This generation

[DavidPT]

solid counter argument: Using parallelism to assert that “this generation” equals “heaven and earth” passing away.

However, I could argue the opposite, heaven and earth passing away means “this generation” passed away, Since heaven and earth passing away can be understood as metaphorical language for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which would come upon the wicked and idolatrous generation of first century apostate Israel.

Benson commentary:
“Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven — Meaning, probably, the abolition of the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Matthew 24:29;”

If this understanding is correct, I don’t need to twist the actual definition of genea

Is anything in 2 Peter 3 giving you the impression the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are in view? The reason I ask, it seems pretty obvious that Matthew 24:35---Heaven and earth shall pass away---is involving 2 Peter 3:7 and 2 Peter 3:10.

-------------------------------------
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
------------------------------

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled(Matthew 24:34)

Heaven and earth shall pass away(Matthew 24:35)

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only(Matthew 24:36)

the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up(2 Peter 3:10)


the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men(2 Peter 3:7)

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be(Matthew 24:37)

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark(Matthew 24:38)

And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be(Matthew 24:39)

the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men(2 Peter 3:7)


The context surrounding Matthew 24:34 undeniably involves the day of the Lord in the end of this age, therefore, it would be unreasonable for verse 34 to be pertaining to the first century when the verses surrounding it aren't. Jesus would be applying verse 34 out of context if that was what He was applying verse 34 to. This is one of the main reasons I reject a Preterist interpretation of verse 34, it would have Jesus coming across as confused rather than clear about things.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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?

I don't understand why you would ask this question. Are people still required to perform the ceremonial laws today? Of course not. They were no longer required once Jesus put an end to them with His shed blood.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

He clearly was not referring to the old covenant ceremonial laws/ordinances in Matthew 5:18.

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.

Jesus was clearly speaking about the actual heaven and earth themselves passing away in Matthew 24:35. And He associated it with the timing of His coming. Just like Peter did in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Do you think heaven and earth will never pass away or something? How else can the new heavens and new earth be ushered in unless the current heavens and earth as we know them pass away first?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

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.

Even if it has to refer specifically to Jews, there are still wicked and adulterous Jews alive today. In the sense that I believe Jesus intended in Matthew 24:34 as referrring to a certain type of people (wicked and adulterous - or wicked and adulterous Jews in particular), "this generation" has still not passed away. And Jesus has still not come, the gathering of the elect has not occurred and heaven and earth have not passed away.

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).

Did that end before "this generation" passed away? Remember, the gathering of the elect is one of "all these things" that had to be fulfilled before this generation passed away. And the gathering to the wedding feast certainly did not end in 70 AD. It's still going on today.

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.

In 2nd Peter 3, Peter wrote about the heavens and earth being burned up when Christ comes. What is your understanding of that? He compared that event directly to the flood in Noah's day (2 Peter 3:5-7). Why would he compare a literal, global destruction event to....whatever you think the burning up of the heavens and earth represents?

How do you think wickedness and wicked things will be removed from the earth? I believe Peter makes that very clear. They will all be burned up when Christ returns. That makes a lot of sense to me. How else will that occur?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

solid counter argument: Using parallelism to assert that “this generation” equals “heaven and earth” passing away.

However, I could argue the opposite, heaven and earth passing away means “this generation” passed away, Since heaven and earth passing away can be understood as metaphorical language for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which would come upon the wicked and idolatrous generation of first century apostate Israel.

Benson commentary:
“Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven — Meaning, probably, the abolition of the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Matthew 24:29;”

If this understanding is correct, I don’t need to twist the actual definition of genea

Jesus associated this generation passing away with His second coming and with heaven and earth passing away. He indicated that no one knew the day or hour it would occur. So, why would you try to understand what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24:34 without taking 2nd Peter 3 into account?

Like Jesus Himself, Peter talked about Jesus coming at an unexpected time (like a thief in the night) and about heaven and earth passing away (by way of being burned up) at that time. Has that already occurred? Clearly not. So, that has to be taken into account when interpreting Matthew 24:34.

 

[claninja]

Even if it has to refer specifically to Jews, there are still wicked and adulterous Jews alive today. In the sense that I believe Jesus intended in Matthew 24:34 as referrring to a certain type of people (wicked and adulterous - or wicked and adulterous Jews in particular), "this generation" has still not passed away.

The Jews alive today are not contemporaries of the Jews of the first century. Genea is used of contemporaries. Genea is never used to mean throughout time or history unless is plural as in “14 generations from Abraham to David” or duplicated as in “generation to generation”

why does Thayers list the use of genea fall under definition 3 and not 2a or 2b? Because it is not plural, nor discussing a genealogy, nor does it refer to a contemporaries grouped together by a characteristic.

And the gathering to the wedding feast certainly did not end in 70 AD. It's still going on today.

Neither did wars, famines, and earthquakes….

