This Generation

[Notrash]

I'll have to pass that sermon. It would take too long to get to the meat and potatoes.

It comes from a website that understands prophecies as fulfilled, thus it's likely a historically fulfilled perspective.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

It comes from a website that understands that prophecies to be fulfilled, thus it's likely a historically fulfilled perspective.

i've been deleloping an eschatological 'thesis' of my own, independant of anyone else, just the bible and me, and drawing from the ideas of notable's from history also.
So i have little time for any particular 'ist.. as in camp, or doctrine. Although as far as church teaching, i am most closely in agreement with SDA and Catholic, as far as eschatology goes. Or rather early Catholic, before the futurist/preterist thing came about.

 

[Notrash]

i've been deleloping an eschatological 'thesis' of my own, independant of anyone else, just the bible and me, and drawing from the ideas of notable's from history also.
So i have little time for any particular 'ist.. as in camp, or doctrine. Although as far as church teaching, i am most closely in agreement with SDA and Catholic, as far as eschatology goes. Or rather early Catholic, before the futurist/preterist thing came about.

Interesting; that is exactly how I came about to what is called the preterist (prophecy fulfilled) views. By reading the passages in their historical context as if I were an individual person or group of people to whom the prophecy, letter, book, or passage was written to and then looking at what occurred in history over the age.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Intersting; that is exaclty how I came about to what is called the preterist (prophecy fulfilled) views. By reading the passages in their historical context as if I were a person or group of people living in that day to whom the prophecy, letter, book, or passage was written to and then looking at what occured in history over the age.

If I have to define myself, I am a historicist, amillennialist, but I still think there are various events yet to happen, as outlined in Revelation, which is why I am not preterist (I think that is a reasonable view of preterism; that it is mostly happened), I go with the thinking that most has already happened.. I see Daniel as the book for the 70 weeks from the time of Daniel in the court of Nebuchadnezzar until the death of Christ.. with nothing show-horned in to any future gap-year. The last chapter in Daniel is about the end of the world. The prophesies in Joel, Ezekiel, which are used to support futurist, are in fact prophesies about possible happenings to historic Israel, whether they repent and turn back, or if not then the events happened as predicted. I was reading about Ezekiel 38-39 and how that is listed in the book of Ester, as a real event which involved the Persian empire being defeated by Israel at one time.. I need to check that out in detail.
My eschatological ‘thesis’ is that Revelation is a true and reliable prophesy, given to Christians to elucidate on the events which will unfold until the return of Christ, and the close of history. So by examining Revelation in detail, we should be able to sort out the truth about history and future events. So by taking only Revelation and looking only at that book, and then cross-referencing to the rest of the bible, that is the way to go, I think.
My belief at the moment is that the futurists got it wrong, they constructed an elaborate future scenario, which they thought was correct, because they were trying to scan through the whole bible, without any investigation about if it was historical or future, or both, or what. This to me is most obvious with the splitting of the book of Daniel, into 69+1 weeks.. I see no justification to do that.. it doesn’t say anywhere to do it. Another thing is the use of Ezekiel 38-39 to construct a future war involving Russia and the State of Israel, yet ignoring all the wording that is illustrating an ancient battle; I can’t see any way that that works out. And the reality of it doesn’t play out either. And it isn’t in the book of Revelation at all. I am going through each chapter one by one now, and examining what it is about, each chapter.
There seems to be a large consensus on all this, out there in various documents, written by many people. I wonder if the futurist interpretation is just a minority view in fact, and is not the long running viewpoint of biblical scholars.
I read many years ago in a book about this, that the 200,000,000 soldier army, was China, and the Euphrates river literally dried up to allow this Chinese army to cross over. Now looking at the chapter for myself, I can see that the army was in fact the Ottomans, and that the Euphrates River is only a symbol, for the Ottomans. The Euphrates River drying up is a symbol, for the source of that Islam drying up, the source of its power.

 

[Notrash]

Thanks for the synopsis;
I had gone through a period of historicist viewpoint which was a bridge to preterist. The date of Revelations writing has a significant impact on viewing it and it's interpretation. Weather it is progressively fulfilled and/or fulfilled in the things that had to then at that time (68 AD) very shortly come to pass.

