My brother Apollos makes some excellent points in his post “This Generation” and the Jewish People. It challenges the key conclusion drawn in my previous post, “This Generation”—Getting All the Pieces to Fit. I appreciate Apollos’ attempt to present an alternate finding to this question, because it has forced me to re-examine my logic and in doing so, I believe he has helped me cement it further.
Our goal, both his and mine, is the goal of most of the regular readership of this forum: To establish Bible truth through an accurate and unbiased understanding of Scripture. Since bias is such a tricky devil, both to identify and weed out, having the right to challenge anyone’s thesis is crucial to its eradication. It is the lack of this freedom—the freedom to challenge an idea—that is at the heart of so many of the errors and misinterpretations that have bedeviled Jehovah’s Witnesses for the past century and a half.
Apollos makes a good observation when he states that in the majority of occasions when Jesus uses the term “this generation”, he is referring to the Jewish people, specifically, the wicked element among them. He then states: “In other words if we start with a clean slate rather than introduce preconceptions, the burden of proof ought to be on the one who claims a different meaning, when the meaning is otherwise so consistent.”
This is a valid point. Certainly, coming up with a different definition than the one that would be consistent with the rest of the gospel accounts would require some compelling evidence. Otherwise, it would indeed be a mere preconception.
As the title of my previous post indicates, my premise was finding a solution that allows all the pieces to fit without making unnecessary or unwarranted assumptions. As I tried to reconcile the idea that “this generation” refers to the race of the Jewish people, I found that a key piece of the puzzle no longer fit.
Apollos makes the case that the Jewish people would endure and survive; that a “future special consideration to the Jews” would cause them to be saved. He points to Romans 11:26 to support this as well as the promise God made to Abraham regarding his seed. Without getting into an interpretive discussion of Revelation 12 and Romans 11, I submit that this belief alone eliminates the Jewish nation from consideration with regard to the fulfillment of Mat. 24:34. The reason is that “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” If the Jewish nation is saved, if they survive as a nation, then they do not pass away. For all the pieces to fit, we must look for a generation that passes away, but only after all the things Jesus spoke of have occurred. There is only one generation that fits the bill and still meets all the other criteria of Matthew 24:4-35. This would be a generation which from the first century down to the end can call Jehovah their Father because they are his progeny, the offspring of a single father. I refer to the Children of God. Whether the race of Jews is eventually restored to a state of being God’s children (along with the rest of humankind) or not is moot. During the period prescribed by the prophecy, the Jewish nation is not referred to as God’s children. Only one group can lay claim to that status: the anointed brothers of Jesus.
Once that last one of his brothers has died, or being transformed, “this generation” will have passed away, fulfilling Matthew 24:34.
Is there scriptural support for a generation from God that comes into existence apart from the nation of the Jews? Yes, there is:
“This is written for the future generation; And the people that is to be created will praise Jah.” (Psalm 102:18)
Written at a time that the Jewish people already existed, this verse cannot be referring to the race of the Jews by the term “future generation”; nor can it be referring to the Jewish people when speaking of a “people that is to be created”. The only candidate for such a ‘created people’ and “future generation” is that of the Children of God. (Romans 8:21)
A Word about Romans Chapter 11
[I think I’ve proven my point vis-à-vis this generation not applying to the Jewish people as a race. However, there remains the tangential issues raised by Apollos and others concerning Revelation 12 and Romans 11. I will not deal with Revelation 12 here because it is a highly symbolic passage of Scripture, and I don’t see how we can establish hard evidence from it for purposes of this discussion. This is not to say that it is not a worthy topic in its own right, but that would be for future consideration. Romans 11 on the other hand deserves our immediate attention.]
Romans 11:1-26
[I’ve inserted my comments in boldface throughout the text. Italics mine for emphasis.]
