This Generation

Notrash · Aug 14, 2009

HarrisonS said:
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:

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.

Click to expand...

This is possibly a good point. But your example of "you" in Duet was explained openly to be fulfilled in a future time through those peoples descendants: Read 29:12-14ff.

14 “I make this covenant and this oath, not with you alone, 15 but with him who stands here with us today before the LORD our God, as well as with him who is not here with us today 16 (for you know that we dwelt in the land of Egypt and that we came through the nations which you passed by,

Click to expand...

It is the latter part of chapter 29 which also talks of the failure of the future generation which led to the Babylonian desolations and captivity.

But here is where futurists project the regathering of chapter 30 to the time of the 1900's where history and Daniel's confession in Chapter 9 shows that Moses was prophesying about the Babylonian captivity in Chapter 28-29 and then the regathering after the Mede/Persian conquest of Babylon in chapter 30. Daniels prayer in chapter 9 confirms this. Later in chapter 31, it's said that even after being restored to the land and be given an everlasting covenant, some of the people would yet continue in rebellion. This leads to chapter 32 which talks of the "latter end" of the old covenant nation and people, the end of the temple sacrificial system and worship which would have been through the Roman invasion and desolation.

Read 30:1-4 and then read Daneils prayer in Chapter 9. It is obvious that Daniel has Duet 29 and 30 in his mind when he is making his confession that Duet 30 describes as necessary to initiate the release from captivity. It is obvious also to me that Daniel has 2 peoples and 2 covenants in mind as he continues in Chapter 9. There are the people of the everlasting covenant of Mercy, and the national "old" covenant people who need to return to the land in order to accomplish the remainder of the old covenant prophecies. Recall also that Daniel, Ezekiel and others were prophesying from within the Babylonian captivity and before the decree of Cyrus. Thus they were not restored to the land as of that time.

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:

Click to expand...

Good verses, but they also apply to when Israel would return to the land after the Babylonian captivity and many, many believed on the Messiah and the everlasting covenant and believe in/call upon His name as God incarnate.
Read Duet 30 where it says that God will teach them and circumcise their heart.

Then John 6:45;

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Click to expand...

And again take note of Pauls argument that the circumcison of the flesh no longer counts for anything because the time for the circumcision of the Heart has arrived. Has your heart been circumcised by His Love and Knowledge of His Person?
Remember the speach that got Stephen stoned.... oh ye men uncircumcised in heart....
The time of the incarnation, (God in flesh) to be taught of God himself (in flesh) and circumcision of heart through justification by faith was upon them and the time of teaching by God is still upon and available to mankind forever through the Spirit.

The new covenant is individual, not corporal (Jer:31) With that individual aspect the old national corporal covenant fullfilled it's purpose and passed away from 30-70 AD. There is no foundation in Heaven laws upon which a national entity can claim to be old covenant "Israel".

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think there is. Aside from the fact that a future generation or distant fulfillment is never mentioned, Jesus was responding directly to a question that the disciples asked. He described the desolation of the temple, the roman armies circling Jerusalem, and other events that all happened in that generation and especially within the next 30-40 yrs. So, in addition to the fact that "all those things" were referring to things that happened during the next 40 yrs, there is plenty of reason to 'suppose' that 'you' was referring to those to whom he was conversing with. This concept was even emphasised several times by Jesus statement that some standing here would not die before seeing the kingdom of God established with power. And all these things would happen to "this generation".

Thayers lexicon openly admits that translators have mistranslated aeon as "world" rather than "age". And they acknowledge that a great damage has been perpetuated over the ages. They even wonder themselves if it was sinister and intentional or if it was simply a perpetuation of a mistake. The disciples were asking, when the temple would be destroyed, when would be the end of the old covenant age, and what would be the signs of his coming to do this. (so that they could be prepared) "All these things" happened so that people in that generation could be watchful to escape from under the religiousl oppression of Babylon/Judaism.

Remember also the New Covenant is and individualized covenant while the old covenant was a national covenant. So the 'you' of Duet 30 would more easily pertain to the lifespan of the nation and the people of the old conditional covenant.

If history would not record that all those things had occurred, then we would have no question that "PERHAPS" he could have been using second person plural. I'm no Greek gramatacist, but It wonders me if there is a difference in Greek of first and second person plural. In Spanish it is easy to understand and see that difference, but in English it is not so easy.

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.

Click to expand...

There are a few indicators that the disciples took it that way. One that comes to mind was when Paul was talking to Felix or Festus he taught including the calamities to come. It was then that the governor stopped hearing him in fear. There are other examples such as Romans 10 (sodom and Gomorrah) Romans 15 (will soon crush satan under your feet) Hebrews which talks of them seeing the day approaching and to not fall back to judaism of the law and faith in the nation or it's false prophets. And even 2 Peter 3 which talks of the scoffers coming in the last days of the old covenant age who forgot that just as God destroyed the old pre-flood world, he could and would destroy the old covenant age/world which then were. I think there are more if we can read in context of that time period and resist the tendency to take words which apply the individualized new testament and attempt to create a corporalized new covenant religion out of them.

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).

Click to expand...

When he was promised the land, I think he may have been an individual of the everlasting covenant and not the genetic covenant which would have been to confirm the Messiahor the law covenant. Abraham was given covenants before circumcision and some after. The ones after were to the descendants to confirm the messiah.

I think that all throught the old testament there were people who realized that the nation of the people/descendants of Israel and the nation of the old covenant religion were a temporal servant to the rest of the nations (gentiles) to confirm God's. Ask yourself why it was called the abominable thing to hide Gold for a personal family rather than put it in the temple treasury (the first sin in the land under Joshua) The Gold taken from the "heathen" nations would be used to eventually construct the 2nd temple and then be carried off back to the nations where they belonged. The israelites of the old covenant were stewards of God's spiritual riches until the time of the confirming and installation of the new covenant and the pouring out of God's riches onto all nations/peoples.

Notrash · Aug 16, 2009

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)

.
It is a very, very important issue to define and understand what was the "old covenant" was. When you say that it was the "mosaic covenant" what exactly do you mean?

Although there are several covenants made: there is one "old covenant which is used to be a contrast against and foreshadow the "new" covenant. The "new" covenant is only "new" as compared with the "OLD". Otherwise the "new" covenant is the covenant of Mercy: "my covenant" as spoken to Noah and Abraham: The promise of the seed of Adam/Eve to crush Satan and fulfilled by the Creator himself during his incarnation.

It's one of the Great Ironic tragedies of the futurist/dispensationalist/judaist to take prophecies that refer to God's enactment, fulfillment, full establishment and confirmation of the everlasting covenant of Mercy, covenant of eternal Life (new covenant) in Dan 9:27 and attribute it to some future dude with horns on the side of his head who makes some political agreement which is supposedly broken to start some war.

Jer 31 and Dan 9 give some pointers where the description of the "old covenant" can be found when the both describe the beginnings as 'when he took them by the hand and led them out of egypt. The old began when God took the descendants that were promised to return to Abraham's land by the hand and led them out of Egypt via the passover lamb's blood on the doorway.
But the covenant itself was summarized in Duet 11-32 and specifically in Duet 29:12, 14 etc as the national conditional covenant. The "OLD" covenant was the conditional land/nation IF/Then covenant or religious duties given to the people who had been led out of Egypt and who had wandered through the wilderness and witnessed God's provisions and miracles for them. It was destined to fail due to it's dependance on man to keep up to a law of performance. However, as part of the covenant, it's inadequacies and endings were also prophecied. 2 Cor 3; Heb 6,8,10 and various other places reaffirm the old covenant's end that was prophecied in Duet 32. In 2 Cor 3 it is called the ministration of death.

