Why “This Generation” Cannot Refer to the Jewish People

Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-01 12:07:09

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 καλέσαντος having called εἰς into τὸ the θαυμαστὸν wonderful αὐτοῦ of him φῶς· light;
Byington
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for preservation, that you may publish the merits of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light—
American Standard Version
9 But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
But oddly:
King James Version
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Moses did not:
*** Ex.19: ***
. 5 And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. 6 And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’
But with Abraham, we have two lines of descent and legal entitlement to a promise:
Through Hagar the maid-servant:
(Genesis 16:10-11) 10 Then Jehovah’s angel said to her [Hagar]: “I shall greatly multiply your seed, so that it will not be numbered for multitude.” 11 Further Jehovah’s angel added to her: “Here you are pregnant, and you shall give birth to a son and must call his name Ish′ma‧el; for Jehovah has heard your affliction.
Through Sarah the wife:
(Genesis 17:16) 16 And I will bless her [Sarah] and also give you a son from her; and I will bless her and she shall become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 08:03:26

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 of thinking.
For a certainty, one thing we have in common is that we find the current JW “overlapping generations” doctrine proposed by the GB to be impossible to reconcile with our power of reason.
For that reason I feel that the title you chose for this rebuttal article was unfortunate – Why “This Generation” Cannot Refer to the Jewish People.
Until we have a certainty as to the fulfillment of “this generation” I think there are only three categories in which we can place any proposed solution: 1) That which is scripturally possible 2) That which is scripturally improbable, and 3) That which is scripturally impossible.
In an effort to defend your own possible explanation, you have sought to relegate my alternative into the third category, which is really one worse than the “overlapping generations” doctrine. I believe that this was unwarranted, since the argumentation used against it from the outset is based upon attacking the possible meanings of Romans 11 and Revelation 12 and turning my whole premise into one of salvation for the Jews. But I was very careful not to say that, and to include a mid-note in my article to show that the understanding of Matt 24:34 was not primarily contingent on what the Bible might or might not have to say about the final outcome for the Jews, but primarily only on the usage of the term “this generation” by Jesus.
You treat the idea that “this generation will not pass away until ... xyz”, and therefore “this generation” does necessarily pass away at some point thereafter, as a crushing blow to my arguments. But I never speculated on what the future might be for the Jewish people beyond Armageddon. I could do so, but it would simply be speculation, and would add nothing to the argument. I repeat that at no point did I claim universal salvation for the Jewish people as you have said. Readers can check my articles and my comments to verify this. You have simply inferred this meaning.
That having been said, it is helpful to remember that Jesus was using the term “this generation” to talk of the Jewish people in their senseless spiritual condition. So the idea of that generation passing away doesn't have to mean a passing away of all the Jewish people at that point, but could simply mean that a resurrected Abraham gets to see them have their chance at salvation. This same idea of “until” is reflected in Romans 11:25: “that a dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until ...”. If we apply your own logic to this Meleti, then we can infer that at that time being spoken of, the dulling of the sensibilities that has happened in part to Israel must come to an end.
I accept your explanation as one which is possible, but from this exercise so far I still believe that “the Jewish people“ explanation is actually more probable.
I intend to let the dust settle a little before addressing this more fully in an article again. In particular your commentary of Romans 11 requires additional comment, since what was true of “the present season” (v5) was used by you to argue the entire passage. Curiously you emphasized every other part of the verse other than “at the present season”.
Also to get into genea and genos again would be pointless. You are unable to argue out of my position, without jeopardizing your own. We both agree on the possible meanings, but your attempt to narrow it just sufficiently enough to exclude mine is a little transparent, and again I leave it to the reader to easily research the truth of this matter.
There is enough information presented at this stage for the reader to carefully assess the possibilities proposed by both of us. But note I say carefully, because the reader needs the ability to apply the Beroean method by examining the scriptures, and not to read beyond that which is written in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. This has been a bit of a problem from the outset of this subject since several comments, as well as this rebuttal, have inferred things from my article that I most certainly didn't propose.
Apollos

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 08:50:53

  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. My argument was based on that understanding and as such I stand by it. If I've misunderstood your reasoning, my apologies.
  Just to be clear, my argumentation wasn't based from the outset on attacking the possible meanings of Romans 11 and Revelation 12. I didn't get into Revelation 12 at all. My argumentation from the outset was based on the "passing away" element. Even if you and others hadn't raised Romans 11 in comments and regardless of what anyone's personal understanding of that chapter may be, I would still have been obliged to raise it. The reason is that Romans 11:26 says that "all Israel will be saved". This does not apply to the Israel of God based on my reading of this passage. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it does, but I think. I believe you concur with me on that. Therefore, "all Israel" will be around and will not pass away.
  That's the key point and why I feel the title of the article is justified. If we say race = generation = Jewish people. Then the only way for Mat. 24:34 to apply to them is for the Jewish people to pass away after all these things occur. Now you could argue that a subset of the Jewish people will pass away, but that is a different argument. My premise is based on the Jews as nation or a national group.