I ask, then, God did not reject his people, did he? Never may that happen! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he first recognized. Why, do YOU not know what the Scripture says in connection with E·li′jah, as he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Jehovah, they have killed your prophets, they have dug up your altars, and I alone am left, and they are looking for my soul.” 4 Yet, what does the divine pronouncement say to him? “I have left seven thousand men over for myself, [men] who have not bent the knee to Ba′al.” [Why does Paul bring this account up in his discussion? He explains…]5 In this way, therefore, at the present season also a remnant has turned up according to a choosing due to undeserved kindness. [So the 7,000 left over for Jehovah (“for myself”) represent the remnant that has turned up. Not all Israel was “for myself” in Elijah’s day and not all Israel “turned up according to a choosing” in Paul’s day.] 6 Now if it is by undeserved kindness, it is no longer due to works; otherwise, the undeserved kindness no longer proves to be undeserved kindness. 7 What, then? The very thing Israel is earnestly seeking he did not obtain, but the ones chosen obtained it. [The Jewish people didn’t obtain this, but only the chosen ones, the remnant. Question: What was obtained? Not simply salvation from sin, but much more. The fulfillment of the promise to become a kingdom of priests and for the nations to be blessed by them.] The rest had their sensibilities blunted; 8 just as it is written: “God has given them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes so as not to see and ears so as not to hear, down to this very day.” 9 Also, David says: “Let their table become for them a snare and a trap and a stumbling block and a retribution; 10 let their eyes become darkened so as not to see, and always bow down their back.” 11 Therefore I ask, Did they stumble so that they fell completely? Never may that happen! But by their false step there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world, and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will the full number of them mean it! [What does he mean by the “full number of them”? Verse 26 speaks of “the full number of the people of the nations”, and here in vs. 12, we have the full number of the Jews. Rev. 6:11 speaks of the dead waiting “until the number was filled…of their brothers.” Revelation 7 speaks of 144,000 from the tribes of Israel and an unknown number of others from “every tribe, nation and people.” Evidently, the full number of the Jews mentioned in vs. 12 refers to the full number of Jewish chosen ones, not of the entire nation.]13 Now I speak to YOU who are people of the nations. Forasmuch as I am, in reality, an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry, 14 if I may by any means incite [those who are] my own flesh to jealousy and save some from among them. [Notice: not save all, but some. So the saving of all Israel referred to in vs. 26 must be different from what Paul refers to here. The salvation he refers to here is that peculiar to the children of God.] 15 For if the casting of them away means reconciliation for the world, what will the receiving of them mean but life from the dead? [What is “reconciliation for the world” but the saving of the world? In vs. 26 he speaks specifically of the saving of the Jews, while here he broadens his scope to include the whole world. The saving of the Jews and the reconciliation (saving) of the world are parallel and made possible by the glorious freedom of the children of God.] 16 Further, if the [part taken as] firstfruits is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are also. [The root was indeed holy (set apart) because God made it so by calling them out to himself. They lost that holiness however. But a remnant remained holy.] 17 However, if some of the branches were broken off but you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the olive’s root of fatness, 18 do not be exulting over the branches. If, though, you are exulting over them, it is not you that bear the root, but the root [bears] you. 19 You will say, then: “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 All right! For [their] lack of faith they were broken off, but you are standing by faith. Quit having lofty ideas, but be in fear. [A warning not to allow the newly exalted status of the gentile Christians to go to their head. Otherwise, pride could cause them to suffer the same fate as the root, the rejected Jewish nation.] 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 See, therefore, God’s kindness and severity. Toward those who fell there is severity, but toward you there is God’s kindness, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise, you also will be lopped off. 23 They also, if they do not remain in their lack of faith, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much rather will these who are natural be grafted into their own olive tree! 25 For I do not want YOU, brothers, to be ignorant of this sacred secret, in order for YOU not to be discreet in your own eyes: that a dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved. [Israel was first to be chosen and from them, like the 7,000 men Jehovah had to himself, comes a remnant that Jehovah calls his own. However, we must wait for the full number of the nations to come into this remnant. But what does he mean that “all Israel will be saved” by this. He cannot mean the remnant—that is, spiritual Israel. That would contradict all that he has just explained. As explained above, the saving of the Jews parallels the saving of the world, made possible by the arrangement of the chosen seed.] Just as it is written: “The deliverer will come out of Zion and turn away ungodly practices from Jacob. [In conclusion, the Messianic seed, the children of God, is the deliverer.]
How Jehovah accomplishes this is unknown to us at the present time. We can speculate that millions of ignorant unrighteous ones will survive Armageddon, or we can theorized that those killed at Armageddon will all be resurrected in a progressive and orderly manner. Or perhaps there is another alternative. Whatever the case, it is sure to astonish. This is all in keeping with the sentiments expressed by Paul at Romans 11:33:
”O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments [are] and past tracing out his ways [are]!”
A Word About the Abrahamic Covenant
Let’s start with what was actually promised.
“I shall surely bless youA and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand that are on the seashore; B and your seed will take possession of the gate of his enemies. C 18 And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselvesD due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.’”” (Genesis 22:17, 18)
Let’s break it down.
A) Fulfillment: There is no doubt that Jehovah blessed Abraham.
B) Fulfillment: The Israelites did multiply like the stars of the heavens. We could stop there and this element would have its fulfillment. However, another option is to apply it additionally to Revelation 7:9 where the great multitude which stands in the heavenly temple with the 144,000 is depicted as being unnumberable. Either way, it’s fulfilled.
