This generation

[Zao is life]

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.

David I've checked every verse where that word meta translated as "immediately after" in verse 29 is used in the New Testament and it actually means "accompanying" or "with". I.O.W in my opinion it should be translated as "during the days of this tribulation being discussed here" or "accompanying these days" or something like that.

BUT I read your other post where you made me think about a possible link between the biblical meaning of "the last days" (Hebrews 1:2) and "this generation" in Matthew 24:34:

[*StrongsGreek*]
01074
γενεά geneá, ghen-eh-ah'
from (a presumed derivative of) 1085;
a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm not arguing that it wasn't appointed. I'm arguing that there was still an opportunity to repent and convert to Christianity before that day arrived. Unlike the 40 year example you provided from the OT. There was no hope for any of them throughout that entire 40 years. There was still hope for those in the first century throughout that 40 years, though.

Hebrews 3:7-19 tells us that there was hope for them during that 40 years in the wilderness, but they were being given an opportunity for 40 years during both periods to demonstrate faith in God, but they (only those of them who failed), failed each time.

What is recorded in Luke 19:41-44 has zero to do with, for example, with what is recorded in Luke 21:24 involving this---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Which means 'this generation' passing away has zero to do with events pertaining to the first century since Jesus said all things must be fulfilled before this generation shall pass away. Obviously, unless one can undeniably prove otherwise, the times of the Gentiles were not fulfilled in the first century since we are still in those times as we speak.

Therefore, this generation meant in the OD hasn't passed away yet

You made me think about a possible link between the biblical meaning of "the last days" (Hebrews 1:2) and "this generation" in Matthew 24:34:

[*StrongsGreek*]
01074
γενεά geneá, ghen-eh-ah'
from (a presumed derivative of) 1085;
a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time.

 

[Jamdoc]

You totally ducked around the evidence presented.

Because unless you have evidence that Jesus returned, it is irrelevant. Jesus did not create a thousands of years long divide in the text, and said it'd occur within the same generation that saw the Abomination of Desolation.
If what you think is the Abomination of Desolation and Great Tribulation did not have the return of Christ in that same generation? It's not the AoD or Great Tribulation.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm arguing against your claim that "Ethnic Israel Rejected Jesus"

Such is demonstraby untrue.

They didnt reject Jesus any more than Ethnic Israel rejected entry into the promised land, or Ethnic Israel rejected Jehovah in Elijah's Day.

Ethnic Israel Believed, Repented, Accepted and was preserved, just like always.

Totally disagree. Spiritual Israel received Him, which was a small remnant of the overall nation. Not all of Israel were/are Israel. After all, as it says in Romans 11:7: "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

 

[sovereigngrace]

Because unless you have evidence that Jesus returned, it is irrelevant. Jesus did not create a thousands of years long divide in the text, and said it'd occur within the same generation that saw the Abomination of Desolation.
If what you think is the Abomination of Desolation and Great Tribulation did not have the return of Christ in that same generation? It's not the AoD or Great Tribulation.

Please address the evidence I presented that proves Jesus was asked and answered 2 questions. This demolishes Futurism and Preterism that only see 1 question and answer.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm arguing against your claim that "Ethnic Israel Rejected Jesus"

Such is demonstraby untrue.

They didnt reject Jesus any more than Ethnic Israel rejected entry into the promised land, or Ethnic Israel rejected Jehovah in Elijah's Day.

Ethnic Israel Believed, Repented, Accepted and was preserved, just like always.

I presented the evidence, and you ducked around it again. You have to. Your theology requires it.

 

[Jamdoc]

I presented the evidence, and you ducked around it again. You have to. Your theology requires it.

The evidence is irrelevant because the point of the parable of the fig tree was that the same generation that saw the Abomination of Desolation, is the same generation that'd see the Second Coming.

Did the Second Coming happen in 70AD? Is that the evidence you were trying to provide?
Because as far as I know, you believe in a future Second Coming.

Without the Second Coming, whatever you believe the Great Tribulation to have been, is not it, because it goes against what Jesus said about the timing being within one generation.

There is 0 way to infer a gap of hundreds, or thousands of years, between the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming from the text, and in fact Jesus' own words preclude such a gap.
The principal teaching of the Olivet Discourse is about His Second coming. That's why after Matthew 24:20-31, the subject shifts so heavily to the second coming, with multiple parables to describe it.
Jesus connected the Great Tribulation to the Second Coming, why would you separate them?

