“This Generation”—Getting All the Pieces to Fit

Comment by Jude on 2013-12-21 00:44:15

So you're saying "this generation" refers to the anointed - those generated as sons of God - that they would continue to exist on earth right down to the end. Did you mention Matthew 16:18? That text seems to harmonize with your point. It says:
"Also, I say to you, You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation, and the gates of Ha′des will not overpower it."
"The gates of Hades will not overpower it." In other words, the congregation of anointed ones will never die off because there will be some alive when the end comes and they will be instantly changed in the twinkling of an eye.
What you're saying is definitely in harmony with the facts of scripture. What I mean is, it does not contradict scripture. Even though what you're saying is in harmony with scripture it does not necessarily mean it's the meaning that Jesus intended. My contention is this: Does that understanding fit the context? I mean, it still involves applying a somewhat unconventional, unlikely or obscure interpretation of the word generation (but I'm not saying incorrect).
It seems a bit odd (to me at least) that Jesus would use the relatively ambiguous word generation with such a specific, technical meaning that is somewhat counter-intuitive. Personally, I still think the context suggests a time element. The time-based meaning of generation is clearly implied when you consider the context of verses 32 and 33 using the word "near". Jesus' flow of thought conveys the unmistakable impression of a generation in the usual temporal sense of the word. Why would Jesus speak so ambiguously as to give that impression if he intended otherwise? Actually, Jesus made a similar statement earlier in the gospels just prior to the transfiguration, only he didn't use the word "generation" and the bible writer made certain to explain how it was fulfilled:
"Furthermore, he went on to say to them: “Truly I say to YOU, There are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the kingdom of God already come in power.” 2 Accordingly six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John along, and brought them up into a lofty mountain to themselves alone. And he was transfigured before them," - Mark 9:1,2
What if Matthew 24:34 is fulfilled by the apostle John witnessing the events of the end when he received the vision of Revelation?
In my opinion we can exclude Matthew 24:29-31 from the "all these things" that the generation sees. Why? Verses 29 and 30 indicate that Jesus will come immediately after the tribulation. However, verse 32 indicates that he is near. Logically, then, verses 29-31 is not included in all these things that has to be seen before the generation passes away. Jesus could have been saying that when all the things he mentioned up to the great tribulation, happens, then the generation alive at the time of the great tribulation would not pass away before his final coming - the events mentioned in verses 29-31 + Armageddon. In other words, the phrase "When you see all these things" does not necessarily mean that "all these things" happens during the lifespan of "this generation". It could simply mean the generation alive AFTER all these things - up to the great tribulation - have clearly transpired. From the great tribulation to the final end would not be more than a generation in time.
If viewed in this way, then Matthew 24:34 can apply to both fulfillments because the generation does not have to live through all the events. It only has to be alive after all the events leading up to and including the great tribulationS, occur.

• Reply by Sargon on 2013-12-21 11:48:40

  Your mention of Matt 24:34 being fulfilled by John is intriguing and in harmony with John 21:22, 23:
  Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?”
  It is interesting to note that the events of John 21 took place shortly after Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 24. That could possibly be why they concluded that John would not die.
  John's gospel also was written after recieving the Revelation from our Lord Jesus. It's possible that he includes the events of John 21 with the full realization that he has already seen Jesus "come." Does Revelation 1:10 confirm this?
  "By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day,"

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-21 13:13:46

  >>it still involves applying a somewhat unconventional, unlikely or obscure interpretation of the word generation.
  Thank you, Jude, for reminding me of the other reason I rejected this understanding a year ago. I had meant to include that in the article, but forgot. You're quite right. I wouldn't call it an obscure interpretation (meaning) of the word "generation" though, because it comes right out of the dictionary. But if you mean an obscure or unconventional application of one of the word's definitions, I concur. I believed (re-enter the bias here) that the Bible was meant to be understood by the average Joe—Tyndale's ploughboy, if you will—so an arcane interpretation would have been disqualified. However, I was ignoring what Paul said to the Corinthians.
  (1 Corinthians 2:10) . . .For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.
  So man's thoughts—specifically, mine—had to yield to God's thoughts.
  As for the transfiguration being a possible fulfillment of Mat. 24:34, we have to remember that the transfiguration had already occurred when Jesus gave his prophecy about "this generation", so it wouldn't make sense to assure them that something would occur when it already had. Additionally, all the signs of the Matthew 24 prophecy were not fulfilled in the transfiguration: no destruction of Jerusalem, no false Christs and false prophets, etc.
  >>Jesus could have been saying that when all the things he mentioned up to the great tribulation, happens, then the generation alive at the time of the great tribulation would not pass away before his final coming - the events mentioned in verses 29-31 + Armageddon.
  I had a similar view a while ago. (See This Generation—Altering the Premise) Here’s an excerpt: “The Great Tribulation is that ‘stake’. It only happens once. It doesn’t last long. It is part of “all these things”. Those that see it are part of the generation that Jesus referred to.”
  The reason I’ve abandoned that view is that it doesn’t fit all the pieces together. All these things include the destruction of Jerusalem back in the first century. So our generation that sees the signs just prior to Armageddon doesn’t cut the mustard, because it wasn’t around to see Jerusalem fall.
  By the way, you mention “verses 29-31 + Armageddon”, but Jesus didn’t mention Armageddon. Remember, he was answering a multipart question. The parts that concern us are ‘what is the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things’. Verses 29-31 contain the final signs of both his presence and the conclusion of the system of things.
  Consider Luke’s parallel account:
  (Luke 21:27, 28) . . .And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 But as these things start to occur, raise yourselves erect and lift YOUR heads up, because YOUR deliverance is getting near.”
  What the gathering of Matthew 24:31 is I cannot say. Is it the rapture? Or is it something else, like a final judgment, or a physical gathering? How long will this take? How long will the sign of the Son of Man appear in the heavens before Armageddon starts? Many question; no answers. However, I will venture this. I do not think it is the rapture, because when anointed Christians are taken to heaven, the generation ends; it passes away. So the last thing that Jesus mentions cannot be one of the things that must occur before this generation passes away if it is the rapture.
  All we know is that once we see the final part of the sign detailed in verses 29 to 31, we will know our “deliverance is getting near” and that he is “near at the doors”.
  I concur with you that there is a time element in all this, but it is put there by the questioners not Jesus. Just days later, his disciples again asked him for a time. (Acts 1:6) Humans are always interested in “when”. There is that “kid in the back seat” in all of us crying out over and over, “Are we there yet?”
  A loving instructor like Jesus addresses that need, but he does so without violating God’s law. There is an injunction against knowing these things. (Acts 1:7) So he would not violate that injunction and tread on God’s turf by giving us a means to calculate how close the end is. However, the signs he pointed to in verses 32 and 33 are self-evident signs, like the changing of the leaves. To me, these verses argue for a prolonged period of time from the start of the great tribulation through to the start of Armageddon. If all of this happens in a week or a month, there would be no need for such a reassurance. But that is just me speculating.