In 2nd Peter 3, Peter wrote about the heavens and earth being burned up when Christ comes. What is your understanding of that? He compared that event directly to the flood in Noah's day (2 Peter 3:5-7). Why would he compare a literal, global destruction event to....whatever you think the burning up of the heavens and earth represents?

How do you think wickedness and wicked things will be removed from the earth? I believe Peter makes that very clear. They will all be burned up when Christ returns. That makes a lot of sense to me. How else will that occur?

1. I don’t believe the flood was global.

2. I’ll let some partial preterists, who are much more qualified than me, explain it. I agree with the following:

“He sets forth the destruction of that cursed Nation and their City in those terms that Christ had done, Matt. 24. and that the Scripture doth elsewhere, Deut. 32.22,23.24. Jer. 4.23. namely as the destruction of the whole world, The heavens passing away, the elements melting, and the earth burnt up, &c. And accordingly speaks of a new heaven and a new earth, from Isa. 65.17. a new state of the Church under the Gospel among the Gentiles, when this old world of the Jews state should be dissolved.” (John Lightfoot, Westminster Assembly Divine)”

“Heaven and earth passing,’ understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe, and the period when that is to take place, is called the ‘end of the world.’ But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens” (vol. 1, p. 170)” John brown

 

[claninja]

Jesus associated this generation passing away with His second coming and with heaven and earth passing away. He indicated that no one knew the day or hour it would occur. So, why would you try to understand what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24:34 without taking 2nd Peter 3 into account?

Like Jesus Himself, Peter talked about Jesus coming at an unexpected time (like a thief in the night) and about heaven and earth passing away (by way of being burned up) at that time. Has that already occurred? Clearly not. So, that has to be taken into account when interpreting Matthew 24:34.

i don’t believe the dissolution of the heavens and earth is to be understood literally. See previous post with partial preterist commentaries for what I believe.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

wow, I was actually going to say, that’s a really good counter argument if I had understood you correctly. I would say Jesus mentioning people marrying in “this age” wouldn’t preclude marrying past ages. But anywho….

Huh?

Paul also makes mention of plural “ages to come”

Ephesians 2:6-7 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages (plural) He might display the surpassing riches of His grace, demonstrated by His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

So, it seems it could be argued Paul believed he was living at the end of the ages(plural), and that there were “ages” (plural) to come. So i don’t see how this is different than this age and the age to come.

You don't see a difference in the one age to come that Jesus talked about and plural ages to come that Paul talked about? Sometimes you can be very confusing. This is one of those times.

Apparently, you're not getting that Jesus did not speak in the sense of many ages like Paul apparently did, but instead only spoke in terms of two ages. This temporal age that began when the heavens and earth were created and the eternal age to come that will last forever. That's what Luke 20:34-36 indicates. So, when He talked about the end of the age, He talked about the end of this temporal age when people get married and they die. In the age to come people will no longer get married or die.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The Jews alive today are not contemporaries of the Jews of the first century. Genea is used of contemporaries. Genea is never used to mean throughout time or history unless is plural as in “14 generations from Abraham to David” or duplicated as in “generation to generation”

why does Thayers list the use of genea fall under definition 3 and not 2a or 2b? Because it is not plural, nor discussing a genealogy, nor does it refer to a contemporaries grouped together by a characteristic.

That's one person's opinion. I'm not obligated to agree with Joe Thayer on that.

Neither did wars, famines, and earthquakes….

Yes, exactly, so it makes no sense to think that this generation passed away in 70 AD since some of the things Jesus talked about weren't fulfilled before then.

1. I don’t believe the flood was global.

You lose all credibility with that belief, in my view.

2. I’ll let some partial preterists, who are much more qualified than me, explain it. I agree with the following:

“He sets forth the destruction of that cursed Nation and their City in those terms that Christ had done, Matt. 24. and that the Scripture doth elsewhere, Deut. 32.22,23.24. Jer. 4.23. namely as the destruction of the whole world, The heavens passing away, the elements melting, and the earth burnt up, &c. And accordingly speaks of a new heaven and a new earth, from Isa. 65.17. a new state of the Church under the Gospel among the Gentiles, when this old world of the Jews state should be dissolved.” (John Lightfoot, Westminster Assembly Divine)”

“Heaven and earth passing,’ understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe, and the period when that is to take place, is called the ‘end of the world.’ But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens” (vol. 1, p. 170)” John brown

That is complete nonsense. I can't take it seriously. The creation of the new heavens and new earth is never associated with "the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian". Peter made it very clear that the new heavens and new earth will appear after the current heavens and earth are burned up first. Also, John made it very clear that there would be no more death, pain, crying or sorrow when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in. That has clearly not yet occurred.

How do you think that wickedness will be removed from the earth if not by way of the Lord burning it up? Take strip clubs, crack houses, adult book stores and things like that as examples. What do you think will be the means by which the Lord will remove things like that from the earth?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

i don’t believe the dissolution of the heavens and earth is to be understood literally. See previous post with partial preterist commentaries for what I believe.