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 09:23:40

    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 the application of the JW understanding that Paul is talking of spiritual Israel. It might have led some to conclude that I therefore could only offer an alternative of all natural Israel being saved purely on account of the Abrahamic covenant. This is NOT what I believe, and NOT what I wrote. Ultimately anyone who gains salvation does so on the basis of baptism into the death of the Christ. The Bible is perfectly clear about that. But how that might take place after "all these things occur" I could not say, since God's Word does not spell it out. Neither do I think anyone else is in a position to be dogmatic about that one way or the other, unless you take the official JW position as one commenter did that ALL those who are not baptized into Christ are killed at Armageddon.

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 09:46:29

    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 do suggest more caution before declaring something to be absolutely impossible.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 10:17:36

      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. That's why I created the fourth category. Not to be unkind to you, but to make a clear point on how I felt on that subject.
      Seriously though, you state in your comment that what I had understood you meant isn't what you meant. If so, then I cannot place your statement into any of the three categories you've defined, at least not until I have correctly understood it.
      You state, "The simple fact is that to say something is scripturally impossible is to be dogmatic."
      This is a sweeping generality and quite untrue. To accept this we end up with Pilate's famous line as our mantra: "What is truth?" (John 18:38)
      I'm afraid that this discussion has gotten away from us. Let's shelve it for another time.

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 10:39:45

        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 some dogma is unwarranted.]

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 11:12:41

          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 both written extensively on this subject. There are many points pro and con for readers to consider. Perhaps some would like to comment on these and share their viewpoints and research. Or perhaps we've exhausted the topic for the time being.
          I think that at this point there is more to be gained by letting the readership have its say.

          • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 11:29:10

            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 as to whether the understanding is still impossible from your viewpoint, and if so why.
            Of course I appreciate that you are not obliged to respond, but it does somewhat limit the point of a discussion if one party simply walks away from a question.

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 11:51:48

              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 about a racial group. As a race/nation/people they will not pass away and so they cannot be the generation Jesus was referring to. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.
              Nothing you have said in your comments has shown me any flaw in this line of reasoning, so my conclusion stands.

              • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 12:01:54

                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?

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 12:06:12

                  From that same reply: " This does not apply to the Israel of God based on my reading of this passage." (Middle of penultimate paragraph)

                  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 13:48:31

                    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.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 09:01:23

  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 I have to contribute on this topic. Of course, that isn't intended to discourage anyone else from adding to the discussion if they feel the need.

Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-02 14:05:13

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 gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it. 38 Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU. 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!’” 24 Departing now, Jesus was on his way from the temple, but his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do YOU not behold all these things? Truly I say to YOU, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”
This seems to define "this generation" and "all these things," regardless of the three-part question this remark of Jesus prompted from the apostles:
Matt.24:
3 While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” 4 And in answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads YOU...
In WT tradition (never stated), let it by noted that Apollos does not agree with the -out-of-context quotation of his belief.' i.e., that "all these things" extends to Armageddon and possibly beyond.
The first part of the question is specific to Jesus words cited: "When will THESE things be?"

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 15:00:29

  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

Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-02 15:07:10

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.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 15:54:28

  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".

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 16:12:56

  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 temple buildings), and "all these things" in v34 is referring to a set of events. We know that because they "occur", rather than something that the disciples could "behold" as per verse 2.
  Perhaps you can explain further if there is something I am missing.

Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-02 16:13:28

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.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 17:45:00

  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.

Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-02 16:28:36

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 Jewish nation, then he has also preserved the offspring of Hagar's issue through Abraham too, possibly for the same reason - for a final witness and opportunity to repent and accept the mediation of the Christ for salvation.
Despite this being an extension of your line of reasoning, the half-brothership of the two nations from Sarah and Hagar seems to make their destiny inseparable.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 17:54:38

  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 has in mind as far as that's concerned. The Bible doesn't say. Whereas the Bible has a lot to say about the Jews. If Jesus was given to using the term "this generation" about the Jewish people who had fallen into spiritual darkness then I can't see how Hagar's offspring has a bearing on that. But again I may not have grasped your point fully.
  Apollos

Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-02 18:07:20

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?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 18:46:55

  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.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 18:46:59

  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 Chritianity. Whether the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant must involve Hagar's offspring might be of general interest, but it seems to be beside the point under discussion.
  All I can say about the final question is that I am more interested in the spiritual inheritance, generally speaking. But what I'm interested in shouldn't guide understanding of scripture. 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? Could it be the same as the other 20, or should we substitute something that is more interesting to us?

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 18:10:46

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 no means pass away" almost as if he is saying it in the same manner as "this generation" and in contrast with "heaven and earth". So whether “this generation” passes away or persists beyond this might not be as well defined as you are thinking it to be.
2. Even if "until" implies that they do pass away, as we have already noted, when Jesus used "this generation" he was not just talking of the Jewish people in general, but the Jewish people in the negative spiritual condition in which they were. So we ought to bear in mind that they cannot continue on into salvation in that condition, which would tie in with Rom 11:25,26. It is only when they come out of that condition that they will be saved, at which point that generation of faithless Jews will have passed away (as a group of people rather than as individuals), and yet they will have existed up to and beyond the coming of the Son of Man.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-02 18:44:40

  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.

