PDA

View Full Version : Who is "this generation" in Matt 24:34?



Philip dT
Apr 19th 2007, 07:26 AM
Mat 24:31-35 "And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. (33) So you, likewise, when you see all these things, shall know that it is near, at the doors. (34) Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled. (35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away."

Who is "this generation" referring to?

Is it the people Jesus is talking to, or is it the generation that will experience "all these things"?

Duane Morse
Apr 19th 2007, 07:52 AM
Is it the people Jesus is talking to, or is it the generation that will experience "all these things"?
Or, is it both?

The word 'generation' can have several different meanings, and scopes.

Chris38
Apr 19th 2007, 09:05 AM
Mat 24:31-35 "And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. (33) So you, likewise, when you see all these things, shall know that it is near, at the doors. (34) Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled. (35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away."

Who is "this generation" referring to?

Is it the people Jesus is talking to, or is it the generation that will experience "all these things"?
I believe that it is talking about those who he was speaking to. If you read mathew 24 closely we see that he is speaking primarily about Jerusalem. And remember that Christ speaking to his desciples told them that not all of them would taste death before these things come to pass. And even made a statement to Peter about John being one of those who would be around to see it. He said to Peter "If its my will that he [John] lives until I come, what is that to you" There again signifying that it would be in that generation of the disciples.

chal
Apr 19th 2007, 09:13 AM
Luke 21 might shed some light on it for you.

Philip dT
Apr 19th 2007, 10:15 AM
I believe that it is talking about those who he was speaking to. If you read mathew 24 closely we see that he is speaking primarily about Jerusalem. And remember that Christ speaking to his desciples told them that not all of them would taste death before these things come to pass. And even made a statement to Peter about John being one of those who would be around to see it. He said to Peter "If its my will that he [John] lives until I come, what is that to you" There again signifying that it would be in that generation of the disciples.

That is one view, but as I see it, the context prohibits that view:

Mat 24:29-31 "And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. (30) And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then ALL the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory. (31) And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

That refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus.

Yet Jesus says: "This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled"

See the problem...
Fact is, it has not been fulfilled. So, as I understand it, "this generation" has to refer to the generation that is present to witness "all these things."

RogerW
Apr 19th 2007, 02:12 PM
Mat 24:31-35 "And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. (33) So you, likewise, when you see all these things, shall know that it is near, at the doors. (34) Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled. (35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away."

Who is "this generation" referring to?

Is it the people Jesus is talking to, or is it the generation that will experience "all these things"?

Ac 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. What generation is in view here? I believe it is the generation of the upright we find in Ps 112.

Ps 112:2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed.

Compare this generation to the generation of the unrighteous.

Pr 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Pr 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
Pr 30:13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
Pr 30:14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

What is Christ the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and first and last of?

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

There are only three times in Scripture where generation has been translated from the Greek word Genesis, which means beginning, first. Here in Mt 1:1 speaking of the Lord’s birth, and then twice in James where it is translated natural, of nature. The Greek word Genesis comes from the Greek word Genea, but Genesis defines Christ’s birth (nativity), and nature or natural generation. I believe that all who are in Christ become grafted into the nature of Christ, the natural or true.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (Mt 1:1). 1078. Genesis; nativity; figuratively, nature:--generation, nature(-ral).

Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his [natural] face in a glass:

Jas 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course [of nature]; and it is set on fire of hell.

"Unto all generations for ever and ever" (Eph 3:21) (Greek "all the generations of the age of the ages"). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here it is said that there will be glory in the church throughout all generations, world without end.

"Hid for (Greek "from the") ages and (from the) generations" (Col 1:26). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here something (a mystery) had been hidden from past generations. The mystery we now know is that salvation has come unto the elect Gentiles, the chosen, or natural generation, of which every believer becomes after the cross.

Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse [nation 1074], among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Here we find sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.

When the passage speaks specifically to the Jewish Nation the word “this” is always translated from the Greek word taute followed by generation. In the Olivet discourse the word “this” has been translated from the Greek word houtos followed by generation. This is easily verified by searching the Concordance for “this generation.” Why, if in every reference to that particular people (the Jews) “this” has been translated from taute, would a different Greek word (houtos) be used to translate “this” generation in the Olivet discourse? If the passage “this generation” is speaking specifically to those first century Jews it makes no sense to suddenly find the translation comes from a different Greek word when every other instance where “this generation” is specifically to them it has been translated from another Greek word. To say “this generation” implies those Jews living at that time in the discourse, causes confusion, and inconsistency. If Christ was speaking only to the Jewish Nation then the same Greek word which has consistently been used throughout Scripture would have been used here as well.

5026 Taute; dative case, accusative case and genitive case respectively of the feminine singular of 3778; (towards or of) this:--her, + hereof, it, that, + thereby, the (same), this (same).

3778 Houtos; from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):--he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

Lu 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of [(this) 5026 taute] generation. (speaks of a singular generation, specifically the Jewish nation)

Lu 21:32 Verily I say unto you, [(This) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Not the singular because many generations will come into the Kingdom age.

Mr 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth [(this) 3778 houtos] generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto [(this) 5026 taute] generation. Christ is asking why doth this houtos (the same as the generation that will not pass away until Christ comes again). Then Christ says this taute (the same generation that reject Him, and kill Him) will be given no sign.

Mr 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that [(this) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, [(This) houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Since it makes no sense to say Christ is speaking only to the Jewish Nation, we need to find out what generation Christ is speaking to. Since the Jewish Nation is the generation of vipers (Lu 3:7), we are left with the generation of Christ, or the generation of the Kingdom age. Christ, speaking to His disciples, who are Jews, is first and foremost speaking to His elect generation, which will consist of every generation throughout the Kingdom age, and telling them that this elect generation, or the elect people of God will not pass away until His literal Second Coming, or all things have been fulfilled. You have to remember the Olivet discourse speaks of not only things that will literally come to pass for the Jewish Nation, but Christ is also speaking to His first century disciples whom He has hand picked to build His Kingdom through the universal church in time.

1Pe 2:9 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:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

RW

joztok
Apr 19th 2007, 02:14 PM
Mat 24:31-35 "And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. (33) So you, likewise, when you see all these things, shall know that it is near, at the doors. (34) Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled. (35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away."

Who is "this generation" referring to?

Is it the people Jesus is talking to, or is it the generation that will experience "all these things"?
I'd say both. Jesus' generation (before After Death) will be raised from the dead to witness Him and see live with Him in the millenium reign. They will be restored. They will live among the living Jews who finally return to God and repent of their ways.

Ta-An
Apr 19th 2007, 02:46 PM
Does generation here mean a specific timeslot of people rather than a specific type of people :hmm:

Can it be a specific type as in Believers , will there come a time when there are no more believers in Christ?? :hmm:

mccain22
Apr 19th 2007, 03:21 PM
And remember that Christ speaking to his desciples told them that not all of them would taste death before these things come to pass. And even made a statement to Peter about John being one of those who would be around to see it. He said to Peter "If its my will that he [John] lives until I come, what is that to you" There again signifying that it would be in that generation of the disciples.

im gonna have to disagree with you on this. He was speaking of the generation that would see all these things. Many believe the fig tree is referring to Israel.

About the people standing there that would never taste death...

Christ did say something like "He who believes in me shall not see death."

And He never said John would be around to see the second coming. He said IF ITS MY WILL. He is simply tell Peter dont worry about my plans for John or anyone else, I have plans for you and those are the plans you should be focused on.

I believe Christ is simply saying that the generation that see's all these things is the generation that will see the second coming.

Romulus
Apr 19th 2007, 03:27 PM
im gonna have to disagree with you on this. He was speaking of the generation that would see all these things. Many believe the fig tree is referring to Israel.

About the people standing there that would never taste death...

Christ did say something like "He who believes in me shall not see death."

And He never said John would be around to see the second coming. He said IF ITS MY WILL. He is simply tell Peter dont worry about my plans for John or anyone else, I have plans for you and those are the plans you should be focused on.

I believe Christ is simply saying that the generation that see's all these things is the generation that will see the second coming.

Every time "This Generation" is used in the New Testament it always meant the then living generation. Why is it that only in Matthew 24 does "this generation" take a different meaning. It shouldn't, the audience that Jesus was talking to was the 1st century, not an unknown generation 2000+ years and counting. Jesus is not giving an answer in 2 parts. He was saying that the then living generation would witness the destruction of the temple and His coming in Judgment. They did witness it in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. If Jesus meant a future generation He would have said "That Generation". He didn't.

RogerW
Apr 19th 2007, 03:45 PM
Every time "This Generation" is used in the New Testament it always meant the then living generation. Why is it that only in Matthew 24 does "this generation" take a different meaning. It shouldn't, the audience that Jesus was talking to was the 1st century, not an unknown generation 2000+ years and counting. Jesus is not giving an answer in 2 parts. He was saying that the then living generation would witness the destruction of the temple and His coming in Judgment. They did witness it in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. If Jesus meant a future generation He would have said "That Generation". He didn't.

If this is true then wouldn't that mean that Christ makes no distinction between His chosen disciples, and the unbelieving multitude and Jews? If that is true then Christ would be calling His chosen disciples a generation of vipers because they lived in the first century. Is it reasonable to assume Christ would speak of His chosen, elect disciples as vipers (poisonous snakes)?

Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

RW

RogerW
Apr 19th 2007, 04:02 PM
I believe that it is talking about those who he was speaking to. If you read mathew 24 closely we see that he is speaking primarily about Jerusalem. And remember that Christ speaking to his desciples told them that not all of them would taste death before these things come to pass. And even made a statement to Peter about John being one of those who would be around to see it. He said to Peter "If its my will that he [John] lives until I come, what is that to you" There again signifying that it would be in that generation of the disciples.

Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mr 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Lu 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Christ is not saying there are some standing there who would not taste death until ALL things have been fulfilled or the fullness of time. He says they would not taste death (die) until they see (understand fully) the Kingdom of God has come with power. When did the Kingdom come with power?

No doubt Christ cast out demon.

Lu 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

When Satan was cast out of heaven at the beginning of the universal church in time is when Christ tells us "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God."

Re 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

In truth many of those standing there had indeed seen the Kingdom come in power, and strength before they died.

RW

Benaiah
Apr 19th 2007, 05:47 PM
If this is true then wouldn't that mean that Christ makes no distinction between His chosen disciples, and the unbelieving multitude and Jews? If that is true then Christ would be calling His chosen disciples a generation of vipers because they lived in the first century. Is it reasonable to assume Christ would speak of His chosen, elect disciples as vipers (poisonous snakes)?

Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?


Christ made a distinction between believers and unbelievers. and the unbelievers were the "evil and adulterous generation" and the "this generation" that Christ refers to time and time again. what many futurists miss is the parralell that is drawn here to the generation that did not believe in Jesus day and the generation that did not believe in moses day and who fell in the wildrerness because of their unbelief.

Philip dT
Apr 19th 2007, 07:37 PM
RogerW,

Very insightful posts. I think about the matter along very much the same lines. Technically, "genea autê" can also be translated "that generation."

I'm glad to have found bibleforums.org

Ta-An
Apr 19th 2007, 07:40 PM
I'm glad to have found bibleforums.orgHow did you find us Philip??:hmm:

RogerW
Apr 19th 2007, 08:17 PM
RogerW,

Very insightful posts. I think about the matter along very much the same lines. Technically, "genea autê" can also be translated "that generation."

I'm glad to have found bibleforums.org

I didn't realize it could also be translated "that". I too am glad to have found this forum. I stumbled here through the providence of God not so long ago myself. Glad to make your aquaintance!

