This generation

[Hammster]

You certainly haven't proven it. You are completely unable to respond to any challenges to your view. if someone brings up other scripture to aid in understanding what Jesus said you don't even want to consider it. You call interpreting scripture with scripture eisegesis instead of dealing with the scriptures I bring up such as 2 Peter 3. Peter taught about the heavens and earth passing away at Christ's return, but we should ignore that when interpreting Matthew 24 where Jesus talked about the same thing? Really? It's almost impossible to debate you because you just brush aside any serious challenges to your view while repeating the same things over and over again.

It’s actually proven in the OP itself. Every use of “this generation” refers to the people Jesus is speaking to. That’s also true in Matthew 23 and 24. And the “you” statements in chapter 24 further support this. So I’m the one who, from the beginning, has used scripture to interpret scripture.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The repeated use of something like every tribe and language and people and nation in multiple Revelations verses is poetic as multiple synonyms are used. It should be sufficient to indicate world-wide by simply stating every people, or by simply saying every nation.

Substituting the meaning of tribe with Jewish tribe as you insist throughout the NT makes no sense. Its like an IQ test, which phrase does not fit:

a. Every Jewish tribe
b. Every language
c. Every people
d. Every nation​

Exactly. Well said. I made a similar point earlier and it just gets ignored. It's clearly referring to all people in the world in four different ways (all tribes, all languages, all people or people groups, and all nations in the world) and not referring to Jewish tribes in verses like this:

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You’re assumption is that the last days that Peter is talking about are the days leading up to the second advent.

That's not an assumption, that's a clear truth. Has Christ returned yet and have the heavens and earth been burned up yet? Clearly not.

Then you assume it lines up with other scripture.

We all assume things based on what we read in scripture, including you. You're proving nothing by pointing that out. You assume all kinds of things including what "this generation" means.

Peter is writing to folks who are under persecution. Him, knowing that his generation would see the destruction of the temple, and all that it meant, was speaking of those last days, and encouraging those folks.

There is nothing in 2 Peter 3 that has anything to do with the destruction of the temple. Not even close. Why would the global flood be directly compared to what happened in 70 AD? In 2 Peter 3:5-7, he was clearly comparing a past global destruction event with a future one. Obviously, what happened in 70 AD was not global.

Instead, it's talking about the burning up the heavens and earth that results in the new heavens and new earth. That clearly has not happened yet. The reason Jesus hasn't returned yet to burn up the heavens and earth and renew them is because He still wants to give people time to repent. What does that have to do with 70 AD? Nothing.

 

[DavidPT]

You seem to have missed Matthew 24:16.

Or did you agree previously that that is historical?

I don agree that Matthew 24:16 is historical, though I do agree Luke 21:21 is historical. This perhaps comes across as contradictory, because how can Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21 not be describing the same events, would be the logic? Awhile back I started a thread involving a 2000 year gap in Luke 21. That thread expresses some of my reasoning behind some of these things.

If, in my view, Matthew 24:30 involves the 2nd coming in the end of this age, and that Luke 21:20-21 involves events pertaining to 70 AD, Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21 can't be describing the same events because immediately after the events pertaining to 70 AD were fulfilled, the sun didn't go dark, whether meaning in the literal sense or not, that does not matter because the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30 never took place anytime in the first century to begin with, it hasn't even been fulfilled yet.

The logic is this, pertaining to what is recorded in Matthew 24. First there is the trib of those days followed immediately after by the sun shall be darkened, followed by the sign of the Son of man in heaven, followed by His literal coming, and that one can't have the trib of those days meaning 2000 years ago then have the coming meaning 2000 years later since this contradicts what is recorded in verse 29 pertaining to this---Immediately after. Therefore, since I interpret verse 30 to mean the 2nd coming in the end of this age, I then have no choice but to conclude that what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22, none of this is meaning the events recorded in Luke 21:20-21.