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 22:28:59

    #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 no apparent conjunction to lead you to believe that the generation would certainly pass away. Without that you could not say that "we must look for a generation that passes away" and therefore conclude so certainly that the Jewish people not to fit the bill. That is the significance of "until".
    #2) I have been open to modification of my definition based on the discussion, and indeed I have done that. Or rather I have further qualified the exact group. But you saw that. I said "Jewish people in the negative spiritual condition". So you are welcome to reconsider it or not. I am not sure whether at this stage you are interested to find the real answer, or whether your objective is simply to resist an alternative to the one you've proposed.
    Either way, I am your brother in Christ. We can agree to disagree, and as you said earlier we can leave it to the readers.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-03 08:28:22

      #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 subjective or conditional context. Therefore, while there is no grammatical counterpart to the word ἄν in English, the syntactical condition it imposes on the word it modifies heos (ἕως) is very much alive and well in English. It's use at Matthew 24:34 doesn't deny that the passing away of the generation will occur, but makes that passing conditional on the fulfillment of the subjective clause: the occurrence of "all these things".
      #2) Ooh! The gauntlet has been cast down. Swords at dawn. I'll have my valet make the arrangements. :) Seriously, I have a major post scheduled for either this weekend or midweek next. I've been working on it for some time and it keeps getting postponed. So let's have our discussion after that if that's okay?

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-03 09:23:04

        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 should be no competition in so doing. I certainly didn't set out to quash your suggestion from the first article, although it did sit as a square peg in a round hole to me. I am simply proposing something that seems to fit better and more consistently with Jesus' use of the term, and am opening it up for discussion. From the outset however you have declared it impossible, and looked for grounds to shore up that position. This approach seems odd to me.
        Anyway there we have it. Did Jesus on this one occasion use the term "this generation" with a completely different meaning to the many other times that he used it? I see no reason to think so. The reader can decide.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-03 10:51:58

          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 give it the attention it deserves.

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-03 09:52:25

        P.S. I look forward to your article. A temporary change of scenery would be good :)

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-02 21:55:25

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 is translated “offspring” that leaves open the idea of a group of people of common decent. Does the Greek word “genea” have a broader meaning?
I must admit …. I am trying to open my view outside the JW framework. It’s a struggle ….That being said….
When I reflect on the parallel account of Luke 21 he provides context to the discussion in Matthew. I agree as meleti stated the disciples had an “Israel-centric view of salvation at that particular point in time”. If I was present , I believe that I would have reasoned that the end of the Jewish system and destruction meant also Jesus Christ’s return ( or second coming) . However, Jesus appears to be addressing two distinct events. In vs 4-34 he is talking about the destruction of the Jewish system of things ( referring to them as “days”) and then changes the subject in vs 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. Then he likens that “day” to the day of Noah ( there was no lead up to events before the flood , earthquakes, tribulation etc.) It came suddenly. It verses 40-44 he talks about Men and women working in the field. Some are taken. Some are left. To me these verses carry the thought of his return being sudden, without warning.
I am not sure if the following were literal or Jesus symbolically describing the destruction of the Jewish system of things …..Verses 24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,+ 25 and the stars will be falling out of heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man+ coming in the clouds with great power and glory.+ 27 And then he will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.+
Jesus did bring an end to the Jewish system of things as he promised. Whether those events were literal or symbolic….Since I wasn’t there and the Bible does not say… I don’t know. I am not sure that because the Bible does not say whether or not this literally took place during the destruction of the Jewish system of things…that it must mean more or that there is a dual fulfillment of vs 4-34.
So to conclude… I don’t believe that there is a dual fulfillment of the verses in Matthew 24:4-34 Jesus was talking about the Jewish system of things. I do think that when Jesus said “this generation“ he was addressing his immediate audience concerning the end of the Jewish system of things. Verses 35-51 Jesus was talking about his return. There are no signs to help us get us an idea or pinpoint where in the stream of time of night the thief is coming (vs 43?). I am not sure if I am correct in my understanding….But if I am , my hope is that I will not be any less ready whenever Jesus returns. My preliminary thoughts anyway:) Please don’t be kind lol feel to rip it apart. I welcome the adjustment … do not permit me to go on in this reasoning if it is nonsense ..... I am just grateful that I can express this view without judgment.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-02 22:37:53

  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

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-03 00:21:08

    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 sent out his angels to gather the faithful remmant Israel. Bear with me Apollos... If I'm Matthew or any other apostle I am not sure why I would not conclude that what Jesus is saying to me is fulfilling all the prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel. Does our case for greater fulfillment or dual fulfillment of vs 4-34 hinge on the fact that we believe that the "chosen ones " in vs. 31 cannot possibly mean the Jews ( the faithful remnant who accepted Christ during the tribulation )? Additonally, does gathering mean they are actually going some where? or just gathered on earth? I ask that because someone used this scripture to explain the rapture.... But I don't think Jesus said he was taking anybody anywhere in this verse. I apologize in advance for veering off topic. This is my best attempt to explain why I think Jesus was answering these questions seperately although the disciples when asking this question may have thought that Jesus'return and the end of the Jewish system were the same events.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-03 08:50:03

      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 Revelation too.
      Matt 24:30 may have had some symbolic fulfillment in the 1st century, but surely it parallels Rev 1:7 which was yet future from John's day. And the gathering of the chosen ones is said to occur after that.
      I think if I was to ever seriously consider this point of view I would need a "Preterist Guide for Dummies". But I can't see it being an easy sell.

      • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-03 09:47:50

        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 and prompted me to reread both of these articles. What was hindering me before in reading your article specifically was that I found it uncomfortable to apply this scripture to the Jews in any way in terms of salvation, preservation or restoration. Once I got past that hurdle this became a natural understanding of these verses and allows me to make the fewest assumptions. There is no need to come up with an alternate rendering of genea and we can just read the scriptures as Jesus said them.
        One thing is for sure wrong or not I have trouble with “dual fulfillments” of prophecy unless otherwise noted by the prophet. They could be due to the “dual fulfillment” fatigue I experience from the WTBS.
        If we adjust our traditional idea of what the rejection of the Jews means, I don’t believe that non Jewish anointed Christians would be inclined to hijack this prophecy ( vs 4-34) from the generation of Jews that Jesus was speaking and apply it to ourselves .
        I have to take a fresh look at the prophecies to see if this explanation stands up. I would start with whether why I believe a parallel between these prophecies exists and could the prophecies in Revelation stand alone . I do believe that there are similarities in Jesus’ “coming” and gathering chosen ones over 2,000 years ago and his second “coming” and gathering of chosen ones in the future. It’s on my list ! Thanks Apollos :)

    • Reply by Godswordistruth on 2015-10-18 08:15:54

      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?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-03 16:56:29

  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.

Comment by Come Lord Jesus on 2014-01-03 09:28:29

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 that either all or a majority of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Adherents of preterism are commonly known as preterists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism
You are right that Daniel 12 and Revelation are future - still future.
But doesn't that strengthen the argument that "this generation" (Matt.24:34) goes well beyond the normal physical meaning Jesus used when referring by that phrase to those in front of him - those who were the subject of his ministry while on earth?

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-03 09:49:54

  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 temporal aspect. Meleti's explanation relies on that just as much as my proposition does. Once the temporal aspect is removed then we simply have to decide if Jesus was talking about a group other than the group he always talked about when using the term. I say there is no reason to conclude that.
  Apollos

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-03 10:26:53

    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.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-03 11:02:36

      I do, but only when it comes to a bag of potato chips.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-03 11:36:01

      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.

      • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-03 12:11:11

        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 JW’s love labels (Me included. I have to fight against this ingrained tendency). When discussing the nature of Jesus , being labeled a Trinitarian comes with the territory. Before I discovered this site I decided to just shutup about this topic because it was annoying to be labeled. I always got the impression that those listening to me ( the select few that did) had to automatically had to align my reasoning from the scriptures to with another individual or religious group (namely Trinitarian) rather than focus on what on the scriptural point I was making . I found myself debating their views instead of mine. So believe me Apollos I understand your pain!

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-01-03 10:11:26

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 fulfilled. From a Christian position this is no small thing, since many use this scripture to try to debunk the words of our Lord, and say that he was wrong. A deeper study of scripture however, rather than a trivial reading of an English translation, shows quite clearly that there are possible meanings that will vindicate Bible prophecy, and that we will fully understand it in hindsight. We have full trust in Jesus that his words "will by no means pass away".
2) We agree that the "overlapping generations" understanding is found wanting, and that pursuing meaning in this prophecy that is contrary to Acts 1:7 is contrary to Jesus' intent.
3) We agree that the understanding of this prophecy is not a personal salvation issue at this time. It may in some way help us to manage our expectations at some point in the future, but for now, we simply keep on the watch as Jesus commanded.
Apollos

Comment by miken on 2014-01-03 12:37:01

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 remain in their lack of faith in Jesus Christ ( Rom 11:23; 28-32).
In his most recent article Meleti comments "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", with reference to Rom 11:15. The question arises when were the "children of God" (spirit anointed Christians if I understand Meleti correctly) cast away according to Rom 11:15a? They never have been as far as I am aware.
Meleti's comments end with verse 26, however verses 28-32 in the natural reading the Jews are recorded as "beloved for the sake of their forefathers", their calling of God "are not things he will regret", " that they themselves also may now be shown mercy". Verse 32 "For God has shut them all up together in disobedience, that he might show all of them mercy". If these verses refer to spirit anointed Christians when were they all shut up in disobedience?
Meleti quotes the restated Abrahamic covenant in Gen 22 ignoring the first recorded covenant promise in Gen 17:1-8. At Gen 17:7 the covenant is recorded as being between God and Abraham's seed after him "according to their generations for a covenant to time indefinite" (everlasting NIV). In verse 8 Abraham is told that he and his seed after him will be given "the land of your alien residences , even the entire land of Canaan, for a possession to time indefinite" " (everlasting NIV). The Hebrew word the NWT translates as " time indefinite" is Olam which primarily means never ending, time out of mind (past or future) ie (practically) eternity, in perpetuity, compare Gen 3:22 and Gen 9:16.
As I have commentated before the Jews were dispersed from their God given land for just over 1800 years yet during that time remained a coherent ethnic and religious group where ever they were forced to settle. It appeared that God's promise in Gen 17 concerning both the covenant and the occupation of the land he gave them had failed. Paul of course in Rom 11 was not specifically discussing the land promise in the original covenant. However is it just a coincidence that many Jews have been able to return to most of the land they were originally promised, I think not. I believe this dispersion for over 1800 years and then restoration is unique in human history.
Meleti writes “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". Well eventually the Jewish nation will pass away along with all other nations when there will only be the Kingdom of God with Christ Jesus the reigning king and only one global Christian body of people with nationalism and racism gone. Then in the fullest sense there will be "neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave or freeman" all will be in Christ and belonging to Christ and become the seed of the promise to Abraham irrespective of whether their individual destination is in heaven (neither male or female) or on earth. Gal 3:26-29
For those who might be interested how Rutherford in his 1925, 128 page book 'Comfort For The Jews' proved, using only the Hebrew scriptures, the restoration of the Jews to their land and God's favour, see watchtower archive
http://wtarchive.svhelden.info/english/books-and-tracts/
the year 1925 'Comfort For The Jews' where the pdf is available for free downloading.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-01-03 13:42:22