RW

John146
Apr 19th 2007, 09:21 PM
Ac 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. What generation is in view here? I believe it is the generation of the upright we find in Ps 112.

Ps 112:2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed.

Compare this generation to the generation of the unrighteous.

Pr 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Pr 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
Pr 30:13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
Pr 30:14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

What is Christ the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and first and last of?

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

There are only three times in Scripture where generation has been translated from the Greek word Genesis, which means beginning, first. Here in Mt 1:1 speaking of the Lord’s birth, and then twice in James where it is translated natural, of nature. The Greek word Genesis comes from the Greek word Genea, but Genesis defines Christ’s birth (nativity), and nature or natural generation. I believe that all who are in Christ become grafted into the nature of Christ, the natural or true.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (Mt 1:1). 1078. Genesis; nativity; figuratively, nature:--generation, nature(-ral).

Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his [natural] face in a glass:

Jas 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course [of nature]; and it is set on fire of hell.

"Unto all generations for ever and ever" (Eph 3:21) (Greek "all the generations of the age of the ages"). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here it is said that there will be glory in the church throughout all generations, world without end.

"Hid for (Greek "from the") ages and (from the) generations" (Col 1:26). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here something (a mystery) had been hidden from past generations. The mystery we now know is that salvation has come unto the elect Gentiles, the chosen, or natural generation, of which every believer becomes after the cross.

Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse [nation 1074], among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Here we find sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.

When the passage speaks specifically to the Jewish Nation the word “this” is always translated from the Greek word taute followed by generation. In the Olivet discourse the word “this” has been translated from the Greek word houtos followed by generation. This is easily verified by searching the Concordance for “this generation.” Why, if in every reference to that particular people (the Jews) “this” has been translated from taute, would a different Greek word (houtos) be used to translate “this” generation in the Olivet discourse? If the passage “this generation” is speaking specifically to those first century Jews it makes no sense to suddenly find the translation comes from a different Greek word when every other instance where “this generation” is specifically to them it has been translated from another Greek word. To say “this generation” implies those Jews living at that time in the discourse, causes confusion, and inconsistency. If Christ was speaking only to the Jewish Nation then the same Greek word which has consistently been used throughout Scripture would have been used here as well.

5026 Taute; dative case, accusative case and genitive case respectively of the feminine singular of 3778; (towards or of) this:--her, + hereof, it, that, + thereby, the (same), this (same).

3778 Houtos; from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):--he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

Lu 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of [(this) 5026 taute] generation. (speaks of a singular generation, specifically the Jewish nation)

Lu 21:32 Verily I say unto you, [(This) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Not the singular because many generations will come into the Kingdom age.

Mr 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth [(this) 3778 houtos] generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto [(this) 5026 taute] generation. Christ is asking why doth this houtos (the same as the generation that will not pass away until Christ comes again). Then Christ says this taute (the same generation that reject Him, and kill Him) will be given no sign.

Mr 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that [(this) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, [(This) houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Since it makes no sense to say Christ is speaking only to the Jewish Nation, we need to find out what generation Christ is speaking to. Since the Jewish Nation is the generation of vipers (Lu 3:7), we are left with the generation of Christ, or the generation of the Kingdom age. Christ, speaking to His disciples, who are Jews, is first and foremost speaking to His elect generation, which will consist of every generation throughout the Kingdom age, and telling them that this elect generation, or the elect people of God will not pass away until His literal Second Coming, or all things have been fulfilled. You have to remember the Olivet discourse speaks of not only things that will literally come to pass for the Jewish Nation, but Christ is also speaking to His first century disciples whom He has hand picked to build His Kingdom through the universal church in time.

1Pe 2:9 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:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

RW

Excellent post. I agree that the generation that He spoke of was the generation (age) of the upright, the generation of Christ. Otherwise known as the "times of the Gentiles" or "times of nations" (Luke 21:24). In addition to what you said here, it appears to me that in Matthew 24:34-35 Jesus was equating the time when "this generation" would pass away with the time of heaven and earth passing away as though those things occur at the same time. And we know that heaven and earth pass away at His second coming when the old heavens and earth are burned up and the new heavens and new earth appear (2 Peter 3:10-13).

Eric

Philip dT
Apr 20th 2007, 07:43 AM
How did you find us Philip??:hmm:

It actually popped up in a telephone conversation with Ferdi Alberts. I believe he is one of your members.

By the way, how many posts must one have in order to view member profiles?

Ta-An
Apr 20th 2007, 08:34 AM
It actually popped up in a telephone conversation with Ferdi Alberts. I believe he is one of your members.

By the way, how many posts must one have in order to view member profiles?Oh okay....:pp

7 days membership it is.... until you have pm access and other privileges

matthew94
Apr 20th 2007, 02:54 PM
In my opinion if it weren't for pre-conceived doctrines, there wouldn't even be a debate over this issue. 'This generation' clearly refers to the generation Jesus was speaking to in the 1st century. People only reject that obvious meaning when they fail to correctly interpret 1st century literature in verses 1-33, thinking that it necessitates and end-of-the-world scenario.

mccain22
Apr 20th 2007, 03:46 PM
They did witness it in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. If Jesus meant a future generation He would have said "That Generation". He didn't.

I dont think you understand what i was saying. notice Christ says "when you see all these things come to pass." that generation came and went without seeing all of the signs.

Would Christ had to of said "that generation"
No.
In Isaiah 53 when Isaiah tells of the messiah he uses the word "was" which is past tense. How can he give a prophecy of the messiah in past tense when it was written seven hundred years before the messiah came. He either wasnt speaking of Christ or the tense doesnt really matter cause he was describing a vision or something. Thats my two cents.

matthew94
Apr 20th 2007, 05:51 PM
I dont think you understand what i was saying. notice Christ says "when you see all these things come to pass." that generation came and went without seeing all of the signs.

To be fair, many of us do believe that generation did indeed see all of the signs. Certainly Romulus does. I do too. In my opinion everything in 24:1-34 occurred. The main reason one would argue otherwise is their failure to understand the 1st century Jewish style of writing about apocalyptic events.

Saved7
Apr 20th 2007, 06:20 PM
Mat 24:31-35 "And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. (33) So you, likewise, when you see all these things, shall know that it is near, at the doors. (34) Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled. (35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away."

Who is "this generation" referring to?

the generation that will experience "all these things"?

The generation that will be here to experience ALL these things.:saint:

John146
Apr 20th 2007, 06:23 PM
In my opinion if it weren't for pre-conceived doctrines, there wouldn't even be a debate over this issue. 'This generation' clearly refers to the generation Jesus was speaking to in the 1st century. People only reject that obvious meaning when they fail to correctly interpret 1st century literature in verses 1-33, thinking that it necessitates and end-of-the-world scenario.

I think you are being way too simplistic here. Even in Matthew 23, the term "this generation" refers to a type of people (the scribes and Pharisees) that Jesus referred to as vipers. You cannot insist that the Greek word genea can only refer to a generation of 40 years because that is simply not the case. How can we insist that the generation of vipers only lasted 40 years? The generation of vipers was around long before Jesus called them a generation of vipers. Rather than a period of time, generation in that case is referring to a type of people.

third hero
Apr 20th 2007, 06:48 PM
I believe that it is talking about those who he was speaking to. If you read mathew 24 closely we see that he is speaking primarily about Jerusalem. And remember that Christ speaking to his desciples told them that not all of them would taste death before these things come to pass. And even made a statement to Peter about John being one of those who would be around to see it. He said to Peter "If its my will that he [John] lives until I come, what is that to you" There again signifying that it would be in that generation of the disciples.

Matthew was not talking about Jerusalem except for when the Abomination that causes desolation occurred. Other than that, it has a world-wide range and scope. It's as though he wrote this book for the many others who would read it for quite some time later. Now Luke 21 focuses more on Jerusalem, but Matthew 24 does not.

matthew94
Apr 20th 2007, 07:04 PM
I think you are being way too simplistic here. Even in Matthew 23, the term "this generation" refers to a type of people (the scribes and Pharisees) that Jesus referred to as vipers. You cannot insist that the Greek word genea can only refer to a generation of 40 years because that is simply not the case. How can we insist that the generation of vipers only lasted 40 years? The generation of vipers was around long before Jesus called them a generation of vipers. Rather than a period of time, generation in that case is referring to a type of people.

To me, that is a very strange way of understanding Matthew 23. The 'this generation' statement in 23:36 refers to the generation, in general, living at that time. Sure there were 'vipers' all throughout history from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah. But by the generation of Jesus' day they had Fill(ed) up, then, the measure of the sin of (their) forefathers!

Jesus was simply saying that the long history of sin in Israel had found its completion in the generation living in the 1st century. Judgment was coming upon them because of their sinfulness. I don't understand why you believe the 'generation' is referring to the vipers specifically and not the generation as a whole in matthew 23. It doesn't seem like a natural reading of the text. The vipers were the problem, but the phrase 'this generation' explains the 'when' of judgment.

awestruckchild
Apr 20th 2007, 09:13 PM
I'm no scholar and most of the time I go by what I call my 'gut' which I really believe is His leading. I think He meant more this AGE when He said what was translated to us as 'generation', because of the next verse.
I take 'this generation' to mean this earth, this age, as we know it specifically BECAUSE of the vs. that immediately follows.

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 02:36 AM
So you think he meant the 'earth' will not end till all these things happen?

That's kind of a useless thing to say, is it not? :)

third hero
Apr 21st 2007, 10:50 AM
To be fair, many of us do believe that generation did indeed see all of the signs. Certainly Romulus does. I do too. In my opinion everything in 24:1-34 occurred. The main reason one would argue otherwise is their failure to understand the 1st century Jewish style of writing about apocalyptic events.

In all fairness, anyone who believes that Matthew 24:29-31 has happened in 70Ad are those who fail to understand what the earliest elders understood at the Council at Nicene. They made the decree that Christ had not returned at 70AD, whether your understanding of Jewish writing is accurate or not. Even up to the present day, only a few people thinki that Matthew 24:29-31 has happened in 70AD, and their logic is undrstood only by themselves, while the rest only scratch their heads.

In other words, if the elders back then concurred that Christ had not returned yet, then who are you to rewrite history? The council at Nicene stated that Christ had not returned yet. Polycarp told Iraneus of John's teachings which include the return of the Lord and Revelation, which, in the second century was a future event, according to Iraneus. If even John's disciple proclaimed the return of Christ to be a future event in the second century AD, and mind you, they lived right around the same era of the original disciples, then who is anyone to say otherwise?

It's like taking the book of Genesis, reading the seven days record, and changing the wording of the term, "day" to mean "eon" and thus state that God used an extremely flawed system called evolution to create the heavens and the earth. Oh, that's right, there are some who do exactly that. For the record, what do we call them?

BeOfGoodCourage
Apr 21st 2007, 11:50 AM
In all fairness, anyone who believes that Matthew 24:29-31 has happened in 70Ad are those who fail to understand what the earliest elders understood at the Council at Nicene. They made the decree that Christ had not returned at 70AD, whether your understanding of Jewish writing is accurate or not. Even up to the present day, only a few people thinki that Matthew 24:29-31 has happened in 70AD, and their logic is undrstood only by themselves, while the rest only scratch their heads.

In other words, if the elders back then concurred that Christ had not returned yet, then who are you to rewrite history? The council at Nicene stated that Christ had not returned yet. Polycarp told Iraneus of John's teachings which include the return of the Lord and Revelation, which, in the second century was a future event, according to Iraneus. If even John's disciple proclaimed the return of Christ to be a future event in the second century AD, and mind you, they lived right around the same era of the original disciples, then who is anyone to say otherwise?

