This generation

[Hammster]

"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

These things learned from the parable. What is near? The end. Not the Second Coming. What one learns from the parable is the prerequisite of the start of all the things leading up to the end. The parable teaches us who that generation will be.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

This generation is only learned and understood from the parable. Learn the parable and all else falls into place.

Wow. That’s quite the strange understanding. If you are correct, then it’s only one thing, which is a tender branch.

I think instead of desperate attempts to get around the plain meaning of the text, you just accept the plain meaning of the text.

 

[John Mullally]

Wow. That’s quite the strange understanding. If you are correct, then it’s only one thing, which is a tender branch.

I think instead of desperate attempts to get around the plain meaning of the text, you just accept the plain meaning of the text.

I find Eschatology to be a difficult and shrouded issue. Remember that almost all the learned among God's chosen people missed on Christ's ministry. Detailed explanation is more persuasive than dismissive remarks.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

There's no record of the Apostles ever teaching that Christ died for their sins in the New Testament, but there is support from scripture of the Apostles keeping the traditions of the Law, teaching the Law, telling the Jews they had to believe that Jesus was their Messiah, and to repent and be baptized so they could be forgiven. They taught that works were necessary for salvation rather than salvation being a gift of God, by His grace alone.

No, they did not. This is complete nonsense. You should have a better perspective of the apostles than this. Yes, it may have taken them awhile to realize that salvation was by grace through faith and not by works (neither good works nor works of the law), but they surely understood it after the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit filled them and taught them the deeper things of God.

 

[parousia70]

Ethnic Israel actually rejected Him.

Rather, Ethnic Israel did not "actually" reject Him, they actually accepted him, BY THE THOUSANDS. Even 3000 in one day! Ethnic Israel, as in times past, was PRESERVED through the Remnant that Received Him.

That's how it works. That was the plan.

In Elijah's era, the multitude of Israelites who worshiped the false god Baal was so great that faithful Israel narrowed to a mere seven thousand men (1 Kings 19:1-18; Rom 11:2-4) and the rest were excommunicated out of the Covenant forever. That faithful remnant at that time constituted ALL of God's covenanted Israel, and from that time forward ONLY the descendants of those 7000 were Gods Covenanted Israel. The rest, again, were cut off forever.

That's how God preserves Ethnic Israel in times of Great Apostasy.

That is what happened in the 1st century.

Ethnic Israel survived *exclusively* in the sect of the Nazarenes. Like the 7000 in Elijah's day, "Ethnic ISRAEL" was once again reduced to a tiny remnant, the faithful ones of the Nazarene sect, and they received with joy their promised New Covenant and obediently rejected all former biases against the non-Abrahamic families of earth so that Genesis 12:3 might finally be attained (Gal 3:7-9/Rom 4:13-18)---via the work of the Jewish Messiah.

The Rest, as in Elijah's day, were excommunicated out of Covenant with God, FOREVER.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Rather, Ethnic Israel did not "actually" reject Him, they actually accepted him, BY THE THOUSANDS. Even 3000 in one day! Ethnic Israel, as in times past, was PRESERVED through the Remnant that Received Him.

That's how it works. That was the plan.

In Elijah's era, the multitude of Israelites who worshiped the false god Baal was so great that faithful Israel narrowed to a mere seven thousand men (1 Kings 19:1-18; Rom 11:2-4) and the rest were excommunicated out of the Covenant forever. That faithful remnant at that time constituted ALL of God's covenanted Israel, and from that time forward ONLY the descendants of those 7000 were Gods Covenanted Israel. The rest, again, were cut off forever.

That's how God preserves Ethnic Israel in times of Great Apostasy.

That is what happened in the 1st century.

Ethnic Israel survived *exclusively* in the sect of the Nazarenes. Like the 7000 in Elijah's day, "Ethnic ISRAEL" was once again reduced to a tiny remnant, the faithful ones of the Nazarene sect, and they received with joy their promised New Covenant and obediently rejected all former biases against the non-Abrahamic families of earth so that Genesis 12:3 might finally be attained (Gal 3:7-9/Rom 4:13-18)---via the work of the Jewish Messiah.

The Rest, as in Elijah's day, were excommunicated out of Covenant with God, FOREVER.

He was obviously speaking generally there and not saying that literally all ethnic Israelites rejected Him. He referenced John 1:11.

John 1:11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

If we read John 1:11 in isolation we might conclude that none of the Israelites received Him, but John was obviously only speaking in a general sense there. Most of them rejected Him, but not all of them. A remnant believed as Paul pointed out in Romans 11:5. Which we all know. And all you have to do is read the very next verse after John 1:11 to see that some did receive Him. I'm sure SG is aware of that and was not intending to say that literally all of ethnic Israel rejected Him.