C) Fulfillment: The Israelites did rout its enemies and take possession of their gate. This was fulfilled in the conquest and occupation of Canaan. Again, there is a case to be made for an additional fulfillment. For Jesus and his anointed brothers are the Messianic seed and they will conquer and take possession of the gate of their enemies. Accept one, accept them both; either way the scripture is fulfilled.
D) Fulfillment: The Messiah and his anointed brothers are part of the seed of Abraham, derived through the genetic lineage of the nation of Israel, and all the nations are blessed through them. (Romans 8:20-22) There is no need for the entire Jewish race to be considered his seed nor to consider that it is by the entire Jewish race from Abraham’s day down to the end of this system of things by which all the nations are blessed. Even if—IF—we consider that the woman of Genesis 3:15 is the nation of Israel, it is not her, but the seed that she produces—the children of God—that results in a blessing upon all nations.
A Word About Generation as a Race of People
Apollos states:
“Rather than turn this into a long article by including extensive dictionary and concordance references I will simply point out that the word is connected with begetting or birth, and very much allows for the idea of it referring to a race of people. The readers may check Strong’s, Vine’s etc, to easily verify this.” [Italics for emphasis]
I checked out both Strong’s and Vine’s concordances and I think that saying the word genea “very much allows for the idea of it referring to a race of people” is misleading. Apollos is referring in his analysis to the Jewish people as the race of the Jews. He makes reference to how the Jewish race has been persecuted down through the centuries but has survived. The Jewish race has survived. That is how all of us understand the meaning of the term, “a race of people”. If you were to convey that meaning in Greek, you would use the word genos, not genea. (See Acts 7:19 where genos is translated as “race”)
Genea can also mean “race”, but in a different sense. Strong’s concordance gives the following sub-definition.
2b metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense, a perverse race. Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).
If you look up all of those scriptural references, you’ll see that none of them refers to a “race of people” specifically, but instead uses “generation” (for the most part) to render genea. While the context can be understood to comply to the 2b definition of a metaphorical race—people with the same pursuits and characteristic—none of those scriptures make sense if we infer he was referring to the race of the Jews that has endured down to our day. Neither can we infer reasonably that Jesus meant the race of the Jews from Abraham down to his day. That would require that he characterize all the Jews from Isaac, through Jacob and on down as “a wicked and perverse generation”.
The primary definition in both Strong’s and Vine’s upon which both Apollos and I agree is that genea refers to:
1. a begetting, birth, nativity.
2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
There are two seeds mentioned in the Bible. One is produced by an unnamed woman and the other is produced by the serpent. (Gen. 3:15) Jesus clearly identified the wicked generation (literally, generated ones) as having the serpent as their Father.
“Jesus said to them: “If God were YOUR Father, YOU would love me, for from God I came forth and am here…44 YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father” (John 8:42, 44)
Since we are looking at context, we have to concur that every time Jesus used “generation” outside of the prophecy of Mat. 24:34, he was referring to the perverse group of men who were Satan’s seed. They were Satan’s generation for he gave birth to them and he was their father. If you wish to infer that Strong’s definition 2b applies to these verses, then we can say that Jesus was referring to “a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character”. Again, that fits with being Satan’s seed.
The other seed that the Bible speaks of has Jehovah as its Father. We have two groups of men begotten by two fathers, Satan and Jehovah. Satan’s seed is not limited to the wicked Jews that rejected the Messiah. Nor is Jehovah’s seed by the woman limited to faithful Jews who accepted the Messiah. Both generations include men of all races. However, the specific generation Jesus referred to repeatedly was limited to those men who rejected him; men alive at that time. In line with this, Peter said, “Get saved from this crooked generation.” (Acts 2:40) That generation passed away back then.
True, Satan’s seed continues down to our day, but it includes all nations and tribes and peoples, not just the Jews.
We must ask ourselves, when Jesus reassured his disciples that the generation would not pass away until all these things occurred, was he intending that they be reassured that Satan’s wicked seed would not end before Armageddon. That hardly makes sense because why would they care. They would prefer that it didn’t survive. Wouldn’t we all? No, what fits is that down through the epochs of history, Jesus would know that his disciples would need encouragement and reassurance that they—the children of God as a generation—would be around to the finish.
One More Word About Context
I have already provided what I feel is the single most compelling reason to not allow the context of Jesus usage of “generation” throughout the gospel accounts guide us in defining its use at Mat. 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:23. However, Apollos adds another argument to his line of reasoning.