It's like taking the book of Genesis, reading the seven days record, and changing the wording of the term, "day" to mean "eon" and thus state that God used an extremely flawed system called evolution to create the heavens and the earth. Oh, that's right, there are some who do exactly that. For the record, what do we call them?


Of course Jesus did not return as in His second coming return, but He did come in judgement against Jerusalem just as God did in the very same termonology of coming in judgement over peoples in the OT. Some don't see that as the explanation but that is what it is. Therefore when some deny that Jesus did come in judgement then some need to find an alternative answer to their questions that simply do not fit the context. For example, all of a sudden "this generation" cannot mean this generation but instead means a generation 2000 plus years from the existing generation Jesus was talking to.

Also then when some cannot accept the coming as a coming in judgement then some do not see the fulfillment of Christian Jews fleeing from Jerusalem just as Jesus instructed them to do when they saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem.

In short, what some do when they do not accept that Jesus came in judgement over Jerusalem, as He prophesied He would by answering the disciples two questions, then the whole understanding of eschatology becomes skewed and then inventions of other types need to be made in order support why one does not believe what the coming in this case means.

This is the same with the Zech. reference when He shall stand on the mount of olives and the mount shall be split in two. Some take this "He" to specifically be Jesus, but the context does not allow for this but instead does allow for the same termonology used in Ezekiel when God removed His presense from the temple and went through the East gate to the mount. This mount is the same mount of olives we have in Zech. and is a view for us that God removes His presense.

Christians who do not follow this types and shadows are bound to get lost.

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 01:11 PM
In all fairness, anyone who believes that Matthew 24:29-31 has happened in 70Ad are those who fail to understand what the earliest elders understood at the Council at Nicene.

You are incorrect. It is perfectly legitimate to understand Matthew 24:29-31 as something other than the 2nd Coming and still believe in the future 2nd Coming. I do that very thing. In other words, I believe in the future 2nd Coming AND accept Jesus words as truthful in Matthew 24:34.

ScottJohnson
Apr 21st 2007, 02:50 PM
Of course Jesus did not return as in His second coming return, but He did come in judgement against Jerusalem just as God did in the very same termonology of coming in judgement over peoples in the OT. Some don't see that as the explanation but that is what it is. Therefore when some deny that Jesus did come in judgement then some need to find an alternative answer to their questions that simply do not fit the context. For example, all of a sudden "this generation" cannot mean this generation but instead means a generation 2000 plus years from the existing generation Jesus was talking to.

Also then when some cannot accept the coming as a coming in judgement then some do not see the fulfillment of Christian Jews fleeing from Jerusalem just as Jesus instructed them to do when they saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem.

In short, what some do when they do not accept that Jesus came in judgement over Jerusalem, as He prophesied He would by answering the disciples two questions, then the whole understanding of eschatology becomes skewed and then inventions of other types need to be made in order support why one does not believe what the coming in this case means.

This is the same with the Zech. reference when He shall stand on the mount of olives and the mount shall be split in two. Some take this "He" to specifically be Jesus, but the context does not allow for this but instead does allow for the same termonology used in Ezekiel when God removed His presense from the temple and went through the East gate to the mount. This mount is the same mount of olives we have in Zech. and is a view for us that God removes His presense.

Christians who do not follow this types and shadows are bound to get lost.

Very good post BoGC. Obviously the biggest problem with the "wooden literal" method of interpretation as employed by modern futurism is that they must completely remove the already corroborated meaning of Jesus message in the Olivet Discourse and create a whole new one that betters substantiates their view.

Matthew 24:29-31 does indeed show Jesus riding on the clouds in judgment. The point that is highly exaggerated by futurist though is that this must pertain to our future. Obviously because they don't understand the euphemisms that are used in this passage. Futurism shows Christ literally riding in the clouds. If this is to be taken literally then are we to believe that Jehovah did literally ride a cloud into Egypt?

Isaiah 19:1
(1) The burden of Egypt: Behold! Jehovah rides on a light cloud and comes into Egypt. And the idols of Egypt shall tremble from before Him; and the heart of Egypt shall melt in its midst.

Did God literally cruise around the universe riding the heavens and the clouds?

Deuteronomy 33:26
(26) None is like the God of Jeshurun, riding the heavens for your help, and the clouds in His majesty.

Clouds are seen to produce thunder and lightning. A natural phenomenal power that has the means to bring fear and terror to men since man cannot control it. Likewise, when God has in the past or will in the future come in judgment against a nation or people or even the entire Earth, this judgment did/will bring terror to the human race. Never the less, I hardly expect to look up and see Jesus literally riding to Earth on clouds.

the rookie
Apr 21st 2007, 04:41 PM
In my opinion if it weren't for pre-conceived doctrines, there wouldn't even be a debate over this issue. 'This generation' clearly refers to the generation Jesus was speaking to in the 1st century. People only reject that obvious meaning when they fail to correctly interpret 1st century literature in verses 1-33, thinking that it necessitates and end-of-the-world scenario.

Debate over this issue could be, rather than "pre-concieved doctrines", more related to the way in which one is then forced to reject obvious meaning and correct interpretation in over 150 passages afterwards. :D

the rookie
Apr 21st 2007, 04:46 PM
To be fair, many of us do believe that generation did indeed see all of the signs. Certainly Romulus does. I do too. In my opinion everything in 24:1-34 occurred. The main reason one would argue otherwise is their failure to understand the 1st century Jewish style of writing about apocalyptic events.

I often hear about the appeal to style, yet rarely see proof that Matthew / Jesus was using the 1st century Jewish style of writing / speaking of apocalyptic events.

Since this style is related to genre, the genre itself has context, which helps in the interpretation / understanding of what fueled the intertestamental writings, their occasion, and why they were not included in the canon.

An appeal to style makes it simple to "deliteralize" some phrases while leaving a strange freedom to insist on the strict literalism of others. Why not relegate the disputed "time-text" to genre considerations as well? What are the rules here?

It may be helpful at some point for those who appeal to genre or style to actually define the rules of interpretation a bit, IOW.

the rookie
Apr 21st 2007, 04:48 PM
Christians who do not follow this types and shadows are bound to get lost.

One could make the same assertion for those who apply them liberally without cause, proof, or context. :lol:

BeOfGoodCourage
Apr 21st 2007, 05:09 PM
One could make the same assertion for those who apply them liberally without cause, proof, or context. :lol:


Of course Rookie, but the difference is that one is an assertion only. Now, if you would care to argue the facts rather than make silly statements maybe you won't need stoop to the depths of patronizing.
:lol: back at ya.

BeOfGoodCourage
Apr 21st 2007, 05:24 PM
I often hear about the appeal to style, yet rarely see proof that Matthew / Jesus was using the 1st century Jewish style of writing / speaking of apocalyptic events.

Since this style is related to genre, the genre itself has context, which helps in the interpretation / understanding of what fueled the intertestamental writings, their occasion, and why they were not included in the canon.

An appeal to style makes it simple to "deliteralize" some phrases while leaving a strange freedom to insist on the strict literalism of others. Why not relegate the disputed "time-text" to genre considerations as well? What are the rules here?

It may be helpful at some point for those who appeal to genre or style to actually define the rules of interpretation a bit, IOW.


The rules of interpretation had already been established by the fact Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience. The enlightened Christian Jew already had knowledge of the apocalyptic styles and forms. Its our western interpretaions that mess it up. Take a look, for example at the same Olivet Discourse accounts as recorded in Luke. He wrote to a greek audience and therefore went into greater explanation for their benefit.

Don't believe that? Then take a look at Luke 21 when Luke tells his readers what they should do when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. Matthew, on the other hand had a Jewish readership and he says "Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand)". Same event two ways of saying it. One needed no explanation because the Jews would recognize it when they saw it and the other needed an explanation because of being unaware of the use of the term abomination of desolation.

So to say that you rarely see proof it is because you are not thinking in terms of the original audience. The proof is there.

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 05:37 PM
I often hear about the appeal to style, yet rarely see proof that Matthew / Jesus was using the 1st century Jewish style of writing / speaking of apocalyptic events.

:)

I think the fact that Jesus and the NT writers were Jewish men who lived in the 1st century is enough to prove that they wrote like 1st century Jewish men. But you are free to disagree!

Philip dT
Apr 21st 2007, 05:40 PM
Matthew94, you say:


You are incorrect. It is perfectly legitimate to understand Matthew 24:29-31 as something other than the 2nd Coming and still believe in the future 2nd Coming. I do that very thing. In other words, I believe in the future 2nd Coming AND accept Jesus words as truthful in Matthew 24:34.

The text says:

Mat 24:29-31 "And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. (30) And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then ALL the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of the heaven with power and great glory. (31) And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

To what other than the second coming of the Lord Jesus would you suggest this may refer to?

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 06:19 PM
It refers to His coming in judgment against Jerusalem in AD70. The language used is common in Jewish culture for judgment and doesn't refer to a bodily coming. Verse 29 communicates a major apocalyptic event. Verse 30 does not communicate the bodily coming of Jesus, but the fact that in AD70 it would be obvious that Jesus was, indeed, who He had said He was. In other words, the destruction of the city was the sign that the Son of Man (Jesus) had indeed ascended to heaven. This will cause mourning among all the tribes of the land of Israel. Verse 30 communicates the the Christians would be protected from this judgment. And we know from history that they were.

John146
Apr 21st 2007, 07:19 PM
To me, that is a very strange way of understanding Matthew 23. The 'this generation' statement in 23:36 refers to the generation, in general, living at that time. Sure there were 'vipers' all throughout history from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah. But by the generation of Jesus' day they had Fill(ed) up, then, the measure of the sin of (their) forefathers!

Jesus was simply saying that the long history of sin in Israel had found its completion in the generation living in the 1st century. Judgment was coming upon them because of their sinfulness. I don't understand why you believe the 'generation' is referring to the vipers specifically and not the generation as a whole in matthew 23. It doesn't seem like a natural reading of the text. The vipers were the problem, but the phrase 'this generation' explains the 'when' of judgment.

I would agree that it doesn't "seem" like a natural reading of the text. I think it's strange to you because you interpret the verse apparently without even considering what may have been meant in the original text. Should we assume that our English understanding of text translated from the Greek is exactly what was originally intended without taking a closer look? Should we assume that the Greek word genea only refers to people living at the time or within a 40 year timeframe?

Here is a link that you may want to check out that will show you how the meaning of the phrase "this generation" is not as simple as some make it out to be:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:BP3ihYq0LXkJ:www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/files/genea.doc+genea,+Greek&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

We've gone over this before, but I want to bring it up again because I think it's relative to understanding the meaning of Matthew 24:34. You are insistent that your view is the correct one, but I feel that you are not considering the verses that follow the verse in question. In Matthew 24:36 Jesus says, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man". The day and hour He was speaking of was the day of His coming at which time all of those things that He spoke about will have been fulfilled. To be consistent in your view, you would have to believe that Matthew 24:35-51 as well as all of Matthew 25 also speak of 70 AD. He didn't stop answering the questions at Matthew 24:34. The Olivet Discourse does not end until the end of Matthew 25. In Matthew 25:13, at the end of the parable of the ten virgins, Jesus said something very similar to what He said in Matthew 24:36: "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.". I believe this is proof that when He was speaking of not knowing the day or hour, He was speaking of the day of His coming that He had just spoke about in Matthew 24:29-31.