So whatever evidence you have of any claims that the Great Tribulation was in 70AD is false, because it conflicts with what Jesus said about all these things, including His second coming, being fulfilled before a generation passed away.
The meaning of that verse is not that this was to the apostles' generation alone, but rather that it would happen quickly when it happened. Though because Jesus didn't know when it'd happen, it could have happened during the apostle's lifetime. But what Jesus did know, is that once these things started happening, it'd all happen rapidly, using timing from Daniel. 2300 days, 1290 days, time, times, and the dividing of times, 1335 days.. these are all short time periods
So Jesus basically said, "if you see the Abomination of Desolation, that's in the book of Daniel, flee, cause Great Tribulation is coming but right after that, I'm coming back". That's the timing Jesus had in the book of Daniel. Jesus used scripture for revelation, and that's intentional. Because we're supposed to use scripture for revelation.
Somehow people think that Jesus knew when this was going to happen like He knew 70AD, but the Gospel of Mark's version of the Olivet Discourse has Jesus professing that He did not know.

So.. the Olivet Discourse is to the Apostles, but also to every generation after them until He returns.

so why separate the events when Jesus didn't separate them?

 

[claninja]

Did Israel kill Abel?

No, the nation of Israel didn’t not exist yet. However, that is a completely Irrelevant question to my argument. The first century Jews also didn’t persecute the and kill the prophets whom their fathers killed.

Your question completely ignores vs 32. Do you know what it means to “fill up then the sin of your fathers”?

Matthew 23:32 32Fill up, then,g the measure of the sin of your fathers.

In case you didn’t read it, I’ll post again, what “to fill up up then the sins of your fathers” means.

Ellicots commentary on Matthew 23:32.
“Fill ye up then . . .—The English fails to give the pathetic abruptness of the original: And ye—fill ye up the measure of your fathers. The thought implied is that which we find in Genesis 15:16, and of which the history of the world offers but too many illustrations. Each generation, as it passes, adds something to the ever-accumulating mass of evil. At last the penalty falls, as though the long-suffering of God had been waiting till the appointed limit had been reached, and the measure of iniquity was at last full.”

the appointed time fell on the generation that murdered the son of God. 70ad is evidence of that. It such an important event, because it vindicated Christ as a true.

Why are preterists “obsessed” with 70ad? Because Christ prophesied about it often and it came TRUE.

“21You may ask in your heart, “How can we recognize a message that the LORD has not spoken?” 22When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and the message does not come to pass or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”


Edit.

I would like to add this. Jesus literally says “upon you”. This is further evidence that the Pharisees’ generation would pay the penalty for filling up the measure of their fathers sins

“35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.”

No, it doesn't. It seem that you have overlooked that they were even responsible for the death of Abel. If it's only about Israel rather than being about wicked and adulterous people like Cain and the scribes and Pharisees then how do you explain that?

They were responsible for all the “righteous” blood shed. How is Able “righteous” without Christ?

Do you think the above passage is talking about human messengers rather than angels, also? Is the above passage somehow talking about some other coming of the Son of man than the one Matthew 24:27-31 refers to?

when does Christ sit on the throne? Ascension or 2nd coming?

 

[claninja]

I'm not arguing that it wasn't appointed. I'm arguing that there was still an opportunity to repent and convert to Christianity before that day arrived. Unlike the 40 year example you provided from the OT. There was no hope for any of them throughout that entire 40 years. There was still hope for those in the first century throughout that 40 years, though.

What is recorded in Luke 19:41-44 has zero to do with, for example, with what is recorded in Luke 21:24 involving this---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Which means 'this generation' passing away has zero to do with events pertaining to the first century since Jesus said all things must be fulfilled before this generation shall pass away. Obviously, unless one can undeniably prove otherwise, the times of the Gentiles were not fulfilled in the first century since we are still in those times as we speak.

Therefore, this generation meant in the OD hasn't passed away yet, or if it allegedly has as some insist, we then have no choice but to assume Jesus lied to us in that case since the times of the Gentiles were not fulfilled in the first century, meaning those times had come and gone altogether, even though Jesus plainly and undeniably said all things have to be fulfilled first. And since it is ludicrous to assume Jesus lied to us, one has no choice but to reject an interpretation if that interpretation is assuming Jesus lied to us.

