Fathers) how the Early Church Fathers would respond to my last post above, in which I presented these facts:


Blessings,

John

In a more earnest effort to reply I offer the following.


From Origen's Philocalia: XIV. The Use of Logic in the Study of Scripture

2. If any one doubts the soundness of this reasoning, let him consider whether a problem in ethics, or physics, or theology, can be properly conceived without accurately finding the meaning, and without close regard to the clear rules of logic. What absurdity is there in listening to those who determine the exact meaning of words in different languages, and in carefully attending to things signified? And we sometimes through ignorance of logic fall into great errors, because we do not clear up the equivocal senses, ambiguities, misapplications, literal meanings, and distinctions. Take, for example, the word world. Through not knowing that it was an equivocal term, men have fallen into the most impious opinions concerning the Demiurge: men, I mean, who have not cleared up the question in what sense "the world lieth in the evil one," 237 and have not realised that the "world" there denotes earthly and human affairs. Supposing the "world" to be literally the complex whole of heaven and earth and things therein, they exhibit the utmost audacity and impiety in their conceptions of God; for with all their efforts they cannot show how the sun and moon and stars, with their wonderful orderly movements, "lie in the evil one." If, again, we study the passage, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," 238 and attempt to show that "world" is here the scene of sin abounding, that is, the different localities of the earth, they will candidly admit what is said, but from a spirit of foolish contention they will cling to their detestable errors, which they have once embraced, simply because they do not understand the equivocal meaning of |62 the word. If, again, we read that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself," 239 they will no longer, certainly not consistently with their own principles, succeed in showing that the word denotes the whole world, that is, the contents of the whole world; on their own showing the word must be examined as being equivocal. And as for detestable interpretations caused by ambiguity, punctuation,240 and countless other things, a keen student may find abundant illustrations. But we have digressed thus far in order to show that even we ourselves, who wish not to err concerning the truth in our understanding, of the Scriptures, are bound to be familiar with the logical principles involved in the use of them. Such principles we just now required to discover the difference between the two expressions with which we began, the lights being said to have been created for rule of the night, and to rule the day and the night.

From On Christian Doctrine
Chapter 28.-Truth is More Important Than Expression, what is Meant by Strife About Words.

... To strive about words is not to be careful about the way to overcome error by truth, but to be anxious that your mode of expression should be preferred to that of another. The man who does not strive about words, whether he speak quietly, temperately or vehemently, uses words with no other purpose than to make the truth plain, pleasing, and effective; for not even love itself, which is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling of the law,84 can be rightly exercised unless the objects of love are true and not false...