From Duet 29

1 These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.
2 Now Moses called all Israel and said to them: “You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land— 3 the great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders. 4 Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day. 5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet. 6 You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or similar drink, that you may know that I am the LORD your God. 7 And when you came to this place, Sihon king of Heshbon and Og king of Bashan came out against us to battle, and we conquered them. 8 We took their land and gave it as an inheritance to the Reubenites, to the Gadites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh. 9 Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do.
10 “All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel, 11 your little ones and your wives—also the stranger who is in your camp, from the one who cuts your wood to the one who draws your water— 12 that you may enter into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath, which the LORD your God makes with you today, 13 that He may establish you today as a people for Himself, and that He may be God to you, just as He has spoken to you, and just as He has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
14 “I make this covenant and this oath, not with you alone, 15 but with him who stands here with us today before the LORD our God, as well as with him who is not here with us today 16 (for you know that we dwelt in the land of Egypt and that we came through the nations which you passed by, 17 and you saw their abominations and their idols which were among them—wood and stone and silver and gold); 18 so that there may not be among you man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations, and that there may not be among you a root bearing bitterness or wormwood; 19 and so it may not happen, when he hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictatesa]" class="footnote">[a] of my heart’—as though the drunkard could be included with the sober.

When Jer 31 says that the 'new' covenant would be "NOT LIKE" the old, I understand that as a contrasting imperative action. The New Covenant would be opposite and an antithesis of the "Old Covenant". The old covenant typed and foreshadowed the establishment of the "New covenant" in order to confirm it's authenticity. Only a few centuries before Abraham was called out of the cities, Nimrod/ satan had given the world his own false humanist/satan inspired version of the 'virgin' birth And their are many who still follow this counterfeit of humanism. The Old covenant was conditional, corporal, national to a group entity and temporal. The New is unconditional through justification/walk of faith; individual/personal although with an association; and eternal with yet temporal trials and blessings. The old is/was based in religioius performance; the new is based in the Spirit of Life.

That which is called "Israel" today is not and cannot be old covenant national Israel. That covenant was abolished and their rabbi's know it. They do not even attempt to follow the calendar that they were instructed to follow in which new years would have begun on passover. The present Pharisaic religion of Talmud starts it's new year in the fall feasts because they wish to forget or disbelieve that the fall feasts were completed and replaced with the New Covenant during the Roman seige and encampment. They have a mental block of it's reality. Today's state of Balfour is a new entity based on the Talmudist and zionist which denies that Jesus was/is the Christ and The Holy Spirit is now the Lord Christ and denies that the corporal conditional blessings on the people of the law have been trumped over. The old covenant and that national entity was judged as faulty and favor was found and given to the saints of Christ of the everlasting covenant of Mercy (Dan 7:26)

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!

Again, read Pauls arguments in Romans 3-5 and Gal 4. He addresses and speaks against the very argument you are trying to make. Abraham was given the promises BEFORE circumcison as an individual man justified by faith. He was an 'everyman' from the Nations. He was not yet a Jew of the circumsicion or of the old covenant pattern religion. Thus the promises are not to the circumcision of the flesh or a physical descendancy or religion, but of the individual circumcision of the heart and the indwelling of Jesus/Holy Spirit. They are to the "seed" of Israel, meaning those of like kind of the Spiritual reborn-renamed person "Israel", son of God; and to the "seed" of Abraham meaning those of like kind as being justified and proven by faith. The 'seed' of Abraham is explained in Gal 3 I think.

Israel of those of faith in the covenant of Mercy; the spiritual 'reborn' individual 'sons of God' cohabitated with those who tried to follow the national conditional covenant given to the "people" of the Exodus. As you read that section in Dueteronomy, the descendants of Israel were not called a people (nation) until just before crossing the Jordan and until after the whole law was summarized and spoken to them by Moses on the east side of the Jordan. Moses tells them, THIS DAY thou art a people. Duet 27:9. Read also as to why they were not chosen. Duet 7:7; 9:6 etc. The Old covenant was the covenant that was summarized just before crossing the Jordan and 'entered into' that day by their participation and their circumcision. Read Duet 29:12-14 which states the crossing of the Jordan and accepting the terms of the agreement as a covenant.

HarrisonS · Aug 17, 2009

Notrash said:
This is a good point as history shows that it was the descendants of those recieving the old covenant who would be gathered back to the land. But your example of "you" in Duet was explained openly to be fulfilled in a future time: REad 29:12-14ff.
It is the latter part of chapter 29 which also talks of the failure of the future generation which led to the Roman desolations.

This is true, but misses the point. The simple fact is that Moses used the second person, period.

But here is where futurists would project that regathering to the time of the 1900's where history and Daniel's confession in Chapter 9 shows that Moses was prophecying about the babylonian captivity in Chapter 28-29 and then the regathering after the Mede/Persian conquest of Babylon in chapter 30. Daniels prayer in chapter 9 confirms this…
That which is called "Israel" today is not and cannot be old covenant national Israel. That covenant was abolished and their rabbi's know it. They do not even attempt to follow the calander that they were instructed to follow in which new years would have begun on passover. The present Talmudia starts it's new year in the fall feasts because they wish to forget that the fall feasts were completed and replaced with the New Covenant during the Roman seige and encampment. They have a mental block of it's reality. Todays state of Balfour is a new entity based on the Talmud which denies that Jesus is the Christ and denies that the corporal conditional blessings on the people of the law have been trumped over…

You are correct in stating that the regathering during the 1900’s is not a fulfillment of prophecies regarding the regathering of Israel in the last days. That will not happen until the Second Coming of Christ and the beginning of the Millennium. This is discussed at some length in Isaiah 54. See also Ezekiel 20:35-38. The only significance of the present Israeli state is that there must be some sort of Jewish state already in existence, and in a state of apostasy and unbelief (exactly as you point out here), when certain future eschatological events take place. And this will continue until the Second Coming of Christ (See Zech 12:10).
Deut. 28-29 state principles, and cannot be restricted to a single event. It is true that it applied to the Babylonian captivity, but it equally well applies to the much greater post 70 A.D. dispersion which continues to this very day. Keep in mind that only a remnant ever returned after the Babylonian captivity, and there is only a remnant in the land today as well. Thus, in a sense, there has been only one large dispersion and it continues to this day. For example, one cannot read parts of Deut. 28,29 without thinking of the Jews living during the Holocaust.

Recall also that Daniel, Ezekiel and others were prophecying from within the Babylonian captivity and before the decree of Cyrus. Thus they were not restored to the land as of that time.

This is all true, but what is your point?

Ezekiel 36:22-28:
Good verses, but they also apply to when Israel had already returned to the land and many, many believed on the Messiah.

Not so. This passage has to refer to Israel under the New Covenant, and after the cross. It is parallel to Jeremiah 31:31-34. Read again verse 27:

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.

Now look closely at John 14:16,17 and carefully note the verb tenses:

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you (present tense), and shall be in you (future tense).

Note also John 7:39:

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

These passages prove that it is impossible for Ezekiel to have been referring to any event prior to Pentecost.

Read Duet 30 where it says that God will teach them and circumcise their heart.

Then John 6:45; It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

And again take note of Pauls argument that the circumcison of the flesh no longer counts for anything because the time for the circumcision of the Heart has arrived. Has your heart been circumcised by His Love and Knowledge of His Person?
Remember the speach that got Stephen stoned.... oh ye men uncircumcised in heart....
The time of the incarnation, to be taught of God himself (in flesh) and circumcision of heart through justification by faith was upont them

Of course! And I agree with this, but the very fact that you bring this up at all suggests to me that you are completely missing the point.