A couple issues that I see pertinent to Revelation.
The very central theme of the time period is the end and closure of the shadow old national conditional covenant given to moses and the revealing of the reality of the unconditional Everlasting covenant of mercy (the covenant confirmed by Christ in the midst of the week).

spare the oil and the wine could refer to how John the apostle was called the beloved (wine) and how he did not boil in the oil of his attempted murder/killing.

there is a place that talks of the price of wheat and barley and the prices given are almost opposite of their traditional prices of that day. This could have been due to how the sects inside national Israel fought against one another and burned the wheat storage.

On and on we could go, but the evidence that Revelations addresses and forecasts events in and around Judea at the time of the old covenants close is equal to or greater than that evidence which suggests that there is a supposed end of the world that is talked about.

I think there are other views of Dan 12 which would again point towards the end of the old covenant vs the end of the 'world'.

My eschatological ‘thesis’ is that Revelation is a true and reliable prophesy, given to Christians to elucidate on the events which will unfold until the return of Christ, and the close of history. So by examining Revelation in detail, we should be able to sort out the truth about history and future events.

I dont' presume that there is a close on history. There is a close on each persons life at the end of their days in which they give account and reap what is sewn in the Spirit (I Cor 15).

I view based on Christ teaching of who the Holy Spirit Is in John 14-16 and elsewhere that Christ has not left and therefore does not need to "return" to set up his kingdom. Paul confirms this teaching in Romans 10.

6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above

7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8But what saith it? The word (Christ)is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

The spiritual laws of the kingdom of God and the individual everlasting covenant of mercy and life (called the 'new' covenant by contrasting against the old covenant Israel) have been empowered and finalized at the cross and are enforced from the Creator. Dan 7:27 is history passed and refers to the time after Nero and the Judaizers/talmudists tried to stamp out the followers of the Way of redeemed life of the Creator.

I also view that there WAS at least ONE return of Christ as He promised to come to close the old covenant. The kingdom that he established in power when he did return through the minds of the leaders of the enemies (Deut 32:42) remains in power if we seek it. It is politically (by choice) recognized/respected as well as Creator empowered and established. He brought wrath upon the shadow old covenant and what had become a false religion in Jerusalem aka Egypt/Sodom/Babylon even being compared with the old world destroyed by flood. Have your read Duet 32? Read in the NKJV. Duet 29-32 was the progressive history of the nation of Israel including the Babylonian captivity, their return in Chapter 30, God himself teaching their hearts as Immanual.. God with us...came in flesh and incarnate also in chapter 30. After which many still would not believe (Duet 30/31) and understand but would persist in their attitudes of corporal superioritiy/false religion...resulting in the 'latter end' of their days and the latter end of the old covenant as prophesied in Duet 32.

I veiew that Rev 21 is the present time application for those who are called by his name to live in.

The very most important issue is that an individual comes to grips with and finds an answer for his/her mortality (eventual or near death) in light of of the magnificence and Love evident in the grandeur of LIFE and in the creation. This contrast demands a remedy and an answer. The creator himself is that remedy by taking the penalty of the law of sin and death upon himself thereby canceling it for those who believe. Individually calling upon the Person/Character of the Creator and receiving his Eternal Spirit unconditionally through faith begins the process of learning and living without fear of punishment or condemnation or being compelled to a performance other than steps/walk of faith. It is with that reformed inner spirit and through that one to one relationship that the writings and literature of the Bible can be understood.

I dont' believe there is any Santa Clause principles in doctrines of life or of a return of Christ. Do good, join and keep a 'christian' church membership, so that if/when Christ returns, you'll be counted with him and will rule with him in some future 'kingdom'. These concepts are destined to fail with use just as the old covenant law was. Not saying that 'doing good' or church membership is erroneous on it's own, but they do not obtain a Santa Clause visit who gives gifts to some and sticks to others. As some are noted to say... it doesn't give a Santa Clause.

Nice interacting with you... sometimes this stuff gets very heady though.
Feel like riding a xrcise bike or working on/fixing something now and then.

Glad you seeing that prophecies given to the old covenant nation had fulfillment during their old covenant nations existence.

 

[Notrash]

This is a bump.
I had asked:

Again, which of all these things were not fulfilled by the events up to and around 66-73 AD?