“All of the parts of the prophecy that we see as affecting true Christians…would not have been perceived in that way by the disciples at that time. As being heard through their ears Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem pure and simple. The questions to Jesus in v3 came about in response to his saying that “by no means will a stone [of the temple] be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down”. Is it not probable then that one of the follow-on questions that would be in the mind of the disciples as Jesus talked about these matters, was what the future would be for the Jewish nation?”It is true that his disciples had a very Israel-centric view of salvation at that particular point in time. This is evident by the question they asked him just before he left them:
“Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” (Acts 1:6)
However, Jesus was not constrained in his answer by what they wanted to believe or what they were most interested in just then or what they expected to hear. Jesus imparted an enormous amount of knowledge to his disciples in the 3 ½ years of his ministry. Only a tiny portion is recorded for the benefit of his disciples throughout history. (John 21:25) Yet, the answer to the question posed by those few was recorded under inspiration in three of the four gospel accounts. Jesus would have known that their Israel-centric concern would soon change, and in fact did change, as evident from the letters that were written in the years that followed. While the term “the Jews” took on a pejorative overtone in Christian writings, the focus came to be on the Israel of God, the Christian congregation. Was his answer intended to assuage the concerns of his disciples at the time the question was posed, or was it intended for a far vaster audience of both Jewish and Gentile disciples down through the ages? I think the answer is clear, but just in case it is not, consider that his answer did not address their concern fully. He did tell them about the destruction of Jerusalem, but he made no attempt to show that it had nothing to do with his presence nor of the conclusion of the system of things. When the dust cleared in 70 C.E. there would undoubtedly have been a growing consternation on the part of his disciples. What about the darkening of the sun, moon and stars? Why weren’t the heavenly powers shaken? Why didn’t the “sign of the Son of man” appear? Why weren’t all the tribes of the earth beating themselves in lamentation? Why weren’t the faithful gathered?
As time progressed, they would have come to see that these things had a later fulfillment. But why didn’t he just tell them that when he answered the question? In part, the answer must have something to do with John 16:12.
“I have many things yet to say to YOU, but YOU are not able to bear them at present.
Likewise, if he had explained then what he meant by generation, he would have been giving them information about the length of time before them they were not able to handle.
So while they may well have thought the generation he was speaking of referred to the Jews of that age, the unfolding reality of events would have caused them to re-evaluate that conclusion. The context shows that Jesus’ use of generation was referring to the people alive at that time, not to a centuries-long race of Jews. In that context, the three disciples might well have thought he was talking about the same wicked and perverse generation at Mat. 24:34, but when that generation passed on and “all these things” had not occurred, they would have been forced to the realization that they had arrived at an erroneous conclusion. At that point, with Jerusalem in ruins and the Jews scattered, would Christians (Jews and gentiles alike) be concerned for the Jews or for themselves, the Israel of God? Jesus answered for the long term, mindful of the welfare of this disciples down through the centuries.
In Conclusion
There is only one generation—the progeny of a single Father, one “chosen race”—that will see all these things and which will then pass away, the generation of the Children of God. The Jews as a nation or a people or a race just doesn’t cut the mustard.
Good morning “GodsWordIsTruth” 🙂 I’m glad this “paradigm” concept could in some small way help. Great! With that thought in mind, now we can read all verses in Matthew 24th chapter, with the first century christian’s viewpoint, totally in mind. That way, we see things, the way they would see them. Like for example: Luke 21:28 Now, this is a very familiar scripture to all Jehovah’s Witnesses. We have used this particular verse in field service and on bible studies many, many times…right? But, have we ever thought of how first century Christians might have perceived this verse, when they… Read more »
My mistake, Luke 21:21 should be actually Luke 21:31.