  • Reply by Jude on 2013-12-21 15:19:42

    My reference to the transfiguration was not to suggest that the transfiguation was a possible fulfillment of the "this generation" promise. Rather, I was using Jesus statement about some not dying before they see him come and its fulfillment in the transfiguration event to illustrate the feasibility of thinking that the "this generation" promise could, in a similar manner, possibly have been fulfilled by John receiving the Revelation vision.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-21 16:44:07

      Sorry, I missed that point. I get it now and it is an interesting take on things. To be honest, I can't disprove it, so it has to enter into our library of feasible theories. Thanks!

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-21 19:31:50

        I've just realized why this can't work. If Mat. 24:34 is fulfilled in the Revelation to John, then so must Mat. 24:32, 33 be fulfilled. However, if verse 34's occurrence of "all these things" is metaphorically fulfilled by the vision given to John, then how can verse 33's seeing "all these things" be fulfilled metaphorically since Jesus wasn't near at the doors in the first century. The three verses are tied together and so much have a related fulfillment. But it was a neat idea while it lasted. :)

Comment by Jude on 2013-12-21 01:02:42

To put my previously point more concisely: "This generation" is not necessarily characterized by being alive DURING "all these things". Rather, it could be characterized by being alive AFTER "all these things" have occurred or when the last of "all these things" have occurred.

Comment by BMC on 2013-12-21 09:22:45

Maybe just maybe Jesus got it wrong! He was trying to show that the events were imminent. It's hard to wrap my mind with the idea that Jesus meant a 2000+ year long time frame.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-21 11:08:53

  If you believe Jesus could get such things wrong, then there's no reason to believe in the inspired nature of the Bible, which means there is no basis for confidence in anything in Scripture and therefore no reason for us to have any hope, such as the hope the dead will rise. We might as well "eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die." (1 Cor. 15:32)

Comment by miken on 2013-12-21 10:21:37

There is another possible explanation for the "generation" of matt 24:34. As has been pointed out Jesus used "this generation" mostly in reference to the Jews. The Greek Genea can also refer, according to Strong No 1074 (1b), as "a race of people, possessed of similar characteristics, pursuits etc. cf Matt 17:17; Mk 9:19; Lk 9:41; 16:8; Acts 2:40. At 1(d) "especially of those of the Jewish race living at the same period" Matt11:16. God promised Abraham as part of his covenant that his seed (the Jewish nation) would posses the land they were given "to time indefinite" Gen 17:7,8. After the Jewish revolts against Rome in 70 CE and 132-136 CE the Jews were scattered without possession of their home land for over 1800 years until the establishment of modern day Israel in 1948. So Jesus words "this generation (race) will by no means pass away until all these things occur" have currently been fulfilled despite apparently not being so for 1800 years. God's original promise at Gen 17 also appears to have been established. This may be part of the Jewish restoration Paul writes about in Romans 11:1-32. So when will "this generation" pass away? Presumably when the Jews accept Christ as their saviour and they become fully restored as part of an earth wide Kingdom of God.
As for the born again anointed, well if you believe there are only 144000 of these second and third century Christian persecution history, together with the tens of thousands of first century Jewish converts (Acts 21:20) Greek "murias", indicate that number would likely have been filled by the fourth century. Incidentally when Jesus spoke to the disciples about the "generation" they were not a that time spiritually anointed.
.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-21 11:33:15

  The fact that Jesus used the word "generation" a number of times when speaking of the Pharisees gives us no reason to assume its usage must be restricted to them.
  The Strong No. 1074 1b introduces a valid possibility, but the definition works just as well for the chosen race of anointed ones. (1 Pet. 2:9) So that isn't conclusive. If we are to accept definition 1b we still need something else to help us decide which race is being referred to.
  I do not see the scriptural basis for believing the Abrahamic covenant indicates that the Jewish nation comprises the generation?
  The covenant with the Jews as God's chosen people ended in 36 C.E. as Daniel prophesied. (Dan. 9:27) The Abrahamic covenant was for his seed which would have been restricted to the Jewish nation and they kept their part of it, but they did not. Jesus said:
  (Matthew 21:43) . . .This is why I say to YOU, The kingdom of God will be taken from YOU and be given to a nation producing its fruits.
  Paul very eloquently demonstrated that the seed of Abraham was no longer exclusive to the Jewish nation, but something more. (Gal. 3:15-29)
  (Galatians 3:29) . . .Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise.
  Jehovah rejected the nation of the Jews, so their role now in the outworking of prophecy is irrelevant.
  As for our position on this site regarding the 144,000, please see 144,000 - Literal or Symbolic

  • Reply by miken on 2013-12-23 09:20:52

    I agree Meliti that because of their lack of faith in Christ the Jews generally lost divine favour although in Romans 11:5 Paul refers to a remnant of Christian Jews living then. However the question arises was this to be a permanent situation. I do not see how Romans 11 can refer to anyone other than the nation of Israel and their natural descendants, certainly not to a so called "spiritual Israel". In verse 23 Paul writes that if the Jews do not persist in their unbelief, they can be grafted in again and in verse 25 Israel's hardening is partial not total and in verse 26 all Israel will be saved. In verse 29, "not things he will regret" NWT, "irrevocable" NIV, is perhaps a more accurate translation with reference to the calling or choosing of Israel.
    In 1925 Rutherford wrote a booklet entitled Comfort For The Jews aimed at the Jewish community in which for obvious reasons he only used Hebrew scriptural references to prove that the Jews had a future hope of restoration to divine favour and salvation. Subsequently he received "new light" from angels!! and began to formulate the official position you now hold. If Romans 11 does not refer to the natural Jews then to whom?