Yes, I think there is. Aside from the fact that a future generation or distant fulfillment is never mentioned, Jesus was responding directly to a question that the disciples asked. He described the desolation of the temple, the roman armies circling Jerusalem, and other events that all happened in that generation. And he responded perhaps Mk 13 he said surely all these things will come upon this generation. So, in addition to the fact that "all those things" were referring to things that happened during the next 40 yrs of 'wilderness' there is plenty of reason to 'suppose' that 'you' was referring to those to whom he was conversing with.

The Olivet Discourse describes a lot more that just the events that happened to that generation. Keep in mind that this discourse is the answer to the disciples’ question, which defines the scope of what is in the discourse. Now look carefully at Matt. 24:3:

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?

At first glance at the English translation, it could appear that there are three questions: (1) “when shall these things be?” (2) “what shall be the sign of thy coming?” and (3) “[what shall be the sign] of the end of the age?” Actually, there are only two questions: However, it is clear in the Greek that there are only two questions: (1) “when shall these things be?” (2) “what shall be the sign [pertaining to] thy coming and the end of the age?” This follows the well-known Granville-Sharp Rule, which is often applied elsewhere to prove the Deity of Christ.
You will also find it instructive to look up the meaning of shmeion (sign) in the comprehensive and scholarly ten volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

Consequently, the generation referred to in the Olivet Discourse MUST ALSO witness the Second Coming of Christ and the end of the age. Here, “age” cannot refer to the current age, under the Mosaic Covenant; that ended at Pentecost only forty odd days later, not in 70 A.D. forty years later. No “age” ended in 70 A.D. Politically and historically it was very important, of course; over a million Jews were killed and others were enslaved or deported out of the land. And they could no longer carry out their temple rituals.

Notrash · Aug 17, 2009

Deut. 28-29 state principles, and cannot be restricted to a single event. It is true that it applied to the Babylonian captivity, but it equally well applies to the much greater post 70 A.D. dispersion which continues to this very day. Keep in mind that only a remnant ever returned after the Babylonian captivity, and there is only a remnant in the land today as well. Thus, in a sense, there has been only one large dispersion and it continues to this day. For example, one cannot read parts of Deut. 28,29 without thinking of the Jews living during the Holocaust.

We disagree on several points due to your failure to specifically identify what was the old covenant.

I disagree with these points above. Duet was a progressive prophecy of the people of the conditional land/nation covenant until it ended as Heb and 2 Cor 3 point out. That is why Daniel quoted and referred to Duet 29/30 and not 32. While Paul quoted from Duet 32 in Rom 10:19 which was the time period of the end generation of Jeshurun.

HarrisonS said:
Consequently, the generation referred to in the Olivet Discourse MUST ALSO witness the Second Coming of Christ and the end of the age. Here, “age” cannot refer to the current age, under the Mosaic Covenant; that ended at Pentecost only forty odd days later, not in 70 A.D. forty years later. No “age” ended in 70 A.D. Politically and historically it was very important, of course; over a million Jews were killed and others were enslaved or deported out of the land. And they could no longer carry out their temple rituals.

The old covenant times and seasons were established over a 40 yr time period beginning with Passover in Egypt, the feasts of both barley and wheat firstfruits, Pentacost which was the wheat harvest, and then the fall feasts which I think commemorated the taking of Jericho. (I should brush up on that)
The old covenant was a type and shadow of the New with all the times and seasons of the old replaced and fulfilled by occurances in the 40 yrs from 30 to 70 AD. The crucifiction replaced the passover lamb; Pentecost and the giving of the Spirit of Love (to all peoples and nations signified by gift of tongues) replaced the giving of the law (ministry of condemnation: 2 Cor 3) Then there is a lull while the gospel spread and the stage was set for the fulfillment of the final fall feasts.

Do you know what season was upon Jerusalem when Cassius first circled Jerusalem and then retreated giving followers of Christs words the opportunity to escape? Yes, you guessed it... it was during the fall feasts.
The birthing of a lamb from a cow in the midst of the temple area in 66 or 67 signified the birthing of the international nation of the Lamb.(Isaiah 66:8; Dan 7:26,27)

Do you know where the believers in Christ's words escaped to? They went back across the Jordan River outside of the old covenant land to the east side where Moses had given and spoken the conditional covenant. Followers of the Way of Life of the creator/Redeemer were not part of that old national conditional covenant, but part of the unconditional individual everlasting covenant of LIFE through justification by faith. Consider Abraham who simply went about his life...even trying to help God along the way through his own 'works' with a concubine or two.

Thus the age the disciples were referring to was the old covenant age. That generation saw the end of the old covenant age, the destruction of the temple and close of the works/sacrifice system and the Revelation of Christ as God/Creator. The truths and laws remain in force and effect in and from Heaven.

I disagree with your statement that the statutes listed in Duet 28/29 are reoccuring principles. Those chapters were part of the specific old conditional covneant given to a specific people for a specific time period. After being brought back to the land through the medes/persian decree's there was prophecied a 'latter end' of that covenant in Duet 32.
Read Duet 32: Read Duet 32:42 in the NKJV
How did God say that he would come to judge Jeshurun.. i.e. end of old covenant Israel? How would God/Jesus come? Answer: Through the minds of the leaders of the enemies. I.E. Titus and his generals destroyed the temple and its sacrificial systems which had become pagan...and were only initiated for types of the eternal reality (again citing Isaiah 65/66/1 and Duet 32) Hebrews reminds us that Moses was instructed to make "patterns" of the things he saw in heaven.

You likely did not read Adam Clarkes commentary about cloud formations making premonitions over the land of Judea in the fall of 66 AD.
Our churches do not teach those things.

Your comment about Moses using 'you' should emphasis second person plural and future. The second person plural was referring to the covenant that was given to the group of people; i.e, the 'nation'. That again is evident from Duet 29 statements. But Christ did not clarify his statements to those individuals whom he was talking to by saying Gennema (this offspring) or Genos (this race). He did not indicate a distant future fulfillment by saying "that generation'. The 'you' is part of a conversation that he had to answer his questions to that generation about when he would come to destroy the temple and end the old covenant age. All but John of the disciples would perish before their fulfillments BUT there were some sitting there who survived the judaizers and the Romans attempt to extinguish the sect and who saw the kingdom of God established with Power.

When there seems to be a dichotomy of truths, sometimes a person needs to be open to information they may not yet have considered rather than force the text to say something that it does not based upon pre-concieved or indoctrinated beliefs as 'truths' .

The question needs to be asked again. Was the Olivet and others a historically acurate record of conversations that Jesus had with his disciples and others who were standing there?

If it was a historcally accurate record of those conversations: Which of 'all these things" did not specifically come to pass during the generation of the next 40 yrs?

You may need to deny yourself the argument that it could not be referring to that generation because this and this supposed 'truth' did not occur in the way I have been indoctrinated to believe that it will and re-evealute the supposed 'truth' or your perspective of that happening.

It should not take you long to realize that I am proposing for you to consider that the age which the disciples were asking about was the old covenant 'national israel age when the new covenant kingdom would be established AND He would retun in the cloud formations (as he did) and also 'through the minds of the leaders of the enemies... which he also did to end the old covenant and it's sacrificial systems and to destroy the temple leaving no stone unturned.

The question the disciples asked in Matt 24:3 was referring to the dectruction of the temple that was standing there. When shall 'these things' be.?

You may vehemently oppose these ideas, but I write them for others who may be encouraged by them.

HarrisonS · Aug 18, 2009

PART II:

Notrash said:
Remember also the New Covenant is and individualized covenant while the old covenant was a national covenant. So the 'you' of Duet 30 would more easily pertain to the livespan of the nation and the people of the land/nation conditional covenant.
If history would not record that all those things had occured, then we would have no question that "PERHAPS" he could have been using second person plural.