Thanks,
JJW
Thank you very much for taking the time to help me understand this view. You have given me another piece to the puzzle. If I was a Jewish Christian attending the congregation meetings during the first century, I see no reason why this possible scriptural explanation that you propose would not have been taught to those Christians. One thing in my mind is for sure whether it was Isaiah, Ezekial, John or in this case Jesus… prophets has always used symbolic language particularly when prophesying about the destruction . I never understood the case for Matthew 24:30,31being literal (it could… Read more »
Hi God’s Word Is Truth: 🙂 Nice to speak with you on this vital topic. To address your question, to me, I see the fulfillment of prophecy sometimes as linear, thus running in a straight line, and ending with one singular fulfillment. That’s the standard way people today normally perceive prophecy. But sometimes, when I read prophecy, I get “double vision” as I can see two different ways of looking at its fulfillment, when reading some prophecies. Like the one Jesus gave in Matthew 24th chapter. To better understand my viewpoint of seeing things in “paradigms,” or possible things or… Read more »
The following verse was left off of this sentence:
… Out-and-out “false stories,” skillfully, “artfully contrived“ false stories, that are presented to us as healthy spiritual “food” but are really “leavenous” teachings, something Jesus specifically warned against. (See Matt. 16:12)
Thanks,
JJW
Jamaican Jw , Well written comment. I have enjoyed your “thinking” comments elsewhere on this site. The discussions on this site are the highlight of my day! I need clarification. I am trying to follow your “paradigm” view to look at these prophecies the way that you do. Again, I admit I have dual fulfillment fatigue 🙂 however I am not denying that other prophecies could possibly have a dual fulfillment, I just don’t see a case for Matt 24:4-34. So is the paradigm you proposed a different way of saying dual fulfillment? Or am I missing your point entirely?… Read more »
Greetings everyone! 🙂 What a wonderful, marvelous conversation going on among us here, at “MeletiVivlon’s Beroean Pickets Discussion Board”… I commend you all for this! 🙂 Gentlemen…ladies, this is a fabulous, very deep, spiritual conversation indeed, something very different from what one would find at the kingdom halls around the world these days for sure. Now, for the matter at hand…Matthew 24:34 & the words, “this generation” — resolving the apparent conflicts. I would probably say, resolving this question concerning Matthew 24:34 [“this generation”] and all accompanying verses associated with this topic [like known quotes from the book of Revelation… Read more »
Firstly apologies to Meleti for labelling him a Rutherforite in a previous posting. Matt 23:39 “For I say to YOU, YOU will by no means see me from henceforth until YOU say, ‘Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name!’” Jesus had already been greeted by the Jews with ‘Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name’ at his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt 21:9). So his statement at Matt 23:39 must relate to sometime in the future. This is reinforced by ‘henceforth UNTIL’ suggesting that the abandonment of the Jews would not be permanent and they would not always… Read more »
Apology accepted, Miken.
To answer your question, I don’t see that Romans 11:15a can be referring to anointed Christians being cast away. Re: Romans 11:28-32, I don’t believe these verses apply to anointed Christians.
Meleti You made a valid comment further back in the proceedings which I think is worth reiterating. If there are two or three or more candidates that meet the criteria, then it really doesn’t matter all that much which identity is the true one, does it? I agree with this in principle, and do think it’s a good time to step back and note what we have in common rather than digging into any kind of opposing positions. 1) We agree that there are ways to understand Jesus’ words so that we can be certain that they will be accurately… Read more »
Actually, Apollos, that dummy guide is already at Wikipedia: “Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. Daniel is interpreted as events that happened in the second century BC while Revelation is interpreted as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is listed in Webster’s 1913 dictionary as a prefix denoting that something is “past” or “beyond,” signifying… Read more »
Hi CLJ Thanks for that. Yes, I understand what Preterists believe broadly speaking. I just can’t read the Bible with that in view and make it work. I would need a “verse by verse dummies guide”, because when it gets to the difficult verses I find that Preterists skim over those or give very sketchy reasoning. No, I don’t see why a non-preterist view goes beyond a physical meaning, as long as we remove the temporal aspect to the basic meaning of “progeny”. But whether you go for “spiritual progeny” or the “genetic progeny” you still have to remove the… Read more »
I want to clarify that I am a Christian . I am currently associated with the JW’s and but I’m not Preterist 🙂 so I reserve the right to disagree with their thinking where it doesn’t fit scripture.
I am evolving from an all or nothing view .In saying that…. I’m not implying that anyone here has that view.
I do, but only when it comes to a bag of potato chips.
I didn’t mean to imply that you were a Preterist. I was just making reference to that because many of the points coincide with their views.
It’s the same thing with me. It’s hard to put forth points on the who Jesus really is without JW’s leaping to the conclusion that I’m a Trinitarian.
The one-size fits all mentality is hard to overcome.
You didn’t imply that I was. I certainly did not take it that way either. Frankly , I had to actually look up Preterits today to see what that their line of thinking was. ( Thanks to ComeLordJesus’ comment it narrowed it down for me) In a roundabout way I was trying to say that I don’t think it is necessary for me to show all the cases I differ from a Preterits view ( on the surface it seems like I disagree with a lot) to prove that Matt. 24:4-34 does not have a dual fulfillment. I believe that… Read more »
Meleti and Apollos I am very much enjoying the discussion thus far! Come Lord’s Jesus’ comments expounded on this discussion nicely. I have read both articles over and over . I know you often say that you do not claim any special credentials in translation, but I am interested in your view ( since I don’t know the first thing about how to begin to research meanings/etymology of words) . Can a case be made that offspring is better rendering of genea than “generation? Is our modern usage of the word generation the same in your opinion? If the word… Read more »
Hi GodsWordIsTruth
Just based on a few portions in Matt24:30,31 I can’t quite accept that division. If there was a symbolic sign of the Son of Man in heavens then did “all the tribes of the earth beat themselves in lamentation”? Was there a great trumpet sound and a gathering of the chosen ones from the four one extremity of the heavens to the other extremity?