  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.

Comment by Jamaican JW on 2014-01-03 13:27:10

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 & the factual destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.], and that in light of our most dubious explanation of this curious verse by the Governing Body in New York with their now infamous "overlapping generation" debacle, as shown in the January 15th, 2014 issue, compounded with the difficulties of attempting to blend in what even "preterists" have repeatedly been trying to tell us Jehovah's Witnesses in our door-to-door work ministry when we encounter them, telling us over and over, endlessly in field service ... is my friend, one gigantic task, no question.
So I commend you brothers for attempting this great task. And, I think you good people are doing a fabulous job too, considering all that's involved. It's kind of like what "Meleti" said or inferred in his article entitled: "... Let's Put All Of The Pieces Together" ... good job!
The following is "my take" on this situation, briefly worded. (Because I think there is much, much that can be said on this topic.)
A First Century Second "Parousia" [presence, coming, return, advent or whatever word you prefer] of Christ, is a very difficult concept to grasp. That I've found, certainly after decade and decade of Watchtower Society indoctrination [or teaching, if you prefer] since I was an infant. This kind of thinking can scare people from the kingdom hall, if you know what I mean. So its not for the faint of heart by no means. :)
Here is what I think.
Now, first I must say ... I am NOT, NOT a preterist. Having said that, I will proceed.
What if, we are dealing with a "paradigm" in itself.
A kind of "Type and Anti-type" like situation [as Fred Franz used to say].
Some here have already said it might be a "Dual fulfillment" type thing, but feel the Watchtower has overworked this synopsis of the matter. So, I prefer to call it a "paradigm."
The word "paradigm" breaks down in Greek combining two (2) words which literally means:
Para = Beside
and
Digm = Example
So its a "beside example" ... possibly. A mirror effect.
First, you have the original "pattern" or "image" ... the ancient one, visible before us. And then there is a "repeat" of the image, the more modern one that we will see in the future. The latter one becomes a "reflection" like found in a mirror, a copy of the original one...greatly resembling the original one, now shown, in our modern-day times...the situation we now have to deal with, by God's Permission. In this way, this becomes a great "sacred secret" [Greek: mysterion] or a "repeat" of a cataclysmic situation that has happened in the past. We thus use that situation, as a "pattern" so that we can know exactly, what to do when this drastic situation confronts us.
For example:
At Pentecost in the first century, when holy spirit was poured out upon the disciples of the first century, Peter believed he was actually living in the "last days" [ Acts 2:17] and thus could confidently quote the inspired prophet's words at Joel 2:28-32 and apply it to his day, to this event that he was experiencing, saying among other things that this experience [anointing at Pentecost] was to happen just before the "great and illustrious Day of Jehovah" [what we would call today, "Armageddon"] at Acts 2:16-21. In doing so, he strangely employed some of the very same language and terms used by Jesus, and also employed by the book of Revelation.
For instance, take Joel 2:30, 31 and then, comparing this with what's said in Matthew 24:29 and also what is said in Revelation 6:12, 13, the future. Let's consider this below:
Joel 2:30, 31 says: And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun itself will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah."
Matthew 24:29 says: Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."
Acts 2:19, 20 says: And I will give portents in heaven above and signs on earth below, blood and fire and smoke mist; the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and illustrious day of Jehovah arrives."
Revelation 6:12, 13 says: And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and a great earthquake occurred; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the entire moon became as blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as when a fig tree shaken by a high wind casts its unripe figs."
So I ask, could it possible, just possible, there is
(a) an ancient fulfillment of the sacred words spoken by the prophets of old, and ... and also
(b) a modern-day fulfillment of these very same words, in our day?
Is this possible, I ask?
If so, then we could correctly call this a "para-digm" ... a mirror effect, where one "last days" of the first century, of Peter's time would mirror another one, another "last days," which would exist in our time, a "last days" in our modern-day era.
Could this be possible, I ask?
Here's another example of this distinct possibility, for us to carefully consider...a "paradigm" of prophecy, to be fulfilled again in our day.
First Century Fulfillment in Jesus' day:
Luke 23:30, 31 says: Then they will start to say to the mountains, "Fall over us!" and to the hills, "Cover us over!" Because if they do these things when the tree is moist, what will occur when it is withered?
Second, Future Fulfillment in our modern day:
Revelation 6:16 says: And they keep saying to the mountains and to the rock-masses: "Fall over us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb."
And there are more examples that we could cite, that I believe, make this same point.
If we adopt this unique viewpoint of prophecy, seeing it as a "paradigm" like situation, such as possibly shown in Matthew 24th chapter, then I believe it will be much easier for us to understand exactly what Jesus was talking about, initially-speaking in Matthew 24, and how his inspired words of his day, will even impact us today, in our modern-day setting...in the time we call, the "last days" [of our particular Jewish "system of things," Matthew 24:3, that is, the "conclusion" of it in our day, just as it was in Jesus' day.]
...my two-cents worth. :)
JJW