Another thing I want to point out is that it is very reasonable to conclude that "this generation" would pass away or end at the same time the age (Greek: aion) would end. So, which age were they speaking about when they asked about the end of the age? In the KJV, it is translated as "end of the world" even though "end of the age" is more accurate. Let's look at other passages that use this phrase in the KJV:

37He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. - Matthew 13:37-40

This is clearly referring to the end of this age that we're currently living in and not the old covenant age. Here is another passage:

47Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. - Matthew 13:47-50

Again, the phrase is used to refer to the end of this world as we know it. The end of this present temporal age in other words. Here is one other passage:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. - Matthew 28:19-20

When the disciples asked about the end of the age/world (aion) their understanding would have been the same as Jesus taught in Matthew 13, which is that the end of the age had to do with the end of this temporal age, which occurs at His second coming. Since I believe that the time of the end of the age and the time that all things that Jesus spoke about prior to Matthew 24:34 are fulfilled at the same time (when Christ returns), that is the reason why I read the Olivet Discourse as I do. I don't believe we have to assume that everything He talked about had to occur within one literal generation of 40 years. I don't ignore that Jesus was asked about when the temple buildings would be destroyed as futurists do. But I also do not agree with the preterists view that His coming and the end of the age must coincide with the time that the destruction of the temple buildings would occur.

the rookie
Apr 21st 2007, 07:39 PM
:)

I think the fact that Jesus and the NT writers were Jewish men who lived in the 1st century is enough to prove that they wrote like 1st century Jewish men. But you are free to disagree!

So your assertion is then that, as Jewish men, they are restricted to the norms of apocalyptic genre when speaking about the last things?

Therefore we must be safe to conclude that Paul, in speaking to the same issues, was speaking in hyperbole when speaking on the issue of wickedness and unrighteousness in the last days?

BeOfGoodCourage
Apr 21st 2007, 07:58 PM
So your assertion is then that, as Jewish men, they are restricted to the norms of apocalyptic genre when speaking about the last things?

Therefore we must be safe to conclude that Paul, in speaking to the same issues, was speaking in hyperbole when speaking on the issue of wickedness and unrighteousness in the last days?

No, but he was speaking of wickedness and unrighteousness in the last days leading up to 70AD.

Just as Paul instructed Timothy saying:

2Timothy 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

The whole letter is to Timothy and how to conduct himself in his ministry and what to be on the look-out for. Paul describes thos last days that evidently Timothy was going to see since Paul told him to mark his words.

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 08:43 PM
To be consistent in your view, you would have to believe that Matthew 24:35-51 as well as all of Matthew 25 also speak of 70 AD. He didn't stop answering the questions at Matthew 24:34. The Olivet Discourse does not end until the end of Matthew 25.

This is where we disagree. I believe 1-34 is the olivet discourse and that Matthew simply included another similar discourse after it. We've already been through my reasons for thinking this and I'm quite sure you were part of that discussion. Everything up to verse 34 fits very nicely in the events surrounding AD70.

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 08:45 PM
So your assertion is then that, as Jewish men, they are restricted to the norms of apocalyptic genre when speaking about the last things?

Therefore we must be safe to conclude that Paul, in speaking to the same issues, was speaking in hyperbole when speaking on the issue of wickedness and unrighteousness in the last days?

They are not limited to the norms of apocalyptic literature, but they have access to it.

Philip dT
Apr 22nd 2007, 03:53 PM
Matthew94,

The text says:
Mat 24:29-31 "And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. (30) And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then ALL the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of the heaven with power and great glory. (31) And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

1) In what way were the sun, moon darkened in 70ad? What historical record do we have of that?
2) More importantly, how did the stars fall from heaven and how were the powers of the heavens shaken in 70ad? What historical record do we have of that?
3) Even more importantly. How did THE SON OF MAN APPEAR IN HEAVEN? and How did ALL the tribes of the earth mourn in 70ad?
4) Yet more importantly. How did ALL the tribes of the earth SEE the Son of Man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with power and great glory?
What historical record do we have of that?
5) And lastly, but most importantly, how on earth did God send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and GATHERED HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, from one END OF THE HEAVENS TO THE EARTH in 70ad? How can this not point to the end of the world?

BeOfGoodCourage
Apr 22nd 2007, 04:40 PM
So your assertion is then that, as Jewish men, they are restricted to the norms of apocalyptic genre when speaking about the last things?



Its not a matter of being resticted to anything. Its that they were men of the language methods that they were raised to participate in. Whether it be reading from the scrolls of the prophets or hearing the teaching of the rabbis, it was their cultural understanding. So given that, why wouldn't Matthew and yes even Mark, use the termonology they knew. In fact, it would have been out of the norm to say it any other way.

BeOfGoodCourage
Apr 22nd 2007, 04:55 PM
Matthew94,

The text says:
Mat 24:29-31 "And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. (30) And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then ALL the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of the heaven with power and great glory. (31) And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

1) In what way were the sun, moon darkened in 70ad? What historical record do we have of that?
2) More importantly, how did the stars fall from heaven and how were the powers of the heavens shaken in 70ad? What historical record do we have of that?
3) Even more importantly. How did THE SON OF MAN APPEAR IN HEAVEN? and How did ALL the tribes of the earth mourn in 70ad?
4) Yet more importantly. How did ALL the tribes of the earth SEE the Son of Man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with power and great glory?
What historical record do we have of that?
5) And lastly, but most importantly, how on earth did God send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and GATHERED HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, from one END OF THE HEAVENS TO THE EARTH in 70ad? How can this not point to the end of the world?

1. in the same ways it happened three or four times in the OT. The OT is recorded so let that be part of your history lesson.

2. Do stars fall from the sky ever. and if they did which star would you prefer, the sun? Or maybe one of the countless stars hundreds and even thousands of times larger then our sun. What gravitational force will draw those stars to earth? Do the stars orbit earth? Maybe you believe that they are astoroids. One astoride 6 miles wide is enough to destroy all life on earth. You tell me - figurtive or literal?

3. How did God appear coming on a swift cloud? Was this visible or do you suppose you might be misunderstanding what apocalyptic language is. BTW, though, Josephus did record that a lasting sign did appear in the sky and looked to the witnesses as a sword. Maybe that was the sign but we do know that the sign was that Jerusalem would crumble.

4. Tribes equals Israel unless you think God spoke of tribes in another meaning. therefore yes, all Israel mourned over these permanent events.
Coming in the clouds is a phrase for judgement. Christ came in judgement over Israel by removing Jerusalem and the temple.

5. I believe the correct term is "Messengers" and this could mean angels but not necessarily. It could meant the gospel is preached throughout the world. It does not have to point to the end of the world unless you make it do so.

matthew94
Apr 22nd 2007, 07:29 PM
Matthew94,

The text says:
Mat 24:29-31 "And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. (30) And then the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then ALL the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of the heaven with power and great glory. (31) And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

1) In what way were the sun, moon darkened in 70ad? What historical record do we have of that?
2) More importantly, how did the stars fall from heaven and how were the powers of the heavens shaken in 70ad? What historical record do we have of that?
3) Even more importantly. How did THE SON OF MAN APPEAR IN HEAVEN? and How did ALL the tribes of the earth mourn in 70ad?
4) Yet more importantly. How did ALL the tribes of the earth SEE the Son of Man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with power and great glory?
What historical record do we have of that?
5) And lastly, but most importantly, how on earth did God send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and GATHERED HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, from one END OF THE HEAVENS TO THE EARTH in 70ad? How can this not point to the end of the world?

Beofgoodcourage beat me to replying :) But I would have worded my response similarly anyways. By taking the phrases in a wooden literal sense you are not reading the passage the way the disciples would have understood the passage. The language used is common judgment language and was never intended to be talking about actual cosmology.

John146
Apr 22nd 2007, 08:03 PM
This is where we disagree. I believe 1-34 is the olivet discourse and that Matthew simply included another similar discourse after it. We've already been through my reasons for thinking this and I'm quite sure you were part of that discussion. Everything up to verse 34 fits very nicely in the events surrounding AD70.

Do you also believe that Mark 13:32-37 and Luke 21:34-36 are not part of the Olivet Discourse?

Benaiah
Apr 22nd 2007, 08:09 PM
it isnt just a matter of "style" Jesus words concerning the signs like the sun being darkened and the moon not giving here light, the powers fo the heaven being shaken, etc is all drawn form OT passages concerning God coming in Judgment against a city or nation. Jesus own words are drawn from Isaiah 13

Isa 13:1 The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine.

Jesus hearers who were intimate with the OT new precisely what he was talking about. God coming in judgment. other OT passages tell us of God coming in judgment.

Isa 19:1 The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, And will come into Egypt; The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst.

Mic 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.
Mic 1:2 Hear, all you peoples! Listen, O earth, and all that is in it! Let the Lord GOD be a witness against you, The Lord from His holy temple.
Mic 1:3 For behold, the LORD is coming out of His place; He will come down And tread on the high places of the earth.
Mic 1:4 The mountains will melt under Him, And the valleys will split Like wax before the fire, Like waters poured down a steep place.

These prophecies were never meant to be understood "literally" as in God was actually going to make an appearence riding on a cloud or that the hills would melt like wax. these prophecies often present God's judgments in the form of DE creation to emphasize his awesome power and majesty. Jesus himself spoke of "coming" in judgment against a church in revelation unless they repented and he certainly was not referring to the second coming.

Rev 2:5 "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place; unless you repent.

Rev 2:16 'Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

matthew94
Apr 23rd 2007, 02:02 AM
Do you also believe that Mark 13:32-37 and Luke 21:34-36 are not part of the Olivet Discourse?

In those small sections, it need not be another discourse. Most prophecies in Scripture have an element of dual fulfillment in them. Matthew, Mark & Luke include this feature, but only Matthew continues into another whole discourse. Of course, this is only my current opinion that seems to best explain all the issues involved.

Philip dT
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:14 AM
1. in the same ways it happened three or four times in the OT. The OT is recorded so let that be part of your history lesson.

2. Do stars fall from the sky ever. and if they did which star would you prefer, the sun? Or maybe one of the countless stars hundreds and even thousands of times larger then our sun. What gravitational force will draw those stars to earth? Do the stars orbit earth? Maybe you believe that they are astoroids. One astoride 6 miles wide is enough to destroy all life on earth. You tell me - figurtive or literal?

3. How did God appear coming on a swift cloud? Was this visible or do you suppose you might be misunderstanding what apocalyptic language is. BTW, though, Josephus did record that a lasting sign did appear in the sky and looked to the witnesses as a sword. Maybe that was the sign but we do know that the sign was that Jerusalem would crumble.

4. Tribes equals Israel unless you think God spoke of tribes in another meaning. therefore yes, all Israel mourned over these permanent events.
Coming in the clouds is a phrase for judgement. Christ came in judgement over Israel by removing Jerusalem and the temple.

5. I believe the correct term is "Messengers" and this could mean angels but not necessarily. It could meant the gospel is preached throughout the world. It does not have to point to the end of the world unless you make it do so.

Hi, you are welcome to disagree with me, but I can honestly not come to the same conclusions. Of course, everything in the Bible cannot be taken literally, but I cannot read "Israel only" when the text says "all tribes." By the way, in Greek, "phulê" can mean "people" or "nation" (see Thayer, Strongs). I cannot read "some sign of God" if the text says "Son of Man coming in the clouds" etc.

1-2. It means at least that the "powers of the heavens shall be shaken." This points to cosmological events that will be felt all over the earth.

3-4. The fact is, ALL the tribes (people, nations) of the earth shall mourn, that is all people. There is no indication in the text or context that this is referring to Israel only. The text says: "they shall see the Son of Man COMING IN THE CLOUDS." It talks about a literal, actual witnessing of Jesus Christ. The sign Josephus saw, does not remotely resemble that what this text is talking about.

