This generation

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

I don't believe it means Gentiles only.

 

[JosephZ]

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.

Jesus taught under the law of Moses and taught His disciples to keep the Law. The original apostles never taught that Christ died for their sins and they continued to keep the Law and continued to teach their followers to keep the Law. If the Law no longer applied to the Jews after the death and Resurrection of Christ, why then, did the original Apostles continue to teach the Law to the Jews and continue to keep the Law themselves even after His ascension?

 

[parousia70]

There are multiple imperfect fulfillments of a lot of prophecies. a forerunner, and an ultimate fulfillment.
If there was only 1 single fulfillment and "close enough" was acceptable, then Antiochus Epiphanes IV would have been the Abomination of Desolation, and Jesus would not have referred to it as a still future event in the Olivet Discourse.

So no, seeing an imperfect fulfillment does not rule out a perfect fulfillment in the future.

Should we await anither Virgin Birth?
Another Calvary?
Another GREATER, More Perfect sacrifice for Sin?

Once you open the door for multiple fulfillments, there can be no terminus, for something can always come along to fulfill it further.

While I find that to be a very wild hermeneutic, I believe your ideas of “multiple fulfillments are rooted in O.T. TYPES (i.e. foreshadowings of Messiah). The only problem is, the O.T. foreshadowing finds its final fulfillment in the Messianic generation and does not continue to repeat over and over and over again (for Jesus Christ is no "shadow," but is the OBJECT itself - Col 1:17).

I Believe He meant what He said, and I believe the people He was addressing in front of Him took Him at His word it as well.

The O.T. prophets did not believe the Messianic advent itself would serve as a TYPE for greater fulfillments beyond it. Is calvary a mere TYPE for some greater redemption in our future from sin? Of course not. The O.T. things foreshadowed N.T. COMPLETIONS. The N.T. things do NOT in turn forshadow some future priesthood, sacrifice for sin, etc. The shadows provided by the O.T. religion and history point to the real object of Christ and the heavenly covenant (Col 1:17; Heb 8:1-5; Heb 9:23-24).

 

[DavidPT]

I don't believe it means Gentiles only.

Maybe you don't, but I tend to think SG might, or at least that is the impression he gives when that topic comes up. I then assumed other Amils similar to SG concerning their view of things, so not meaning Preterst Amils, basically reasoned it in the same manner.

 

[Hammster]

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?

Actually, He was talking about everyone who was born on that very day. No death from that group until 70 AD.

 

[DavidPT]

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.

The following is some of my reasoning, thus might not be what you are seeking, yet it's the best I can do for the time being.

In Daniel 12 I assume day 1335 is pertaining to the very last day of this age since it mentions no more days following that one, then considering what it says in the very last verse of that chapter.

Daniel 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Therefore, how can the preceding verse not be meaning this very end of the days in verse 13?

Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

According to Daniel 11, when verse 10 above is meaning, it is meaning during the time Daniel 11:31 is meaning, which then is meaning when Jesus is meaning in Matthew 24:15.

What I am ultimately getting at here is this. If I am correct to connect Daniel 12:12 with that of Daniel 12:13 and the end of days, this alone proves that Daniel 12:11 and the time period involving 1290 days, that this 1290 days lead to the 1335th day in the end of this age. That means I am interpreting Matthew 24:15 correctly by placing those events in the end of this age rather than in the first century, because, clearly the end of days meant in Daniel 12:13 did not happen in the first century and is still unfulfilled as we speak.

In Daniel 12, verse 10 and 11 involve the time of trouble recorded in verse 1 in this same chapter. And in Matthew 24 Jesus places this same time of trouble in a context involving an AOD. And sure enough, in Daniel 12, verse 10 and 11 are also involving an AOD. To chalk these these things up us mere coincidences, thus no relation, is ludicrous, IMO. Nothing recorded in Daniel 12 could remotely be involving events pertaining to 70 AD, as in zero. Even verse 11 doesn't fit that time period since that would mean we have to apply verse 12 to that same time period. As if that makes some kind of good sense, that one was blessed in the first century by waiting and coming to the 1335th day.


