This generation

[Hammster]

No, I didn't know that exact number. But, what does this have to do with what I was talking about? Were the Jews being led captive into other nations not part of "all these things" that had to occur before this generation passed away (which you say occurred in 70 AD)?

Yes. The Jewish Wars were prior to AD 70.

 

[eclipsenow]

I've already gone over this. Jesus talked about two ages. This age and the age to come. He differentiated between the two here:

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.

This age, which is marked by people getting married and dying, will end when the resurrection of the dead occurs. At that point the age to come will be ushered in and people will no longer get married or die. So, the end of the age that Jesus talked about has clearly not yet come.

What Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 10:11 is that the last age of a number of ages in history had come. He did not have just two ages in mind (this age and the age to come) like Jesus did. I see it as Paul indicating that the last age or last days of history had already begun at that point, as other scripture talks about as well. Of course, the last days have continued while people are being saved (Acts 2:16-21) and they last up until the future return of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4).

But, keep in mind that we're talking about something that Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse. So, I believe it makes sense to first look at what else Jesus said about the end of the age and to see what He said about this age and the age to come to help understand the timing of the end of the age and to help understand what He was talking about in the Olivet Discourse as it relates to the end of the age. What He said about the end of the age and about this age and the age to come elsewhere (besides the OD) does not support the belief that the end of the age occurred in 70 AD.

If you think the end of the age already came in 70 AD then tell me how the following was fulfilled in 70 AD:

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The above reminds me of Matthew 25:31-46 because it speaks of angels separating all people into two groups to be judged. Do you think Matthew 25:31-46 is already fulfilled?

Again, great post Spiritual Jew. I agree with all your points here.
However, it's Matt 24 where we disagree.
Sydney Anglicans say everything up to 24:35 happened in AD70, but everything after is "that Day".

 

[Timtofly]

No, it was after. Jesus went with His disciples to the Mount of Olives and gave what is known as the Olivet Discourse before the Last Supper. What you quoted was said after the Last Supper.
I know what the verses I quoted are about. The point I was trying to make was if the disciples didn't comprehend Jesus' death, burial, and Resurrection, how could they have possibly understand a second coming; especially when the scriptures taught that once their Messiah arrived he would restore their kingdom and be their king forever?

And my point was that Jesus said they knew more about the glorious return, because that is what Israel was waiting for, not the suffering Lamb of God. They did confuse Messiah with Prince. Even today we say Jesus Christ (Messiah), because we all know the Messiah, and still we don't recognize a coming Prince. They were expecting the anointed King. Not the King Pilate claimed was hung on the Cross.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus talked about two ages. This age and the age to come. He differentiated between the two here:

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.

This age, which is marked by people getting married and dying, will end when the resurrection of the dead occurs. At that point the age to come will be ushered in and people will no longer get married or die. So, the end of the age that Jesus talked about has clearly not yet come.

Jesus was pointing out life and death. Not generational ages, nor periods of time. A resurrection was pointed out. A resurrection is what is defining the "word" by context.

Who enters a different dispensation via a resurrection? You yourself only recognize one resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Certainly even I agree that the Cross was the end of an era or dispensation, full stop. No one is waiting for an age past that point. Now, dead people, are like the angels, they do not marry nor are given in marriage currently in Paradise. But you refuse to see them as resurrected, because you are looking for a third age yet to come as a futurist.

Calling the Cross the end of the age is not preterism. It was the fact pointed out by Jesus in those verses you quoted. Certainly Jesus was not a preterist.

"the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage"

These two points are not two separate ages to come. The age to come was the resurrection provided for by the Cross. From that point on some will be resurrected. Those resurrected will not procreate in Paradise. Throughout the whole OT, they were not just looking for a King and kingdom to come. They were looking for a resurrection out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Not just from the grave, but a physical life and a physical place where death was no more. So the question will always be who will marry whom to keep procreation going. Jesus said after the resurrection there will not be any more procreation. Obviously it did not happen after death either.