5. Whether the correct term is "messenger" or not, that is not the point. It says: "GATHERED HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, from one END OF THE HEAVENS TO THE EARTH." It has nothing to do with the preaching of the gospel, but the gathering of the elect (all God's people) from the end of the heavens to the earth. You have not answered this question: In what way did God GATHER HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, from one END OF THE HEAVENS TO THE EARTH in 70 ad?

Verse Mat 24:35-37 says: "The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away. (36) But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels of Heaven, but only My Father. (37) But as the days of Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man."

This talks about exactly the same event than verses 29-31. Verse 37, just like verse 30 is about the "COMING OF THE SON OF MAN." The only other "coming of the Son of Man" other than His first coming is His second coming, that is still to come. So does verse 44: "Therefore you also be ready, for in that hour you think not, the Son of Man comes."

No hard feelings though
Philip

Romulus
Apr 23rd 2007, 01:24 PM
This is where we disagree. I believe 1-34 is the olivet discourse and that Matthew simply included another similar discourse after it. We've already been through my reasons for thinking this and I'm quite sure you were part of that discussion. Everything up to verse 34 fits very nicely in the events surrounding AD70.

I believed this to for a long time as well. I think it is reasonable that you can believe all of the Olivet Discourse if fulfilled in 70 A.D. without compromising a belief in a physical coming of Christ, which most people assume happens if you believe it is fulfilled. Everything after verse 34 simply states that we do not know the day or the hour. That is true but we they did know the season. The statement of "this generation" is within 40 years and states the time period it was to happen. God though did not reveal the day or the hour it would happen. No one knew that but scripture did give signs which many times or used today to interpret events in our time, which I believe is taking it away from the 1st century.

Safe to say, believing all of Matthew 24 is fulfilled makes alot of sense with no break in the prophecy and keeping what Jesus told as one subject rather then two. The best example I heard was when a woman is pregnant. Obviously when she is with child you know the event is coming "within 9 months" but you do not know the day or the hour of the birth. You only have signs that point to a fulfillment. I believe that is a good example here.

Blessings!

Philip dT
Apr 23rd 2007, 01:36 PM
Romulus says



Safe to say, believing all of Matthew 24 is fulfilled makes alot of sense with no break in the prophecy and keeping what Jesus told as one subject rather then two.


But I still don't understand why would one want to beleive that everything in Matt 24 is already fulfilled if it is not the plain meaning of the text? What would the theological problem for you be to believe in the plain meaning of the text?

Romulus
Apr 23rd 2007, 01:53 PM
Romulus says



But I still don't understand why would one want to beleive that everything in Matt 24 is already fulfilled if it is not the plain meaning of the text? What would the theological problem for you be to believe in the plain meaning of the text?

I see the plain meaning of the text to state that with the destruction of the temple was the sign of the "end of the age" or the Old Covenant and of Christ's coming (in judgement). How do you view the plain meaning?

Philip dT
Apr 23rd 2007, 03:23 PM
Romulus. You are still welcome to hold your own view. But I must be honest, your view does not make sense to me.

You say:



I see the plain meaning of the text to state that with the destruction of the temple was the sign of the "end of the age" or the Old Covenant and of Christ's coming (in judgement).


Where IN THE TEXT AT HAND (Matt 24), do you get the idea that this is about the ending of the Old Covenant? Mat 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come." This is clearly about the end of the world, not the end of the Old Covenant. Has the gospel been proclaimed IN ALL THE WORLD at 70ad?

I see the plain meaning as follows:

- Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and pestilences and earthquakes in different places.
- Many false prophets will rise and deceive many.
- This gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come.
- Then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
- Unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved.
- False Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders.
- As the lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man
- Iimmediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
- The sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory.
- God shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
- As the days of Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man.
- They did not know until the flood came and took them all away. So also will be the coming of the Son of Man.
- You do not know what hour your Lord comes.
- You also be ready, for in that hour you think not, the Son of Man comes.

None of the above has been fulfilled in 70ad!!

So, to answer your question, the plain meaning of the text is the SECOND COMING OF THE LORD JESUS.

David Taylor
Apr 23rd 2007, 03:37 PM
Matthew 24 finds Jesus answering two questions.

Question 1)
When will the temple they are walking through and viewing be destroyed?

Matthew 24:1-3a "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?"

AND

Question 2)
When will be the end of the world and your 2nd Coming?

Matthew 24:3b-14 "and

what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. "

Two questions are asked.
Jesus uses the entire chapter, and the next chapter, to answer the two questions.

He speaks on one question, then the other, etc...so it makes it difficult at times, to follow the venue change.

Two venues, however, match the two questions; and have two different sets of answers, one near-term and one end-of time.

Both
the hyper-preterist view (which places it all in 70 AD)
and
the hyper-futurist view (which places it all in 2007+ AD)
misunderstand the asking and answering of TWO QUESTIONS.

Try looking at it again, with this in mind and see what you may find differently.

Benaiah
Apr 23rd 2007, 04:01 PM
Question 2)
When will be the end of the world and your 2nd Coming?

While I would agree there are two questions I dont think that they asked about the end of the world or His second coming. I think other versions do a better job when they translate it "age" instead fo "world". the second question has two parts but they are so interelated that they cannot be separated. The "end of the age" that the disciple would have been asking about was the end of the present Old covenant and the begining of the New covenant and the age of the messiah.this would not have been related to the end of the world. I cant see the "what is the sign of your coming" as relating to Jesus second coming since the disciples werent aware that he was "going". the background of their question is Daniel and the "coming of the son of man" whom they believed Jesus was. and they were asking What would be the sign that he was at last to be king and receive the kingdom. they would have certainly understood that the destruction of the temple was going to render the observances mandated by the old covenant impossible to fulfill.

Romulus
Apr 23rd 2007, 05:47 PM
Matthew 24 finds Jesus answering two questions.

Question 1)
When will the temple they are walking through and viewing be destroyed?

Matthew 24:1-3a "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?"

AND

Question 2)
When will be the end of the world and your 2nd Coming?

Matthew 24:3b-14 "and

what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. "

Two questions are asked.
Jesus uses the entire chapter, and the next chapter, to answer the two questions.

He speaks on one question, then the other, etc...so it makes it difficult at times, to follow the venue change.

Two venues, however, match the two questions; and have two different sets of answers, one near-term and one end-of time.



Hi David. I used to believe this but when I really looked at the statement it does show me that the disciples are associating the destruction of the temple with Christ's coming (in judgement) and of the end of the age as one event. It would seem strange that the disciples when hearing that the temple would be destroyed would then privately ask Him 2 questions totally unrelated to each other.




Both
the hyper-preterist view (which places it all in 70 AD)
and
the hyper-futurist view (which places it all in 2007+ AD)
misunderstand the asking and answering of TWO QUESTIONS.


It is true that both views see this as one event but it is also can be part of the partial-preterist view as Gary Demar (partial-preterist) also holds to Matthew 24 as one event while not associating it with the 2nd coming.




Try looking at it again, with this in mind and see what you may find differently.


I still see one event but for the sake of argument(not that I hold to it) could the disciples have asked one question, believing it to be one event and then Jesus giving a response that it was indeed 2 separate events? This is the argument given by many separating after verse 34. I think there could be good arguments on both views.

David Taylor
Apr 23rd 2007, 07:35 PM
While I would agree there are two questions I dont think that they asked about the end of the world or His second coming. I think other versions do a better job when they translate it "age" instead fo "world". the second question has two parts but they are so interelated that they cannot be separated. The "end of the age" that the disciple would have been asking about was the end of the present Old covenant and the begining of the New covenant and the age of the messiah.this would not have been related to the end of the world. I cant see the "what is the sign of your coming" as relating to Jesus second coming since the disciples werent aware that he was "going". the background of their question is Daniel and the "coming of the son of man" whom they believed Jesus was. and they were asking What would be the sign that he was at last to be king and receive the kingdom. they would have certainly understood that the destruction of the temple was going to render the observances mandated by the old covenant impossible to fulfill.


But if you apply this AD 70 only framework to the questions, you must then take it all the way through all of chapter 24 and chapter 25. Then you must also go back and re-apply Matthew chapter 13 to AD 70, to remain consistent.

When you do that, you have now turned down the street of Hymenean (Full) Preterism.

Benaiah
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:06 PM
But if you apply this AD 70 only framework to the questions, you must then take it all the way through all of chapter 24 and chapter 25. Then you must also go back and re-apply Matthew chapter 13 to AD 70, to remain consistent.

When you do that, you have now turned down the street of Hymenean (Full) Preterism.

Full preterism says the resurrection and the second coming have already happened in 70 A.D. which I reject. but the basis of their belief in this is the same as any amil or futurists in that they see Jesus discourse as speaking of his second coming. But Jesus words there are about the "coming of the son of man". a reference to Daniel 7 which I dont see as being the second coming.I don't see that beliving that in matt 24 is speaking of 70 A.D. requires one to believe that the second coming or the resurrection has already occured. the definitive can't be argued statement concerning the literal physical return of Christ is in Acts 1:11

Act 1:11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

To say that if one see's matthew 24 relating to 70 A.D. then one must also accept Matt 25 as relating to 70 A.D. is also not true. as matthew94 already pointed out we have examples in scripture of single prophecies that deal with two events one near and one far. the prophecy of Isaiah being a classic example. if you apply your standard to the prophecy of Isaiah then it is either about the soon to be birth of a son or the future birth of the messiah, but can't be both and we know that isn't so.

David Taylor
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:16 PM
I see your point.

So one can see two questions and two answers in Matthew 24.

One for the present building that was destroyed in AD 70, and a second for the return of Christ at the end of time to gather His elect from the uttermost part of the Earth, to the uttermost part of Heaven.
(Mark's often overlooked wording).

Try as I might, I can't see any way to apply Mark's 13:27 phrase to anything that could have occurred in AD 70.

Benaiah
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:47 PM
One for the present building that was destroyed in AD 70, and a second for the return of Christ at the end of time to gather His elect from the uttermost part of the Earth, to the uttermost part of Heaven.
(Mark's often overlooked wording).

Try as I might, I can't see any way to apply Mark's 13:27 phrase to anything that could have occurred in AD 70.

That is understandable since you view those passages as speaking of the second coming then you view the "gathering in the context of a single one time event. I would see it as ongoing with the angels ( messengers) being sent out to gather the elect. I see this as the same as when Jesus spoke of laborers being sent into the harvest. what does a laborer in a harvest do? He gathers the wheat. Jesus said, "the harvest is at the end of the age" if one sees that as meaning the end of the world then those passages must be speaking of the second coming. but if the "end of the age is instead the end of the Old covenant period and the begining of the New covenant. Christ death ratified the New covenant according to Hebrews,and his resurrection made him the Firstfruits,( Ro 15:20) which is the first of the harvest that is gathered. so to me the term "the harvest is at the end of the age" is speaking of the harvest that began after the end of the old covenant age in the age of the new covenant with the death and resurrection of Christ and the harvest will continue UNTIL the end of THIS age.

John146
Apr 24th 2007, 01:36 AM
In those small sections, it need not be another discourse. Most prophecies in Scripture have an element of dual fulfillment in them. Matthew, Mark & Luke include this feature, but only Matthew continues into another whole discourse. Of course, this is only my current opinion that seems to best explain all the issues involved.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I don't know exactly what you mean about the dual fulfillment thing. Which verses exactly do you believe are speaking of a dual fulfillment within the Olivet Discourse? Beyond that, I think there is an inconsistency here. You are saying that the following verses are part of the Olivet Discourse (which I would agree):

31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. - Mark 13:31-32

And you're saying that these verses are not:

35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. - Matthew 24:35-36

Both of those passages follow immediately after Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled". Can you explain how it could be that Mark 13:31-32 is part of the Olivet Discourse and Matthew 24:35-36 is not?