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-03 16:31:40

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? Maybe knowing how the differ (if they do) will help me to understand the difference (if there is one).

Comment by Jamaican JW on 2014-01-04 00:37:54

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 situations that can repeat themselves, let's look at the expression: "last days."
To us today, when we read about the "last days" in the bible, we think of it automatically applying to us, only. For example, we remember Paul spoke under inspiration about the "last days" at 2 Timothy 3:1. That verse says:
“But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here.”
Now, at this point, I would like to ask a question.
Would we, bible-readers in this 21st Century, have a problem believing that Paul very possibly could have been referring to his day, during the first century as the "last days," when he spoke of men being “lovers of themselves,” “lovers of money,” “haughty,” “unthankful,” “disloyal,” “disobedient to parents, etc. etc.? (2Tim. 3:2, 3) Would that cause a problem for us, I ask?
Certainly these very same conditions, could have prevailed in his day just as they do in our day, is that not so?
However, we also would not have a problem believing these EXACT SAME inspired words could also apply to the times we call the “last days,” during our lifetime too. Because in field service, Jehovah’s Witnesses often apply these words to our day and time, saying that these conditions, positively identify our day, as the “last days,” never giving a thought to it also applying in Paul's day, is that not so?
Plus, we note in our printed publications too, all too often do this too.
But, I mentioned Acts 2:17 in my previous post, and Peter's reference to the "last days."
Do you think Peter, made a correct application of the prophecy of Joel to events of Pentecost in the first century, when holy spirit was poured out upon the disciples of Christ, by referring to his day as being the “last days”? Did holy spirit, move him to say in his day, he was living in the "last days" of his time? Is this a correct usage of the expression: "last days" in the first century, I ask?
And further, if he did under inspiration, then we must ask:"last days" of what???
If Peter was correct in applying the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 to his own day, and relating them to the things occurring at that time to being the "last days," then we can see how he might view things from his perspective. He did say, under inspiration, it was in the “last days,” did he not? (Acts 2:17)
And if so, “last days” of what, again, I ask?
Could Peter's reference to the "last days" possibly have been viewed by Peter, as the “last days” of the Jewish system of things” of his day?
What do you think?
Again further, could Peter have been referring to what the disciples asked about in Matthew 24:3 where they stated they wanted to know more about the “conclusion of the system of things”?
But, the "conclusion of the system of things" of what, I ask???
Could it have been the "conclusion of the system of things," dealing with the Temple, Priesthood and holy place of worship, for the Jewish nation?
Remember, they had just asked Jesus “when will these things be,” [vs. 3] after he said "not a stone upon a stone, will not be thrown down," [vs. 2], is that not so? (Matt. 24:2, 3)
Matthew 24:1 shows they were admiring the beautiful Temple that had been built. In verse 2, Jesus then tells them “not a stone will be left upon a stone, that will not be thrown down."
Which now leads them asking Jesus this question about the destruction of the Temple, and the entire Jewish system of things, when will the “conclusion of these things be,’ as they put it.
Clearly, the disciples could not fathom a destruction of this magnitude, of this sort, coming upon the nation of Israel. It would be like Matt. 24:29 says, with the “stars falling, from the “heaven,” and the “sun, not giving its light,” and the “moon” going dark also. Interestingly we find, these same figurative entities, the “sun, moon and stars” are the very things we see that provides the heavenly adornment of the “woman,” shown in Revelation 12:1.
Isaiah 60:20 tells us:
“No more will your sun set, nor will your moon go on the wane; for Jehovah himself will become for you an indefinitely lasting light, and the days of your mourning will have come to completion.”
Their days of "mourning" had come to their completion, for the sinful nation.
Clearly when Israel is out of favor with Jehovah, it becomes just like the “sun” has "set" for them, and the “moon,” goes on the “wane,” since these heavenly bodies, provide no light for the nation any more.
Let’s notice this point again, in Isaiah 29:9-14, where among other things, Jehovah mentions he would amazingly do something very strange as punishment for this disobedient nation. He says in verse 14:
“… here I am, the One that will act wonderfully again with this people, in a wonderful manner and with something wonderful; and the wisdom of their wise men must perish, and the very understanding of their discreet men will conceal itself.” (Isaiah 29:14)
We recall, Matthew 24:29 mentions, the “sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven.“
How might we see that fulfillment, say back in the first century, as well as in our modern times, making for a "paradigm" [a repeat of the situation]?