Now you have a paradox. If all humanity is killed how does life grow after the NHNE? Have we reached a full stop in procreation, and no more humans will ever be born period? Perhaps you think this is it, no more new souls. Or have we passed that age already? Your age of no procreation was the here and now like your 1,000 year reign. It was just in Paradise, not on earth. Certainly if they have been reigning with Christ, they have not been procreating either. They are in that age to come by your own eschatological argument. The one that says the age where they reign with Christ has already come. Why as an Amil are you waiting for a third age to come with no procreation?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I believe we are the last generation and I have a solid hypothetical timeline too now. I have a multi-way corroboration of the timing. First, "A Generation shall not pass" is the life expectancy of a modern Israeli which when added to the year Israel became a nation is 2030-2033 AD. Second, 2000 years since resurrection of the Lord is 2030-2033 AD. Third, the next solar eclipse, visible clearly from Jerusalem, happens in 2030 AD. Fourth, the population of Christians living in Israel is close to 144,000 now, though that point may or may not be relevant, depending on who the 144,000 represent. All the technology and the size of the army prophesized in Revelation are only recently possible, with cryptocurrency enabling a one world currency (perhaps the digital dollar) and an Army of 200 million impossible until the 20th century, but now with a worldwide population nearing 10 billion, it is very possible such an Army could be mounted, just between China, India, and Russia. The internet and short wave radio allow the Word to reach every person has been available only in the last 30 and 100 years, respectively. And the destruction of Jerusalem cannot qualify as the worst event ever to occur, because the Holocaust of WW2 was much worse for the Jewish people, and yet even worse appears to be coming if you really dig deeply into every nuance of Revelation. We have yet to see 100 pound hail for example, especially hail tinged with blood. And never has 25-33% of all men, animals, fish, and grass on Earth ever been destroyed thus far. The world has also never seen rampant demon possession that is coming as described in Revelation after the mid point of tribulation, because since the Lord arose and the Ministry of the Spirit came before the fall of Jerusalem, such an occurrence has henceforth been impossible.

 

[Timtofly]

It’s where He changes focus from His coming in judgement of Israel to His coming in glory to judge the earth.

You make it sound like Jesus was the prince leading the Romans instead of Titus. Even at Armageddon God is bringing the nations together through Satan and the demonic realm. What is different about God directly attacking as opposed to using others to do the attacking? 70AD was clearly not as it was written about in Revelation 16 and 19 about Armageddon. Certainly not about God stepping in and rescuing Jerusalem per Zechariah. 70AD was not the usual Second Coming narrative at all. Jesus never defined in the OD that God was coming in judgment at all. If the OD was solely about 70AD, then God did not have to come in judgment at all. The Romans clearly had all the judgment and punishment under their control.

 

[John Mullally]

And here's yet another unconvincing response from you.

No, He was asked about it earlier when He was asked about His second coming and the end of the age. He obviously talks about His second coming in Matthew 25:1-13, so there's no reason besides doctrinal bias to think that what He said in Matthew 25 was not part of His answer to that question asked in Matthew 24:3.

And Matthew 24:27-31 is clearly part of His answer to that question as well. He only spoke of one coming of the Son of man, not two as you imagine.

On another Eschatology thread a few months ago Hammster directed me to the following link for the source of his info. Reading that book will be informative in understanding other Eschatogical points of view (not that I endorse it).

https://openheavenrhema.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Days-of-Vengeance.pdf

 

[Hammster]

You make it sound like Jesus was the prince leading the Romans instead of Titus. Even at Armageddon God is bringing the nations together through Satan and the demonic realm. What is different about God directly attacking as opposed to using others to do the attacking? 70AD was clearly not as it was written about in Revelation 16 and 19 about Armageddon. Certainly not about God stepping in and rescuing Jerusalem per Zechariah. 70AD was not the usual Second Coming narrative at all. Jesus never defined in the OD that God was coming in judgment at all. If the OD was solely about 70AD, then God did not have to come in judgment at all. The Romans clearly had all the judgment and punishment under their control.

I don’t know why this keeps happening, but I’ll say it again. AD 70 is not the second advent. I have never said that it is.

 

[claninja]

I have told you what source I use before, but you obviously forgot. I use blueletterible.org and use Strong's Greek Lexicon.