 

[Hammster]

Exactly. Well said. I made a similar point earlier and it just gets ignored. It's clearly referring to all people in the world in four different ways (all tribes, all languages, all people or people groups, and all nations in the world) and not referring to Jewish tribes in verses like this:

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

Would it have been fine if he just said tribe, and not included “and language and people and nation”?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It’s actually proven in the OP itself. Every use of “this generation” refers to the people Jesus is speaking to. That’s also true in Matthew 23 and 24. And the “you” statements in chapter 24 further support this. So I’m the one who, from the beginning, has used scripture to interpret scripture.

You give an opinion on what it means in those verses and that somehow means you've proven something? All you've proven is that you believe it means the same thing each time, which means you're consistent, but you've done NOTHING to prove what it actually means.

The people He was talking to likely weren't even still alive in 70 AD, so what does that tell you? This generation included Cain because Jesus indicated that this generation was responsible even for the death of Abel. What does that tell you? It tells me that Jesus was not referring to a chronological generation as you believe, but rather was referring to a certain type of people. A type of people that did things like kill innocent people for no good reason. People like Cain. And people like the scribes and Pharisees and their forefathers. People who were "evil", "wicked", "sinful" and "adulterous".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Would it have been fine if he just said tribe, and not included “and language and people and nation”?

You're not getting it. Are you even trying? Do you think every language does not include every people group and every nation? What you're not getting is that phrases like "every tribe and language and people and nation" is describing all people in four different ways.

 

[Hammster]

Instead, it's talking about the burning up the heavens and earth that results in the new heavens and new earth. That clearly has not happened yet. The reason Jesus hasn't returned yet to burn up the heavens and earth and renew them is because He still wants to give people time to repent. What does that have to do with 70 AD? Nothing.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s say that 2 Peter 3 is talking about the time immediately before the second advent. On what basis do you link it to the events in Matthew 24?

 

[JosephZ]

How can you think the old covenant was still in effect at the same time as the new covenant which Christ established with His shed blood?

You didn't read all of my post did you?

 

[Hammster]

You give an opinion on what it means in those verses and that somehow means you've proven something? All you've proven is that you believe it means the same thing each time, which means you're consistent, but you've done NOTHING to prove what it actually means.

It shows how Jesus used “this generation”. And the “you” statements in 24 just go to reinforce this.

The people He was talking to likely weren't even still alive in 70 AD, so what does that tell you?

Well, biblically we know that a generation is 40 years. That fits the timeline He lays out. I’m sure that there were people who heard Him that were still alive in 70AD

This generation included Cain because Jesus indicated that this generation was responsible even for the death of Abel. What does that tell you? It tells me that Jesus was not referring to a chronological generation as you believe, but rather was referring to a certain type of people. A type of people that did things like kill innocent people for no good reason. People like Cain. And people like the scribes and Pharisees and their forefathers. People who were "evil", "wicked", "sinful" and "adulterous".

“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
— Matthew 23:34-35
The guilt of all those deaths fell on them. Not only were they just as guilty as Cain, they were even more guilty because they crucified Christ.

 

[Hammster]

You're not getting it. Are you even trying? Do you think every language does not include every people group and every nation? What you're not getting is that phrases like "every tribe and language and people and nation" is describing all people in four different ways.

So I’ll ask again.

Would it have been fine if he just said tribe, and not included “and language and people and nation”?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So you do realize that makes you a partial preterist right?

The same thing I pose to partial preterists applies here then.
In the verse the OP is about, the generation won't pass away until ALL THESE THINGS be fulfilled. ALL THESE THINGS includes Matthew 24:29-31 which is His second coming.
How can you justify a gap of thousands of years?

If sovereigngrace is a partial preterist then so are you. You're basically expanding the definition of a partial preterist to be anyone who believes a prophecy from scripture has been fulfilled in the past, as we all do.

Because of your understanding of what makes someone a partial preterist you asked him a question that doesn't apply to his beliefs. He does not believe that Matthew 24:29-31 was fulfilled in 70 AD as a typical partial preterist does. Maybe you should stop making assumptions about what people believe just because they might agree with a thing or two that typical partial preterists believe.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It shows how Jesus used “this generation”. And the “you” statements in 24 just go to reinforce this.
Well, biblically we know that a generation is 40 years. That fits the timeline He lays out. I’m sure that there were people who heard Him that were still alive in 70AD

Oh, so you think He was only talking about part of "this generation" rather than all of "this generation"?. Can you show me where He indicated that He was only talking about something that would happen to a few of them that He was talking to rather than all of them?