Well we could say, perhaps the “sun” [high religious figures, leaders] was not giving forth its light for the nation, as it should. And why?
Well, Jehovah has done something, very unusually, to them. Jehovah has made the “wisdom” of their leadership … vanish, perish. He has made the very “understanding” from their “discreet” ones … “conceal itself.“ Indeed, the nation is now in apostasy. They are now, an “apostate nation“ before Jehovah. And Jehovah acts, to fully demonstrate, something is very, very wrong with their leadership. (Isaiah 10:6; Isaiah 29:9-14)
The nation now needs extraordinary help. They have now entered, as Peter and Paul said, the “last days” of their particular … Jewish system of things. (Matt. 24:3; Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1)
Isaiah 29:13 shows in context, that the nation is in great “fear” of the “commandments of men” that they are currently being taught, by their religious leaders [or celestial beings]. In other words, they "put their doorpost" and "threshold" besides Jehovah's "threshold" in His Temple. They are exacting themselves, right within Jehovah's Temple, just like the "Man of Lawlessness," publicly "showing him to be a god," right within the Temple of ... "THE GOD," Jehovah! (Ezekiel 43:8; 2 Thess. 2:3-12; see footnote large print New World Translation Reference bible vs. 4.)
Indeed, Jesus drew upon this "repeat" [paradigm] situation of apostasy, to saying it had occurred again in his day…like a “paradigm” [or repeat of the situation]. We remember, when Isaiah first wrote these words, the nation was in apostasy, per Isaiah 10:6. That verse shows the entire nation was in apostasy and was called an "apostate nation.' Likewise, Jesus quotes from this prophecy [Matt. 15:7] in his day, and applies the prophecy to the results he was observing of those following the dictates of the wicked leadership of Israel, of his time, the wicked Pharisees & company. Jesus states in this case, that the nation's entire worship system, was to be viewed, as being “in vain” to Jehovah. And why?
Jesus said:
“It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.” (Matthew 15:9)
That was their offense, back in the first century. Their worship was “in vain,“ because of what their leadership [sun, moon & stars] taught…the same as we today are faced with what we are taught, officially by leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses, namely the Governing Body and Bethel Headquarters [heavenly bodies]…teaching us false things like “overlapping” generation and such. 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. Which is why, first century Christians who had slaved under the tyranny of the Pharisees and other wicked leadership, fought feverishly against it. This was something that they would not, nor could not, put up with or tolerate. (See Matthew 15:9; 2 Tim. 4:4; 2 Peter 1:16.)
So, here is the long and short of it.
Matt. 24th chapter describes the “last days” of ancient Jewish "system of things" because of apostasy… leading to destruction for that particular Jewish "system of things" because of wicked leadership [sun, moon, stars, figuratively-speaking]. Jehovah struck down this wicked leadership, with complete spiritual darkness, the figurative "heavenly bodies" did not for this reason, give its EXPECTED "light" for the nation. They were "wonderfully" struck down by Jehovah. (Isaiah 29: 14)
Also,
In our modern times, we also have a “last days,” of our modern day Jewish "system of things" because of national apostasy…leading to destruction for this particular Jewish "system of things" or a "conclusion of this system" because of wicked leadership [sun, moon, stars] again ... again [a repeat] because Jehovah has put in darkness, spiritually-speaking in the place of "light," namely wisdom & understanding gone, from these wicked leaders. (Isaiah 29:14)
When you start to look at things this way, you can see Jesus’ words at Matthew 24th chapter, in a whole new light.
…hope this helps. :)
JJW

• Reply by Jamaican JW on 2014-01-04 00:52:36

  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

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-01-04 08:47:01

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 still very well be). More importantly for me I don't see the basis for saying this part of the prophecy was not fulfilled during the destruction of the Jewish system of things. Whatever the sign was it was supposed to appear after the tribulation during that time.
My view may be of course wrong. I am trying to be find the watchtower this morning that had one article soley discussing the end of the Jewish system and the account of Matthew 24 The following article proposed a dual fulfillment of that account for our day. I remember the field service discussions surrounding the article. I remember thinking ...this article is not as "deep" as everyone is saying, the "slave" is taking a lot of liberties here to make this explanation stick. I believe that the 1914 doctrine and the way they interpret this account in Matthew makes the" generation" teaching difficult. I'm not sure if there's a generation teaching at all if Christians (JW and non JW alike)accept that Jesus wasn't talking to them.
I'm definitely going to research this along with reexamining the prophecies Ezekial, Daniel and Revelation (without the 1914 slant ).