When I go to the information for the word "genea" part of what I see is this:

View attachment 314978
So, I take it to mean something similar to definition 2B above. Yes, Jesus talked about destruction that would come upon those He was talking to in Matthew 23:36, but He was not using the word "genea" in terms of an age or time period of 40 years or so, He was using it to describe a type of people who were "wicked and adulterous" (Matt 12:39) and "sinful" (Mark 8:38).

The fact that they even were being held responsible for the blood of Abel (Matt 23:36) shows that Jesus didn't just have Jews in mind there even though He did talk about an event that would destroy the Jews who were that type of people (which occurred in 70 AD). In Matthew 24:34, He was saying this type of people (wicked, adulterous, sinful) would not pass away until all the things He spoke about were fulfilled. And then, in the next verse He said heaven and earth would pass away. He didn't just say that for nothing. I believe He said that to indicate that this generation would pass away when heaven and earth pass away. And then He said that no one knows the day or hour it will happen. I have no idea how Matthew 24:36 can possibly apply to what happened in 70 AD. That verse relates to him coming like a thief in the night when no one expects it. How does that apply to 70 AD?

One of the things He spoke about before that was the gathering of the elect. This highlights a major weakness of the preterist view of the OD. Preterists have tried giving explanations for the gathering of the elect that, frankly, I find to be embarrassing (for them). So, what is your explanation for how the gathering of the elect already occurred before 70 AD?

That’s a misuse of definition 2b.

Definition 2 is “men of same stock” whether genetically as in “14 generations from Abraham to David” or characteristically as in “the wicked generation that asked Jesus for a sign”. Genea in both cases means contemporary, with only the plural meaning throughout history as in “multiple generations”.

There is not one passage in the Bible that clearly defines a grammatically singular “wicked genea” as existing throughout human history. Such is an interpretation based on the presupposition of futurism, and not the biblical use of genea.

Matthew 23:36, is clearly Jesus’ contemporary wicked generation of apostate israel. THEY would fill up the measure of their fathers’ sin, so that UPON THEM would come all the righteous bloodshed.

You keep mentioning Abel’s blood, but not addressing the phrase “to fill up the measure of their fathers’s sins”. No doubt apostate, first century israel, did not kill Abel. However, first century apostate Israel would “fill up the measure of their fathers’ sins” And THAT UPON THEM would come all the righteous bloodshed.

Do you believe first century apostate Israel filled up the measure of their fathers’ sins?

 

[claninja]

I've already gone over this. Jesus talked about two ages. This age and the age to come. He differentiated between the two here:

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.

This age, which is marked by people getting married and dying, will end when the resurrection of the dead occurs. At that point the age to come will be ushered in and people will no longer get married or die. So, the end of the age that Jesus talked about has clearly not yet come.

What Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 10:11 is that the last age of a number of ages in history had come. He did not have just two ages in mind (this age and the age to come) like Jesus did. I see it as Paul indicating that the last age or last days of history had already begun at that point, as other scripture talks about as well. Of course, the last days have continued while people are being saved (Acts 2:16-21) and they last up until the future return of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4).

But, keep in mind that we're talking about something that Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse. So, I believe it makes sense to first look at what else Jesus said about the end of the age and to see what He said about this age and the age to come to help understand the timing of the end of the age and to help understand what He was talking about in the Olivet Discourse as it relates to the end of the age. What He said about the end of the age and about this age and the age to come elsewhere (besides the OD) does not support the belief that the end of the age occurred in 70 AD.

If you think the end of the age already came in 70 AD then tell me how the following was fulfilled in 70 AD:

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The above reminds me of Matthew 25:31-46 because it speaks of angels separating all people into two groups to be judged. Do you think Matthew 25:31-46 is already fulfilled?

Just to clarify, you are arguing that Paul’s use of the “end of the ages” refers to the first century, meaning the the last age had arrived with christ’s first advent, similar to the use in Hebrews 9:26. Thus Jesus’ use of the “end of the age” is a reference the end of the last age that arrived with his 1st advent. It’s not necessarily that Jesus only believed in 2 ages, it’s just that when he says “this age” it refers to then culmination of ages or last age or church age that arrived with his advent. Do i understand you correctly?