Why in 2 Peter 3:5-7 does Peter compare the burning up of the heavens and earth directly to the literal event of the flood in Noah's day if that isn't supposed to be understood literally? That means you think he was comparing a future non-literal event to a past literal one, which does not make sense. In what way are the two events comparable if the burning up of the heavens and earth is not meant to be understood literally?

 

[DavidPT]

How do you think that wickedness will be removed from the earth if not by way of the Lord burning it up? Take strip clubs, crack houses, adult book stores and things like that as examples. What do you think will be the means by which the Lord will remove things like that from the earth?

That's a reasonable point, yet there could be other ways He might do that than literally setting the planet ablaze. There is the following in Ezekiel 38, for instance.


Ezekiel 38:20 So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.

This verse says---and every wall shall fall to the ground. That should include crack houses, etc. Massive earthquakes could cause that, and maybe God's presence is what brings about the earthquakes?

 

[claninja]

**

 

[claninja]

That's one person's opinion. I'm not obligated to agree with Joe Thayer on that.

You don’t agree that genea means generation?

Genea meaning generation is just how thayers and strong’s “opinion”?

Please do tell what sources you use to foist your position?

Yes, exactly, so it makes no sense to think that this generation passed away in 70 AD since some of the things Jesus talked about weren't fulfilled before then.

The Greek word isn’t “fulfilled”. It’s “taken place” and its an aorist subjunctive tense, meaning it’s not time related but a purpose clause.

“this generation might not pass away until these things may occur”.

did wars, famines, and earthquakes take place within the first century’s generation? Yes


Did the destruction of the temple take place within the first century generation? Yes

did the servants gather the elect into the wedding feast in the first century? Yes


So I don’t understand your argument.

You lose all credibility with that belief, in my view

ok. This isn’t the thread for discussing global or local flood. So I won’t derail.

That is complete nonsense. I can't take it seriously. The creation of the new heavens and new earth is never associated with "the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian". Peter made it very clear that the new heavens and new earth will appear after the current heavens and earth are burned up first. Also, John made it very clear that there would be no more death, pain, crying or sorrow when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in. That has clearly not yet occurred.

ok. This isn’t the thread for discussing how the OT uses prophetical language to describe the destruction of heavens and earth, so feel free disagree. I don’t wish to derail.

 

[claninja]

Huh

I initially thought you had a really good counter argument, but when you clarified, it turns out you didn’t.

You don't see a difference in the one age to come that Jesus talked about and plural ages to come that Paul talked about? Sometimes you can be very confusing. This is one of those times.

Apparently, you're not getting that Jesus did not speak in the sense of many ages like Paul apparently did, but instead only spoke in terms of two ages. This temporal age that began when the heavens and earth were created and the eternal age to come that will last forever. That's what Luke 20:34-36 indicates. So, when He talked about the end of the age, He talked about the end of this temporal age when people get married and they die. In the age to come people will no longer get married or die.

paul Stated there were past ages and there are future ages. I don’t see this as different than this age and the age the come.

Math example to clarify:

1/1 = 1

10/10 = 1

 

[sovereigngrace]

1. I don’t believe the flood was global.

2. I’ll let some partial preterists, who are much more qualified than me, explain it. I agree with the following:

Please present your evidence. You made the false claim.

 

[claninja]

Why in 2 Peter 3:5-7 does Peter compare the burning up of the heavens and earth directly to the literal event of the flood in Noah's day if that isn't supposed to be understood literally? That means you think he was comparing a future non-literal event to a past literal one, which does not make sense. In what way are the two events comparable if the burning up of the heavens and earth is not meant to be understood literally?

Just as the flood was a literal event, I believe the destruction of the city and sanctuary was a literal event

 

[claninja]

Please present your evidence. You made the false claim.

First, present a serious counter to post 997, which I’m still waiting on. then I’ll respond.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Just as the flood was a literal event, I believe the destruction of the city and sanctuary was a literal event

That is not what he is disputing. Address what he is stating instead of always diverting around the issues.

 

[claninja]

As is common when engaging with Preterists, they make sweeping statements but are unable to carry through with hard biblical support. All they can present is their mistaken teachers.

As is common with futurists, when confronted with evidence against how they must twist actual definitions of words to fit their presuppositions, they are often unable to counter the scholarly work, such as thayers or helps word studies, that demonstrates their error, realizing they must instead denigrate the poster and scholar.

So I’ll take your response as no, you have no counter to my post 997.

 

[claninja]

That is not what he is disputing. Address what he is stating instead of always diverting around the issues.

This is ironic

 

[sovereigngrace]

As is common with futurists, when confronted with evidence against how they must twist actual definitions of words to fit their presuppositions, they are often unable to counter the scholarly work, such as thayers or helps word studies, that demonstrates their error, realizing they must instead denigrate the poster and scholar.

So I’ll take your response as no, you have no counter to my post 997.

I have repeatedly addressed this in detail and you have repeatedly avoided the biblical evidence. I refer you back.