If not then it seems that we cannot escape that “all these things” of Matt 24:34 has to include those events.
Or is there another way around that?
Apollos
I see your point…. however if I’m in the audience when Jesus is speaking… I believe that I would conclude that in Matthew 24 is the Jewish remnant who put faith in Jesus as the Messiah. during the tribulation period.If I was discerning enough…. I believe I would call to mind the scriptures at Zechariah 2:6 and Isa. 11:12 where it says in part…” I shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. “I don’t see why in this context why it’s far fetched to think that Jesus… Read more »
As I see it, once you set off down this preterist road there are some knock-on consequences, not the least of which is that somehow the entire book of Daniel must be already fulfilled also. In Matt 24:15 Jesus references the disgusting thing of Daniel, which features in Daniel 11:31 & 12:11. Even if I could somehow find my way around the other scriptures in Matt 24, I don’t think I’d ever be persuaded that the “time of the end” in Dan 12:9 was simply the end of the Jewish system of things. There would obviously be further consequences for… Read more »
Btw… to answer your question “all these things” or a conclusion to everything that Jesus was talking about in vs 4-34 . If I take this scripture on its face… then Jesus employed symbolic language to describe how Jewish remnant who put faith in Jesus as the Messiah during the tribulation period would be gathered. “If Jesus uses a terms 23 times, and 20 times we know who he’s talking about, and the other 3 times we’re not sure, what ought to be our first line of enquiry?” I absoultely agree with this statement. That statement made me more receptive… Read more »
Your latest article on this subject is outstanding! I had to go back and re-read this article. Maybe I didn’t catch it but do you believe the scriptures support a dual fulfillment of the gathering of the chosen during the end of the Jewish age or “system of things” in Vs 29,30?
Hi GodsWordIsTruth,
From the research I’ve done, I believe that scripturally there are a number of valid definitions for the word generation, based on the context. Literally, the word means ‘those who are generated’ or ‘generated ones’, so offspring or progeny is implicit in the term.
I believe this helps us to see why Jesus used “generation” instead of “group” when referring to the group of Jews, lead by the Pharisees, Sadducees and priests who opposed him. They were a generation or offspring of Satan.
Meleti Now that I have more clearly understood your objection as per our discussion above, here are a couple of additional points for consideration: 1. Check out the “until” in Matt 24:34 (Greek – ἄν). It is not the same as the word directly translated as “until” in Rom 11:25 (Greek – ἄχρι). In fact there is no direct equivalent in English, so to read it literally as one event that might coincide with another, or follow it, could be a mistake. It’s just not as clear as that. Note in the following verse Jesus says “my words will by… Read more »
I don’t see the relevance of your first point. Is someone trying to put some significance to the use of the word “until” in these two verses? If so, it is not an argument I am making.
As for your second point, as I explained, I was arguing against the application of the Jewish nation/people/race to “this generation”. If you want to restrict its application to a group of Jews within that nation/people/race, I would consider that another argument entirely.
#1) Yes, the someone is you. To quote your article as to what the key problem was that supposedly ruled out the Jewish people: The reason is that “this generation will by no means pass away until [emphasis yours] all these things occur.” If the Jewish nation is saved, if they survive as a nation, then they do not pass away. For all the pieces to fit, we must look for a generation that passes away … etc, etc. If the word “until” was not in the text then you could not raise that objection above, since there would be… Read more »
#1) So it was me you were referring to. See, what threw me off was that I never mentioned Romans 11:25 specifically nor made any comparison between it and Mat. 24:34. My emphasis to the word “until” was just in reference to its common English meaning. You’ve caused me to look it up in Greek. Thank you for that. You say that at Mat. 24:34 the word “until” is from an untranslatable Greek word, ἄν (transliteration: an). In fact, it is ἕως (transliterated as heos). The ἄν isn’t “until”, but an untranslatable disjunctive particle, which modifies heos to give a… Read more »
You are quite right about ἕως. That was my misuse of a lexicon. I fully retract my point #1 and apologize for the misleading info. (I only used Romans 11:25 by way of example, and it is true that it is a different way of expressing the conjunction, although both find their English equivalents in “until” just as you say). Please strike that from the record milord. Point #2 of course stands independently of that. I’m not sure what to make of your response on this. As I see it we are all just trying to resolve a text. There… Read more »
Actually, I haven’t declared your revised application of Generation as impossible. I’m willing to discuss it. What I declare as impossible was the original application as I understood it. Whether I misunderstood or not, the point was that the application I was arguing against isn’t the one you are currently proposing, so I am willing to discuss this new one. However, I believe based on past experience 🙂 that no such discussion will end with one or two comments, so I’d prefer to leave it for a few days, get other stuff out there, then come back to it and… Read more »
P.S. I look forward to your article. A temporary change of scenery would be good 🙂
Not to beat this horse entirely to death, but on what basis to you separate out the off-spring of Abraham in a fulfillment of the covenant, if it applies to literally to physical off-spring and descent?