Eric

John146
Apr 24th 2007, 01:47 AM
I see the plain meaning of the text to state that with the destruction of the temple was the sign of the "end of the age" or the Old Covenant and of Christ's coming (in judgement). How do you view the plain meaning?

Wasn't the sign of the end of the old covenant Jesus's death on the cross and the veil of the temple tearing in two? You seem to think that the old covenant did not end until 70 AD. That is absolutely untrue. That would mean that the New Covenant didn't begin until then, which is obviously not true.

John146
Apr 24th 2007, 02:08 AM
Matthew 24 finds Jesus answering two questions.

Question 1)
When will the temple they are walking through and viewing be destroyed?

Matthew 24:1-3a "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be?"

AND

Question 2)
When will be the end of the world and your 2nd Coming?

Matthew 24:3b-14 "and

what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. "

Two questions are asked.
Jesus uses the entire chapter, and the next chapter, to answer the two questions.

He speaks on one question, then the other, etc...so it makes it difficult at times, to follow the venue change.

Two venues, however, match the two questions; and have two different sets of answers, one near-term and one end-of time.

Both
the hyper-preterist view (which places it all in 70 AD)
and
the hyper-futurist view (which places it all in 2007+ AD)
misunderstand the asking and answering of TWO QUESTIONS.

Try looking at it again, with this in mind and see what you may find differently.

I agree. In the parable of the tares in Matthew 13, Jesus had told them about His coming at the end of the age when He would send His angels to gather the wheat into His barn. What else could Matthew 24:30-31 be referring to? I believe it is clearly referring to the gathering of the elect at the harvest at the end of the age. There is no reason to think that the end of the age would be referring to one thing in Matthew 13 and another thing in Matthew 24. I believe the disciples knew full well that the end of the age of which they were asking about would occur at the time of the harvest when Christ would come and send the angels to separate the wheat (believers, the elect) from the tares(unbelievers).

I did a study on ages (Greek: aions) in the Bible and I have concluded that the Bible only speaks of this temporal old earth age and the eternal new earth age to come. Jesus spoke of this age and the age to come(Matthew 12:32, Luke 18:30, Luke 20:34-35) even before He confirmed the new covenant. He did not speak of the age to come as if it was the new covenant age. He was not speaking of this old covenant age and the new covenant age to come. He clearly was speaking in terms of the eternal new earth age when He spoke of the age to come. That is especially clear in Luke 20:34-35 when he talks about there being marriage in this age but no marriage in the eternal age following the resurrection of the dead.

Eric

Benaiah
Apr 24th 2007, 04:01 AM
I did a study on ages (Greek: aions) in the Bible and I have concluded that the Bible only speaks of this temporal old earth age and the eternal new earth age to come. Jesus spoke of this age and the age to come(Matthew 12:32, Luke 18:30, Luke 20:34-35) even before He confirmed the new covenant. He did not speak of the age to come as if it was the new covenant age. He was not speaking of this old covenant age and the new covenant age to come. He clearly was speaking in terms of the eternal new earth age when He spoke of the age to come. That is especially clear in Luke 20:34-35 when he talks about there being marriage in this age but no marriage in the eternal age following the resurrection of the dead.

if there is only the temporal age and the eternal age then in 1 Cor 10:11 you believe that Paul is sayiing that both the temporal age and the eternal age will end?

Co 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

StevenC
Apr 24th 2007, 04:25 AM
Mat 24:31-35 "And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. (33) So you, likewise, when you see all these things, shall know that it is near, at the doors. (34) Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled. (35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away."

Who is "this generation" referring to?

Is it the people Jesus is talking to, or is it the generation that will experience "all these things"?


As Jesus said, a wicked generation asks for a sign.

The answer is that the generation of wickedness shall not come to an end until His return.

-Steven

matthew94
Apr 24th 2007, 04:29 AM
Can you explain how it could be that Mark 13:31-32 is part of the Olivet Discourse and Matthew 24:35-36 is not?

I'm not saying that one is part of the discourse and the other is not. I'm more simply pointing out the reality that Matthew's account of the 'olivet discourse' is much longer. And instead of the common view that he was just being more thorough, I think he simply attached another discourse to the back end. Exactly where the transition is, I am unsettled about. I will need to think it through more. Thanks for the good probing questions!

StevenC
Apr 24th 2007, 04:30 AM
Compare this generation to the generation of the unrighteous.

Pr 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Pr 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
Pr 30:13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
Pr 30:14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

RogerW,

Good post. Its very clear that the generation that Jesus spoke of has not passed away.

-StevenC

possumliving
Apr 24th 2007, 07:25 AM
Mat 24:31-35 "And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. (33) So you, likewise, when you see all these things, shall know that it is near, at the doors. (34) Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled. (35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away."

Who is "this generation" referring to?

Is it the people Jesus is talking to, or is it the generation that will experience "all these things"?
The Churches are far from repenting. Our ministers declare that they are 'little gods'. They have not humbled themselves. They've abused the sheep. The sheep and the lay minsiters have left the churches in droves and we have for the first time in history a massive movement of the 'unchurched'.
But what else occurred in 1948, that I would believe this to be the End Times, and that this is the generation in which all these things shall come to pass?
In March of 1948, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the Constitution to have religious instruction in public schools.
The World Health Organization was established in April 1948 by the United Nations.
On May 14th, 1948 Israel is declared an independent state.
The beginning of the Cold War begins on June 24th, 1948
The World Council of Churches is established and the ecumenical movement begins in August, (The beginning of the One World Religion) 1948.
The United Nations General assembly adopts Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (The beginning of the One World Government this declaration is equal in spirit to our Declaration of Independence) in 19485.
And Jesus said in Matthew:
Truly I tell you, this generation (the whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period) will not pass away till all these things taken together take place. (Matthew 24:34)

The theologians have for many decades stated that 'a generation' was forty years. How they arrived at that conclusion alludes me, since most references (dictionaries and encyclopedias classify it as approx. 30 yrs.). I've searched the Bible again and again and I have never found it once stated that the span of a generation is forty years.
A generation is pretty much that length of time between when one group of people is born to the next being born. Remember though that the length of a generation has changed quit considerably since the creation of the world.
This is the book (the written record, the history) of the generations of the offspring of Adam. When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
2 He created them male and female and blessed them and named them [both] Adam [Man] at the time they were created.
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth. (Genesis 5:1-3)

Later on, I found a reference to generation that gives the same idea of the Matthew 24 passage.
Then Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. (Exodus 1:6)

So the reference to Joseph and his generation included he and his brothers, but were not limited to them. More along the lines of those that had lived around the same time. The sons of Jacob (renamed Israel) were the twelve tribes of Israel (the nation).
This is the history of the descendants of Jacob {and} this is Jacob's line. Joseph, when he was seventeen years old, was shepherding the flock with his brothers; the lad was with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father's [secondary] wives; and Joseph brought to his father a bad report of them.
3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children because he was the son of his old age, and he made him a [distinctive] long tunic with sleeves. (Genesis 37:2, 3)

Joseph was the second youngest. Benjamin was his younger brother. Benjamin wasn't even born until after his sister Dinah had been raped and her full brothers Simeon and Levi went and killed all the males of the city where she was being held, so we are talking about a broad period of time between the brother's ages.
I have found however, that the definition given above for generation is also repeated in the dictionary:
Generation-"also, the whole body of individuals born about the same general period."6

If I had to hazard a guess, there is a distinct generation among us, of which I am on the tail-end of, The Baby Boomer Generation. This generation has seen all these things prophesied about the End Times come to pass and if things keep going along at their rapid pace, I am certain that we shall see the fulfillment of every last prophecy.
Since I am on the tail-end of this generation and I am currently 46 years of age, I believe I will live to see the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord. When He separates out the chaff from the wheat. A strange phenomena began in 1993 and I have not looked up statistics to confirm it, but within the Church, we began to see a great number of the elderly Christians die off rapidly. That is just an observation on my part. The parents of the Baby Boomers were dying.
Another strange phenomena that took place at exactly the same time was a great number of people were being woken up by dreams of angels sounding trumpets, of angels appearing to people and telling them that 'a trumpet is about to be sounded'.
There are seven trumpets in Revelation alone. Whether what these angels warned of were those of Revelation or not, I am not quite sure; however, I do know that trumpets are sounded throughout God's Word to tell of an empending act of God or to warn God's people.
So all of these things were taking place about the same time I was called and confirmed to ministry. And what was my calling? It is two-fold. First, God told me that there were people praying and that He would bring people into my life that needed confirmed what He has spoken to their hearts. Most of this has to do with the End Times and the apostasy.
Secondly, He told me to watch over the little ones, those young in the faith, those that were still on the Milk of the Word. To teach them to seek God as if their lives depended upon it, to teach them to study the Word and learn to rely upon it, to teach them how to pray effectively and to warn them of the apostasy.
And I know, that my message is not for all of you. Some will reject it outright without ever praying about it or looking into it to see if there is any truth in it. Others will be too afraid to discover the truth, it might mean that you've been wrong about a few things and you can't bear the idea of that possibility because you are stiff-necked and stubborn.
Others of you will feel overwhelmed at the things I have written here and I am telling you now, it is not a time to lose your head to fear but to seek God and completely put your faith and trust in Him, Who alone is able to keep you.
You can either accept the facts of the matter and take the precious time we have left to strengthen your relationship with the Lord, or you can stick your head in the sand and be decieved. It's your choice, but let me remind you that those who stick their heads in the sand find themselves easy targets.
For those of you who have understanding, remember the admonition from Joel:
Tell your children of it, and let your children tell their children, and their children another generation. (Joel 1:3)

The Baby Boomer generation will have children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. Tell them the truth while there is time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2 "The Great US Flood of 1993"; by Lee W. Larson, Chief of the Hydrologic Research Laboratory. www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/floods/papers/oh_2/great.htm
3 "The Summer of 1993: Flooding in the Midwest and Drought in the Southeast"; by Neal Lott, Physical Scientist. http://ols.nndc.noaa.gov/plolstore/plsql/olstore.prodspecific?prodnum=C00487-PUB-A0001
4 "Beyond the Toronto Blessing and It's Offspring" by Brian Rensford. http://www.cephas-library.com/toronto/toronto_blessing_and_its_offsprings_2.html
5 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948
6The New Century Dictionary copyright 1927 by the Century Co.

Romulus
Apr 24th 2007, 01:28 PM
Romulus. You are still welcome to hold your own view. But I must be honest, your view does not make sense to me.



You say:



Where IN THE TEXT AT HAND (Matt 24), do you get the idea that this is about the ending of the Old Covenant? Mat 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come." This is clearly about the end of the world, not the end of the Old Covenant. Has the gospel been proclaimed IN ALL THE WORLD at 70ad?


According to scripture it was........



Colossians 1:5-6

5For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
6Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

Colossians 1:23

23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Romans 1:8

8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans 16:25-26

25Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began

26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:



I see the plain meaning as follows:

- Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and pestilences and earthquakes in different places.
- Many false prophets will rise and deceive many.
- This gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come.
- Then shall be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
- Unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved.
- False Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders.
- As the lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man
- Iimmediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
- The sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the heavens. And then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the heaven with power and great glory.
- God shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
- As the days of Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man.
- They did not know until the flood came and took them all away. So also will be the coming of the Son of Man.
- You do not know what hour your Lord comes.
- You also be ready, for in that hour you think not, the Son of Man comes.

None of the above has been fulfilled in 70ad!!

