This generation

[claninja]

You are not getting what I'm saying. I know that they (the first century Jewish scribes and Pharisees) were destroyed in 70 AD (if they were still alive), but when Jesus referred to them as "this generation" He was referring to a type of people. Wicked and adulterous. Cain was that type of person. That's why even the death of Abel is mentioned because Jesus had a type of person in mind (wicked and adulterous) rather than a chronological generation of Jews. This is the last I'm going to say on that. If you can't understand my point then there's nothing I can do about it. You think He was referring to a chronological generation of Jews of a duration of 40 years and that's how you interpret the Greek word "genea". I don't. So be it.

and your argument is negated as Jesus says “upon you”. All the righteous blood shed would come “upon you”. They were to “fill up the measure of their father’s sin”.

1. You didn’t address your understanding of “to fill up the measure of your father’s sin”.

2. You didn’t address when Jesus said “upon you”

despite first century apostate Israel not killing Abel several thousand years ago, they would “fill up the measure of their fathers sin” by murdering Christ, who is the reason anyone is righteous, and pay the price.

thus it would come upon their generation, and it did in 70ad.

 

[claninja]

There's one major problem with what you're saying here. There wasn't any age that ended in 70 AD. You and other preterists here have been shown many times the proper understanding of when the old covenant came to an end, which was not in 70 AD. If you want to be stubborn and not acknowledge that the blood of Christ not only established the new covenant but also put an end to the old covenant (Col 2:13-14) then that's your choice.

The end of the age refers to the end of this temporal age that we're still living in. Jesus clearly differentiated between "this age" and "the age to come" here and it had nothing to do with a supposed old covenant age and new covenant age:

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

So, what Jesus pointed out here is that this age is marked by people getting married and dying. People are still getting married and dying, so this age has clearly not yet ended. In contrast to that, Jesus said in the age to come, which He indicated will begin when the resurrection of the dead occurs, people will no longer get married or die. The resurrection of the dead has clearly not yet occurred and people are still getting married and dying. So, the end of the age has not yet come. We need to keep this in mind when thinking about how Jesus answered the question regarding His coming and the end of the age.

In 2 Peter 3, it's clear that heaven and earth will pass away when He comes in the future. And the new heavens and new earth will be ushered in at that time. And there will be no more death at that time (Rev 21:4) which will be at the end of the age. That lines up perfectly with what Jesus said in Matthew 24:35-39 which is that heaven and earth will pass away and His coming will bring about the destruction of all unbelievers just like how the flood killed all unbelievers in Noah's day. That clearly has not yet happened.

the OD makes no mention of the age to come.

Paul said the end or “consummation” of the end of the ages had already arrived (1 Corinthians 10:11), so your counter is negated.

1 Corinthians 10:11 11Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

 

[Hammster]

I believe what I said is within the scope of the OP because you can't understand what "this generation" means without understanding what the rest of the Olivet Discourse means. You establish context by looking at the Olivet Discourse as a whole. If the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 25 is the same coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:27-31 then that says a lot about how we should understand what "this generation" means.

They don’t appear to be the same.

 

[Hammster]

LOL. You highlight one of multiple definitions of the word and you quote six people and that is a "pretty strong" consensus? Okay.

If you consider the other uses of “this generation”, then it should be clear.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

and your argument is negated as Jesus says “upon you”. All the righteous blood shed would come “upon you”. They were to “fill up the measure of their father’s sin”.

1. You didn’t address your understanding of “to fill up the measure of your father’s sin”.

2. You didn’t address when Jesus said “upon you”

despite first century apostate Israel not killing Abel several thousand years ago, they would “fill up the measure of their fathers sin” by murdering Christ, who is the reason anyone is righteous, and pay the price.

thus it would come upon their generation, and it did in 70ad.

You continue to not understand my view. And maybe I'm not being clear enough.

Yes, I do believe that Jesus was talking about the destruction coming upon the Jewish scribes and Pharisees He was talking to. Or at least any who would still be alive when the destruction came. He was talking about destruction coming upon them and He described them as "this generation". But not in terms of the chronological generation they were living in but rather as the type of people who murdered innocent people. People like their forefathers and like Cain.

So, in terms of Matthew 24:34, I believe what Jesus was saying is that the type of people like Cain, like the scribes and Pharisees He railed against, and like their forefathers, would not pass away until all the things He talked about were fulfilled. Obviously, the ones He was talking to were not the last of that type of people to ever live. And, as I've said before, I believe when He said "heaven and earth will pass away" in the very next verse He was implying that heaven and earth would pass away when this generation passed away.

You can keep thinking that "this generation" refers to a chronological generation and that all the things Jesus talked about before verse 34 were all fulfilled, but you have no reasonable answer for how the elect were gathered in 70 AD. And it talks about wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes and famines as only being the beginning of birth pains. Did all those things happen already well before 70 AD? I don't find that to be reasonable.