Since there was no conclusive agreement or further discussion on the answer to this question or any acknowledgment that they were fulfilled,
the question is stated again...

Which of 'all these things' were not fulfilled during the first century with the Olivet discourse thus referring to the end of the old conditional land/nation covenant.?

Before answering, please read Adam Clarkes commentary which lists the first century fulfillments and also read how Christ made an association about the sun, moon, stars, fire and smoke with similar literary expressions that were written about the Babylonian desolation.

For those reading this: this is important; Your life is Important.

Which of 'all these things" were not done before and during the final end of the old covenant age in the first century AD.??
Here are their fulfillments.

Adam Clarke

Note: I dont' agree with every comment Clarke has on this page, but the fulfillment of the signs is historically and categorically confirmed.

Pestilence, Famine, false prophets in Israel,(as the Holy Spirit was leaving the temple and nation) Signs and wonders, False Christs, The fig AND ALL THE TREES (other nations) pushing their leaves against Rome; etc etc..
All fulfilled.

Sun, moon not giving their light; stars was symbolic language given in Isaiah

See, the day of the LORD is coming—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty, in the day of his burning anger (Isaiah 13:9, 10, 13).
​

Yet, this is not the second coming of Christ, nor were any of these signs literally fulfilled in 539; this is simply an apocalyptic way of referring to the eclipse of Babylonian power by the Medes and Persians: See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah (Isaiah 13:17-19).

Jesus used the verses that the jewish disciples would have associated with the ending of Babylon as he talked with them about the first century "latter end" of the conditional land/nation covenant of Duet 11-32. He did something like this earlier in the Olivet when he spoke of the greatness of tribulation that would never be surpassed. Daniel had used similar words to describe the earlier desolation of Jerusalem by the babylonians saying "for under the whole heaven such has never been done as what has been done to Jerusalem". Dan 9.
In like manner, Jesus was associating the language of Daniels statements about the babylonian desolation with Jeruslem so that the disciples would recognize that the 66-73 desolation and seige was going to be similar and even worse tribulation.

If/when one sees and understands that the Creation and the Creator is still GOOD; and the man still retains the image of the Creator AND most importantly, that the olivet discourse was talking about the end of 'that' world... the end of the old covenant age of religion and the temporary pattern and shadow 'religion' of the jews that was given to Moses as a service to all peoples and nations and which confirmed the reality of the "NEW" Everlasting Covenant of Mercy of the Creator for all peoples, then one can begin to ask the Spirit about the fulfillment of the things Christ spoke about.

The 'end' mentioned in Daniel, the Olivet and other places was the "latter end" of the old covenant which was prophecied and promised (Duet 32) when the OC was spoken (Duet 11-32). It had (as prophesied) become a counterfeit religion in itself, just like Babylonian snake religion and the tower of Babel was a false religion. "Babylon" ....Jerusalem.... has fallen.... fallen... just as the wicked witch of the west.

The principles and laws established and upheld by these eternal statutes remain and are upheld by Heaven, but the specific events spoken by Jesus were I believe to that Generation. The dominion of the kingdom of heaven was delivered and established (just as prophesied in Dan 7:27) to those who look to faith in Gods substitution work on the Cross for all in mankind who believe.

In Mark 9, when talking about the establishment of the kingdom of God and talking about his coming in glory, he clarifies 'this generation'...
So when did Christ come with glory..and the kingdom of God present with power?? Could it be as he the Creator first gave premonition in the glory of the cloud formations before he would come "through the minds of the leaders of the enemies" that was prophesied to happen at the end of the old covenant in Deut 32:42??


A question to ask yourself would be how you read these passages.

Do you read the Olivet and other scriptures as some coded words written to you yourself or to our generation to be interpreted; OR do you read them first as an actual historical record of actual conversations and teachings that Christ had with and to historical people of his day and the age that they lived in and which were recorded to be read by other contemporary peoples (as well as observed by us).

If Christ was referring to some future end of world generation, would he not have used the word "that" rather than "this". Would he not have said the generation who sees these signs will not pass....
Would he have emphasised this point?

Again, which of all these things were not fulfilled by the events up to and around 66-73 AD?