I know how that works, though. Preterists apply that right back at us, as in, if one's futurist interpretation is to be accepted this assumes Jesus lied to us in that case as well. Which means we are still getting nowhere if both sides think this makes Jesus out to be a liar if the other side's interpretation is assumed correct.

sure, there was an opportunity to repent, but that wouldn’t stop israel from being destroyed in 70ad. Jesus prophesied it would happen to them multiple times in the gospel. It was a done deal. Was Jerusalem and temple destroyed within “this generation”?

 

[Hammster]

The evidence is irrelevant because the point of the parable of the fig tree was that the same generation that saw the Abomination of Desolation, is the same generation that'd see the Second Coming.

The second advent isn’t in view in the OD.

 

[Jamdoc]

The second advent isn’t in view in the OD.

Don't respond to me please.

 

[DavidPT]

Was Jerusalem and temple destroyed within “this generation”?

If I answer no this means I'm obviously contradicting reality. If I answer yes this apparently means that I am admitting that this is what this generation in the OD is being applied to even though I disagree that that is what it is being applied to. Kind of like asking someone who has never beaten their wife in their life, yes or no, have you beat your wife lately? And even if you answer no, it still means you beat your wife, just not lately. Thus a contradiction.

 

[claninja]

If I answer no this means I'm obviously contradicting reality. If I answer yes this apparently means that I am admitting that this is what this generation in the OD is being applied to even though I disagree that that is what it is being applied to. Kind of like asking someone who has never beaten their wife in their life, yes or no, have you beat your wife lately? And even if you answer no, it still means you beat your wife, just not lately. Thus a contradiction.

Or third option, Jesus was talking about the destruction of jerusalem, in the same way when God came on the clouds to judge nations in the OT (2 Samuel 22, Isaiah 19, Micah 1), and not the future 2nd coming of Christ at the end of the literal world. The answer would then be yes, Jesus came during “this generation” if the third option is true.

 

[claninja]

You tie Zechariah 12 to Matthew 24:30, which is incomprehensible. Although Zechariah 12 has the Jews mourning, its not associated with judgement upon Israel as you say; because the chapter concerns itself with the Jews being delivered from their adversaries. It is Israel's adversaries being destroyed. Hardly the 70 AD scenario.

it also has to do with them murdering the son of God

 

[sovereigngrace]

The evidence is irrelevant because the point of the parable of the fig tree was that the same generation that saw the Abomination of Desolation, is the same generation that'd see the Second Coming.

Did the Second Coming happen in 70AD? Is that the evidence you were trying to provide?
Because as far as I know, you believe in a future Second Coming.

Without the Second Coming, whatever you believe the Great Tribulation to have been, is not it, because it goes against what Jesus said about the timing being within one generation.

There is 0 way to infer a gap of hundreds, or thousands of years, between the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming from the text, and in fact Jesus' own words preclude such a gap.
The principal teaching of the Olivet Discourse is about His Second coming. That's why after Matthew 24:20-31, the subject shifts so heavily to the second coming, with multiple parables to describe it.
Jesus connected the Great Tribulation to the Second Coming, why would you separate them?

So whatever evidence you have of any claims that the Great Tribulation was in 70AD is false, because it conflicts with what Jesus said about all these things, including His second coming, being fulfilled before a generation passed away.
The meaning of that verse is not that this was to the apostles' generation alone, but rather that it would happen quickly when it happened. Though because Jesus didn't know when it'd happen, it could have happened during the apostle's lifetime. But what Jesus did know, is that once these things started happening, it'd all happen rapidly, using timing from Daniel. 2300 days, 1290 days, time, times, and the dividing of times, 1335 days.. these are all short time periods
So Jesus basically said, "if you see the Abomination of Desolation, that's in the book of Daniel, flee, cause Great Tribulation is coming but right after that, I'm coming back". That's the timing Jesus had in the book of Daniel. Jesus used scripture for revelation, and that's intentional. Because we're supposed to use scripture for revelation.
Somehow people think that Jesus knew when this was going to happen like He knew 70AD, but the Gospel of Mark's version of the Olivet Discourse has Jesus professing that He did not know.