So, to answer your question, the plain meaning of the text is the SECOND COMING OF THE LORD JESUS.



The plain meaning must be taken into account with what the Old Testament says about God's judgement coming. The celestial language above never literally happened. The book of Isaiah is filled with similiar language on judgements against Babylon, Edom, etc. All of whom were judged and obliterated, history verifies this. All the above, famines, earthquakes and such all existed before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

The great tribulation as mentioned above in scripture was not a world wide event. If it was, why did Jesus state the following.....

Matthew 24

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Why is the warning if it was a world wide event given only to Judea? It was only given to Judea because the great tribulation was only in Jerusalem. It makes no sense to me why if this was worldwide that God would only warn the faithful in Judea and not the world. Jesus warned Judea because Israel was about to face a judgment, that they had never faced and would NEVER face again. Israel today was not guilty of the blood of the saints. Only 1st century covenant breaking Israel was.

Romulus
Apr 24th 2007, 01:45 PM
Wasn't the sign of the end of the old covenant Jesus's death on the cross and the veil of the temple tearing in two? You seem to think that the old covenant did not end until 70 AD. That is absolutely untrue. That would mean that the New Covenant didn't begin until then, which is obviously not true.

Very good question, one that I would like to answer but can't. That would delve into Full Preterism, which is not allowed.

matthew94
Apr 24th 2007, 01:54 PM
The Old Covenant did end with the cross and the tearing of the veil, but as long as the temple stood many people (even believers in Christ) didn't fully understand the implications. In other words, there was a transition period. Just like there was a transition period of 40 years before the Israelites entered the promised land and a transition period of 40 days before Jesus entered into full time ministry, God utilized a 40 year period between the cross and AD70 to transition His people into the New Covenant.

Benaiah
Apr 24th 2007, 02:02 PM
The Old Covenant did end with the cross and the tearing of the veil, but as long as the temple stood many people (even believers in Christ) didn't fully understand the implications. In other words, there was a transition period. Just like there was a transition period of 40 years before the Israelites entered the promised land and a transition period of 40 days before Jesus entered into full time ministry, God utilized a 40 year period between the cross and AD70 to transition His people into the New Covenant.

I agree, we see events from the OT mirrored in the NT only somewhat reversed. In the OT the rebellious generation was forced to wander outside the promised land for 40 years until the unbelievers died. in the NT God gave the unbelievers 40 years to repent, believe and enter in before destruction came upon the nation. in the OT on the first pentecost the law was given and 3000 rebels died. in the NT on pentecost the Spirit is given and 3000 rebels found life.

John146
Apr 24th 2007, 08:44 PM
if there is only the temporal age and the eternal age then in 1 Cor 10:11 you believe that Paul is sayiing that both the temporal age and the eternal age will end?

Co 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Of course I don't believe that Paul was saying that. Eternal = unending. Okay, let's say you've proven your point and that there is an Old Covenant age and a New Covenant age. What do you believe Jesus was referring to when He spoke of "this age and the age to come" in Matthew 12:32 and Luke 18:30? What about Luke 20:34-35 where He speaks of "this age" when people marry and "that age" when people will not marry? Regardless of how we look at it as far as two ages (temporal and eternal) or three ages (old covenant, new covenant, eternal) it appears that Jesus believed there would only ever be two more ages as of the time He spoke in those passages I brought up: the age He was living in (this age) and the eternal age (the age to come, that age). Since the age to come would not begin until His second coming, we have to conclude that "this age" that He referred to would not end until His second coming.

We can see that the phrases "end of the age" and "end of this age" are used interchangeably in Matthew 13:39-40. So, when the disciples asked about the end of the age they were asking about the end of "this age" that Jesus spoke about. The one that doesn't end until the eternal age to come begins. The parable of the wheat and the tares clearly refers to the time of His second coming when the angels gather the elect to Him and bundle the wicked to be burned by the flaming fire of vengeance that Christ will bring at His second coming (2 Thess 1:8). This gathering of the elect is spoken about in 1 Thess 4:13-17 and 2 Thess 2:1 as well. I see no reason to not directly tie those passages, which clearly speak of the second coming of Christ, together with Matthew 24:30-31.

ScottJohnson
Apr 25th 2007, 02:07 AM
Wasn't the sign of the end of the old covenant Jesus's death on the cross and the veil of the temple tearing in two? You seem to think that the old covenant did not end until 70 AD. That is absolutely untrue. That would mean that the New Covenant didn't begin until then, which is obviously not true.
Very good question, one that I would like to answer but can't. That would delve into Full Preterism, which is not allowed.

Not necessarily Romulus, the writer of Hebrews in chapter 8 makes it clear that there was a transition period between the Old and New Covenants. It wasn't an instant change over.

Heb 8:13 In the saying, New, He has made the first old. And the thing being made old and growing aged is near disappearing.

Yodas_Prodigy
Apr 25th 2007, 02:38 AM
Nope. It was the generation to whom Christ was speaking.

Yodas_Prodigy
Apr 25th 2007, 02:48 AM
As much as you typed, I would have hoped that you would have pointed out that every time the word "Generation" is used in the NT, it is speaking of that "Generation" being spoken to. Even Tommy Ice would agree with that except for the passage discussed. BTW, quite convenient on his part. Dispensationalism has to do some serious gymnastics to ignore this verse in its true context. Jesus was speaking to the generation of his time. Jesus uses pronouns like YOU instead of THEY and THEM. Jesus also tells the Disciples that he will come in judgment before they have a chance to go to all of the towns in Israel. Sounds like Jesus is speaking to the present generation hearing his words, not some future generation.

Benaiah
Apr 25th 2007, 03:33 AM
Of course I don't believe that Paul was saying that. Eternal = unending. Okay, let's say you've proven your point and that there is an Old Covenant age and a New Covenant age. What do you believe Jesus was referring to when He spoke of "this age and the age to come" in Matthew 12:32 and Luke 18:30?

Mat 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Who is going to be sining in the eternal state that they would need to be forgiven? I don't believe that scripture teaches sinning in eternity so why would Jesus warn anyone that committing this sin would not be forgiven then? and Jesus didnt say anyone who commit this sin in this life wont be forgiven in the next age, he didnt need to the jews didnt have any teachings of people having their sins forgiven after death. and besides Jesus said This age and the age to come. to me it is best understood that Jesus was saying that this sin would not be forgiven under the Old or the New covenant. and the messianic age, with the new covenant was the "age to come" in Jewish teaching.


Luk 18:30 "who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."

No this one certainly surprises me coming from you. how many times have you argued that under the New covenant those who believe have eternal life NOW? did you change your mind?


What about Luke 20:34-35 where He speaks of "this age" when people marry and "that age" when people will not marry?

The sadduccees asked him about the resurrection which we know takes place at the end of THIS age ( the one we are now in) notice Jesus does not say "the people of this age marry but in the age to come they won't." instead he says "the people in this age marry but in THAT age ( clearly being specific the age of the resurrection which he was asked about NOT the next age or the age to come.) why does Jesus do this?


We can see that the phrases "end of the age" and "end of this age" are used interchangeably in Matthew 13:39-40. So, when the disciples asked about the end of the age they were asking about the end of "this age" that Jesus spoke about. The one that doesn't end until the eternal age to come begins.

The Jews of Jesus time knew the temple then standing would eventually be destroyed. and that the messiah would build the third temple. Jesus words concerning the destruction of the temple would have to them meant that the messiah would soon then be revealed and build the third temple. and this belief is reflected in what they asked. the were not asking about the end of the world. they wanted to know when the temple would be destroyed and when Jesus would then be revealed and be king receivng the kingdom. Jewish teaching did not place the coming of the messiah, his rebuilding the temple, his ruling the nations and regathering Israel in the eternal state. the eternal state would come only AFTER messiah had done all these things. the end of the present age to them was the begining of the age of the messiah NOT the eternal state.

Yodas_Prodigy
Apr 25th 2007, 03:37 AM
So, who were you responding to?

Benaiah
Apr 25th 2007, 03:45 AM
So, who were you responding to?

John146 and I have a running debate on This age and the age to come.

Yodas_Prodigy
Apr 25th 2007, 03:47 AM
OK, I just followed the string from your post and it attaches to me. :)

John146
Apr 25th 2007, 05:00 AM
Mat 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Who is going to be sining in the eternal state that they would need to be forgiven? I don't believe that scripture teaches sinning in eternity so why would Jesus warn anyone that committing this sin would not be forgiven then? and Jesus didnt say anyone who commit this sin in this life wont be forgiven in the next age, he didnt need to the jews didnt have any teachings of people having their sins forgiven after death. and besides Jesus said This age and the age to come. to me it is best understood that Jesus was saying that this sin would not be forgiven under the Old or the New covenant. and the messianic age, with the new covenant was the "age to come" in Jewish teaching.

I believe He was saying that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this age and never would be for eternity.



No this one certainly surprises me coming from you. how many times have you argued that under the New covenant those who believe have eternal life NOW? did you change your mind?

It shouldn't surprise you. Eternal life is spoken of in Scripture in two ways. One way is the eternal spiritual life that we have now. Another is in terms of the eternal life we will inherit in our new bodies on the new earth. That is what I believe Luke 18:30 is speaking about. Daniel 12:2 says that at the resurrection of the dead some will be resurrected to everlasting life. It isn't that we don't already have everlasting life. It's that we have yet to experience the redemption of our bodies that gives us everlasting life in a completely immortal, incorruptible state.



The sadduccees asked him about the resurrection which we know takes place at the end of THIS age ( the one we are now in) notice Jesus does not say "the people of this age marry but in the age to come they won't." instead he says "the people in this age marry but in THAT age ( clearly being specific the age of the resurrection which he was asked about NOT the next age or the age to come.) why does Jesus do this?

He is contrasting this age, which He was in, with the eternal age. I believe this is no different than what He was doing in the other passages.



The Jews of Jesus time knew the temple then standing would eventually be destroyed. and that the messiah would build the third temple. Jesus words concerning the destruction of the temple would have to them meant that the messiah would soon then be revealed and build the third temple. and this belief is reflected in what they asked. the were not asking about the end of the world. they wanted to know when the temple would be destroyed and when Jesus would then be revealed and be king receivng the kingdom. Jewish teaching did not place the coming of the messiah, his rebuilding the temple, his ruling the nations and regathering Israel in the eternal state. the eternal state would come only AFTER messiah had done all these things. the end of the present age to them was the begining of the age of the messiah NOT the eternal state.

Jewish teaching? Why are you basing your interpretation of Scripture on Jewish teaching? I think that is a mistake. Jewish teaching led to Jesus rebuking the Jewish scribes and Pharisees. Instead of relying on Jewish teaching, we should let Scripture interpret Scripture. Matthew 13:39-40 and Matthew 13:49-50 tell us when the end of the age would be: when Christ sends the angels to separate the wheat from the tares as it says in one parable and the wicked from the just as it says in the other. That happens at His second coming.

Benaiah
Apr 25th 2007, 06:44 AM
Jewish teaching? Why are you basing your interpretation of Scripture on Jewish teaching? I think that is a mistake. Jewish teaching led to Jesus rebuking the Jewish scribes and Pharisees. Instead of relying on Jewish teaching, we should let Scripture interpret Scripture. Matthew 13:39-40 and Matthew 13:49-50 tell us when the end of the age would be: when Christ sends the angels to separate the wheat from the tares as it says in one parable and the wicked from the just as it says in the other. That happens at His second coming.