 

[freeport]

Help me understand the verse that says This generation will not pass away before Jesus returns. How does the Greek roughly translate to our modern language as I have always struggled with this.

I know we are not to know the day or the hour, but notice we could know the season, the generation, year or even month then. Maybe

Hey sis.

This means God would raise up the wicked of that generation that put Jesus to death with the first generation, so they would bend their knee and admit Jesus is Lord.

Hope that helps!

Your brother and brother in Christ,


W & D

 

[gracechick]

Interesting Freeprt so simple, but I see what you're saying. Then again the Kingdom of God is simple enough for a child to understand.

 

[AngelusSax]

Help me understand the verse that says This generation will not pass away before Jesus returns. How does the Greek roughly translate to our modern language as I have always struggled with this.

I know we are not to know the day or the hour, but notice we could know the season, the generation, year or even month then. Maybe

Just last year, I did the One-Year-Bible using the New Living Translation (because it was free from my church and because it's a different translation than I usually use). Anyway, when it got time to read this passage, there was a footnote for the word generation in this particular verse. According to the translators of this edition, the word translated for "generation" could also mean "race".

Now this is a rather bif if, but IF it did mean race, then that would put a whole new slant on our understanding, and actually, in my mind, make it easier to understand. Not saying it does mean that, because I don't know Greek. But the possibility has been put out there.

 

[freeport]

Help me understand the verse that says This generation will not pass away before Jesus returns. How does the Greek roughly translate to our modern language as I have always struggled with this.

I know we are not to know the day or the hour, but notice we could know the season, the generation, year or even month then. Maybe

It means they are going to be raised up for judgment: in a very particular and horrible way.

Jesus said, 'thou you die if you believe in me, you will live'. They did not believe, but they will face judgment.

 

[Notrash]

Just last year, I did the One-Year-Bible using the New Living Translation (because it was free from my church and because it's a different translation than I usually use). Anyway, when it got time to read this passage, there was a footnote for the word generation in this particular verse. According to the translators of this edition, the word translated for "generation" could also mean "race".

Now this is a rather bif if, but IF it did mean race, then that would put a whole new slant on our understanding, and actually, in my mind, make it easier to understand. Not saying it does mean that, because I don't know Greek. But the possibility has been put out there.

Rather than trusting some commentators who may or may not have a particular perspective to push, use blue letter bible (dot) com and do you own evaluation.

Genea is the word used for (this) generation.
Genos is the word usually used for the word 'race', kind, or nation.
The phrase 'this generation' is used 14 times in the NT and each time it refers to those living within the 40 yrs during the time of Christ.

 

[Notrash]

Again the question is asked (particularly to Zadok, vinsight, Jen or others who may wish to comment)

Which single item of the things listed in 'all these things" did not come come to pass during that generation of the next 40 yrs after Jesus spoke the words??

Again read Adam Clarke's commentary http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1810_clarke_commentary.html and the verses in Isaiah that Jesus associated his comments about Sun, moon and stars darkening to before answering.


Sun, moon not giving their light; stars was symbolic language given in Isaiah

See, the day of the LORD is coming—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty, in the day of his burning anger (Isaiah 13:9, 10, 13).
​

Yet, this is not the second coming of Christ, nor were any of these signs literally fulfilled in 539; this is simply an apocalyptic way of referring to the eclipse of Babylonian power by the Medes and Persians: See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah (Isaiah 13:17-19).



​

Jesus used apocolyptic language that the jewish disciples would have associated with the desolation of the Babylonian captivity as he talked with them about the coming second desolation of Jerusalem in 66-73 AD and the "latter end" of the conditional land/nation covenant of Duet 11-32.

 

[Zadok7000]

Quite simply, the day of vengeance/day of the Lord was not for that time. He closed the book. Adam Clarke is simply wrong. I find it a waste of time to debate any type of preterism.

 

[AngelusSax]

Rather than trusting some commentators who may or may not have a particular perspective to push, use blue letter bible (dot) com and do you own evaluation.

Genea is the word used for (this) generation.
Genos is the word usually used for the word 'race', kind, or nation.
The phrase 'this generation' is used 14 times in the NT and each time it refers to those living within the 40 yrs during the time of Christ.