This again is true, but is really beside the point. Whatever the reason, Moses used the second person here.
That is just the problem, isn’t it? History records that NOT all of those things occurred. Did the Second Coming of Christ (Matt. 24:30), visible worldwide, take place? Did the Chinese see him and mourn in 70 A.D.? What about the Aztecs? The Incas? Was there a worldwide regathering of God’s elect (Matt. 24:31)? Was the Wailing Wall completely demolished by the Romans? Remember it says “not one stone upon another”! The last photograph I saw of the Wailing Wall showed an awful lot of stones “one upon another”!

I'm no greek gramaticist, but It wonders me if there is a difference in greek of first and second person plural. In spanish it is easy to understand and see that difference, but in english it is not so easy.

Yes, there is a difference in Greek between first and second person plural, and in every other language I know of. All three Biblical languages, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic also distinguish between the second person singular and second person plural, unlike modern English which uses “you” far both. This is an advantage of the KJV and other old English translations, that do make a distinction, using “thee” and “thou” for the singular, and “you” and “ye” for the plural. This distinction can sometimes be very important as in Luke 22:31,32, which is usually misread, even by pastors, because of this. On the other hand, the older versions are based on poorer manuscripts, like the Byzantine Textus Receptus, which are less likely to agree with the original autographs, so it is a “mixed bag” whichever you use.

It is a very, very important issue to define and understand what was the "old covenant" was. When you say that it was the "mosaic covenant" what exactly do you mean? Although there are several covenants made: there is one "old covenant which is used to be a contrast against the "new" covenant. The "new" covenant is only "new" as compared with the "OLD". Otherwise the "new" covenant is the covenant of Mercy: "my covenant" as spoken to Noah and Abraham: Adam/Eve and fulfilled by the Creator himself during his incarnation.

It should be obvious as to what is meant by the Mosaic Covenant. The writer to the Hebrews makes it unambiguously clear which covenant he is comparing to the New Covenant. Look at Hebrews 9:18-20:

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Here, the writer quotes from Exodus 24:7.8 where the Mosaic Covenant is ratified at Mt. Sinai:

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Thus the writer to the Hebrews clearly identifies the old covenant (diaqhkh), variously translated as “covenant” or “testament”, as the Mosaic Covenant. It does not include the Abrahamic Covenant. If there is still any question in your mind as to what the Mosaic Covenant is, read Exodus chs. 20-40 and all of Levitucus. It is further applied in Numbers and recapitulated in Deuteronomy.

The old began when God took the descendants that were promised to return to Abrahams land by the hand and led them out of egypt via the passover lamb's blood on the doorway. But the covenant itself was summarized in Duet 11-32 and specifically in Duet 29:12, 14 etc as the national conditional covenant.

This is essentially correct, in contradiction to what you have said elsewhere.

The "OLD" covenant was the conditional land/nation IF/Then covenant given to the people who had been led out of Egypt and who had wandered through the wilderness and witnessed God's provisions and miracles for them.

Now you are mixing covenants again! The land/nation promises were a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 13:15). They are unconditional and are forever. Later, under the Mosaic Covenant, the privilege of living in the land was made dependent upon obedience. In the future, when Christ returns, they will be restored unconditionally to the land in obedience to God under the New Covenant. This must happen if Ezekiel 36:28 and many other passages containing God’s unconditional promises, are to be fulfilled. None of these promises are a part of the Old Covenant and cannot be abrogated.

It was destined to fail due to it's dependance on man to keep up to a law of performance. However, as part of the covenant, it's inadequacies and endings were also prophecied. 2 Cor 3; Heb 6,8,10 and various other places reaffirm the old covenant's end that was prophecied in Duet 32.

When Jer 31 says that the 'new' covenant would be "NOT LIKE" the old, I understand that as a comparative action. The New Covenant would be opposite and an antithesis of the "Old Covenant". The old covenant typed and foreshadowed the establishment of the New covenant in order to confirm it's authenticity.

Now you are correct again. No one is contesting this.

Again, read Pauls arguments in Romans 3-5 and Gal 4. He addresses and speaks against the very argument you are trying to make. Abraham was given the promises BEFORE circumcison as a man justified by faith. He was an 'everyman' from the Nations. He was not yet a Jew of the circumsicion. Thus the promises are not to the circumcision of the flesh or a physical descendancy, but of the circumcision of the heart and the indwelling of Jesus. They are to the "seed" of Israel, meaning those of like kind of the reborn-renamed person "Israel".
Israel the spiritual 'reborn' individual 'son of God' and of the covenant of Mercy cohabitated with those who tried to follow the national conditional covenant given to the "people" of the Exodus. As you read that section in Dueteronomy, the descendants of Israel were not called a people (nation) until just before crossing the Jordan and until after the whole law was summarized and spoken to them by Moses on the east side of the Jordan. Moses tells them, THIS DAY thou art a people. Duet 27:9. Read also as to why they were not chosen. Duet 7:7; 9:6 etc. The Old covenant was the covenant that was summarized just before crossing the Jordan and 'entered into' that day by their participation and their circumcision. Read Duet 29:12-14 which states the crossing of the Jordan and accepting the terms of the agreement as a covenant.

I have memorized all of those chapters long ago and am well aware of what they are saying. And frankly, I have no idea what you imagine that I am “arguing against”. This suggests to me that you have failed to grasp what we have been saying. Most of what you have said here is correct, but what is your point?

I said nothing about circumcision, but now that you have brought that up, let us consider the subject. Circumcision was given to Abraham as an external sign of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17, but it was not a prerequisite to salvation (Rom. 4:9,10). It was later included as a part of the Mosaic or Old Covenant (Lev. 12:3), and subsequently abolished with the New Covenant.

In summary, we must always keep in mind that when the New Testament speaks of the “old covenant” it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant, given and ratified at Mt. Sinai (Heb. 9:18-20). We cannot try to lump all of the covenants in the Old Testament into one “mega-covenant” and call it “the old covenant”; that is not what is taught in Romans, Galatians and Hebrews. Failure to recognize this fact will inevitably lead to no end of confusion, and very bad theology. Also, in view of the historical reasons given above, there can be no credible grounds for believing that all of the events described in the Olivet Discourse could have taken place in the first century, or any time since. The pronoun must refer to the people, not the individuals being addressed. This usage was very commonplace throughout scripture.

Notrash · Aug 18, 2009

HarrisonS said:
PART II:

That is just the problem, isn’t it? History records that NOT all of those things occurred. Did the Second Coming of Christ (Matt. 24:30), visible worldwide, take place? Did the Chinese see him and mourn in 70 A.D.? What about the Aztecs? The Incas? Was there a worldwide regathering of God’s elect (Matt. 24:31)? Was the Wailing Wall completely demolished by the Romans? Remember it says “not one stone upon another”! The last photograph I saw of the Wailing Wall showed an awful lot of stones “one upon another”!

Click to expand...

We are in disagreement with each of these statements and the perspectives behind the statements. Not one stone was referring to the temple. The wailing wall was either a part of the outer wall of the city or a building errected either 100 yrs later or 400 yrs later. This argument of the building not being destroyed due to the 'wailing wall' still being erect is one of the weaker grasping at straws and assumes that Christ was a trickster with his words to his disciples of that generation. The whole concept of thinking that he is trying to project this part of the conversation into a distant time period requires that He was deceptive with his language to them. That is very scary thought and indicates a questionable character of Christ. "Every eye shall see Him" can (and in my mind IS) a comparative statement saying that he wouldn't come secretly behind closed doors as he did to/for the disciples before Pentacost. Every eye, both saved and unsaved from all the tribes and Romans in the greater area of Greater Judea of the old covenant promised land saw him come in the cloud formations. There are preconceived perspectives that we gain from reading and studying in English that are perhaps not intended from the contexts of the conversations, the time period or the covenants. "Every eye all over the kosmos" is not textual or implied as the judment and wrath was not upon the creation and the world, but upon those who persisted to place faith in the conditional old land/nation covenant and it's pharisaically twisted RELIGION rather than faith in the Person of the Creator incarnate, His person, Words and Work.

