This generation

[Hammster]

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.

Okay.

 

[Hammster]

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

It’s only misleading if He really meant some other generation when He said “this generation”.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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

That is not what I was saying at all.

Do you think He was misleading them in Acts 1:8 when He gave His answer to their question in Acts 1:6? They clearly did not understand the nature of the kingdom of God at that time (that it was spiritual and heavenly rather than an earthly kingdom), but He didn't bother telling them that. Instead, He explained how they would recognize when the kingdom had come. So, did He mislead them just because He didn't answer according to their understanding of the kingdom?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Okay.

Great. I will ignore what you say as well. Glad we have this understanding.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It’s only misleading if He really meant some other generation when He said “this generation”.

Or if He wanted them to believe that the gathering of the elect would occur before 70 AD even though that didn't happen before then.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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).

Thanks, but I don't recall indicating that I didn't understand his view. I do. I just disagree with it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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?

My answer to your last question is yes. But, you're not understanding my point and I may not be explaining it as well as I should.

I'm not denying that He was talking about the people He was talking to, the scribes and Pharisees, being destroyed. I'm saying they were a certain type of people (wicked and adulterous) who were like Cain and like their forefathers. So, when it comes to Matthew 24:34 I'm saying that what Jesus was saying there is that this type of people (wicked and adulterous) would not pass away until all the things that He had talked about were fulfilled. That includes the gathering of the elect. If you could just tell me how the elect were gathered already by 70 AD then we could be done with this, but no preterist has come anywhere near giving a reasonable explanation for that, in my opinion.

Also, I believe He said that heaven and earth would pass away right after what He said in Matthew 24:34 to show when this generation would pass away. It would be when heaven and earth pass away. We know from 2 Peter 3 that heaven and earth will pass away when He returns in the future. That lines up with what He talked about in the Olivet Discourse when He talked about His coming, heaven and earth passing away and all unbelievers being destroyed when He comes (Matt 24:29-51).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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".

I don't understand why you (seemingly) just assume anything the Sydney Anglicans say must be true. Dividing things up at that point does not make any sense. When He referred to "that day" in Matthew 24:36 He was referring to a day that He had just been talking about. I don't know how you could think otherwise. So, what day was He talking about just before that? The day He comes at the end of the age when heaven and earth will pass away.

 

[Hammster]

Or if He wanted them to believe that the gathering of the elect would occur before 70 AD even though that didn't happen before then.

Elect were gathered.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

Yes.

Thus Jesus’ use of the “end of the age” is a reference the end of the last age that arrived with his 1st advent.

No, that's not correct. Though I'm sure Jesus was familiar with the multiple "ages" in the sense that Paul used the term and how it's used in Hebrews 9:26, that is not what He had in mind when He talked about the end of the age. In His mind, He thought of 2 ages. This temporal age and the eternal age to come (see Luke 20:34-36). So, His reference to the end of the age was in reference to the end of this temporal age.

Just read Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and passages like that. Did those things He talked about there happen already? I believe they clearly have not. He refers to the separation of the wicked and righteous for judgment there, which is the same thing He talked about in Matthew 25:31-46. That has not yet happened.

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?

No, not at all. I'm saying that from Jesus's perspective, He had 2 ages in mind. This temporal age when people get married and die and the eternal age to come that will come when the resurrection of the dead occurs at which point people will no longer get married or die. Read Luke 20:34-36.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Elect were gathered.

Not at His coming, not by angels and not all of them. I find the idea that He was only talking about the gathering of some of the elect before this generation passed away to be a completely unreasonable belief.

Paul also described the gathering of the elect. This is how it should be understood:

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Just like Matthew 24:27-31, this talks about Christ's coming and about His elect being gathered. I'm absolutely baffled as to how anyone would not make the obvious connection between the two passages.

 

[JosephZ]

Do you think He was misleading them in Acts 1:8 when He gave His answer to their question in Acts 1:6? They clearly did not understand the nature of the kingdom of God at that time (that it was spiritual and heavenly rather than an earthly kingdom), but He didn't bother telling them that. Instead, He explained how they would recognize when the kingdom had come. So, did He mislead them just because He didn't answer according to their understanding of the kingdom?

See, even then they still had no concept about his Second Coming. And no, I don't think Jesus' answer in Acts was misleading.

I believe He said that heaven and earth would pass away right after what He said in Matthew 24:34 to show when this generation would pass away. It would be when heaven and earth pass away. We know from 2 Peter 3 that heaven and earth will pass away when He returns in the future.

If heaven and earth didn't pass away, why aren't you keeping the Mosaic law? Jesus said it would not pass until Heaven and Earth pass away.

"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18)

 

[Spiritual Jew]

See, even then they still had no concept about his Second Coming.

That. Does. Not. Matter. Jesus talked about it, anyway, because He was not obligated to talk about His future coming based on their understanding of it.

And no, I don't think Jesus' answer in Acts was misleading.

Of course it wasn't, but what He said wasn't at all what they were expecting and didn't line up with their understanding of the kingdom, right? Yet, He still wasn't being misleading. So, why would you think He was being misleading if He didn't answer their question about His coming at the end of the age in the way they might have expected Him to?

If heaven and earth didn't pass away, why aren't you keeping the Mosaic law? Jesus said it would not pass until Heaven and Earth pass away.

"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18)

Do you remember anything that people tell you? I already talked to you about this. That is not referring to the ceremonial laws of Moses. That is referring to the moral law of God. Surely, it's still important to not kill and not steal and such, right?

Look at the passage in context.