So.. the Olivet Discourse is to the Apostles, but also to every generation after them until He returns.

so why separate the events when Jesus didn't separate them?

Until you read up on the classic Amil position it pointless continuing.

 

[Timtofly]

So James' got it wrong then? He misunderstood, misapplied and mistaught the very parable he was quoting from in James 5:8-9?

James was not even alive to read Matthew. Do you think that he miss heard Jesus' parable?

You would have to even condemn yourself, unless you state Jesus will return thousands of years from now. By your logic, you yourself would be wrong if you stated the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. No, I don't think James was wrong. The coming of the Lord still draws nigh.

Literally it is closer now than it was hundreds of years ago.

 

[Timtofly]

They were responsible for all the “righteous” blood shed. How is Abel “righteous” without Christ?

That is the million dollar question. Abel was born prior to sin entering the world. Most deny Revelation is chronological, then turn around and demand the first 4 chapters of Genesis are contiguous and chronological.

Revelation is more contiguous and chronological than Genesis 1-4. Many sons of God were created on the 6th day in Genesis 1. They are not mentioned again until chapter 6. Adam was one of them. Adam's story picks up in chapter 2. Abel's story is in chapter 4, but yet Abel was born before the disobedience in chapter 3. Overlap and not in any specific order.

 

[Timtofly]

Or third option, Jesus was talking about the destruction of jerusalem, in the same way when God came on the clouds to judge nations in the OT (2 Samuel 22, Isaiah 19, Micah 1), and not the future 2nd coming of Christ at the end of the literal world. The answer would then be yes, Jesus came during “this generation” if the third option is true.

Or no, Jesus could have meant His birth and the Cross was "this generation" and it was all over in 30AD, period, end of the age. 70AD would not apply at all. It was all over on Resurrection Sunday, end of story.

NHNE happened Monday, the day after Resurrection Sunday. Everything since then has been eternity. 70AD was definitely not any more special than 30AD. 70AD was just another war like Attila the Hun, the Crusades, the 100 years war, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or the 2 WW's. Just another day in Paradise.

 

[claninja]

Both the Greek words genos and genea refer to race

genos is a different word than genea. Genos is not found in Matthew 24:34.

It means "this race" - as in "the successive members of a particular genealogy."

I agree genea can be in regards to family “generations”. If you notice, strongs supplies Matthew 1:17 as fitting with this definition.

“the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).”

Matthew 1:17 17So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

Many speculate on what genea is Jesus speaking of, and impose their own opinion of how long they think a generation is to fit theur theology.

seems like what you have done. Your presupposition is that Christ is talking about the end of the literal planet. Therefore, you must argue that genea actually means genos.

The detail re generation speaks of that genea alive when He returns in power and glory. The subject in view continues until the end of each respective chapter.

your interpretation is inconsistent.

On one hand you use scripture to interpret scripture when it comes to things like the armies surrounding Jerusalem being equivalent to the AOD. However, on the other hand, you argue the questions posed by the disciples are different questions.

Consistent interpretation would would be:

If armies surrounding Jerusalem =AOD

then

sign of your coming and end of the age = sign that they (temple destruction) will be fulfilled

 

[sovereigngrace]

genos is a different word than genea. Genos is not found in Matthew 24:34.




I agree genea can be in regards to family “generations”. If you notice, strongs supplies Matthew 1:17 as fitting with this definition.

“the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).”

Matthew 1:17 17So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.




seems like what you have done. Your presupposition is that Christ is talking about the end of the literal planet. Therefore, you must argue that genea actually means genos.




your interpretation is inconsistent.

On one hand you use scripture to interpret scripture when it comes to things like the armies surrounding Jerusalem being equivalent to the AOD. However, on the other hand, you argue the questions posed by the disciples are different questions.

Consistent interpretation would would be:

If armies surrounding Jerusalem =AOD

then

sign of your coming and end of the age = sign that they (temple destruction) will be fulfilled

Of course genos is a different word than genea. Who said otherwise? I have already shown you that the word interpreted "generation" is broader that you will acknowledge. Both the Greek words genos and genea refer to race - in this case the Jewish race. It means "this race" - as in "the successive members of a particular genealogy."

Because you are so sold on Preterism and the coming of Titus in AD70 you cannot think genea is anything other than 40 years. To others it can also mean an age or a race, all depending on the context.