Comment by Jamaican JW on 2014-01-04 11:19:50

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 it to others? That is, when they themselves carried out Jesus' instructions to preach the "good news of the kingdom” (vs. 14) in the first century, before … before the “end” was to come. But, again, we must say … the “end” of what? Yes, the "end" of what?
Could it have perhaps been the “end” of the Jewish system of things, in their day? And in fact, the "good news" had to be preached, it had to be preached before first century christians could receive their heavenly reward. Doesn't Mark 13:10 say, it was an absolute must for all first century Christians, to preach this special to all of their time. And they certainly did this, without the DATE of 1914 being a part of this special message, isn't that so?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Any way, let’s consider Luke 21:28 at this time.
“But as these things [earthquakes, pestilences, food shortages, “good news” being preached, etc. etc.] start to occur raise yourselves erect and lift your heads up…”
And why, should they "raise" themselves "erect" and "lift up" their "heads"?
Well, Jesus continues with the answer, by saying:
“… because your DELIVERANCE is getting near.” (Luke 21:28)
Yes, your "deliverance" is getting near. Yes, Jesus is near..."at the doors." Yes, the "Kingdom of God," is getting near, just as Jesus said at Luke 21:31, way, way before the date of 1914, isn't that so? First century Christians, were expecting the "Kingdom of God," to be born, isn't that so? (See Matt. 24:33; Luke 21:31.)
Now let’s think about this for a moment.
What would be in the minds of a first century christian when he thought or meditated on these very inspired words of Jesus? What would he or she think?
Well, he or she would think, just as Jesus said, their “DELIVERANCE was getting near.” And what had first century Christians been taught about their “deliverance” … how were they taught they were going to be “delivered” by Jesus, I ask?
Was not it uppermost in the minds of first century Christians, their “deliverance” would come when Jesus was going to come back, and take them to heaven, I ask?
Would not that be what first century Christians EXPECTED to happen? Did not they EXPECT to go to heaven. And what gave them this assurance was what Jesus told, “when you see all of these things,” … or “as these things start to occur” [earthquakes, pestilences, food shortages, “good news” being preached, etc. etc.], first century Christians were to EXPECT their “deliverance” or to receive what they had been working for so hard, for so long, yes to GO TO HEAVEN…isn’t that so?
Isn't that a reasonable conclusion to reach, for modern-day Christians?
And as mentioned above, Luke 21:31 tells us:
“In this way you also, when you see these things occurring, know that the kingdom of God is near.”
Yes, first century Christians, when they would “see all these things occurring” or see these things happening, even “start" to happen, then they would be so happy, they would now fully EXPECT the “Kingdom of God” and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus himself, yes "The Kingdom of God," to begin...long, long before the date of 1914. Isn’t that what Jesus said to them, I ask?
Now, let’s take the Watchtower Society’s viewpoint of this situation.
We know from what Paul said, at 1 Thess. 4:15-17 that all heaven-bound “anointed” ones of the first century were clearly taught, that's ALL “anointed” heaven-bound individuals would go to heaven…AT THE SAME TIME. That fact has been taught clearly on this forum, over and over again. So, let’s combine that thought with what must have been in the minds of first century Christians during that time.
If all of the “anointed” go to heaven at the SAME TIME, and the first century Christians were told when they would “see all of these things,” to know that their “deliverance was getting near,” wouldn’t this be a very cruel thing to tell the brothers of the first century to EXPECT, if Jesus knew full well, those faithful people would have to wait over 2,000 before they would be allowed to be “delivered” unto heavenly life, I ask? Wouldn't this be a cruel thing to happen them, as they were trusting in Jesus' words, implicitly, isn't that so?
Let’s think for a moment.
Did Jesus say to these people, “when you see all of things start to occur, know that your DELIVERANCE [to heavenly life] is near…but first be prepared to have to wait still in the grave, for over 2,000 years...before I will get enthroned and gain heavenly kingship...so you guys will have to wait on that.” Or, if they was raised to heavenly life 2,000 years after they died on earth, still wouldn't this be a cruel joke, played upon first century Christians, if they didn't receive their "deliverance" to heavenly life, when they saw ... "all these things," I ask? -- Matthew 24:33; Luke 21:28
Yes, I think it would be quite reasonable for us to believe, first century Christians fully EXPECTED to be “delivered” [go to heaven] … yes, when they would “start … start” to see all these things occur, as Jesus said at Luke 21:28.
And they fully EXPECTED the "Kingdom of God" to be born then too, when they would be raised up for heavenly life, as Luke 21:21 encouraged them to think. And no, first century Christians had no idea about a ridiculous date of 1914 in their minds, before they would believe the "Kingdom of God" was to start, isn't that so?
But, there is much, much more information we can consider on this vital topic, when we begin to see things, the way first century Christians would have seen things, based upon the actual words of Jesus, and the things they were taught back then in the first century.
So, what do you think of this viewpoint, concerning how first century Christians would perceive Luke 21:21 and Luke 21:28?
Did not first century Christians, FULLY EXPECT to gain "deliverance" into the very "Kingdom of God," and to receive a new, empowered, enthroned heavenly king," ... when they would, yes, "see all these things," I ask?
... what do you think?
JJW

• Reply by Jamaican JW on 2014-01-04 11:39:54

  My mistake, Luke 21:21 should be actually Luke 21:31.
  Thanks,
  JJW