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-23 10:12:25

      I see where you're coming from, Miken.
      A cautionary note first. You say: "Subsequently he [Rutherford] received "new light" from angels!! and began to formulate the official position you now hold." Why would you say that I hold the same position on this as Rutherford? I haven't really stated my position on this yet?
      I will give you my position. Whether it conforms to some degree with Rutherford or anyone else is incidental, because my position is based solely on my understanding of Scripture. If I am in error, of course you are free to use Scripture to correct my viewpoint and I will thank you for it.
      Consider please Paul's words regarding Elijah's situation. There were 7,000 who had not bent the knee to Baal. So while the nation had gone apostate, there was a remnant who remained faithful. This, I believe, is the key to the points he is making in the rest of the chapter. He uses this to make his point in vs. 7, "What, then? The very thing Israel is earnestly seeking he did not obtain, but the ones chosen obtained it. The rest had their sensibilities blunted..."
      The "ones chosen" obtained the reward they were seeking while it was obscured from "the rest".
      In vs. 14, Paul then speaks of 'saving some' of the Jews by inciting them to jealousy. You reference 23 which is a conditional sentence. Certainly if the fleshly nation of Israel, or if the state of Israel, were to convert in sackcloth like the ancient residents of Ninevah in Jonah's day, they could be grafted back in. But he isn't predicting that would happen. Instead he uses conditional phrasing to make his point that those of the nations who have obtained this opportunity due to the insensibility of his countrymen should not become prideful and thus fall into the same trap as the Jews.
      Vs. 25 says that a "dulling of sensibilities" has occurred "until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved."
      He is focusing on Israel, but other scriptures show that it is by the full number that make up the seed that the world is saved--Jews and all others. A remnant, a metaphorical 7,000 who have not bent the knee to Baal, goes to heaven to rule, but through them the world of humanity is saved. True, final salvation depends on each individual's response to the benefit of the ransom that will be poured out on humankind in the New World, but we can be pretty sure that a large number from each national group--Jews included--will accept the benefit and live forever; ergo, "be saved".
      However, your comment reminded me of something that came to mind when preparing my post--something I decided at the time not to include so as not to distract from the main point.
      When Jesus referred to "this generation" the anointed had not yet been anointed with holy spirit. We can, of course, conclude that he was saying this because he knew that within a few weeks, they would be anointed. However, there is reason to conclude--as we've discussed elsewhere on this forum--that faithful pre-Christian servants of God will also make up the seed. It is possible and in harmony with Scripture to conclude that the seed was selected from Abel forward. The seed is the progeny of Jehovah, his adopted sons. The seed is the generation of God and as such already existed when Jesus walked the earth. So he could have been referring to "this generation" as the generation of the seed from Abel onward through his day and down to the end. When the full number of the seed, the full number making up "this generation" is filled, then the world, including the wayward nation of Israel, can be saved.

    • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2013-12-23 18:37:24

      Hi Meleti,
      And I agree, particularly where you say, "It is possible and in harmony with Scripture to conclude that the seed was selected from Abel forward." My view has reformed substantially since reviewing the rigid timeline structure of WT reasoning. While true that John the Baptist was a lesser one in the Kingdom of the heavens (prior to Jesus' death and resurrection) and David had not yet been resurrected (Acts 2:34), what prevents Christ from redeeming all those worthy of greater honor as kingdom heirs throughout any era? We really do need to release our minds from "box-thinking" (and expression I just invented related to Groupthink) :)

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-23 18:57:06

        "Boxthink", I like it.

Comment by Sargon on 2013-12-21 11:17:32

First I'd like to make a prophecy: this year will by no means pass away until this article you wrote receives 100 replies. :-) Excellent job. Though I don't agree with your conclusions, they are logical and well thought out.
I am however dismayed by the GBs refusal to execute the 1914 doctrine. All the mental alchemy required to fit Jesus's words into a specific 1914 timeframe have destroyed the faith of many. The GB bears a heavy responsibility for this. If they were to do away with 1914 then they could really promote a view of "this generation" that isn't convoluted.
In my opinion resorting to teachings like the "generation" to create a sense of urgency causes many to serve God with a timeframe in mind. Then when their expectations are postponed they are disappointed and crushed. Instead it's better to "keep on the watch," that is keep spiritually alert (not calculate how near the end is) because we have absolutely no idea when the end is coming. Whenever it comes, and yes it may not be for another 50 years, we want to be found wearing our Christian personality and we will be saved.

Comment by Harrison Webster on 2013-12-21 12:21:45

I agree Sargon, it always pains me when I hear some of the friends say "I can't wait for the new system!" or something similar. Not that I feel it is wrong to desire to live in a world where righteousness is the order of the day, but I do feel that many serve with a date in view, rather than as it should be, serving Jehovah because it is the right way to live, wherever you find yourself in History.
I am going to look again at this issue as Meleti has aroused my interest, I was erring on the side of an Occams Razor view that Jesus simply meant his listeners and their peer group, but I will study some more.
For me, it matters not when or if an "End" comes as to the way I live my life, and I have sincere doubts that we could put a positive start date on this end-time Generation, as 1914 to my understanding has no support in Scripture, or in fact.
Whether we are living in the Last days or not should as you say, make no difference to our wearing of the Christian personality.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-21 13:20:06

  I concur with you both. I think our overemphasis on times and dates has more to do with keeping the rank and file in check. It can cause some, even many, to serve with a wrong motive. For example, if the GB abandoned 1914 and the latest interpretation of Mat. 24:34 and said, "Armageddon could come tomorrow or in a 100 years, we just don't know", would there be a cooling off or a mass exodus such as occurred following 1925 and 1975? If we are serving for the reasons you brothers point out, that would not be the case, but I fear that many are not serving for that reason.

Comment by Sargon on 2013-12-21 14:34:51

I enjoy the open discussion amongst brothers on this site. I love reading what others think and I've learned many new things. It's encouraging.
With that, here is my take on Jesus' words. I believe "this generation" Jesus mentioned are all those who see the sign of the Son of man. This occurs after the great tribulation. He uses generation to let his followers knew that after the sign appears in the heavens only a short time will pass before their deliverance.
Notice that all of Jesus' words in Matt 24, Luke 13 etc are in response to the question "what will be the sign of your presence?" When Jesus finally gets around to directly answering their question and provides the sign (Matt 24:29, 30a), he immediately goes into an illustration of a fig tree. His sign is comparable to the sprouting of a fig tree. Just as the sprouting of fig leaves means summer is near, so too the sign of the Son of Man means salvation is near.
Immediately after discussing the fig tree he reinforces his point of how near salvation will be by adding 'this generation will not pass away until all these things occur.' Until what things occur? Not the things that are part of the pangs of distress(war, eartquakes) or the tribulation. Instead he's talking about all the things that must occur AFTER the sign appears, cheifly the anguish and fear of the wicked nations and the gathering of the chosen ones.
Jesus is here emphasizing that when the sign appears, his followers have already been saved (by virtue of their remaining spiritually awake and enduring during the tribulation) and its too late for the unrighteous nations (noted by their fear and anguish). Hence he urges us to raise our heads when we see the sign because it signifies that very soon he will send forth his angels to gather his followers.
In summary I believe the term "this generation" refers to those who see the sign of the Son of Man and Jesus uses it to reinforce the point that there will only be a short period of time between his sign appearing in heaven and the end of the world. Therefore we must keep on the watch because when Jesus sign appears heralding his coming it will be too late if we're not ready. (See parable of the discreet and foolish virgins)