Well, like I said, that was a footnote. They chose "generation" as the most likely translation and that is how it reads without footnotes. I just thought it was interesting. (I usually do not read NLT anyway, but once in a while it's good to get out of the "rut" of the same translation over and over).

 

[HarrisonS]

...Again read Adam Clarke's commentary Adam Clarke : Commentary on the Whole Bible (1832) Free Online Books @ PreteristArchive.com, The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism and Preterist Eschatology and the verses in Isaiah that Jesus associated his comments about Sun, moon and stars darkening to before answering....

I would not quote any of Adam Clarke's writings, even when he happens to be right. He was a Methodist of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, of the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition. As such, his soteriology, anthropology and eschatology were all dismal.

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Document (constitution) was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

I completely agree with this principle also. If preterists applied this principle themselves, rather than giving it mere lip service, they would not be preterists!

 

[Notrash]

I would not quote any of Adam Clarke's writings, even when he happens to be right.

Adam Clarke is an example of the many who have listed the fullfillments of the Olivet discouse in the first century. There are few writers who are "right" in ever instance in which they write about. To follow your principle would limit your quotes to Jesus and the apostles. I disagree with his perspective of Romans 11 already, but his itemized list of the first century fulfillment of the olivet are rational and reasonable.

I completely agree with this principle also. If preterists applied this principle themselves, rather than giving it mere lip service, they would not be preterists!

I find the opposite to be true. Take for example the Olivet. Is it a relatively historically acurate conversation that Christ had with those people as they left the temple and then later while sitting on Mt of Olives?
If yes, then when Christ said 'you' why do we interpret it as if he said 'they'? The disciples would have been aware that they were living in the last generation of the old covenant as prophesied in Duet 32. They were aware that the kingdom of the Creator/God was available to them. The disciples would have been aware from the many proclaimations of Christ that the leaders of Judaism and the teachings of the Talmud, the Pharisees and the others were not accurate. All these things play a part of the historical conversational contexts of Christ's teachings.

Thus we carry ourselves back to the time where the old land/nation conditional covenant was in the last leg of it's purposes and which was ready to be supplanted and and who's anti-types would by fulfilled by the activities of the new (to individual israelites) everlasting covenant of Life.

Likewise, understanding the historical intercovenantal context of Romans gives specific insight into the middle chapters 9-11 of Romans. Noticing that Paul quotes from duet 32 in chapter 10 verse 19 and that Duet 32 is the ending of the old covenant chapter gives a new perspective to what he is talking about when he talks about part of remaining Israel being made 'jealous' by those who are not (were not) a people..... I.E.. a 'nation'. It also offers insight into what is meant by 'until the FULLNESS of the nations be coming in.....

 

[Notrash]

Quite simply, the day of vengeance/day of the Lord was not for that time. He closed the book. Adam Clarke is simply wrong. I find it a waste of time to debate any type of preterism.

You make a statement upon which you base your perspective upon.
What if you were wrong in your statement and "a" day of vengeance and wrath was when Jerusalem was destroyed by Christ through the minds of the leaders of the enemies exactly as prophesied in Duet 32:42. Judaism had become the extension of the babylonian snake religion. They were a brood of Vipers... etc.. etc.

Along with talmudic judaism, Christ judged the way which seems right unto man, i.e. the way of seeking blessings and acceptance based on conditionally keeping a law, and reaffirmed, blessed and established forever the way of Life by faith.

To maintain that a day of vengeance remains against all mankind and all the earth ignores that God called the Creation GOOD and that Christ finished the work that he was to accomplish in the lifespan of his fleshly incarnation. Jesus answered the man calling him 'good master' saying when you call me good, you call me God, for only God is good."..
As long as the sun rises and the days and seasons continue, the "seed" of Israel....those of a like kind of individual as Israel was who's life was gradually transformed through his encouter with God. i.e. son's of God through faith in Christ the Creator would not cease from the earth. Jer 31.

Very clearly, "A" day of veangeance and wrath indeed came upon that generation and those Spiritual principles which judaism had become. Judgment between those two ways was made and "SAT" when the favor of the kingdom of all heaven was given to the Saints of the most High when the neronic persecution ended and they escaped through faith out of Judea and to the east side of the Jordan. (Dan 7:26)

Your comments reflect that you likely did not read Clarkes comments.