On the other hand, to follow Meleti’s logic, why be concerned with genetic (or birth-parent) issues rather than spiritual inheritance?
That’s an interesting take on things, CLJ. I hadn’t considered that genetic vs. spiritual question. The wicked Jews of Jesus’ day were the genetic offspring of Abraham, true. However, they were the spiritual offspring of Satan, his generation as it were.
No it’s okay. The horse has broken into a cantor through this additional exchange of thought 🙂 But sticking to the central point, what is of immediate concern is what “this generation” means. And obviously Jesus wasn’t referring to the descendents of Hagar when (just to pick one example) he said “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jo′nah the prophet” (Matt 12:39) That’s why I don’t understand the objection. The Bible is primarily following the destiny of the Jews, and then the transition to… Read more »
Apollos- Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Verse 2 is the first reference: “Do you not behold all these things?” The contextual analysis is whether Jesus, or the NWT (English) of his words by the Bible writers, translators and copyists and re-translators/interpreters we rely upon to give us the “inspired words” either link or re-direct “all these things” in verse 34 to the final end of the system of things, or did Jesus still have in mind his last view of the temple and the Jewish “nation” of the first century. If God in his mercy has preserved the… Read more »
For the reasons I gave in that last comment I’m afraid I just can’t see it this way. The “all these things” do not seem to linguistically be the same in the two verses. You have brought up the matter of Hagar’s offspring a couple of times, but you haven’t explicitly said how this has a bearing on the topic under discussion. I’m going to have to guess that you think this discredits the idea of special consideration for the Jews. If that’s what you are driving at, then all I can say is that I don’t know what God… Read more »
Not to quibble, but John received the “revelation” 63 years later (CE 33 to 96), about two generations in time value.
(Revelation 1:1-20) “A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.”
That first verse opens the context of dual authorship as to quotations, and complicates the “Alpha and Omega” discussion.
CLJ – did you mean to post this here, or does it belong on the midweek meeting thread? I wasn’t sure. But if so, and if you post it there, we could remove this one.
By the words of the context, “all these things” must refer to what Jesus had just said in their hearing, and to what he meant by “all these things” in verse 2, not what his extended remarks might lead to in verse 34.
That understanding certainly would make it easier to define “this generation” in terms everyone can agree upon. The fly in the ointment in my opinion is vs. 33 which links “all these things” to his being “near at the doors”. He wasn’t near at the doors when Jerusalem was destroyed. John calls for him to come a quarter of a century later. (Rev. 22:20) The only way I can see to make vs. 32 and 33 fit is to include the events in vs. 29 to 31 into “all these things”.
I’m really struggling to see things from this point of view. On the one hand you say all these things must refer to what Jesus had just said in their hearing, but then you skip back to verse 2 rather than what he actually just said. To me “just said” means the most recent things he said up to that point. Is it perhaps the commonality of the phrase “all these things” that helps you to link those verses? If so I still can’t see it. “All these things” in verse 2 is referring to a set of objects (the… Read more »
Meleti and Apollos- You both are to be warmly commended for this challenging interchange of thoughts on “this generation” in the Beroean tradition : (Acts 17:11) “Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes‧sa‧lo‧ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” Your discussion has prompted the readers to “deep” thought on the subject. The context of “all these things” becomes important: (Matthew 23:37-24:2) 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,—how often I wanted to… Read more »
CLJ
I fear I am in danger of a further misunderstanding if I don’t clarify what you meant by that.
Are you saying that you understand “all these things” of v34 to be only applicable to the events related to the destruction of the temple?
