This generation will not pass away until . . .
- Thread starter Kim G
- Start date
- Status
Kim G
Puritan Board Junior
I will do that. But I know that not everyone is preterist. So how would non-preterist people look at those verses? I guess I'm just confused because I haven't seen an eschatological position that seems to fit ALL the verses about the end times.
danmpem
Puritan Board Junior
Funny thing is, neither do most of us. Even J.I. Packer said that the best theology is a theology with loose ends.
R Harris
Puritan Board Sophomore
The best eschatological position can only be arrived at by process of elimination - in other words, what are the positions of the eschatology views which cannot possibly be true according to clear passages of Scripture. Once you do this exercise, your only logical choice is postmillenialism 
, even though postmillenialism has some difficulties (just far fewer than the other positions).
Gary DeMar (American Vision: A Biblical Worldview Ministry) and Kenneth Gentry (Kenneth Gentry - Print, Audio, Video products from the reformed perspective) have written some excellent resources dealing with Matt. 24:34, Matt. 16:28, and other problematic passages. I believe their presentations to be quite convincing. In other words, "this generation" means just what it says - this generation, i.e. the people and generation who Jesus was actually speaking to.
I find Herman Riddebos's "prophetic foreshortening" explanation to be lamentably weak. There are various other theories (primarily dispensational) that do their best to also deny the obvious.
An older work, Patrick Fairbairn's "The Interpretation of Prophecy" is quite good, along with his "The Typology of Scripture." His thesis, which is true, is that one must understand OT signs and symbolism and their meanings in order to properly interpret prophetic pronouncements, such as what we see Jesus giving in Matthew 24 and what we see elsewhere in the NT.
If only everyone did this, eschatology would not be the major battleground that it is.
, even though postmillenialism has some difficulties (just far fewer than the other positions).Gary DeMar (American Vision: A Biblical Worldview Ministry) and Kenneth Gentry (Kenneth Gentry - Print, Audio, Video products from the reformed perspective) have written some excellent resources dealing with Matt. 24:34, Matt. 16:28, and other problematic passages. I believe their presentations to be quite convincing. In other words, "this generation" means just what it says - this generation, i.e. the people and generation who Jesus was actually speaking to.
I find Herman Riddebos's "prophetic foreshortening" explanation to be lamentably weak. There are various other theories (primarily dispensational) that do their best to also deny the obvious.
An older work, Patrick Fairbairn's "The Interpretation of Prophecy" is quite good, along with his "The Typology of Scripture." His thesis, which is true, is that one must understand OT signs and symbolism and their meanings in order to properly interpret prophetic pronouncements, such as what we see Jesus giving in Matthew 24 and what we see elsewhere in the NT.
If only everyone did this, eschatology would not be the major battleground that it is.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
In my personal Bible study, I recently came across these verses. What are they saying? How do they fit into eschatology? I'm completely clueless.
Everyone is a preterist on some level. Everytime Jesus uses generation in Matthew it means to those whom he spoke. The really tricky part is whether there is a break in Jesus' Olivet Discourse. It is easier theologically to posit a break, but I haven't been convinced by those explanations.
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
I've come to believe those bolded verses simply mean what they say. That generation would see the return of Christ in judgment upon it, and in fact some in the crowd he was talking to would still be alive to see it happen. You have to make it mean something else, as I used to do.
Reformingstudent
Puritan Board Junior
I came across this website in my studies and thought I would pass it on. Maybe you can find some help from here: http://www.historicist.com/related_subjects/Matt24/Matt24.html
It may not be what your looking for though but just wanted to share.
It may not be what your looking for though but just wanted to share.
Reformingstudent
Puritan Board Junior
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
I think once "the abomination of desolation" is properly understood the whole passage is easily grasped within its covenantal context. "Generation," "pass" "fulfilled," are key words used in the Gospel of Matthew to point to the end of Israel's possession of distinctive national privileges and point to Jesus Christ as the rightful inheritor of Israel's promises. The temple, freedom, peace, prosperity, and ritual purity, are all blessings which flowed to Israel as a result of her covenant relation to God. This discourse is misunderstood when it is made to predict a series of end times events, whether the end times be Israel's or the world's. To any Israelite hearing the words of Jesus the message was plain and simple -- such was the degeneracy of Israel in rejecting her Messiah that she was now rejected by God, and could not look to Him for national protection and provision as if she were peculiarly favoured above other nations of the world. The events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 may provide a providential glimpse into the effects of God forsaking Israel, but it is not the immediate referent in the words of Jesus.
mshingler
Puritan Board Freshman
Are you saying that the immediate referent of the entire discourse is not the destruction of Jerusalem and the events of AD70 or just that the immediate referent of "These things" in the phrase, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place" is not the destruction of Jerusalem?