Also, Jesus was asked about His coming at the end of the age and the end of the age has not yet come. So, your doctrine has several holes in it that, in my opinion, you have no convincing answer for. What "this generation" means has to be understood within the context of the entire Olivet Discourse. You can't say that "this generation" passed away in 70 AD when Jesus has still not yet come and the elect have still not yet been gathered. It's as simple as that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

the OD makes no mention of the age to come.

I didn't say that it did. I was using the timing of the beginning of the age to come to show when the end of the age will occur. It's not surprising that you would try to just dismiss my argument since you know you have nothing to refute it.

Paul said the end or “consummation” of the end of the ages had already arrived (1 Corinthians 10:11), so your counter is negated.

1 Corinthians 10:11 11Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

That's a completely different context than the age referenced in Matthew 24 and the ages that Jesus contrasted in Luke 20:34-36. In that verse an age is referring to chronological generations and not to the end of time like Matthew 24:3 and Luke 20:34-36.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you consider the other uses of “this generation”, then it should be clear.

I do. I don't interpret the other uses of "this generation" the way you do, either.

 

[Hammster]

I do. I don't interpret the other uses of "this generation" the way you do, either.

Fair enough. It would be difficult, though, to find commentaries that show any of the other usages to mean anything other than the group He was talking to.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

They don’t appear to be the same.

What is your basis for believing that the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:27-31 is some other coming of the Son of man than what is referenced in Matthew 25:31-46?

 

[JosephZ]

LOL. You highlight one of multiple definitions of the word

I highlighted the one definition that relates to Matthew 24:34.
3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί)

 

[Hammster]

What is your basis for believing that the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:27-31 is some other coming of the Son of man than what is referenced in Matthew 25:31-46?

Because in 27-31, it concerns what that generation would experience.

 

[JosephZ]

Jesus was asked about His coming at the end of the age and the end of the age has not yet come.

The disciples had no concept of a "second coming" when those questions were asked, so the end of the age they would have been referring to had to be something related to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. In all likelihood, the end of the Mosaic age, the Law, and its regulations that governed the nation of Israel was the age that the disciples were referring to.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Fair enough. It would be difficult, though, to find commentaries that show any of the other usages to mean anything other than the group He was talking to.

How would you know something like that? Have you read every commentary ever written? Matthew Henry is one that had a different interpretation than you do. If you look at Meyer's NT commentary you can see that he interpreted it as you do but also mentions about 20 other people who don't. There is clearly not anything near a consensus on this, so why act as if there is?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because in 27-31, it concerns what that generation would experience.

Hmmm. That's not a convincing response. I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that Jesus referred to more than one coming of the Son of man in the Olivet Discourse. I believe only doctrinal bias can lead someone to that conclusion.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The disciples had no concept of a "second coming" when those questions were asked,

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that He did discuss His second coming in the Olivet Discourse. And He discussed it according to His knowledge of what was going to happen and (of course) not according to whatever the disciples may have thought would happen.

so the end of the age they would have been referring to had to be something related to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. In all likelihood, the end of the Mosaic age, the Law, and its regulations that governed the nation of Israel was the age that the disciples were referring to.

There was no end of any age in 70 AD. Please read my post #837.

 

[DavidPT]

Fair enough. It would be difficult, though, to find commentaries that show any of the other usages to mean anything other than the group He was talking to.

Does this imply you mainly rely on Commentaries for your understanding of things? As if Commentators are infallible and can never be wrong about anything.

 

[DavidPT]

Hmmm. That's not a convincing response. I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that Jesus referred to more than one coming of the Son of man in the Olivet Discourse. I believe only doctrinal bias can lead someone to that conclusion.

Even the parable some use of the city being destroyed and burned, that that is the coming of Christ meant in the OD, that parable doesn't even have Christ coming in any sense, unless one thinks the King and the Son in that parable are the same person. It is the King, meaning the Father, that sends forth His armies, therefore, no coming of Christ recorded in the OD could possibly be pertaining to a coming of Him in any sense in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I highlighted the one definition that relates to Matthew 24:34.
3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί)

Only in one person's opinion (Thayer).

 

[JosephZ]

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that He did discuss His second coming in the Olivet Discourse. And He discussed it according to His knowledge of what was going to happen and (of course) not according to whatever the disciples may have thought would happen.

His second coming as you believe in 2022. If there was to be a second coming at some point after the destruction of the temple, why didn't Jesus say the temple will be destroyed within this generation, but the end of the age is going to be sometime after?

Only in one person's opinion (Thayer).

As well as others including some of the most well respected Bible scholars.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

His second coming as you believe in 2022. If there was to be a second coming at some point after the destruction of the temple, why didn't Jesus say the temple will be destroyed within this generation, but the end of the age is going to be sometime after?

There was no second coming at the destruction of the temple, so I don't know what you're talking about here. His second coming has not yet occurred. The end of the age will be marked by the dead being resurrected and there being no more marriage and no more death (Luke 20:34-36) and that has not yet occurred.

As well as others including some of the most well respected Bible scholars.

I could not possibly care less about that. They are all fallible and don't (or didn't) have any more of the Holy Spirit than you or I do. If you want to put them (the ones you agree with) on a pedestal, that's your choice. I don't do that.