And they further reflect that you would say that Isaiahs prophecy in chapter 13 would also refer to the end of the world because they have not literally happened yet.. even though the very texts of Isaiah indicate that it was referring to how the Medes and Persians were to overthrow the Babylonians to release the Israelites from Babylonian captivity.

So ALSO Christ was using that example to express to his hearers at that time that the Romans would come to overthrow judaism and release the Saints from the oppression and captivity that Judaism (Babylon) and the old conditional/national covenant had become.

Rather than pigeonhole preterist/futurist/historist perspectives, why not simply deal with the texts.

 

[Notrash]

Quite simply, the day of vengeance/day of the Lord was not for that time. He closed the book.

I understand that your referring to Jesus' reading from Isaiah 61 after coming from his baptism.

Was he supposed to read the whole chapter? Was he supposed to read the whole book of Isaiah?

As your read the portion that he DID read, the Hebrew parallelism jumps out at you. And the two parallel sides are joined an inseparable.

1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me

To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,

To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;


2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
And the day of vengeance of our God;

If there is a reason that he stopped, it was due to them being in exactly at that time but before the actual wrath and 'day of vengeance". But the day of vengeance would come upon those of his own who forsook their rock (duet 32). He may have stopped for effect also. That would be to cause those listening to focus and be aware of the missing words which they would have likely been expecting to hear.

The two parts of the parallel are inseparably just as the 2 parts of the previous stanza are inseperable. Proclaiming liberty to the captives is the same as opening the prison to those who are bound. Proclaiming the acceptable year of the Lord (God incarnate) is the same as the day of vengeance against those who refuse his Love. Jesus said, for 'judgment' .. i.e. seperation he came into the world. The day of vengeance, judgment and wrath went along with the acceptable day of the Lord..

The following verses then would apply to those who lived through the Roman desolation and the destruction of the temple and the old covenant and it's temple worship. Beauty of the rebuilding of the inward temple of the Holy Spirit of the Creator in place of the ashes of the temple. The spirit of heaviness would be turned to praise as the inter-national nation of God the redeemer was 'born' in freedom, favor (Dan 7:26) and blessing from God.


To comfort all who mourn,
3 To console those who mourn in Zion,


To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;


That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.”


4 And they shall rebuild the old ruins,
They shall raise up the former desolations,
And they shall repair the ruined cities,
The desolations of many generations.

This can be referring to 2 elements. The surviving Christians (the meek) inherited the land after the desolations were over. They rebuilt the old cities etc. But it can also refer to how they rebuilt the cities of individual lives of people of all nations who's former cities/lives were destroyed by the advancements of the old covenant people beginning under Joshua.

Barnabus, in 75 AD wrote:

(On the Temple of God in the Last Days {of the old covenant})
"Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple, how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made them, as being a house of God. . . . So it cometh to pass; for because they went to war it was pulled down by their enemies. . . .
Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed. For the scripture saith; and it shall be in the last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the fold and the tower thereof to destruction. And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. " (Barnabas 16:3-4)


"Moreover, He again says, 'Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again.' It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now, they, (romans of all nations) as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it...


Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. (In 75 AD) There is - where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, 'And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.'


I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord... Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, namely this, when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eight day, that is, a beginning of another world." (Epistle of Barnabus)

5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
And the sons of the foreigner
Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But you shall be named the priests of the LORD,
They shall call you the servants of our God.
You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
And in their glory you shall boast.


7 Instead of your shame (Isiah 66:5you shall have double honor,
And instead of confusion (66:4) they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.


8 “ For I, the LORD, love justice;
I hate robbery for burnt offering;
I will direct their work in truth,
And will make with them an everlasting covenant.

9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.
All who see them shall acknowledge them,
That they are the posterity whom the LORD has blessed.”
10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD,
My soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,
As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
So the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.


The righteousness is due to the righteosness by faith of recieving the everlasting covenant.

The acceptable year of the incarnation of God is vengeance (naturally inherent and evident in the mortality of man) upon those systems, religions and individuals who reject and do not acknowledge the goodness, redemption and Love of the Creator.

 

[Covenant Heart]

Even Though It Says 'This Generation,'

It really means 'that' generation. This is that, not this--if you take my meaning. Even though Jesus in Mt 24:34 said 'this,' he didn't mean this. He meant 'that' (future) generation, which he called 'this' generation, with that (future) generation.

OK, I'll quit being stupid (for the moment, anyway). Here is the deal:

'Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation' (Mt 23:36).


'Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place' (Mt 24:34).

The point?

These texts are virtually identical in form and in what they affirm.

This means that the entire passage forms a single, literary unit.

Consequently, whatever Mt 23:36 means, so does Mt 24:34.

Blessings!

Covenant Heart

 

[HarrisonS]

Genea is the word used for (this) generation.
Genos is the word usually used for the word 'race', kind, or nation.
The phrase 'this generation' is used 14 times in the NT and each time it refers to those living within the 40 yrs during the time of Christ.

The Greek word genea in and of itself does not carry the implication of “this generation”, but simply means “generation”. The phrase ‘h genea ‘auth does have that meaning. But perhaps you did not intend to imply that, so I will give you the benefit of a doubt.

However, your statement that “each time [this generation] refers to those living within the 40 yrs during the time of Christ” is simply based on assumptions that you are trying to prove and is therefore circular reasoning. Also I can cite one clear exception to your statement we can all agree upon in Heb. 3:10, dio proswcqisa th genea tauth wherefore I was provoked with this generation. (some translations incorrectly render this incorrectly as that generation.) Clearly this example refers to the generation living during the exodus out of Egypt. As always, we must follow sound hermeneutical principles and allow the immediate context to determine which generation is meant.

If yes, then when Christ said 'you' why do we interpret it as if he said 'they'? The disciples would have been aware that they were living in the last generation of the old covenant as prophesied in Duet 32. They were aware that the kingdom of the Creator/God was available to them. The disciples would have been aware from the many proclaimations of Christ that the leaders of Judaism and the teachings of the Talmud, the Pharisees and the others were not accurate. All these things play a part of the historical conversational contexts of Christ's teachings.

Thus we carry ourselves back to the time where the old land/nation conditional covenant was in the last leg of it's purposes and which was ready to be supplanted and and who's anti-types would by fulfilled by the activities of the new (to individual israelites) everlasting covenant of Life.

The use of the second personal pronoun “you” when addressing a people as a whole, was a common rhetorical and literary device used throughout the Hebrew Old Testament. In fact, the entire book of Deuteronomy uses the second person when addressing the people as a whole, even though much of what was said could not possibly apply to the individuals Moses was addressing. See for example Deut. 30:1:

Deuteronomy 30:1:

1 ¶ And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,

Here Moses is referring to a regathering of Israel, following a scattering among the
Gentile nations, an event that lay many centuries in the future. Thus the second
personal pronoun could not possibly refer to Moses’ cotemporaries.

As a second example, consider Ezek. 36:22-28 which refers to the future New Covenant and is parallel to Jer 31:31-34:

Ezekiel 36:22-28:

22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25 ¶ Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

There is therefore no reason whatsoever to suppose that the use of the second person pronoun “you” must be restricted to the individuals in the original audience of the Olivet Discourse. This was the normal rhetorical style used to address a people of whom the immediate audience was merely a subset. Also there is no reason to imagine that the disciples took it any other way.

Note also that this passage, which depicts Israel under the New Covenant also includes their dwelling in the land (verse 28). God promised this land to Abraham and his descendants \lwu du forever (Gen. 13:14,15). It is a mistake to suppose that there was just one “Old Covenant” which somehow encompassed everything in the Old Testament. There were several covenants made, and generally, when the New Testament refers to the “old covenant”, also termed “the law” it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant, and it is only that covenant that was superseded and invalidated by the New Covenant (Heb. 8:13). God made many unconditional promises in other covenants to the patriarchs and to Israel. They must be literally fulfilled (See for example, Gal. 3:17,18); they cannot be somehow “spiritualized” away! We must always keep in mind that we should interpret Scripture passages within their historical context, and understand their meaning just as they would have been understood by the writers and their contemporary audiences, and here, that means literally. In other words, “let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Document…was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested…instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text…”