It should be obvious as to what is meant by the Mosaic Covenant. The writer to the Hebrews makes it unambiguously clear which covenant he is comparing to the New Covenant. Look at Hebrews 9:18-20:

Here, the writer quotes from Exodus 24:7.8 where the Mosaic Covenant is ratified at Mt. Sinai:

Thus the writer to the Hebrews clearly identifies the old covenant (diaqhkh), variously translated as “covenant” or “testament”, as the Mosaic Covenant. It does not include the Abrahamic Covenant. If there is still any question in your mind as to what the Mosaic Covenant is, read Exodus chs. 20-40 and all of Levitucus. It is further applied in Numbers and recapitulated in Deuteronomy.

Click to expand...

No, were in disagreement: In Duet 29, this part of the old covenant is called the covenant made in Horeb.

1 These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.

Click to expand...

The "old" covenant is stated to be besides the covenant made in Horeb and is summarized between Duet chs 11-32. The covenant made with the people just before they crossed the Jordan after wandering in the wilderness is/was the "old" covenant which is abolished. The covenant on Horeb of the conditional blessings of the law are also obsolete and were part of that covenant to those people.

Now you are mixing covenants again! The land/nation promises were a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 13:15). They are unconditional and are forever.

Click to expand...

When Jeremiah speaks of the "New" covenant" the book of Hebrews says that by calling this covenant "New" he has called the former "old". The "old covenant was initiated and begun by the blood of the lamb over the doorways as the children were lead out of Egypt. "NOT LIKE" the old covenant when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt....
That action was accomplished as a type of a future covenant. (the new and everlasting)

Later, under the Mosaic Covenant, the privilege of living in the land was made dependent upon obedience. In the future, when Christ returns, they will be restored unconditionally to the land in obedience to God under the New Covenant. This must happen if Ezekiel 36:28 and many other passages containing God’s unconditional promises, are to be fulfilled. None of these promises are a part of the Old Covenant and cannot be abrogated.

Click to expand...

We're in disagreement. This is why it's important to see what the condition of the nation was when the prophecy was made. EZ wasn't prophecying to a far distant 3000 yr later people, but to a people 500 yrs later. Every single early reciver of the post resurrection everlasting coveant WAS jewish.

Now you are correct again. No one is contesting this.

I have memorized all of those chapters long ago and am well aware of what they are saying. And frankly, I have no idea what you imagine that I am “arguing against”. This suggests to me that you have failed to grasp what we have been saying. Most of what you have said here is correct, but what is your point?

I said nothing about circumcision, but now that you have brought that up, let us consider the subject. Circumcision was given to Abraham as an external sign of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17, but it was not a prerequisite to salvation (Rom. 4:9,10). It was later included as a part of the Mosaic or Old Covenant (Lev. 12:3), and subsequently abolished with the New Covenant.

Very briefly Abraham was not part of the jewish old covenant nation which began "this day" after Moses had delivered the conditions of the land/nation covenant to them just before crossing over the jordan. Duet 27:9 Paul's discourse of who the seed of Abraham was indicates it was to Christ and those "like Abraham" who are justified; made just by faith and not to the physical descendancys The physical descendancy and geneologies is not at issue with Abraham past the generation of the Cross. That's why the geneologies were destroyed in 70 AD.

God's promise to Abrahams genetic offspring was fullfilled when they crossed over the Jordan and were brought back to the land after 400 yrs in Egypt.

The space and time here does not permit a detailed discussion of these issues. But as Paul says in Gal 3: if ye be in Christ then you are Abrahams seed and heirs of the promise. All believers in Christ have the 'holy lands" where Jesus walked as a heritage forever, but there is also the figurative example that each persons sphere of influence "in the world, but not of the world" is in the area of their personal lives just as Abrahams was guided and led by God's directive (now the Holy Spirit).

In summary, we must always keep in mind that when the New Testament speaks of the “old covenant” it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant, given and ratified at Mt. Sinai (Heb. 9:18-20).

Click to expand...

Nope, again, we are in disagreement. When the "NEW" covenant to national Israel was presented and called "NEW", it was contrasted against the blood of the covenant of the lamb on the doorway when he took them by the hand out of Egypt, not of the book of the law. Moses initiated that part of the old covenant also and the book of commandments in stone was part of the 'old' just as the giving of the indwelling Holy Spirit is part of the Everlasting New. The former land/nation covenant had a 40 yr generation of initiation and times and seasons, establishing a pattern to be replaced and fulfilled during the confirmation of the everlasting covenant of mercy, called NEW when contrasted against this 'old' way.

Also, in view of the historical reasons given above, there can be no credible grounds for believing that all of the events described in the Olivet Discourse could have taken place in the first century, or any time since. The pronoun must refer to the people, not the individuals being addressed. This usage was very commonplace throughout scripture.

Click to expand...

Again, were in strong disagreement. Which of "all these things" did NOT occur in the first century and specifically before 70 AD.??

kotel · Aug 18, 2009

Excuse me for interjecting myself in this scholarly discussion, but I wish to briefly comment on warped theology coming from Notrash.

God's promise to Abrahams genetic offspring was fullfilled when they crossed over the Jordan and were brought back to the land after 400 yrs in Egypt.

I take this as meaning there is no future fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham’s genetic offspring and instead:

But as Paul says in Gal 3: if ye be in Christ then you are Abrahams seed and heirs of the promise. All believers in Christ have the 'holy lands" where Jesus walked as a heritage forever,

Seems to me this is replacement theology, if so then we are getting trash from Notrash!

The Holy Land has been promised to Abraham’s genetic offspring and not to his spiritual offspring, the church.

HarrisonS · Aug 18, 2009

kotel said:
Excuse me for interjecting myself in this scholarly discussion, but I wish to briefly comment on warped theology coming from Notrash.

I take this as meaning there is no future fulfillment of Gods promise to Abrahams genetic offspring and instead:

Seems to me this is replacement theology, if so then we are getting trash from Notrash!

The Holy Land has been promised to Abrahams genetic offspring and not to his spiritual offspring, the church.

You are right on with your comments, and thank you for jumping in. You are absolutely right about replacement theology; those who hold this view simply "make void the word of God through their traditions". It is, I believe, nothing more than a rehash of midieval Roman Catholic dogma which was used through the centuries to their political advantage as "God's kingdom on earth". We have already proven that it is totally unbiblical.

Notrash · Aug 19, 2009

kotel said:
I take this as meaning there is no future fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham’s genetic offspring and instead:

If there was a promise to the genetic offspring, they would not be called "Israel". Secondly, if the promise of the land was to genetic offspring 'forever', and the genetic offspring was national "Israel" then what part of forever and perpetual was missed from 70-1948? Wasn't that part of 'forever'???

I disagree with the terminology of 'replacement' theology. It would be more appropriately called fulfillment theology and/or continuation theology. There has been a continual kind or seed of persons like Abraham who is Justified by being Given faith to Believe in the son of man..... I.E. to believe in the person, word and character of God and have it counted for righteousness. The promises to Abraham were not to national Israel, nor do I believe that the forever part was to generational descendancy of Abraham. Abrahams and the other Patriarch were also made promises that "in their generations" the covenant of mercy would be fulfilled. And it was!