 

[Timtofly]

I don’t know why this keeps happening, but I’ll say it again. AD 70 is not the second advent. I have never said that it is.

Because the OD is about the Second Coming. It is not about the Romans in 70AD.

 

[Hammster]

Because the OD is about the Second Coming. It is not about the Romans in 70AD.

Only if you are a full preterist.

 

[JosephZ]

And my point was that Jesus said they knew more about the glorious return, because that is what Israel was waiting for, not the suffering Lamb of God. They did confuse Messiah with Prince. Even today we say Jesus Christ (Messiah), because we all know the Messiah, and still we don't recognize a coming Prince. They were expecting the anointed King. Not the King Pilate claimed was hung on the Cross.

Israel was never expecting a return. The Jews living in the first century believed that their Messiah would someday arrive and rule forever. It would be an arrival; a one time arrival. They never expected their Messiah to come, leave, and return a second time at some point in the future. This is how we know the question being asked in Matthew 24:3 isn't about Jesus' second coming and why His answer wouldn't relate to that. The entire series of the questions asked revolved around "these things," the destruction of the temple, the end of the age, and Jesus ruling over His kingdom. This is what the disciples asked about, and those things occurred in their generation.

"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3 NKJV)

The Greek word for "coming" is parousia, which means arrival or presence, not return. Most English translations of the Bible translate parousia as coming, but “presence” is a more true and literal to the actual meaning.

"And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, 'Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'" (Young's Literal Translation)

If the question being asked by the disciples was about Jesus' return or second coming, the original Greek manuscripts in all likelihood would have used a term such as "epanerchomai" instead of parousia.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 1880: ἐπανέρχομαι

ἐπανέρχομαι; 2 aorist ἐπανηλθον; to return, come back again.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

come again, return.

From epi and anerchomai; to come up on, i.e. Return -- come again, return.

 

[Timtofly]

Only if you are a full preterist.

It is not about 70AD even if one is a full preterist. Like having a belief, can really change the Word of God?

 

[Timtofly]

Israel was never expecting a return. The Jews living in the first century believed that their Messiah would someday arrive and rule forever. It would be an arrival; a one time arrival. They never expected their Messiah to come, leave, and return a second time at some point in the future. This is how we know the question being asked in Matthew 24:3 isn't about Jesus' second coming and why His answer wouldn't relate to that. The entire series of the questions asked revolved around "these things," the destruction of the temple, the end of the age, and Jesus ruling over His kingdom. This is what the disciples asked about, and those things occurred in their generation.

"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3 NKJV)

The Greek word for "coming" is parousia, which means arrival or presence, not return. Most English translations of the Bible translate parousia as coming, but “presence” is a more true and literal to the actual meaning.

View attachment 315006

"And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, 'Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'" (Young's Literal Translation)

If the question being asked by the disciples was about Jesus' return or second coming, the original Greek manuscripts in all likelihood would have used a term such as "epanerchomai" instead of parousia.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 1880: ἐπανέρχομαι

ἐπανέρχομαι; 2 aorist ἐπανηλθον; to return, come back again.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

come again, return.

From epi and anerchomai; to come up on, i.e. Return -- come again, return.

You are claiming a return as if it can never happen.

Of course the return will be the expected coming since Eve.

You are still missing the point all knew and accepted a glorious coming. What every one was confused about was the first coming. It is a return and a Second Coming because Jesus explained he was leaving and that he would return. So they were asking about the Second Coming because they were still anticipating the glorious Coming promised to them.

You are looking back 1992 years later, and trying to explain a point not many would understand even hundreds of years later. Up until the 3rd and 4th centuries they were still voting on whether or not Jesus was even God.