Comment by Jude on 2013-12-21 15:59:22

We know that Jesus' words had dual fulfillments - first to the end of Jewish system of things and then later to the end of this world system. Why should we limit "this generation" as applying to only the end of the world system generation?
For example, didn't Jesus also speak of there being great tribulation such as has not occurred before nor will occur again? If we take this description of the great tribulation literally then there can only ever be one great tribulation - the first century one. Yet we know that are two.
So what if Jesus' words about "this generation" also has two fulfillments? The first "this generation" could be contemporaries of Jesus' day who were alive to witness the great tribulation on Jerusalem continuing in existence until the end of the Jewish system of things in 70 CE. The second this generation would be those alive at the time of the second great tribulation on the world of mankind being alive to witness the final end. Jesus' words seemed to have been a reassurance that the end would not come too long after the fulfillment of all the events leading up to and including the great tribulation. It would have enabled his followers alive at that time (after the great tribulation) to know that the end was indeed very near - within a human generation. But they still would not know exactly when it would occur. It could come much sooner than they imagine.
I think this is the reason for Jesus' statement in verse 36 about no one knowing the day or the hour. After his statement about this generation not passing away, his followers could get sidetracked into thinking that they can guess at what point within a human generation the end would come. To counter this mindset, he gave the statement about no one knowing the day or the hour and the warning to keep on the watch at all times because he is coming at a time they do not expect. In harmony with this post tribulation understanding, I believe verses 40 and 41 are describing events related to the gathering mentioned in verse 31 - after the great tribulation. When Jesus actually finally comes then all the surviving anointed will be gathered or "taken along" (verses 40,41) while others will be abandoned or rejected. Verses 33-44 is speaking especially about those alive after all the events leading up to and including the great tribulation. From that point the end would come within a generation but no one will know the day or hour so it would be especially critical to keep on the watch. In the first century fulfillment the time between the great tribulation and the end of the Jewish system was just a few years - within a generation but so short of a time that it did indeed come at a time that many would not have expected since hearing the term "generation" could have caused many to think it's going to be a sizable wait.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-21 17:06:35

  You raise some valid points. I acknowledge that it appears there is a dual fulfillment of the great tribulation because John also mentions one. The wars, earthquakes, etc. are not signs of his presence, but a warning not to take such things as a false indicator that he is about to arrive. Mat. 24:14 can't have a dual fulfillment. Neither can Mat. 24:23-31. Since the generation sees "all these things" I can't see how there could be two of them, because then neither would see "all these things", but only a part of "all these things". Matthew lays out his account in what appears to be chronological order. However, neither Luke nor Mark do so, and they don't all include all features, so it becomes more confusing, particularly if we are looking for some sequential order.
  We have to remember that the question is a three-parter. THe part we often forget is that they wanted to know "when will these things be?" He'd just foretold the destruction of the temple. But the destruction of the temple has nothing to do with his presence. So are we meant to extract that from the equation? If so, then why does verse 29 begin with "Immediately after the tribulation of those days..."? Since the events following that opening statement did not occur after 70 C.E., we have to conclude that there is another great tribulation. If we consider that Jesus' opening words in verse 29 were said in anticipation of what he would reveal to John about the great tribulation in our future, then we can conclude that after verse 14 is fulfilled, the actual sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things will begin. Given that, then a common generation could apply.
  The trouble I have with everything I've just said as well as the conclusions you've put forth, Jude, is our frequent use of "IF". Too many "IFs" means too many assumptions. That doesn't mean you're wrong or I'm wrong. Things do make a kind of sense just as your alternate explanation of the Revelation fulfilling Mat. 24:34 makes a kind of sense. I'm just more comfortable with an understanding that minimizes the amount of speculation we have to engage in.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-21 17:30:13

  Something just occurred to me as I reread the first line of your comment: "We know that Jesus' words had dual fulfillments..." Do we? Perhaps we should say "dual" but separate or distinct. Dual gives us the idea that an element was fulfilled twice.
  The Organization teaches us the verses 4-8 were fulfilled in the first century and from 1914 onward. However, history teaches us otherwise. No dual fulfillment. Verses 9-13 were fulfilled in the first century and experienced continual fulfillment down through the centuries until our day. Verse 14 has yet to be fulfilled despite the Governing Body's words to the contrary.
  Up to this point, Jesus hadn't answered any one of the three parts of the question.
  Verses 15-22 were fulfilled only in the first century. This is the answer to "When will these things be?"
  Verses 23-28 apparently return to the warnings stated earlier but with the additional feature of warning us against believing in invisible presences of the Christ. "Look! He is in the wilderness" and "Look! He is in the inner chambers". We have seen the fulfillment of that down through the centuries, but most notably over the past two hundred years. We are most guilty of that unfortunately. Still, those are not a sign of his presence, because what value is a 200-year-long sign.
  Up to this point he has answered one part of the question and spent the rest of his dialogue warning his disciples against being distracted by catastrophic events and mislead by false prophets and Christs.
  From verses 29-31 we have the true sign of his imminent presence and of the end of the system of things. So it is hear that he answers parts 2 and 3 of the question. Now imagine yourself a Christian in 95 C.E, 25 years after the event. You've seen the fulfillment of Mat. 24:15-22 to the letter. You are likely thinking, what happened to the darkening of the sun, moon and stars and why didn't Christ appear in the heavens and gather us up?
  Then Christ gives the revelation to John. It is clear from that that Christ while answering the question his disciples asked back in 33 C.E. chose not to answer it fully. Therefore, the application of Mat. 24:34 must be taken in the context of the first prophecy.
  A single generation ("this generation" not "these generations") works as I've laid out in my post. Verses 32 and 33 also work as a means to know how close the end is when the sign. I still believe that the generation he was referring to are the sons of God born again by spirit down through the ages. However, discarding the idea of dual fulfillments help us to see that there are many other features that we can plug into his prophecy, additional things that must happen. Foremost of these is the insertion of the great tribulation which corresponds with the destruction of organized religion around the globe.

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2013-12-21 16:37:12

I have read this a few times and plan to use this as a basis for my personal study. This is the most refreshing,scriptual and easily understood explanation that I have come across with this scripture. I enjoyed it throughly! Additionally, It's not just the 1914 doctrine tied in the GB's explanation in my opinion. It's the doctrine of the 144,000 anointed class. They have to make the explanation also fit around the anointed's lifespan which is aggravating. Their explanation of this scripture has always been weird and far fetched. It's embarrassing.