Again, Abraham was not a 'jew' nor a national Israelite of the old covenant when he was given the promises, but he was a 'gentile' of one of the nations of the babylonian dispersion and breakup.

The church age is not the parenthesis between the Creators workings with the 'jews'. The national conditional covenant and the entity of the people of that covenant and their religion were the parenthesis of the Creators redemptive work among all nations/peoples languages.
Rom 11:32ff; Dan 7:26,27

Yes, I reject a future restoration of national old covenant Israel of the old conditional covenant law since the old covenant was as we know abolished and ruled faulty. The kingdom of God was ruled in favor of the saints of the son of God/man of the Kingdom of the everlasting covenant of mercy when the saints escaped the old covenant land of judea and wrath was turned onto babylon. (Dan 7:26-27)

Back to the questions about "this generation" at hand and properly defining the old covenant.

Kotel, out of respect of the discussion at hand about 'this generation' and the last generation of the old covenant and defining that old covenant; feel free to start a separate thread about the land promised to Abraham.

HarrisonS · Aug 19, 2009

Notrash said:
If there was a promise to the genetic offspring, they would not be called "Israel". Secondly, if the promise of the land was to genetic offspring 'forever', and the genetic offspring was national "Israel" then what part of forever and perpetual was missed from 70-1948? Wasn't that part of 'forever'???

Why shouldn’t they be called “Israel”? That was Jacob’s new name, and they are physical descendants of Jacob (Israel) who was the father of the twelve patriarchs, the ancestors of the twelve tribe. Scripture records no other male descendants, unlike aith Abraham and Isaac. Your objection makes no sense.

You need to reread Deut. 28-30. Under the old covenant, living in their land was made a privilege of obedience. They were, and still are disobedient. This is all so obvious in this Deuteronomy passage, that it seems inconceivable how you could miss this.

I disagree with the terminology of 'replacement' theology. It would be more appropriately called fulfillment theology and/or continuation theology

Replacement theology is still replacement theology, no matter what euphemism you may choose. Also the names “fulfillment theology” and “continuation theology” can be misleading. “Replacement theology” is a completely accurate descriptor. You cannot sweep bad theology under the carpet with euphemisms!

Yes, I reject a future restoration of national old covenant Israel of the old conditional covenant law since the old covenant was as we know abolished and ruled faulty. The kingdom of God was ruled in favor of the saints of the son of God/man of the Kingdom of the everlasting covenant of mercy…

And I also reject a future restoration of national old covenant Israel of the old conditional covenant law! Reread Ezekiel 36:22-28 again. The future restoration of national Israel will be under the New Covenant. As I have already demonstrated, this passage could never have been fulfilled at any time prior to Pentecost (John 7:39, 14:16,17). Also note that they are dwelling in the land (Ezek. 36:28). Since this obviously has not happened yet, the only logical possibility is that it still lies in the future. Do not read your theological presuppositions and dogmas into scripture!

Notrash · Aug 19, 2009

HarrisonS said:
HarrisonS said:

You need to reread Deut. 28-30. Under the old covenant, living in their land was made a privilege of obedience. They were, and still are disobedient. This is all so obvious in this Deuteronomy passage, that it seems inconceivable how you could miss this.

Click to expand...

No, I don't miss this point. But the old covenant of conditionally living and being blessed in the land as a nation (first called a people in Duet 27:9 on the east side of the Jordan) has been abolished. The covenant made in Deut and called a covenant in chapter 29 among other places was the old covenant of conditional obedience to all that Moses had commanded. It is abolished.... not temporarily set aside.... There is no repentance from not sacrificing on the ark or not doing all that was commanded in the law of moses. Repentance would be to cease from seeking a national, corporal 'new covenant' and to believe in Chirst individually and then leave judaism. The ark of the covenant and renewing the blood on the mercy seat would be and was after 30 AD an abomination to the realty of the Creators blood on the cross.

Replacement theology is still replacement theology, no matter what euphemism you may choose. Also the names “fulfillment theology” and “continuation theology” can be misleading. “Replacement theology” is a completely accurate descriptor. You cannot sweep bad theology under the carpet with euphemisms!

Click to expand...

Nope, I do not advocate 'replacement theology" The 'corporal church' does not replace national Israel. The old corporal is gone and the new is HERE, not replacing the old. The old national conditional covenant was a parenthesis within the people of faith throuighout all generations. The church of those of faith of the covenant of Mercy was very much alive within the entity of conditional covenant national Israel (and alive within other nations as evident from the wise men bearing gifts) and lookied towards to the time of it's fullfillment in Christ. Men of faith in the promise of the seed of Eve passed as 'my covenant' throuigh Noah, Abraham, Israel and others before Christ looked forward in the church while men of faith look inward to Christ recieved (and His Holy Spirit) and backward in History to His work.

And I also reject a future restoration of national old covenant Israel of the old conditional covenant law! Reread Ezekiel 36:22-28 again. The future restoration of national Israel will be under the New Covenant. As I have already demonstrated, this passage could never have been fulfilled at any time prior to Pentecost (John 7:39, 14:16,17). Also note that they are dwelling in the land (Ezek. 36:28). Since this obviously has not happened yet, the only logical possibility is that it still lies in the future. Do not read your theological presuppositions and dogmas into scripture!

Click to expand...

Your emboldened and underlined statement is opposed. "National Israel was an entity of the old covenant ONLY. When the new covenant came it was/is individual. Read Jer 31 where it states that they will not say our fathers sinned and our teeth are set on edge... each man will die for his own sins.... This was a change from the corporal national covenant. The New Covenant WAS made AND WAS enacted when representatives of all tribes of Israel were in the land during the passover sacrifice of Chist and the giving of the spirit at Pentacost through the fulfillment of the fall seasons when the temple was destroyed. This is confirmed in the NT writings of I think Paul and Luke as he describes Acts 2.
Furthermore, Daniel while in Babylonian captivity fulfills the confession of Duet 30.

Dan 9:7 O Lord, righteousness belongs to You, but to us shame of face, as it is this day—to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel, those near and those far off in all the countries to which You have driven them, because of the unfaithfulness which they have committed against You.

Duet 30
2 and you return to the LORD your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 that the LORD your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4 If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you.

Click to expand...

Thus by saying that "all Israel" was not represented and dwelling in Jeruslaem/Judea during the time of the "new" covenant which was NOT LIKE (the antithesis of) the old covenant misses the point of the complete (at least in representaion) return of all tribes of Israel at least for the enactment of the individual covenant of Mercy, called 'new' to the land/nation conditional covenant people. And it misses the direct statements of Moses saying that God would bring them all in (and he did)

We'll try again to keep the topic focused on "this generation" and also the specific beginnings and endings of the old covenant which is now abolished.

Perhaps if we would cover one topic at a time......

The new covenant was enacted while Israel was still a 'nation' under the old covenant even though it was already prejudged as obsolete. (Hebrews says that by calling the covenant "NEW" he made the former "OLD" and that which was old and decaying was then in 55 AD ready to vaish away. National Israel was/is only an entity of the old covenant (duet 27:9) Thus with the passing of the old, the national entity also passed. This is what Paul teaches several places by saying things such as Rom 11:32. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. and Gal 3:22: 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. And when he says there is no jew nor greek...for 'all humans have sinned..... The international church of new covenant (everlasting, individual, internal covenant of Mercy) established and confirmed in the house of Israel/Judah as prophecied in Jer 31 and EZ as you mentioned is also the kingdom of the saints of the son of Man of all peoples nations, languages of the "New" everlasting covneant of Mercy as given power in Dan 7:26/27 and formed and empowered in the first century.