The passage begins with Jewish disciples glorying in an earthly emblem of God's nearness to Israel; the concern of the ensuing discourse is to show that such emblems will soon have no religious significance, contrary to the way the Jewish disciples had been trained to think of them. The immediate referent of the whole discourse is the covenant relation of Israel to God.
mshingler
Puritan Board Freshman
I'll have to go back and read the whole discourse, in each of the synoptics, with that perspective in mind. I have always struggled with the meaning of some aspects of this passage. To date, what I have found to be the most helpful treatment was D.A. Carson's commentary on Matthew. However, I'm open to further insights and perspectives.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
One thing about this passage that has recently struck me is verse 20 and its implications for those who do believe Christ did away with the Sabbath obligation.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Chapter 24 of Matthew's Gospel almost certainly begins with our Lord describing the destruction of the nation of Israel in 70 A.D.
"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
As Jesus was looking down at the Temple in the city of Jerusalem he described "not be left here one stone upon another," which is what happened when the Roman legions attacked Jerusalem under General Titus in 70 A.D.
Josephius, the historian (not a Christian) wrote of the Romans catapulting huge bolders onto the Temple and Jerusalem for days on end which literally seems to describe what Jesus said would happen. Interesting, Josephius thought this was part of God's judgment as he wrote in awe of the destruction of the city and nation he loved.
Josephius was in Jerusalem when the attack occurred and was found at the bottom of a well by Roman soldiers but spared his life because the Roman's respected his tremendous love and bravery in defending the City.
Moving forward into Matthew 24, it becomes less clear. Is Jesus speaking of the end of the Jewish age (Israel being destroyed as a theocracy) or does he jump ahead to the the time right before the second coming?
I find myself less certain about these details as time goes. I can see why the Westminster Confession did not go into great detail about eschatology... and wisely so.
"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
As Jesus was looking down at the Temple in the city of Jerusalem he described "not be left here one stone upon another," which is what happened when the Roman legions attacked Jerusalem under General Titus in 70 A.D.
Josephius, the historian (not a Christian) wrote of the Romans catapulting huge bolders onto the Temple and Jerusalem for days on end which literally seems to describe what Jesus said would happen. Interesting, Josephius thought this was part of God's judgment as he wrote in awe of the destruction of the city and nation he loved.
Josephius was in Jerusalem when the attack occurred and was found at the bottom of a well by Roman soldiers but spared his life because the Roman's respected his tremendous love and bravery in defending the City.
Moving forward into Matthew 24, it becomes less clear. Is Jesus speaking of the end of the Jewish age (Israel being destroyed as a theocracy) or does he jump ahead to the the time right before the second coming?
I find myself less certain about these details as time goes. I can see why the Westminster Confession did not go into great detail about eschatology... and wisely so.
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
The Greek word translated "generation" here can also mean those descended from a common ancestor and was used in that sense in the language of the day. I think taking it this way makes a great deal of sense. For Jesus has just foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in such terms as to raise the possiblity that it would involve the total destruction of the Jewish people. To forestall this incorrect conclusion, Christ lets his disciples know that this generation i.e. the physical descendants of Abraham would not be wiped out.
Keep in mind that we know that Christ was reigning as early as the time Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15:25 where Christ "must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet." So if Christ was reigning as early as this date he must have begun to reign earlier. Personally I would date his reign from the resurrection since Paul writes in Rom. 1:4 that Christ "...was declared to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection from the dead." If this is correct, then some of those standing there that day saw Christ "coming in his kingdom" in his post-resurrection appearances.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
except where generation is used in Matthew it means to those whom he spoke.
danmpem
Puritan Board Junior
I don't know about that...
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
Not always although that is the dominant use and particularly on the lips of Christ. But one cannot say that another use that better fits the context is an impossible or even an unlikely meaning. Although I normally use the word "bass" to mean the four stringed instrument at the bottom of the string section of an orchestra, if the context of our conversation was how I spent my childhood summers, you'd be quite safe betting that I was referring to the small game fish found in our cottage lake.
When attempting to determine the meaning of a word with multiple meanings in a given passage, it is context that is king!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I agree context is king. But that is a truistic comment. Nobody in their right mind will say "Context be d@mned, I want it be mean this." Of course I agree. I also believe context supports my position. That is why saying "But context..." isn't helpful.
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
Not to get
but Jesus is actually making the point that legalistic Jews who would stone travelers on the Sabbath would be a hindrance to fleeing during the tribulation. Just as winter would make travel more difficult, so would legalistic Jews who were strict Sabbath observers. It has nothing to do with Christians observing the Sabbath...
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
In a lecture by Ken Gentry he stated that this referred to the fact that the doors of the city were closed on the Sabbath, so if it occurred on the Sabbath, they would not be able to leave the city and thus be trapped.
When are you going to write that book on the eschaton, Rev Winzer? I would love to read it.
Presbyterian Deacon
Puritan Board Graduate
I was hoping for multi-volumes!
The above "treatise" is too concise! It does have the advantage though that it won't take much "shelf space"....- Status
Similar threads