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

When Jesus referenced "The Law" in Matthew 5:17-18, He was talking about "these commands" that He referenced in Matthew 5:19. What commands were those? Ceremonial and ritualistic commandments found in the law of Moses? Clearly not. So, what then? We need to go back to what He was talking about prior to Matthew 5:17.

Matthew 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

He was talking about His commands to "let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven". He was commanding them to act righteously and obey God by loving God and loving others as He had commanded them to do. Remember, He summed up the entire law in two commandments: love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:37-40). That is "the Law" that must be followed until heaven and earth pass away.

Any time Jesus spoke of heaven and earth it was always about the actual, literal heaven and earth. He talked about heaven and earth passing away in relation to His second coming. Just like Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Do you deny that 2 Peter 3:3-13 is about the literal heavens and earth, too?

 

[Timtofly]

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.

I was talking in regards to the insistence of 70AD. No where is 70AD prophecied, as how 70AD went down. You only have the historical record. The Jews were a nation, just not sovereign and independent. They were still allowed an economy centered around their temple. They were not restored as an independent nation in 70AD. They still had their own way of life until 70AD.

 

[JosephZ]

Do you remember anything that people tell you? I already talked to you about this. That is not referring to the ceremonial laws of Moses. That is referring to the moral law of God. Surely, it's still important to not kill and not steal and such, right?

I can't remember every reply, but what makes you think just the moral law would apply today and not all of the law? After all, Jesus said "not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law." Wouldn't that also include the ceremonial law?

Any time Jesus spoke of heaven and earth it was always about the actual, literal heaven and earth. He talked about heaven and earth passing away in relation to His second coming. Just like Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Do you deny that 2 Peter 3:3-13 is about the literal heavens and earth, too?

So it's just a coincidence that the temple in Jerusalem was a mock of the heavens and the earth. A place where the Jews believed God literally dwelt on Earth; that the veils were representative of the elements. Earth, sea, fire, and air.

 

[JosephZ]

I was talking in regards to the insistence of 70AD. No where is 70AD prophecied, as how 70AD went down. You only have the historical record.

I went into detail about 70AD near the beginning of the thread. It can be found here in post 30 where I used more than 50 verses of scripture. This generation post 30

 

[claninja]

I'm not denying that He was talking about the people He was talking to, the scribes and Pharisees, being destroyed. I'm saying they were a certain type of people (wicked and adulterous) who were like Cain and like their forefathers.

“This generation”, in Matthew 23:36, was obviously not inclusive all living people in 67-70ad. When Jesus said all the righteous bloodshed would come upon “this generation” it clearly isn’t a reference to all contemporaries living on the face of planet earth. It was clearly directed at a specific group of contemporaries that shared a common characteristic : 1st century apostate Israel (wicked and adulterous)

when Jesus said “this wicked generation asks for a sign”, its clearly not inclusive of all contemporary people living on planet earth in the first century during Jesus’ ministry, but solely directed at the generation of apostate unbelievers ,from first century israel, standing in front of Jesus asking for a sign.

This is what definition 2b means. This is what it means by “type of people”. It doesn’t mean all wicked people through all time. It can mean contemporaries grouped together by characteristics.

Thus, “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 clearly refers to the 1st century apostate Israelites (contemporaries grouped together by similar characteristics) that would fill up the measure of their fathers’ sins and upon whom all the righteous blood shed would come.

Since you agree that Jesus was talking about the destruction israel, would you agree the righteous blood shed was put on them?

So, when it comes to Matthew 24:34 I'm saying that what Jesus was saying there is that this type of people (wicked and adulterous) would not pass away until all the things that He had talked about were fulfilled.

Genea has no clearly defined biblical use as “wicked people” in general throughout all time. Again, such is a misused definition forced upon by the futurist supposition.

Genea means a certain multitude of contemporaries, whether grouped together by similar characteristics or biology. Outside of Matthew 24:34, it’s always used this way, in the NT and LXX.

If you could just tell me how the elect were gathered already by 70 AD then we could be done with this, but not preterist has come anywhere near giving a reasonable explanation for that, in my opinion.

I believe this refers to the gathering of those to the wedding feast following the destruction of Jerusalem (matthew 22:8-10, revelation 19:1-10).

Also, I believe He said that heaven and earth would pass away right after what He said in Matthew 24:34 to show when this generation would pass away. It would be when heaven and earth pass away. We know from 2 Peter 3 that heaven and earth will pass away when He returns in the future. That lines up with what He talked about in the Olivet Discourse when He talked about His coming, heaven and earth passing away and all unbelievers being destroyed when He comes (Matt 24:29-51)

just as I don’t believe that the OT prophesied kingdom to come is a literal earthly kingdom that can be observed, i don’t believe the NHNE, are a literal transformation. I believe this is covenantal language.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

A lot of plausible interpretations, but I found this paper very enlightening on this topic.
https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj13f.pdf

 

[Hammster]

Not at His coming, not by angels and not all of them. I find the idea that He was only talking about the gathering of some of the elect before this generation passed away to be a completely unreasonable belief.

I don’t know why. First, it doesn’t say that everyone who is elect will be gathered. And two, it had to happen within that generation because that’s when the Lord said it would happen. You might disagree, but it certainly isn’t unreasonable.

 

[DavidPT]

And two, it had to happen within that generation because that’s when the Lord said it would happen. You might disagree, but it certainly isn’t unreasonable.

It is unreasonable because the following was never true anytime in the first century---till all these things be done(Mark 13:30)

Which includes this for one---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled(Luke 21:24)