 

[claninja]

Yes, Matthew 23:36 for one. He was not referring to a chronological generation there, He was referencing a type of people (genea) that even included Cain, who would experience God's wrath. And the scribes and Pharisees were that type of people (genea) who were evil and adulterous. Jesus referred to them as an evil and adulterous generation that went all the way back to Cain. I say that because they were even responsible for the death of Abel.

The idea that "this generation" referred specifically to Jews living during that chronological generation is not accurate. Yes, the scribes and Pharisees were Jews and were alive at the time, but when Jesus used the word "generation" He was referring to an evil, adulterous type of people. Like Cain. And like the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees that Jesus was railing against. Yes, God's wrath came against Jews like the scribes and Pharisees in 70 AD, but those type of people were still around even after 70 AD. Surely, there are evil and spiritually adulterous people still today. Jesus will make this type of people pass away from the entire earth when He comes in the future.

on the contrary. The generation of Jesus standing in front of him would fill up the measure of their father’s sins and pay the price, as evidenced by 70ad.

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

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.”

their “fathers” is clearly a reference to their biological ancestors who murdered the prophets sent to them. This is not a “type of people” generalized as wicked. This is specifically about Israel. The generation that stood in front of Jesus filled up the measure of their fathers sins by crucifying Christ and their generation paid the price when the Romans came and destroyed the city and sanctuary.

To make this about any other “generation” requires linguistic gymnastics.

Do you think that happened already in 70 AD? If so, how?

I agree with gills commentary on this

“And he shall send his angels,.... Not the angels, i.e. ministering spirits, so called, not from their nature, but their office, as being sent forth by God and Christ; but men angels, or messengers, the ministers and preachers of the Gospel, whom Christ would call, qualify, and send forth into all the world of the Gentiles, to preach his Gospel, and plant churches there still more, when that at Jerusalem was broken up and dissolved. These are called "angels", because of their mission, and commission from Christ, to preach the Gospel; and because of their knowledge and understanding in spiritual things; and because of their zeal, diligence, and watchfulness,”

 

[claninja]

One problem with this reasoning, at least IMO. In the 40 years leading up to 70 AD, there's all kinds of things that could have happened prior to that day arriving 40 years later. For one, though some of them may have been unbelievers when Jesus walked the earth, some of them could have changed their mind after that, thus became believers as well. IOW, there was still an opportunity for a 2nd chance, unlike the passage you provided. Their fate was already sealed, there were no 2nd chances after that once that 40 years initially started. IMO, this 40 years leading up to 70 AD was giving them space to repent. In the account you brought up, repenting would have done none of them any good once God decided their fate for them. In the first century leading up to 70 AD, had any of the unbelieving Jews decided to repent and believe before 70 AD arrived, would that have been in vain on their part or would that mean they are no longer cursed with that fate?

70ad was appointed.

Luke 19:41-44 41And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

john 4:21 Believe Me, woman,” Jesus replied, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

70ad was appointed.

Luke 19:41-44 41And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

john 4:21 Believe Me, woman,” Jesus replied, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

No the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, not the date itself. There is a difference. Jesus said the days will come. Jesus did not set a date. No one can set dates, now nor then. Why would one attempt to prove a set date was declared?

We know it was 70AD because that is when the temple was destroyed. But that is different than saying they were told it would happen exactly on 70AD.

 

[parousia70]

"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

These things learned from the parable. What is near? The end. Not the Second Coming. What one learns from the parable is the prerequisite of the start of all the things leading up to the end. The parable teaches us who that generation will be.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

This generation is only learned and understood from the parable. Learn the parable and all else falls into place.

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

 

[Spiritual Jew]

on the contrary. The generation of Jesus standing in front of him would fill up the measure of their father’s sins and pay the price, as evidenced by 70ad.

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

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.”

their “fathers” is clearly a reference to their biological ancestors who murdered the prophets sent to them. This is not a “type of people” generalized as wicked. This is specifically about Israel.

Did Israel kill Abel?

To make this about any other “generation” requires linguistic gymnastics.

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?

I agree with gills commentary on this

“And he shall send his angels,.... Not the angels, i.e. ministering spirits, so called, not from their nature, but their office, as being sent forth by God and Christ; but men angels, or messengers, the ministers and preachers of the Gospel, whom Christ would call, qualify, and send forth into all the world of the Gentiles, to preach his Gospel, and plant churches there still more, when that at Jerusalem was broken up and dissolved. These are called "angels", because of their mission, and commission from Christ, to preach the Gospel; and because of their knowledge and understanding in spiritual things; and because of their zeal, diligence, and watchfulness,”

I don't buy this at all. Why anyone would not connect Matthew 24:30-31 with 1 Thess 4:14-17 is beyond me. Remember, this was something that would have to happen before 70 AD if your understanding of Matthew 24:34 was correct. Did the gospel stop being preached in 70 AD?