“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
— Matthew 23:34-35
The guilt of all those deaths fell on them. Not only were they just as guilty as Cain, they were even more guilty because they crucified Christ.

In that passage I do believe that Jesus was referring to the wrath that would come down upon people like the Jewish scribes and Pharisees. But, you're still not recognizing that He was talking about a certain type of people/generation (evil, wicked, adulterous) rather than a chronological generation of 40 years. Otherwise, it would make no sense to reference the killing of Abel. Cain was obviously not Jewish and yet was still the type of person Jesus was talking about.

In the Olivet Discourse Jesus talked both about wrath that would come upon unbelieving Jews (which occurred in 70 AD) AND about wrath that would come upon all unbelievers at His return. Both preterists like yourself and futurists are not getting that. You, like most futurists, think He could only have been talking about one or the other.

When your view is challenged such as when I questioned how the elect from heaven and earth were already gathered before this generation passed away, you respond with a weak argument that I can't even take seriously. Yet, here you are thinking that your view is irrefutable. Why are you not willing to engage the challenges made to your view such as your understanding of the gathering of the elect, which had to occur before 70 AD according to your view. I say that because Jesus said all these things had to occur first before this generation passed away.

You acted as if the gathering of the elect related to the preaching of the gospel and people being saved. Did that end in 70 AD? Of course not. Yet, the gathering of the elect is included among the things that Jesus said had to occur first before this generation passed away. So, how do you reconcile this with your view?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So I’ll ask again.

Would it have been fine if he just said tribe, and not included “and language and people and nation”?

No, it wouldn't have because I'm sure he understood that people like you would assume he was only talking about the tribes of Israel if he didn't add the other part.

But, since he did add the rest, then the context is clearly that he was talking about all people in the world and not just the tribes of Israel. What sense would it make for him to reference every tribe of Israel followed by three different types of references to every person in the world? That would be ridiculous.

You understand that Israel is not the only nation or people group that has tribes, right? The context is clearly in relation to every tribe of every nation in the world and not just to the tribes of Israel.

You think "tribes" is in reference to the tribes of Israel. So, what is your understanding of "every language and people and nation" then? Who are represented by "every language"? Who are represented by all people? Who are represented by every nation?

 

[DavidPT]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s say that 2 Peter 3 is talking about the time immediately before the second advent. On what basis do you link it to the events in Matthew 24?

Ill give that a shot though you weren't asking me that.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Now compare with some of 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Both accounts involve something passing away, that being this present heavens and this present earth. But let's don't stop here since that is not all both accounts have in common. Does not this passage say the DOTL will come as a thief in the night. Where else have we read about anything or anyone coming as a thief? In Matthew 24, of course.

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

But there is even more that connects these accounts.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

1 Thessalonians 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

As to the following, this is also something Jesus expanded on in Matthew 24 as well.

1 Thessalonians 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

Compare with.

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;

Which then results in this.

Matthew 24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Which then is meaning this.

1 Thessalonians 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

But let's just ignore the fact that Jesus wasn't simple-minded about things, and let's just interpret the OD in a vacuum and have it all involving those unbelieving Jews in the first century. Let's just blame everything on them. Let's pretend professed servants of Christ, the ones Matthew 24:48-51 are pertaining to, that this is meaning unbelieving Jews in the first century, or that it's just meaning the lost in general even though the text makes it crystal clear, IOW, context, that it is meaning professed servants of His.

Jesus in Matthew 24, and Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5, are teaching that those within the NT church are going to be held accountable for evil things they are doing while He is away, but let's just ignore that fact and interpret the OD in a manner which hides this fact rather than brings it to light. And not only do Preterists do that via their interpretation of the OD, so do some futurists as well, and not just meaning Pretribbers.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you believe Matthew 24 was fulfilled in part, how does that make anyone NOT a Partial Preterist.
You believe part was fulfilled, and part was not.