Forgive me if I dont' respond as often. We seem to be going round and round discussing theological or eschatological believes without focusing on the scriptures upon which they may be formed upon and then discussing the possible erroneous perspectives of those scriptures. Such as with remaining focused on "this generation" and the Olivet. Which of "all these things did not come to pass during the next 40 yrs of the enactment and confirmation of the New Covenant?

P.S. although we disagree, thanks for your interaction. I am able to see some of the layerd depth of the indoctrination and the specific points of rebuttal.... such as we are mentioning about Duet and what the abolished old covenant consisted of.

kotel · Aug 19, 2009

I have a project for everyone. Jesus told his disciples the temple would be destroyed before their generation passed away. That generation turn out to be 40 years from the Olivet Discourse to the temples destruction August 10, 70 A.D. If this is the correct date we should be able to count backwards 40 years to when Jesus spoke to his disciples on the Mount of Olives. The 40 years would have to be based on the Hebrew calendar of 360 days a month. Any takers on this?

ross3421 · Aug 20, 2009

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

First the word "this" was not intended to mean "the" generation which he was speaking rather to "A" generation which shall see all these things. It is surprising but some to believe this interpretation.

Now, a biblical generation may be 70 years however you are equating the previous verse to mean it begins when Israel is a nation.....1948. This is incorrect. The fig tree though is associated with Israel is not representing Israel in the verse. What it is saying is that the trouble begins in summer and ends in winter. A relatively short period.

Mt 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

Mt 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Mark

HarrisonS · Aug 20, 2009

The Greek word translated "generation" has just about as many possible meanings as the English word. You certainly cannot quantify it mathematically as equaling 40 years, 70 years or any other number of years, despite the claims of many "date-setters" and sensation mongers in the public arena.

Also, I believe that it is correct that the fig tree does not represent Israel in Scripture. If Jesus had intended to use a plant to refer to Israel, He might have used a grape vine instead, which often does symbolize Israel in the Bible. You would have a very hard time building a convincing case that the fig tree represents Israel in Scripture, despite the assertions of many well-meaning but poorly-informed preachers. The formation of the state of Israel in 1948 is very significant, but cannot be used to set up a timetable for eschatological events.

The staement that "all these things" will be withessed by one generation comes as no surprise, we know from other Scriptures that they will all take place within a very few years!

kotel · Aug 20, 2009

I’m looking for a mathematical answer not one’s opinion. There are two primary years chosen as the year of Christ’s crucifixion, 30 and 33 AD. We cannot just add 40 years to 30 AD using our calendar to arrive at 70 AD, it has to be the Hebrew calendar. Calculating the time based on the Hebrew calendar would probably support the 33 AD year of his crucifixion.

Mt 24; Lk 13 and Mk 21 have a duel fulfillment, 70 AD and the future Tribulation. The main reason for duel fulfillment is the need for their Messiah to return after Jacob’s time of trouble.

Exactly one generation after King David conquered Jerusalem Solomon began building the temple, that generation was 40 years. It was approximately forty years from when he was crucified to 70 AD.

kotel · Aug 22, 2009

What is this, we got no mathematicians on this board? How about you NoTrash? Any other scholars that can come up with an answer using the Hebrew calendar?

Interesting that Moses made two trumpets that were sounded to gather the whole community of Hebrews before the entrance to the Tabernacle, Num 10:1-3. Same with the rapture, there will be two trumpets to gather the whole church before the entrance to God's throne.

HarrisonS · Aug 22, 2009

The following are mostly comments that I wrote several days ago, but never got around to posting them. So here they are, just to tie up any loose ends.

Notrash said:
No, I don't miss this point. But the old covenant of conditionally living and being blessed in the land as a nation (first called a people in Duet 27:9 on the east side of the Jordan) has been abolished. The covenant made in Deut and called a covenant in chapter 29 among other places was the old covenant of conditional obedience to all that Moses had commanded. It is abolished.... not temporarily set aside...

This is exactly what I have been saying all along! But the very fact that you bring this up at all suggests that either you have not been following the previous discussions, or your are still confused because of you theological biases.

Your emboldened and underlined statement is opposed. "National Israel was an entity of the old covenant ONLY…

No, you are wrong. And I believe that this lies at the core of your misunderstanding. National Israel existed and will exist in the future as a fulfillment of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant. It is NOT a part of the “Old Covenant” a.k.a. the Mosaic Covenant. Again, read Heb.9:18-20. This defines exactly what the Old Covenant was. Covenants made before the Mosaic Covenant are NOT a part of it, and thus are NOT abrogated by its abolition. You must not try to lump every covenant in the Bible together with the Mosaic Covenant and say it is just one covenant called the “Old Covenant”. This is scripture-twisting! Each covenant with its terms and conditions (if any) MUST be considered separately. Failure to distinguish properly among these various covenants can only lead to endless confusion and very bad theology.

When there seems to be a dichotomy of truths, sometimes a person needs to be open to information they may not yet have considered rather than force the text to say something that it does not based upon pre-concieved or indoctrinated beliefs as 'truths.

This is very good advice, but I believe that the entire reason for our disagreements is the fact that that you are not following your own advice here! Instead, you are subordinating scripture (and historical facts as well) to the dogmas of your particular denomination or tradition.

Notrash said:
We are in disagreement with each of these statements and the perspectives behind the statements. Not one stone was referring to the temple. The wailing wall was either a part of the outer wall of the city or a building errected either 100 yrs later or 400 yrs later. This argument of the building not being destroyed due to the 'wailing wall' still being erect is one of the weaker grasping at straws and assumes that Christ was a trickster with his words to his disciples of that generation. The whole concept of thinking that he is trying to project this part of the conversation into a distant time period requires that He was deceptive with his language to them.

No, not at all! It is just another “nail in the coffin”; Read Matt 24:2 carefully:

2 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.

It says “all these things”! It does not say just the temple proper, or just some of the structures. And “all these things” MUST include the entire temple complex, including all of the walls, buildings… everything! And if everything were fulfilled in the first century A.D., then I would say that statements such as those made in Matt. 24:29-31 and 40-41 were very deceptive. In fact, I would even say that all of the arguments that I have ever heard in defense of preterism, and not just those you have mentioned here, are all little more than grasping at straws!

Notrash said:
You likely did not read Adam Clarkes commentary about cloud formations making premonitions over the land of Judea in the fall of 66 AD.
Our churches do not teach those things.

I doubt whether these writings of Adam Clarke are much more credible than articles in the National Enquirer. Now this is grasping at straws!

No, were in disagreement: In Duet 29, this part of the old covenant is called the covenant made in Horeb. The "old" covenant is stated to be besides the covenant made in Horeb and is summarized between Duet chs 11-32. The covenant made with the people just before they crossed the Jordan after wandering in the wilderness is/was the "old" covenant which is abolished. The covenant on Horeb of the conditional blessings of the law are also obsolete and were part of that covenant to those people.

No, “Horeb” is just another name for Sinai. I thought everybody knew that!

When Jeremiah speaks of the "New" covenant" the book of Hebrews says that by calling this covenant "New" he has called the former "old". The "old covenant was initiated and begun by the blood of the lamb over the doorways as the children were lead out of Egypt. "NOT LIKE" the old covenant when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt....

Here you are essentially correct, but this is really irrelevant to the present discussion. Of course the new covenant is "not like the old covenant”! No one is contesting any of this, but the very fact that you bring this up at all suggests that you are still missing the point.

We're in disagreement. This is why it's important to see what the condition of the nation was when the prophecy was made. EZ wasn't prophecying to a far distant 3000 yr later people, but to a people 500 yrs later. Every single early reciver of the post resurrection everlasting coveant WAS jewish.