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

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?

 

[parousia70]

Did the gospel stop being preached in 70 AD?

Not sure what scripture you could possibly be referencing about the end of the preaching of the gospel?

The Gospel NEVER stops being Preached.
That's why it's called "Everlasting".

The Everlasting Gospel, which SOLE PURPOSE is to be preached to sinners on earth, (Revelation 14:6) has no terminus.

 

[DavidPT]

70ad was appointed.

Luke 19:41-44 41And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

john 4:21 Believe Me, woman,” Jesus replied, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

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.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Not sure what scripture you could possibly be referencing about the end of the preaching of the gospel?

There is none. That's the point.

The Gospel NEVER stops being Preached.
That's why it's called "Everlasting".

Of course! Did you think I was saying otherwise?

The point I'm making is that if the gathering of the elect referenced in Matthew 24:31 is not performed by angels but rather relates to the preaching of the gospel then how could "this generation" have passed away after the gathering of the elect took place?

Remember: you, claninja and other preterists claim that "this generation" passed away after "all these things", which included the gathering of the elect, took place. But, it's not possible for this generation to have already passed away if the gathering of the elect relates to the preaching of the gospel since the gospel is still being preached.

 

[Hammster]

There is none. That's the point.

Of course! Did you think I was saying otherwise?

The point I'm making is that if the gathering of the elect referenced in Matthew 24:31 is not performed by angels but rather relates to the preaching of the gospel then how could "this generation" have passed away after the gathering of the elect took place?

Remember: you, claninja and other preterists claim that "this generation" passed away after "all these things", which included the gathering of the elect, took place. But, it's not possible for this generation to have already passed away if the gathering of the elect relates to the preaching of the gospel since the gospel is still being preached.

As long as messengers were proclaiming the gospel, and people were saved, then that was satisfied. There’s nothing grammatically that states that every elect person must be gathered first.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

As long as messengers were proclaiming the gospel, and people were saved, then that was satisfied. There’s nothing grammatically that states that every elect person must be gathered first.

I find this to be a weak argument. Maybe some day you'll understand that Matthew 24:29-31 is talking about the same event as 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. I won't hold my breath on that, though.

You don't think Matthew 24:31 is talking about angels and is rather talking about human messengers. So, I'll ask you the same thing I asked parousia70.

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

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?

 

[Hammster]

I find this to be a weak argument. Maybe some day you'll understand that Matthew 24:29-31 is talking about the same event as 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. I won't hold my breath on that, though.

A weak one that you can’t rebut. Gotcha.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

A weak one that you can’t rebut. Gotcha.

LOL. It's so weak that I don't need to rebut it. There is no indication whatsoever that it's only talking about some of the elect being gathered rather than all of them. Come on. It's a very, very weak argument.

Matthew 24:30-31 is the same event as 1 Thess 4:14-17, so it's talking about the gathering of the elect ALL AT ONCE to meet the Lord in the air when He comes. I truly have no idea how someone can see two passages like those that speak of Jesus coming and His people being gathered but thinking that they are not speaking of the same event.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Rather, Ethnic Israel did not "actually" reject Him, they actually accepted him, BY THE THOUSANDS. Even 3000 in one day! Ethnic Israel, as in times past, was PRESERVED through the Remnant that Received Him.

That's how it works. That was the plan.

In Elijah's era, the multitude of Israelites who worshiped the false god Baal was so great that faithful Israel narrowed to a mere seven thousand men (1 Kings 19:1-18; Rom 11:2-4) and the rest were excommunicated out of the Covenant forever. That faithful remnant at that time constituted ALL of God's covenanted Israel, and from that time forward ONLY the descendants of those 7000 were Gods Covenanted Israel. The rest, again, were cut off forever.

That's how God preserves Ethnic Israel in times of Great Apostasy.

That is what happened in the 1st century.

Ethnic Israel survived *exclusively* in the sect of the Nazarenes. Like the 7000 in Elijah's day, "Ethnic ISRAEL" was once again reduced to a tiny remnant, the faithful ones of the Nazarene sect, and they received with joy their promised New Covenant and obediently rejected all former biases against the non-Abrahamic families of earth so that Genesis 12:3 might finally be attained (Gal 3:7-9/Rom 4:13-18)---via the work of the Jewish Messiah.

The Rest, as in Elijah's day, were excommunicated out of Covenant with God, FOREVER.

As per usual, you avoid the Scriptures presented and attached arguments and then digress. You are not even disproving my thesis. That is classic Preterism.

No one is arguing against an elect remnant.

 

[Hammster]

There is no indication whatsoever that it's only talking about some of the elect being gathered rather than all of them.

Grammatically, no there isn’t.

 

[parousia70]

No one is arguing against an elect remnant.

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.