Apollos
Meleti You and I have each taken a certain position on this, but I suspect that neither of us would be willing to stake our lives on having it right. We have to face a fundamental fact. It seems that this element of the prophecy is intended by God to remain unknown to us at present. When I say this, I don’t mean that neither of the meanings proposed can be true. One of them may well be. Or it may be something entirely different. Without the humility to admit that, it’s very easy to get stuck in a line… Read more »
Apollos, My apologies. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that your explanation was “one worse than the ‘overlapping generations’ doctrine”. I would never wish to insult you in that way. Therefore, I would add another level to your three and say D) Scriptrually impossible and utterly ridiculous. So you’re already one better than that silly doctrine. Of course, I may have completely misunderstood your explanation. I thought you were arguing that the race of Jews or the Jewish people were the generation. Not a subset of them, but all of them as a race or a nation or a people.… Read more »
For clarity: The first and primary question is – to whom is Jesus referring when he says “this generation”? A secondary consideration might be – what happens to them? My proposed answer to the first question is “the Jewish people”, NOT meaning the state of Israel, but rather the progeny of Abraham with a unique identity. My answer to the second is that they continue to exist “until all these things occur”. There it is. Nothing about ultimate salvation for them as a nation. Now I will concede that when I wrote about Romans 11:26 I did cast doubt on… Read more »
Creating a category of “ridiculous” in order to raise my suggestion to one level above that was a little unkind. The simple fact is that to say something is scripturally impossible is to be dogmatic. Sure there are many things on which it is reasonable to take a dogmatic view, because the scriptures are crystal clear. If you believe that this is one of those areas then fair enough, but the basis on which you dismissed my scriptural reasoning was certainly flawed. To give you the benefit of the doubt I am sure that this was unwittingly done, but I… Read more »
I was trying to be funny. Sorry for the failed attempt. I’ll keep my day job. Your statement was that I was categorizing your explanation as “one worse than the “overlapping generations” doctrine”. For that to be true, you would have to conclude that I felt the “overlapping generations” fit into the B) category: “That which is scripturally improbable”. I would not wish anyone to think that I felt the “overlapping generations” doctrine is merely improbable. That would be to dignify it with the moniker “possible, though unlikely”. That doctrine is an insult to the intelligence of sincere minded Christians.… Read more »
I not only stated that it wasn’t what I meant, but I also took the time to clarify the points that I could see you were misunderstanding. If you believe that it still fits the “impossible” category then I am interested to know which bit still makes it so. If not then perhaps we can simply agree that both are possible, and that the article title was not accurate. [As far as dogma, it was a definition of sorts, not a generality. The fact that I said some dogma is warranted avoids us agreeing with Pilate. On the other hand… Read more »
Actually, you said that “there are many things on which it is reasonable to take a dogmatic view, because the scriptures are crystal clear. ” That doesn’t fit with the definition of dogma. From the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: 1. An opinion, a belief; spec. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, esp. by a Church or sect; an arrogant declaration of opinion. M16. 2. Doctrines or opinions, esp. on religious matters, laid down authoritatively or assertively. L18. See how easy it is for us to get drawn into an off-topic discussion. So, back to the matter at hand. We’ve… Read more »
Anyone who follows this through from the beginning to this point will likely just be interested to know whether you still hold that it is impossible given that I have explained where you misunderstood. If there was no new information to add, then I would agree with you to let the conversation rest. But that is not so. Your assertion that “This Generation” cannot refer to the Jewish people was made based upon a faulty understanding. Now that has been clarified it seems a shame that you are willing just to leave the matter without response to my legitimate question… Read more »
But I’ve already answered that question in my first reply (see last paragraph) to your initial comment. I do not believe that the Jewish people will pass away. Perhaps they will all die at Armageddon and be resurrected; or perhaps they will survive through it. I don’t know. However, Romans 11:26 makes it clear that “all Israel will be saved”. Therefore, Israel, the Jewish People will be part of those who will be brought to the trees of life under the Messianic kingdom. Some will eat of the fruit, some will not. Still, we are not talking about individuals, but… Read more »
So now perhaps I am the one to misunderstand. Are you saying that you think “all Israel” in Rom 11:26 is natural Israel or spiritual Israel?
From that same reply: ” This does not apply to the Israel of God based on my reading of this passage.” (Middle of penultimate paragraph)
This was why it was good to keep talking. I had completely missed that. My comment at 9:23am doesn’t properly follow the conversation in that case, although it does address some misunderstandings from earlier.
In the light of that I have a couple of further thoughts, but I will post them in a new comment to break free from this narrow column thread.
One important element we all need to consider is that whether the generation is the anointed or whether it is some other element of society, it must see “all these things”. Therefore, it is a centuries-long generation. It existed in Jesus’ day and exists when the final signs are manifested. Second, it must end after all these things occur. If there are two or three or more candidates that meet those two criteria, then it really doesn’t matter all that much which identity is the true one, does it? Following the law of diminishing returns, I feel I’ve exhausted what… Read more »
A point of clarification on 1 Peter 2:9. Peter played the race card. Reference Bible 9 But YOU are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light. Kingdom Interlinear 9 ὑμεῖς YOU δὲ but γένος race ἐκλεκτόν, chosen, βασίλειον royal ἱεράτευμα, priesthood, ἔθνος nation ἅγιον, holy, λαὸς people εἰς into περιποίησιν, procuring, ὅπως so that τὰς the ἀρετὰς virtues ἐξαγγείλητε YOU might declare τοῦ of the (one) ἐκ out of σκότους darkness ὑμᾶς YOU… Read more »