Comment by katrina on 2013-12-22 07:53:52

excellent artical and will post the link to this on sites that are discussing this very issue, thank you!!

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-22 08:17:26

  And thank you for doing that.

Comment by mark on 2013-12-23 15:40:14

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--

Comment by mark on 2013-12-23 15:41:50

Thank you, Meleti
I think you have identified the heart of the problem.We assume that Jesus Christ is using the term this generation in a literal genetic time frame, i.e. 40, 70, 80 years or as you put it(generations involving human fathers and children’s).
As JWs we do this because of our insistence that 1914 is the beginning of the last days.Once, we have removed this bias(through reasoning)We can see that there is no reason to understand, that the “last days” have not been with us for the last 2000 years.Then, as you have reasoned from scripture, “this generation” just means anointed christians.
When reading Matthew chapters 23-24. I see a clear connection with the public condemning of the Pharisees in the temple, and what was said moments later privately to his disciples outside the temple.
Jesus condemns the Pharisees at Matthew 23: 36Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.
Then at Matthew 24:1-34, he warns the disciples, what must soon take place, during the last days. Jesus then concludes that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”.
So, I see a contrast between the disobedient jewish nation or generation and the generation of true believers, Christ's disciples or Christians.
I personally don’t see a dual fulfilment for the last days in Matthew 24.The last days simply start with the persecution of christians in the first century!Then the destruction of Jerusalem brings in the Great tribulation.Matthew 24:21“For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
The tribulation is great because, its over a long period of time.But also great, because of the gentiles ruling, false teachers, false christs, wars and reports of wars etc....Hasn’t this always been the case?
So, “this generation”. Means, any true christian that has ever lived and, had to endure tribulation!
Just to add...Matthew 24:15 may have a duel symbolic meaning, which involves identifying the “man of lawlessness"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-23 16:01:41

Thank you for sharing that, Mike. I've never looked at "disgusting thing" in that context. There are 17 occurrences of "disgusting thing" in the NWT. It's interesting to look through them all. A definite theme develops. This is certainly worth examining further.

Comment by kev c on 2013-12-23 18:36:10

Thanks meleti i also think that is the meaning of the term generation much as we use the term genetics today it doesnt refer to any time period however the word is used mainly with a negative connotation see matthew 23 kev

Comment by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 16:45:57

I just wanted to endorse miken's proposition that the generation could simply refer to the Jewish nation.
Meleti - You may recall that I raised this as a possibility quite some time ago, but you primarily rejected it because of your premise that a reassurance was involved. Now that you are prepared to remove that barrier I do think that it is worthy of further consideration.
You made the statement that "[the Jews] role in the outworking of Jehovah's prophecy is irrelevant". I think miken makes a good response about Romans 11, and it shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.
If you can acknowledge that "genea" in this context might equally mean the spirit anointed or the offspring of Jews from a common forefather, then we have to harmonize more scriptures to establish the balance of probability. And as kev c points out the common and frequent usage of the term was with a negative connotation, because it referred to the physical nation of the Jews.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 17:47:02

  It is true that Rutherford felt the Jews had a role to play as a nation. I don't see this. Their role as a nation or people passed once they rejected the Christ. However, I'm willing to look at the relevant scriptures to see if there's a case to be made.

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 17:58:48

    I think Russell believed it. Rutherford ran with it a bit, and then did a sharp about turn - probably around the same time as he wrote to Hitler and tried to claim that the Nazis and Witnesses had noble goals in common.
    I'm certainly not married to such an understanding of "this generation", but I think it might be as good as any other explanation. I will try to make a more complete case for it when I have some time, but when I do so please understand that I am just presenting a possibility rather than a personal belief.
    Apollos

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 18:10:13

      Rutherford wrote a book in 1925 titled "Comfort for the Jews". I haven't read it but understand it was an appeal to them showing their place in the fulfillment of modern-day prophecy.

      • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 18:14:31

        Yes, I'm aware of that. But the idea didn't start with him, and he changed his mind part way through his presidency.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 20:01:49

          Actually, the idea didn't start with Russell either and most fundamentalists today see some special role for the Jewish nation. I remember a humorous episode of the Bill Maher show when he was interviewing a right wing Baptist. He was discussing the political lobbying of these Christian political groups and how they keep pushing the US to get involved on the side of Israel, because the state of Israel figured in Bible prophecy. He got the guy to admit that they believed the final battle would start there. So he joked that the fundamentalists support Israel because they believe God is going to hit them first. No state of Israel; no place for God to start Armageddon.
          As to whether the generation of Mat. 23:34 is the state of Israel, or the Jews as a nation, I don't see it, but I'm open to scriptural persuasion.
          Incidentally, I haven't given up the premise that Mat. 24:34 is there as a reassurance. It is, obviously. However, it is not a time-oriented reassurance. The fact I've rejected the time-oriented nature of the reassurance doesn't allow for the inclusion of the Jewish nation. The generation is what God has generated and from 36 C.E. onward they ceased being his children as a nation. From that point on, only individuals could enjoy that privilege, but there was no longer a right-of-birth attached.
          I have looked at Romans 11 in answer to one of Joel's comments and have attempted to show how I feel it supports my understanding. (Click to see my comment)
          Such is the nature of this type of discussion that we can both look at the same passage and draw two entirely different conclusions from it.

          • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 21:08:37

            Yes, I knew that Russell didn't start it. That's why I phrased it as Russell believed it, rather than Russell conceived it.
            I had seen your exchange with Joel and yes, it is a good example of same passage/two conclusions. There it is with the interpretation factor again. I will definitely try to contribute something a bit more detailed on this soon.

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-27 23:47:04

              I hadn't meant to imply you didn't, but the subtlety of your phrasing might have been missed by some readers, so better to clarify things.

              • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-28 08:25:08

                LOL. And I only mentioned Russell's belief in response to "It is true that Rutherford felt the Jews had a role to play as a nation", even though I hadn't mentioned Rutherford. I thought that statement made it sound like I was endorsing a belief that Rutherford started.
                Another point you raised was "the state of Israel, or the Jews as a nation". If Matt 23:34 is in any way linked then I think it would have to be "the Jews as a nation" rather than the fundamentalist belief in the role of the state of Israel that you point out. The state of Israel couldn't be directly connected to the idea of "genea", and it couldn't be said that it didn't pass away.

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-12-28 10:31:50

                  I agree that the "state of Israel" cannot be made to fit. I wonder if the same can be said for the Jews as a nation. I'm thinking of all those condemnations of ancient nations by, was it Ezequiel or Jeremiah or some of the minor prophets?... Whatever. The point is that those nations were said to pass away and they did, though descendents of them continue til this day. Present day Iraq in place of Babylon and the Chaldeans.
                  So I don't see how we can consider the Jews as a nation to be a valid candidate for "this generation" since they have ceased being a nation for almost two millennia.
                  That individual Jews could be part of this generation fits, but the Jews as a nation?