Note: EDITED to add some things in order to try and make some points clearer, plus in order to try and fix some typos as well, of course..

 

[Hammster]

I say that because Jesus said all these things had to occur first before this generation passed away.

Yes. I believe Him. And history bears it out.

 

[Hammster]

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.

Exactly. The rest was added to expand past what the readers would know to just be Israel.

 

[claninja]

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".

the LXX uses genea, in this passage. What does generation mean in this passage?
numbers 32:13 And the Lord was very angry with Israel; and for forty years he caused them to wander in the wilderness, until all the generation which did evil in the sight of the Lord was extinct.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Jesus taught under the law of Moses and taught His disciples to keep the Law. The original apostles never taught that Christ died for their sins and they continued to keep the Law and continued to teach their followers to keep the Law.

Where are you getting this from that they never taught that Christ died for their sins? That's ridiculous. And if they taught their followers to keep the law then it was only because they did not yet understand that followers of Christ were no longer under the law as Paul taught repeatedly.

If the Law no longer applied to the Jews after the death and Resurrection of Christ, why then, did the original Apostles continue to teach the Law to the Jews and continue to keep the Law themselves even after His ascension?

Because they either were mistaken for some time before it sank in that they were under grace and no longer under the law or they did what Paul did which was this:

1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Paul kept the law, not because he had to, but in order "to win the Jews" and "win those under the law" and he did it to "save some" and "for the sake of the gospel". Christians, including Jewish Christians, were not obligated to be under the law anymore after Christ's death and resurrection because they were under grace instead.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

the LXX uses genea, in this passage. What does generation mean in this passage?
numbers 32:13 And the Lord was very angry with Israel; and for forty years he caused them to wander in the wilderness, until all the generation which did evil in the sight of the Lord was extinct.

LOL. This means it has to mean the same thing in every verse? Clearly not. Nice try.

Maybe you can tell me how the elect from heaven and earth were all gathered before this generation passed away. What is your explanation for that?

 

[claninja]

LOL. This means it has to mean the same thing in every verse? Clearly not. Nice try.

Maybe you can tell me how the elect from heaven and earth were all gathered before this generation passed away. What is your explanation for that?

Doesn’t address my question. What does genea mean in that passage?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes. I believe Him. And history bears it out.

No, it does not. The elect from heaven and earth were not all gathered before 70 AD. You have no reasonable answer for that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Doesn’t address my question. What does genea mean in that passage?

I'm not going to answer a question that serves no purpose. If what it means in that verse somehow indicated what it has to mean in every verse, then your question would have a purpose. But, that's not the case. Again, nice try.

 

[Hammster]

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.

I know some folks see the latter part of Matthew 24 as being future. I won’t argue against that as it goes beyond the scope of this OP.

 

[Hammster]

No, it does not. The elect from heaven and earth were not all gathered before 70 AD. You have no reasonable answer for that.

I don’t?

Okay. I’ll save it for someone else.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I know some folks see the latter part of Matthew 24 as being future. I won’t argue against that as it goes beyond the scope of this OP.

No, it isn't. He mentions His second coming several times in the latter part of Matthew 24, but He mentioned His second coming already before Matthew 24:34 as well, so that means His second coming would be among "all these things" that He talked about would happen before this generation passed away. You can't just ignore that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don’t?

Okay. I’ll save it for someone else.

The explanation you gave before was not reasonable at all. You mean you actually have a reasonable explanation for the gathering of the elect that you didn't share with me?

 

[claninja]

I'm not going to answer a question that serves no purpose. If what it means in that verse somehow indicated what it has to mean in every verse, then your question would have a purpose. But, that's not the case. Again, nice try.

How does it serve no purpose? The OP is on “this generation”. Are you unable to tell us how it means in the passage I provided? If you can tell us what it means in that passage, how can you tell us what it means in regards to the OP?

 

[Hammster]

No, it isn't. He mentions His second coming several times in the latter part of Matthew 24, but He mentioned His second coming already before Matthew 24:34 as well, so that means His second coming would be among "all these things" that He talked about would happen before this generation passed away. You can't just ignore that.

It’s not mentioned prior to v 24.