I dont base my interpretation of scripture on jewish teaching but I do base my understanding of WHAT the disciples were asking Jesus on what jewish though and teaching was. what do you base YOUR claim that they were asking about the end of the world on? a guess? a feeling? I can point to SCRIPTURE where the disciples asked Jesus questions about what they had been taught and Jesus affirmed that what they had been taught was correct. a good example being the disciples asking him why the scribes taught that elijah would come first. Jesus affirmed that the scribes were indeed correct, their error was in not recognizing john the baptist as the elijah who was to come. else where Jesus told his listeners

Mat 23:2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
Mat 23:3 "Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

it wasnt that they had the scriptures all wrong it was that they failed to see that Christ was the fulfillment of those scriptures. So If you think that what the disciples had been taught has no bearing on what they were asking, tell me, what do you base your claim on what they were asking on?

Romulus
Apr 25th 2007, 01:18 PM
Not necessarily Romulus, the writer of Hebrews in chapter 8 makes it clear that there was a transition period between the Old and New Covenants. It wasn't an instant change over.

Heb 8:13 In the saying, New, He has made the first old. And the thing being made old and growing aged is near disappearing.

Hi Scott, You are correct, many agree that a transitioning period did occur between the Old and New Covenant era. It was completed at the cross with this view and transitioned into the New Covenant era. I see it similiarly but as a process exactly as in the Old Covenant priesthood. It had its beginning at the cross, being completed in heaven itself and the revelation of it's completion in 70 A.D.

I didn't want to delve further because it would have involved a little dialogue into the Old Covenant. Anytime a discussion on when the Old Covenant was revealed as completed (which where it always ends up) full-preterists end up on the issue of the 2nd appearing and the resurrection of the dead. I did not want to overstep my boundaries by even beginning that dialogue.

I agree with you but I guess I can just leave out the end argument which is not allowed. Thanks for the correction

John146
Apr 25th 2007, 04:46 PM
I dont base my interpretation of scripture on jewish teaching but I do base my understanding of WHAT the disciples were asking Jesus on what jewish though and teaching was. what do you base YOUR claim that they were asking about the end of the world on? a guess? a feeling?

I base my interpretation on how Jesus would interpret a question on His coming and the end of the age regardless of what the disciples thought they were asking about or whether or not they thought that the destruction of the temple, His coming and the end of the age would all occur at the same time. It doesn't matter what they thought. It matters what Jesus knew. They were often wrong in their thinking until Jesus corrected them. Jesus was not going to answer their questions on their terms. Think of Acts 1:6. The disciples were asking if the Lord would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. Their understanding of His kingdom was erroneous. But He did not correct them as far as saying, "I will never do that because my kingdom is not of this world". He could have, but He didn't. He simply explained that His kingdom would come with the Holy Spirit coming upon them, obviously referring to the day of Pentecost. He didn't bother correcting their erroneous view of the kingdom and telling them it was wrong. Instead, He simply explained the correct view. I believe that is the same thing He did when answering their question about His coming and the end of the age.

Benaiah
Apr 25th 2007, 05:21 PM
I base my interpretation on how Jesus would interpret a question on His coming and the end of the age regardless of what the disciples thought they were asking about or whether or not they thought that the destruction of the temple, His coming and the end of the age would all occur at the same time. It doesn't matter what they thought. It matters what Jesus knew.

The problem I have with this view is that it reflects a view that Jesus was not a teacher nor was he answering the disciples questions so that they would understand. rather than explaining, he was simply making pronouncements.


They were often wrong in their thinking until Jesus corrected them. Jesus was not going to answer their questions on their terms. Think of Acts 1:6. The disciples were asking if the Lord would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. Their understanding of His kingdom was erroneous. But He did not correct them as far as saying, "I will never do that because my kingdom is not of this world". He could have, but He didn't.

The text there says that Jesus told them that this was not for them to know. but more to the point, why would Jesus say, "I will never do that because my kingdom is not of this world".? He was about to ascend to the father a the "son of man coming in the clouds of heaven to the ancient of days" to receive the Kingdom and dominion.

I see their question in acts 1:16 being of the same nature as their questions in the olivet discourse. "was Jesus going to be king now and receive the kingdom ushering in the messianic kingdom and age.

RogerW
Apr 25th 2007, 07:19 PM
GENERATION: Besides the common acceptance of this word, as signifying race, descent, lineage, it is used for the history and genealogy of a person, as in Ge 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam," that is, the history of Adam's creation and of his posterity. So in Ge 2:4, "The generations of the heavens and of the earth," that is, their genealogy, so to speak, the history of the creation of heaven and earth; also in Mt 1:1, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ," that is, the genealogy of Jesus Christ," that is, the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the history of his descent and life.

The line of decent or genealogy was made especially important by the facts that the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, that the priesthood was exclusively hereditary, that the royal succession of Judah lay in the Davidic house, that the division and occupation of the land was according to tribes, families and fathers' houses; and for the Davidic, at least, that the Messiah was to be of the house (linage, genealogy) of David. We find the fulfillment or completion of “this generation” with the birth of Christ.

Mt*1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

With this in mind we find that Scripture speaks literally of two specific generations in time. The generation(s) that culminates in the birth of the promised Messiah, and the generation(s) that exists until the fullness of time. When time is no more, Scripture no longer speaks in generations, but rather everlasting eternity, or forevermore.

In the Olivet discourse Christ is speaking to both of these generations, and refers to them as “this generation.” This is the only time in human history where both the generation(s) leading up to the birth of the promised Messiah, and the generation(s) that would continue until the fullness of time inhabited the earth at the same time. It was His birth, the cross, and resurrection that ushered in the new era or generation, not AD 70. Messiah coming, the cross, and resurrection fulfilled EVERY OT prophesy concerning Him. The age, era, generation that Christ established, ushered in, is the Kingdom age/era/generation. Scripture is clear on this, again and again we read that the “kingdom is at hand.” Christ Himself tells us that if He casts out demons in the power of the Holy Spirit then the Kingdom has come.

We fail to understand what Christ meant when He tells us the Kingdom is at hand. We often want to push this coming Kingdom into the far future, and view the Kingdom as belonging to the everlasting Kingdom of Heaven after the fullness of time. So we read passages of Scripture like Mt. 16:28 as though Christ is speaking of the Second Coming. But Christ is NOT speaking of His Second Coming in Judgment in this verse. He is saying that there are some standing there, listening to Him who will not die before they see; meaning to understand with the mind, to know, are convinced that the Kingdom has come in power.

Mt*16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Another oft misunderstood verse is Mt. 10:23. Without reading the verse in context it appears to teach the Second Coming in wrath and judgment. In context we read that Christ is sending His disciples unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, telling them to preach to them that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Christ warns His disciples that some of them will not receive them, and that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city. Then Christ says, “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” If Christ were referring to His Second Coming in wrath and Judgment would He have limited proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of heaven unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Doesn’t Christ tell us that the gospel MUST be preached unto all the world before He comes again? When Christ says they will not have gone over all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come, He is talking about His coming to usher in the kingdom. Christ is speaking about ushering in His Kingdom through the cross, and resurrection. This is what Christ is saying when He tells us the kingdom is at hand. Christ ushered in the era/age/generation of His Kingdom at His birth, and confirmed it at the cross and resurrection.

Mt*10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mt*10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mt*10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Mt*10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Mt*10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mt*10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Every time we read in the gospels and Revelation that the Kingdom is at hand it refers to the cross, and resurrection of Christ ushering in the Kingdom era/age/generation. (Mt. 3:2; 4:17: 10:7: 26:18,45,46; Mk 1:15; 14:42; Lu 21:30,31 Re 1:3; 22:10)

RW

davidturtledove
Apr 25th 2007, 08:27 PM
Mat 24:31-35 "And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree. When its branch is still tender and puts out leaves, you know that summer is near. (33) So you, likewise, when you see all these things, shall know that it is near, at the doors. (34) Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass until all these things are fulfilled. (35) The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My Words shall not pass away."

Who is "this generation" referring to?

Is it the people Jesus is talking to, or is it the generation that will experience "all these things"?

Hello Philip!
It is my strong belief that the Lord was referring to a wicked and adulterous generation when he mentions that this generation shall not pass until these things are fulfilled!

To this day mankind has continued in sin. I do not say this referring to those who found Christ through the glorious grace of his sacrifice but rather about those who are perishing. Their generation has continued on from the day the Lord spoke those words to this very day i write this through their descendants. The proof i offer of this is that mankind still sins and will continue to sin until the signs the Lord mentioned come to pass.

Shortly after those signs are completed then this wicked generation will pass and the King of Glory wlll return. I believe the Lord said this so that his servants might understand that they will have to endure for HIM while on the earth. Thus they would not expect the end to come immediately but know that certain things must come to pass first.

John146
Apr 26th 2007, 04:08 PM
The problem I have with this view is that it reflects a view that Jesus was not a teacher nor was he answering the disciples questions so that they would understand. rather than explaining, he was simply making pronouncements.

Do you think they understood what the Holy Spirit coming upon them meant before it actually happened?



The text there says that Jesus told them that this was not for them to know. but more to the point, why would Jesus say, "I will never do that because my kingdom is not of this world".? He was about to ascend to the father a the "son of man coming in the clouds of heaven to the ancient of days" to receive the Kingdom and dominion.

I see their question in acts 1:16 being of the same nature as their questions in the olivet discourse. "was Jesus going to be king now and receive the kingdom ushering in the messianic kingdom and age.

No, they were thinking that Jesus was going to restore an earthly kingdom to Israel and they were wrong in that regard. Rather than explain to them why their expectation of an earthly kingdom was wrong, He just explained how His kingdom was going to come upon them by the Holy Spirit.

Benaiah
Apr 26th 2007, 04:58 PM
Do you think they understood what the Holy Spirit coming upon them meant before it actually happened?

Eric,

The disciples had received the Holy Spirit BEFORE the day of Pentecost and BEFORE they asked that question.

Joh 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.


No, they were thinking that Jesus was going to restore an earthly kingdom to Israel and they were wrong in that regard. Rather than explain to them why their expectation of an earthly kingdom was wrong, He just explained how His kingdom was going to come upon them by the Holy Spirit.

what they were thinking ( and were entirely correct on) was that the Messiah (who they correctly saw as being Jesus) was to be the king of Israel and receive the kingdom and rule the nations. where they were wrong was in thinking that this required Jesus to ascend the throne of David in Jerusalem for this to be a reality.

John146
Apr 26th 2007, 05:08 PM
Eric,

The disciples had received the Holy Spirit BEFORE the day of Pentecost and BEFORE they asked that question.

Joh 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

I know that. But His kingdom came with power on the day of Pentecost. That is what I am referring to and that is how He answered their question about restoring the kingdom to Israel. It would not be restored as an earthly kingdom as they expected. His kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom that came in full power on the day of Pentecost so that the disciples could be "witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:8).



what they were thinking ( and were entirely correct on) was that the Messiah (who they correctly saw as being Jesus) was to be the king of Israel and receive the kingdom and rule the nations. where they were wrong was in thinking that this required Jesus to ascend the throne of David in Jerusalem for this to be a reality.

That's basically what I'm saying. So, you agree that they did not fully understand what they were talking about when they asked the question, right? That is my point. Jesus didn't correct them and tell them, "No, I will not be sitting on a throne on earth like you are expecting. He just explained that the kingdom would come in power when the Holy Spirit would come upon them in power. And that happened on the day of Pentecost.

Benaiah
Apr 26th 2007, 07:06 PM
That's basically what I'm saying. So, you agree that they did not fully understand what they were talking about when they asked the question, right? That is my point.

Eric,

I think they had a good grasp of what was to occur according to scriptures concerning the messiah and the kingdom. what they didn't understand then was the when and how it was going to be implemented.