                  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-28 12:13:12

                    Having reread Romans 11, I think it is possible to make a scriptural case for "the Jews as a nation" reasoning. I will try to do so in the form of an article, but go easy on me in reply. My objective would only be to see how well it stands up in discussion.
                    I was thinking too about the comparison with the pronouncements against the surrounding nations, and to my mind there is a significant distinction in that those descendents don't identify themselves as distinctly Babylonian or Chaldean. Both the genetic and cultural links have been allowed to simply merge with the populous, and genetically we don't see those ancient cultures existing with a distinct identity. The Jews however, despite many attempts to erase them as a distinct race, have continued to our day. This would be true with or without the state of Israel.

  • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-12-27 18:04:48

    Of course neither of them believed that "this generation" had anything to do with the Jews as far as I'm aware. It's probably obvious, but worth mentioning.

Comment by “This Generation” and the Jewish People | Beroean Pickets on 2013-12-29 12:39:48

[…] response to some comments exchanged on Meleti’s thought provoking article “This Generation”—Getting All the Pieces to Fit I promised to explore this idea […]

Comment by Why “This Generation” Cannot Refer to the Jewish People | Beroean Pickets on 2014-01-01 07:31:18

[…] 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 […]

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-02-03 01:42:50

Meleti,
I understand this verse to be a comfort verse that is properly understood if you compare with 1 Co 15: 51, 52.
Not all of us falling asleep in death is equivalent to this generation not passing away.
Thus I understand it clearly applying to all anointed, not just Jews.
There is a Wt reasoning that the comfort is especially to the anointed who would live and expect the last trumpet in their lifetime.
In other words, this would become a comfort to the anointed who believe they live in the last days. A comfort to endure till the end.
In this sense, the generation could also refer to all the anointed living today, if we believe the parousia of Christ has begun.
Sorry for my bad grammar, it's late night and I'm not typing on a PC.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-02-03 09:01:12

  Hi Alex, and welcome to the discussion forum.
  I had never thought to relate 1 Cor. 15:51,52 to Mat. 24:34. It does appear to fit as you point out. Your later point about it also having an application for Christians living during the last days is something I've thought about a lot lately. If you were to change "last days" to "conclusion of the system of things" or "end of the world", I would be more inclined to agree. My belief is that the parousia of Christ has yet to arrive, but I do see the possibility for a different fulfillment to the one I have expounded upon, simply because there are still variables which allow for it. I'm going to try to explain that in detail in a future post.
  Thanks for your insight and for adding 1 Cor. 15:51,52 to the equation.

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-02-03 11:57:01

    The two possibilities I see are:
    1. All anointed are the generation, starting with the Jews in the new covenant down to the ones that did not fall asleep in death until "all these things" have occurred.
    2. Anointed who are alive when the parousia starts and do not pass away until the erkhomai.
    Wt subscribes to the logic of option 2, however the generation of 1914 has already died, so it follows the parousia did not start then.
    On the other hand, possibility 1 assumes Jesus presence started invisibly in 33 CE down to his coming. (Maybe I'm mistaken in this assumption?) That doesn't fit well with the context of the disciples asking for a sign of the season.
    Thus I favor possibility 2, minus 1914. If that is the case, we can narrow down the generation in context of the season. The duration of the season can be calculated as time of erkhomai minus time of parousia. And one generation of anointed will be alive this entire duration to witness it all.
    In case of the first century, the Jews who heard these words waited almost 40 years until the destruction of Jerusalem, this is about the timespan of a biblical generation.
    Likewise I think the promised season would also be roughly 40 years or less. If we expected the erkhomai in 2014, Jesus presence would have to have started around or after about 1975. (Oh no, not that year again!)
    The day and hour from Matthew 24:
    - the unknown: the erkhomai, thief in the night
    - the known: the sign of the season, the parouisa
    The Parousia is meant to be a sure, doubtless proof to the anointed living in the time of distress. If it has started already, the signs should be without any doubt.
    That's why JW are not allowed to doubt.
    The wt society paints the events since 1914 in that certainty, acknowledging the biblical requirement. Doubting the date means the parousia did not start yet and the house of cards collapses.
    We also have to take into account people will say: where is this promised presence? Things are the same as since our ancestors.
    Regardless of 1914, what about today? It seems a majority of Christians worldwide profess we live in the day and hour before erkhomai. Is that something to take into account?
    I have to meditate more on the topic. I have read so much that it's pretty obvious Christians ALWAYS have hoped they would be the generation that does not pass away. Perhaps that was the whole point Jesus was trying to make all along, to always be ready.
    As for me, natural death itself will be just as good if I remain faithful.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-02-03 12:05:15

      >>As for me, natural death itself will be just as good if I remain faithful.
      Amen to that, Alex.

    • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-02-03 12:09:14

      The duration of the season can be calculated as time of erkhomai minus time of parousia.

      
      Hi Alex
      What makes you believe that parousia precedes erkomai?
      Apollos

      • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-02-03 16:15:48

        Apollos, thank you for that question.
        On closer look, it seems that the WT has misled my understanding, and parts of my last post are invalidated by this.
        There is an inherit understanding to the word presence in the English language that conveys the thought of duration, versus coming that conveys the understanding a momentary event.
        It is obvious that if one comes, he is also present. The parousia however is linked to to an event, not a duration, because a flash of lightning is not a drawn-out period:
        Matthew 24: 27
        for, just as lightning will start from the east and flash across to the west, so will it be with the (parousia) of the Son of Man.
        Consequently, the disciples were not asking to describe the presence, but for the signs that the promised presence would be at the door.
        Matthew 24: 33
        And so may you, as soon as you see all these things, know that he is at your doors.
        Therefore I submit that translating parousia in Matthew 24: 3 as presence is misleading, and that the alternate definitions "arrival", "coming", "advent", is far more accurate. I am a proponent of separating parousia from erkhomai so I would not translate parousia as coming even if it is accurate.
        Additionally, the signs of the parousia should be understood as the signs leading up to it and how to recognize it. Thus I would like to translate this verse as:
        Mt 24:3
        so, while Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came up to him privately and said: "Tell us when will this be, and what will be the miracles surrounding your arrival and of the closing of the present age?"
        Thoughts?

        • Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-02-03 16:37:20

          Hi Alex
          I agree that there is a distinction between parousia and erkhomai. But my conclusions (so far) are that Jesus' erkhomai is the commencement of his parousia of 1000 years. I cannot find any scriptural reason to see it differently.
          It is a simple explanation that seems to work perfectly well with all relevant passages. That is unless you need to claim multiple earlier comings or presences in order to support the idea that special authority was bestowed upon you at an earlier date. Not "you" personally Alex of course :)
          Apollos

  • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-02-03 19:27:08

    Personally, the more I study Hebrew, the more I see that the Greeks confused us with abstracts we were never built to know. Okay, maybe I am starting to sound like a broken record but even records were designed to function better on turntables. Basically, the Greeks confused us by replacing the turntables of time with timetables of esoteric unending debates.
    When Ecclesiastes 3:11 said, "Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish," it meant just that. We were never meant to know. Even the Hebrew word ‛oh·lam′ (time indefinite) didn't mean forever. Instead it carried the thought of beginningless, endless uncertainty, defined by some Lexicographers as “hidden time, i.e. obscure and long, of which the beginning or end is uncertain or indefinite.” Similarly, the Hebrew word Bere’shith′ of Genesis 1:1 does not mean "beginning" as we might perceive time begins. It is rather "head or top of a place, such as a river or mountain or event."
    Simply put, the Greeks introduced the kind of linear infinity that messed with our brains and made us waste our lives debating philosophy (a Greek word with its roots in SOPHISM, "a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone"). And yes, the Areopagus still stands. :)
    sw

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-02-03 19:51:30

Matthew 24: 25-28
25 “Behold, I have told you beforehand. 26 If therefore they tell you, ‘Behold, he is in the wilderness,’ don’t go out; ‘Behold, he is in the inner rooms,’ don’t believe it.
(don't believe it because the is not present until he comes)
27 For as the lightning flashes from the east, and is seen even to the west, so will be the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man.
28 For wherever the carcass is, there is where the vultures + gather together.
Apollos, how do you harmonize that scripture with a 1000 year parousia? Remember that coming and arrival are valid translations for the word as well.
Plus what would happen after the 1000 years, Jesus would be not present?
Plus was Jesus not always present as head of the congregation?

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-02-03 20:14:20

  I notice my English is not very good there. Let me try that again:
  1. Mt. v.25, 26: (don't believe Jesus is ...... present ..... because he hasn't come yet)
  2. Mt. v.27: the parousia will be like a flash of lightning. how do you harmonize that with a parousia of 1000 years long? Isn't an arrival or coming more like a flash of lightning?
  3. Would Jesus only be present during the 1000 year reign as you state? Is he not present since the first century as head of the Christian congregation? Remember Jesus talked to anointed.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-02-04 08:38:03

  All good points Alex. The point about translating parousia is that its meaning encompasses the grand entrance of the King followed by his subsequent presence. Whether the emphasis is on one or the other of these is determined by the context. So in Matt 24:27 it is clearly talking about the grand entrance. The same is true of v37, but it is because we (JW's) claim it to be the subsequent presence that a different meaning is imposed on the verse.
  A similar contextual meaning occurs when using the English word "visit". I made some observations about that in an earlier article http://meletivivlon.com/2013/06/12/parousia-and-the-days-of-noah/
  Whatever the answer to what happens after the 1000 years doesn't have to change the meaning of parousia. That there is another distinct (and permanent) age is indicated by 1 Cor 15 and Rev 21. If Christ remains "present" thereafter it wouldn't necessarily mean that the parousia wasn't referring to the 1000 year reign.
  And yes, Jesus was always present as head of the congregation from the 1st century per Matt 28:20b. But if anything that surely supports the idea that there would not be another distinct season that could be described as a parousia prior to the coming.
  Apollos

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-02-04 23:47:40

Apollos, you might find this interesting, it pretty much corroborates many of the same conclusions arrived at in this thread in regards to parousia:
From: Alan M Feuerbacher
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:31:12 PDT
Subject: parousia
John Albu wrote:
>Concerning the meaning of parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote in his
>work The Parousia, Portland, Maine (1879), pp. 12-15:
> ...
> "From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither
>the English word 'coming' nor the Latin 'advent' is the best
>representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology;
>they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived;
>nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word,
>'presence,' in the cases where the translators used the latter. Nor is
>the radical [root] idea of them the same. 'Coming' and 'advent' give most
>prominently the conception of an approach to us, motion toward us;
>'parousia' that of being with us, without reference to how it began. The
>force of the former ends with the arrival; that of the latter begins with
>it. Those are words of motion; this of rest. The space of time covered by
>the action of the former is limited, it may be momentary; that of the
>latter unlimited . . . .
Interesting ideas. From the comments made on this forum so far, it is
evident that "parousia" is not perfectly translated by one English word,
for it has connotations that combine features of "coming," "advent" and
"presence." Each of these words has features of the others, since an
"advent" necessarily entails a subsequent presence, and a "presence"
necessarily entails an advent. The question of the precise meaning of
"parousia," therefore, as Israel Warren pointed out, is more a matter of
emphasis on which feature of "parousia" is the more prominent. Various
lexicons I've studied indicate an evolution in meaning, so that by the
time of Christ "parousia" did not have the exact same meaning as it did
in classical Greek.
While "parousia" primarily means "presence" (literally, "being alongside")
or "appearing," from ancient Greek times it has also had the meaning of
"arrival," "occasion" and "visitation by a high official," as well as
others. Furthermore, it is well established today that at the time of
Christ it was used in a special technical sense. Most early Greek-Latin
translators, for whom both languages were living, used the Latin _adventus_
("advent" or "coming"). The translators for the Syriac Peshitta used a
similar term. Nearly all Bible translators today use "coming," "advent,"
"arrival" or similar terms, despite the fact the primary meaning is
"presence," because of relatively recent discoveries in Egypt. The reason
is well expressed by the late 19th century scholar Adolf Deissmann, who
was instrumental in collating and presenting the 19th century discoveries
of ancient Greek manuscripts that showed that the New Testament was written
in _koine_ Greek rather than some special biblical Greek:
"Yet another of the central ideas of the oldest Christian worship
receives light from the new texts, viz. parousia [_parousia_], `advent,
coming,' a word expressive of the most ardent hopes of a St. Paul. We
now may say that the best interpretation of the Primitive Christian hope
of the Parousia is the old Advent text, `Behold, thy _King_ cometh unto
thee.' [Matthew 21:5] From the Ptolemaic period down into the 2nd cent.
A.D. we are able to trace the word in the East as a technical expression
for the arrival or the visit of the king or the emperor." [_Light from
the Ancient East,_ Baker Book House, 1978, p. 368]
The point is that, according to Deissmann, the technical sense embodies
both an arrival and a subsequent presence, with emphasis on "arrival."
This is in contrast with what Israel Warren wrote in 1879. Of course, the
discoveries that Deissmann wrote about had not been made in 1879, so it is
clear that Warren's comments are based on incomplete knowledge of _koine_
Greek. After all, in 1879 the prevailing wisdom was that the NT was written
in an imaginary, special "biblical Greek."
Deissmann goes on to point out many examples of the use of "parousia."
On the occasion of an official, royal visit, such as when the Roman
emperor made a "parousia" in the provinces in the east, the roads were
repaired, crowds flocked to do homage, there were processions of his
white-clothed subjects, there were trumpet blasts, acclamations, speeches,
petitions, gifts and festivities. Often a new era was reckoned from the
"parousia" of the king or emperor, and coins were struck to commemorate it.
At the visit or "parousia" of Emperor Nero, in whose reign Paul wrote his
Corinthian letters, the cities of Corinth and Patras struck "advent-coins."
These coins bore the inscription _Adventus Aug(ust) Cor(inthi)_, showing
that the Latin "adventus" was used in the 1st century as an equivalent of
"parousia," at least on those occasions. (Deissmann, p. 371)
A term related to "parousia" is "epiphaneia" ("appearing"). This was also
sometimes used on Greek "advent-coins" as an equivalent of the Latin
"adventus." (Deissmann, p. 373)
Now, what about contextual considerations? The arrival of Christ in
Kingdom power would certainly be the "arrival or the visit of the king."
The context of Matthew 24 indicates that the disciples asked for a sign of
Jesus' visible coming. The disciples who asked Jesus about this fully
expected Jesus to take up a visible rule over literal Israel, so they
must have been asking about a visible appearance. Therefore they were not
asking for a sign that the appearance had already taken place -- for the
appearance itself would be sign enough -- but that it was _about_ to take
place. This was partly the point of my earlier questions concerning the
proper understanding of "melle" in Mark 13:4.
This is consistent with Jesus' illustration of the fig tree in Matthew
24:32,33: "When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its
leaves, you know that *summer is near*; [or, "about to arrive" -- not "is
already present"] even so you too, when you see all these things,
recognize that He is near, right at the door." (NASB)
Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2014-02-05 12:04:02

  Thanks Alex. That adds a lot of corroboration to the research so far. Barclay's "New Testament Words" sheds some similar light if you can get your hands on a copy.
  It is unfortunate that those who try to uphold a 1914 invisible parousia have obscured the full range of the meaning of the word. There are some truly awful arguments presented in the Reasoning Book in this regard.

Comment by This Generation – A New Premise | Beroean Pickets on 2014-04-02 17:14:56

[…] Bible readers and scholars for centuries. I myself took a stab at it back in December with an article in which I believed I had found a way, with the help of others, of making all the pieces fit. The […]

• Reply by traveler on 2018-08-23 18:23:34

  Here is the thought:
  Eve produces a first generation.
  (Genesis 4:1) . . .Now Adam had intercourse with Eve his wife and she became pregnant. In time she gave birth to Cain and said: “I have produced (generated original word) a man with the aid of Jehovah. . .
  *** it-1 p. 917 Generation ***
  When used with reference to family relationships, a generation can refer to a group of descendants, as sons and daughters or grandsons and granddaughters.
  A generation may mean a class of persons, that is, those characterized by certain qualities or conditions. The Bible speaks of “the generation of the righteous one".(singular)
  (Matthew 24:32-35) . . .“Now learn from the fig tree as an illustration this point: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and it puts forth leaves, YOU know that summer is near. 33 Likewise also YOU, when YOU see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to YOU that this GENERATION (GENERATED PEOPLE) will by no means pass away until all these things occur. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.
  (Matthew 24:22) . . .In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short. . .
  (1 John 2:20) 20 And YOU have an anointing from the holy one; all of YOU have knowledge. . .
  This refers to the entire congregation not just the 144,000.
  "First born", those crossing from death to life. Anointed by the knowledge they have, Jesus more than his brothers. Jesus went to heaven and received his two part inheritance and cast Satan out, his time cut short ("but on account of the chosen ones").
  Again, "that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur". 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away."
  Words, the instruments for producing or generating adopted sons will not pass away.
  So we see that the generation or producing of the "adopted sons" will not come to an end, the time having been "cut short".
  The first one produced or generated, first generation. Jesus was the first fruits of Yahweh the Father and his repurchase of mankind. The first produced, or first generated one of his adopted sons. "First born" of those crossing from death to life. Jesus and his brothers were the first humans to begin the process of putting on the incorruptible apparel, and by doing so the first to put on immortality within their relationship with Yahweh. They were a newly produced or generated creation of humans, a "new creation". While most would enter into the condition of death, they would always be alive to Yahweh and preserved to be returned to existence through the "out-resurrection "because of no working overview called "first resurrection" by the witness's. They were in fact the first humans to enter (alive) into the reality that will remain, Yahweh's, since the fall of Adam.
  (2 Corinthians 5:16-19) . . .Consequently from now on we know no man according to the flesh. Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, certainly we now know him so no more. 17 Consequently if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation; the old things passed away, look! NEW THINGS HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE. 18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was by means of Christ reconciling a world to himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses, and he committed the word of the reconciliation to us.
  Abraham and his offspring were to inherit this world the earth, not the organization, "nation of Israel", or any other people.
  (Galatians 6:12-16) . . .All those who want to make a pleasing appearance in the flesh are the ones that try to compel YOU to get circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted for the torture stake of the Christ, Jesus. 13 For not even do those who are getting circumcised keep the Law themselves, but they want YOU to be circumcised that they may have cause for boasting in YOUR flesh. 14 Never may it occur that I should boast, except in the torture stake of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been impaled to me and I to the world. 15 For neither is circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but A NEW CREATION [is something]. 16 And all those who will walk orderly by this rule of conduct, upon them be peace and mercy, even upon the Israel of God.
  "
  "AND ALL THOSE WHO WILL WALK ORDERLY BY THIS RULE OF CONDUCT," . . ."ARE THE "ISRAEL OF GOD"
  In other descriptive words, the "sons of Israel", the offspring of Abraham, the true "Jews"; clearly those that followed Jesus, having nothing to do with the organization, "the nation of Israel" that rejected Jesus.
  (Romans 9:6-8) 6 However, it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who [spring] from Israel are really “Israel.” 7 Neither because they are Abraham’s seed are they all children, but: “What will be called ‘your seed’ will be through Isaac.” 8 That is, the children in the flesh are not really the children of God, but the children by the PROMISE are counted as the seed. . . ( true Jews)