Do you only base your facts on the writings of early Christians or the actual Word of God? Not meaning to sound rude. Still not sure why you think, they would not ask about the Second Coming. Jesus was physically there to ask. The first coming, itself, was not a mystery, as He was standing right in front of them. They did not have to ask when He would arrive. They could literally see Him. They totally did not understand the first coming, even though Isaiah specified a Lamb of God. Even His own disciples would not get "it", until the Holy Spirit was given as a means of explaining God's plan, which was never an invention of human imagination nor thought process. The disciples were not recalling their own experiences. They were telling what the Holy Spirit told them to write about it all, years after they already physically lived out such experiences.

To the disciples there was only one coming, as they certainly expected a soon return, without a huge gap. 1992 years later there certainly is a Second Coming. The gap is too wide to state it as "one coming". Some take this 1900 year gap for granted evidently as if it does not exist, no? You do realize those people that day were not expecting a 1900 year gap, so of course it was the same coming to them. But for you to say it is not about a Second Coming, should know better, than to prove that "this generation" could only mean their generation. That would make you as clueless as them, yet still clueless 1992 years later. No one was lying nor being deceptive. The OD was written after the fact to show their state of mind. It was not written to prove 70AD was the point of the OD.

As pointed out there was a generation that would all die out but a few, who would see the temple destroyed. There is a parabolic generation that would see all things happen, even the restoration of Israel as a nation. At the time of the OD, Israel was still a nation, as the cursing of the fig tree was about the end of Israel as a recognized nation, both physically and spiritually. God stopped dealing with Israel on the Cross, and took away their responsibility under the Law of Moses. That was handed to each individual, and there was no longer a middle man, between God and each individual. The cursing of the fig tree had way more to do with 70AD, than the OD ever was supposed to.

 

[Hammster]

It is not about 70AD even if one is a full preterist. Like having a belief, can really change the Word of God?

I don’t understand the question.

 

[JosephZ]

You are still missing the point all knew and accepted a glorious coming. What every one was confused about was the first coming. It is a return and a Second Coming because Jesus explained he was leaving and that he would return. So they were asking about the Second Coming because they were still anticipating the glorious Coming promised to them.

The disciples knew that their Messiah had arrived as it had been written by the prophets. They weren't asking when Jesus would return for a second time in Matthew 24:3. When the disciples asked Jesus what will be the sign of your presence? They were asking about when Jesus would be coming into His authority and in power as it was also written by the prophets.

Do you only base your facts on the writings of early Christians or the actual Word of God? Not meaning to sound rude. Still not sure why you think, they would not ask about the Second Coming.

I quoted 48 different verses of scripture to show why I think the way I do about the disciples questions found in Matthew 24:3.

At the time of the OD, Israel was still a nation, as the cursing of the fig tree was about the end of Israel as a recognized nation, both physically and spiritually.

Israel wasn't a physical nation at the time of the Olivet Discourse. There was once a Kingdom of Israel, but it fell centuries before the arrival of Jesus. The Nation of Israel spoken of in the scriptures is made up of people, the descendants of Abraham.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Are you aware of the various ages throughout scripture? We know that He’s obviously talking about the end of the end of the old covenant. The glory of the Lord departed the temple when He walked out. The religious leaders were condemned for their murder of previous prophets. They certain were to be judged for murdering Him. And let’s not forget a big one. He said all those things (vv 4-34) would happen in that generation.

So, just ignore everything I said and don't respond to any of my points then. You apparently would rather just pretend that passages like Luke 20:34-36, Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, etc. don't exist. That's how you operate, apparently. Okay then.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Israel was never expecting a return. The Jews living in the first century believed that their Messiah would someday arrive and rule forever. It would be an arrival; a one time arrival. They never expected their Messiah to come, leave, and return a second time at some point in the future. This is how we know the question being asked in Matthew 24:3 isn't about Jesus' second coming and why His answer wouldn't relate to that.

Jesus could answer however He wanted according to what He knew about His coming and the end of the age. He didn't need to answer according to their erroneous understanding. Why do you act as if He would answer them according to their false understanding of what was supposed to happen?

 

[JosephZ]

Jesus could answer however He wanted according to what He knew about His coming and the end of the age. He didn't need to answer according to their erroneous understanding. Why do you act as if He would answer them according to their false understanding of what was supposed to happen?

So he would intentionally mislead His disciples? I don't think so.