At the beginning of Matthew 24 Jesus said that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed. And that clearly has already happened. So, why would anyone not believe that at least part of it was fulfilled?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You didn't read all of my post did you?

Yes, I did. I didn't intend to ask that question as if I didn't know why you believe what you do. I know why but I also know that there's a lot of things that you're not taking into account. My question was more along the lines of wondering how you cannot understand something that I think is obvious which is that Christ's blood not only established the new covenant but also put an end to the old covenant. Scripture teaches that the new covenant replaced the first, old covenant. There is no reason to think it didn't replace it immediately when it was established by the blood of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s say that 2 Peter 3 is talking about the time immediately before the second advent. On what basis do you link it to the events in Matthew 24?

I've already explained that multiple times. In Matthew 24 Jesus talked about His second coming, that heaven and earth would pass away and that all unbelievers would be killed at His second coming (Matthew 24:29-51).

That lines up with 2 Peter 3 because Peter also talked about His second coming and how scoffers would scoff at the idea of His second coming in the last days. And he wrote about the heavens and earth being burned on the day of His second coming (that equates to heaven and earth passing away). That's why he said in 2 Peter 3:13 that we're looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in accordance with the promise of His second coming. Heaven and earth have clearly not yet passed away and the new heavens and new earth have clearly not yet been ushered in.

 

[DavidPT]

You think "tribes" is in reference to the tribes of Israel. So, what is your understanding of "every language and people and nation" then? Who are represented by "every language"? Who are represented by all people? Who are represented by every nation?

Not to get into this debate, but that verse alone and the way you are reasoning it, which I feel you are reasoning it correctly, proves that nations in Revelation 20:3 can't be meaning Gentiles only, but is meaning the same thing it is meaning in this passage. Something to ponder, so not something I'm wanting to debate in here.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don agree that Matthew 24:16 is historical, though I do agree Luke 21:21 is historical. This perhaps comes across as contradictory, because how can Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21 not be describing the same events, would be the logic? Awhile back I started a thread involving a 2000 year gap in Luke 21. That thread expresses some of my reasoning behind some of these things.

If, in my view, Matthew 24:30 involves the 2nd coming in the end of this age, and that Luke 21:20-21 involves events pertaining to 70 AD, Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21 can't be describing the same events because immediately after the events pertaining to 70 AD were fulfilled, the sun didn't go dark, whether meaning in the literal sense or not, that does not matter because the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30 never took place anytime in the first century to begin with, it hasn't even been fulfilled yet.

The logic is this, pertaining to what is recorded in Matthew 24. First there is the trib of those days followed immediately after by the sun shall be darkened, followed by the sign of the Son of man in heaven, followed by His literal coming, and that one can't have the trib of those days meaning 2000 years ago then have the coming meaning 2000 years later since this contradicts what is recorded in verse 29 pertaining to this---Immediately after. Therefore, since I interpret verse 30 to mean the 2nd coming in the end of this age, I then have no choice but to conclude that what is recorded in Matthew 24:15-22, none of this is meaning the events recorded in Luke 21:20-21.

I would love to see a timeline of when you think Jesus said what. In other words, I'd like to see you combine Matthew 24 and Luke 21 together to show when you think He said what He did in Luke 21:20-24 and when He said what He did in Matthew 24:15-22.

It's obvious to me that He said what He did as recorded in Matthew 24:15-22 (and Mark 13:14-20) only once and Luke paraphrased what He said for the benefit of his Gentile audience. So, instead of saying when you see the abomination of desolation that Daniel wrote about standing in the holy place then let those in Judea flee to the mountains, Luke said when you Jerusalem being surrounded by armies then you know its desolation is near and it will be time for those in Judea to flee to the mountains. Luke's Gentile audience would not have been familiar with Daniel's prophecies, so that's why Luke spelled it out to them instead of referencing something written by Daniel and saying "let the reader understand".

Honestly, I find the idea that Jesus spoke of two entirely different events where people in Judea had to flee to the mountains to be completely unreasonable.