No, the situation in Judea in the first century A.D. just does not “cut it” as a fulfillment. First of all, there was only a remnant in the land at that time, and they were under Roman occupation. Also, they were only there for another forty years. Ezekiel and other prophets repeatedly describe a future time of great peace and well-being, and without any threat from outside. There is, to date, simply no time in history that fits this picture. Ezekiel 36:22-28 HAS to lie in the future.

Again, read Pauls arguments in Romans 3-5 and Gal 4. He addresses and speaks against the very argument you are trying to make. Abraham was given the promises BEFORE circumcison as an individual man justified by faith. He was an 'everyman' from the Nations. He was not yet a Jew of the circumsicion or of the old covenant pattern religion. Thus the promises are not to the circumcision of the flesh or a physical descendancy or religion, but of the individual circumcision of the heart and the indwelling of Jesus/Holy Spirit. They are to the "seed" of Israel, meaning those of like kind of the Spiritual reborn-renamed person "Israel", son of God; and to the "seed" of Abraham meaning those of like kind as being justified and proven by faith. The 'seed' of Abraham is explained in Gal 3 I think.

I have memorized all of those chapters long ago and am well aware of what they are saying. And frankly, I have no idea what you imagine that I am “arguing against”. This suggests to me that you have failed to grasp what we have been saying. Most of what you have said here is correct, but what is your point?

I said nothing about circumcision, but now that you have brought that up, let us consider the subject. Circumcision was given to Abraham as an external sign of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17, but it was not a prerequisite to salvation (Rom. 4:9,10). It was later included as a part of the Mosaic or Old Covenant (Lev. 12:3), and subsequently abolished with the New Covenant.

The idea of a “spiritual Israel” is a myth. There is no such thing in Scripture. Believers are called “seed of Abraham” and even “true Jews”, but NEVER “Israel”. That word is reserved for the physical descendants of Jacob, a.k.a. Israel. You cannot quote Scriptures that use the first two terms and then do a subtle “shell game”, and substitute the word “Israel”! You HAVE to keep these terms straight!

Again, were in strong disagreement. Which of "all these things" did NOT occur in the first century and specifically before 70 AD.??

I already answered that in my earlier post. Read it again if you don’t remember what I said. Also note that Jesus said that the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations and then shall the end come. (See Matt.24:14). That does not mean just the Mediterranean region. Even if Thomas made it to India, that is still a far cry from the whole world! Again, also read my previous posts.

I agree that we have pretty well exhausted this subject and further discussions would just be fruitless repetitions. Also the time could be better used elsewhere. I also agree that these discussions would have been more appropriate in a different thread, with this space relinquished to those who wish to concentrate exclusively on the “generation” issue.

HarrisonS · Aug 22, 2009

kotel said:
I’m looking for a mathematical answer not one’s opinion. There are two primary years chosen as the year of Christ’s crucifixion, 30 and 33 AD. We cannot just add 40 years to 30 AD using our calendar to arrive at 70 AD, it has to be the Hebrew calendar. Calculating the time based on the Hebrew calendar would probably support the 33 AD year of his crucifixion.

kotel said:
Mt 24; Lk 13 and Mk 21 have a duel fulfillment, 70 AD and the future Tribulation. The main reason for duel fulfillment is the need for their Messiah to return after Jacob’s time of trouble.

Exactly one generation after King David conquered Jerusalem Solomon began building the temple, that generation was 40 years. It was approximately forty years from when he was crucified to 70 AD.

I think you meant to say “Mt 24; Mk 13 and Lk 21”; probably that was a typo.

You make some good points in this post, but, as I said before, you can never assign a mathematically precise numerical value to the term “generation” (Greek genea). And remember that, just like the English word, it often can refer to a generation of people, rather than a generation of time. Even when it does mean a generation of time, it should never be taken to mean an exact number of years: 40, 70 or any other number of years.

Just to appease your curiosity, however, I did calculate back from your date of August 10, 70 AD., using years of 360 days, i.e., 40 x 360 = 14,400 days. I have some software here that makes all of this very easy. That would fall on March 8, 31 AD. As you know, the Passover is celebrated at the time of a full moon, and so I also checked the phase of the moon, and found it to be a thin waning crescent, only four days before the new moon! Passover that year would have been celebrated on March 27 according to the Hebrew calendar.

“Generation” was never intended to represent a precise unit of time, measurable in days, hours, minutes and seconds. If you want to examine the exact date of the crucifixion, you might start by looking at the calculations and other historical factors used to come up with the currently suggested dates.

HisdaughterJen · Aug 22, 2009

I just wanted to add two points:

1. Would we count backwards from 66 AD, when it all began or 70 AD when it was all destroyed?

2. A generation is definitely 70 years based on several verses in Jeremiah. Jesus said "this generation" to the people he was standing in front of...not babies born that day which would then have been about 40 at the time of the temple's final destruction.

But, I think we can count backwards 70 years from the Temple's destruction to the approximate birth of Christ and count that 70 year time period as "a generation" because God moves at the end of 70 years, Biblically.

What is also interesting is that 2000 years from the birth of Christ (ended in 2008, by the Ethiopian count who never changed to go along with the Catholic Church) encompassed 70 years at the beginning and almost 70 years at the end, with the final 3 1/2 we're all waiting for, outside of the 2000 and on the Day of the Lord.

kotel · Aug 23, 2009

Just to appease your curiosity, however, I did calculate back from your date of August 10, 70 AD., using years of 360 days, i.e., 40 x 360 = 14,400 days. That would fall on March 8, 31 AD.

Passover that year would have been celebrated on March 27 according to the Hebrew calendar.

Appreciate your answer Harrison, thank you. I got the Aug 10th date from a web site and is probably incorrect. Jewish tradition has both Solomon’s Temple and Herod’s temple destroyed on the same date, the Ninth day of the Fifth month of Av (month not in the Bible).

Scripture does not provide the destruction date of Herod’s Temple, it does for Solomon’s Temple. 2 Kings 25:8 has the 7th day of the fifth month of Av and Jer. 52:12 has the 10th day of the fifth month of Av. Some scholars think one of these dates is a copyist error. I view the different dates as Nebuzaradan coming to Jerusalem the 7th day, setting the temple on fire the 9th day and the temple completely burned on the 10th day.

According to the NIV Study Bible and The Bible Knowledge Commentary these dates are August 14, 16 and 17 586 B.C.

Originally I had configured the date of the Olivet Discourse using the Aug 10th date, here are the same calculations using the Aug 17th date:

40 years x 360 days = 14,400

14,400 days divided by 365.4 = 39.40years

.40 x 365.4 = 146 days

146 days divided by 30.45 = 4.8 months

.80 x 30.45 = 24 days

Duration of the disciples generation according to our calendar was about 39 years, 4 months and 24 days.

August 17, 70 AD minus 39 years = August 17, 31 AD

August 17, 31 AD minus 4 months = April 17, 31 AD

April 17, 31 AD minus 24 days = March 24, 31 AD for the Olivet Discourse.

The Passover was two days away on March 27 when Jesus spoke to his disciples on the Mount of Olives (Mt 26:2), my calculations are one day off. Adding the additional 7 days from March 10 to March 17 to your March 8th date is March 15, 31A.D. Is this close enough to have the disciples' generation as 40 years? For our generation it is 70 years.

Josephus in his “Jewish War” has August 30, 70 A.D. for the destruction of the temple. Several days were required for the temple stones to cool down and more days required to completely dismantle the temple.

http://www.biblehistory.net/Jesus_Temple.pdf

This Generation

Senior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

kotel

Guest

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

kotel

Guest

Senior Member

Junior Member

kotel

Guest

kotel

Guest

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

kotel

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency