Dee Dee, convert me to preterism! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Gavin
- Start date
- Status
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry bro... but its been a long week.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY AMUSED. THANKS GUYS!!!
And DrB we shall see how little I know eh? LOLOLOLOL.. and thank you for giving me some time to post my response.. as Knight has said, it has been a long week.
And DrB we shall see how little I know eh? LOLOLOLOL.. and thank you for giving me some time to post my response.. as Knight has said, it has been a long week.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
If that is a futurist tomorrow, Gavin, you'll be waiting quite a while.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Gavin:
First of all, you will notice that DrB made some very strong comments against my position… I don’t mind that at all. The one thing though that was not accurate is his statement that I am ignorant of dispensationalism. As a general statement, that is simply not true, for I used to be a dispensationalist, though admittedly, I was not the same kind of dispensationalist that he currently is. I invite you to follow the Back Alley debate between DrB and I to judge for yourself.
Thank you. The Jewishness of Matthew does play an important clue and role in interpreting the Discourse, and helps to account for some of the distinct differences found in the Lukan account of the Discourse.
You have a knack for understatement
Yes.
Part of it… a very strong part of it, when coupled with Matthew 24:34.
Let me see if I understand your question, for if I do, you have unwittingly proven my point for me. You are asking if it would be possible for that verse to be fulfilled at the final judgment rather than something that must happen in their natural lifetimes. In a vacuum, of course. But notice what you have proven for me. “This generation” means THEM… not some future generation, not the race of Jews as a whole. I agree that this verse by itself does not mention the timing of the judgment to come upon them, but it does indicate upon whom the judgment would come. The generation of Jews then living. That is the meaning of “this generation”… and if you then go on to read Matthew 24 which immediately follows this verse, Jesus goes on to describe the punishment that will befall them, and caps it off using the same phrase “this generation” and makes an explicit timing reference…. They will not all die until all the things He just prophesied happen. Most futurists concede that “this generation” means the then living generation in Matthew 23:36 but suddenly, in the same context, this same phrase switches referent in Matthew 24:34 in a highly forced exercise IMHO. There is no compelling reason to do so other than the fact that the obvious reading (the one that shaves best with Ocam’s razor) does not fit in with their system.
Here are some comments by DeMar which may prove instructive in setting the context that I had elucidated upon before:
Why did Jesus treat this first century generation of Jews so harshly? Why was their generation destined for destruction? They made up the generation that had to make a choice either to accept or reject the promised Messiah who became flesh and dwelt among them. Certainly every generation must make a decision about Jesus. But no other generation will ever have the chance to turn Him over to the Romans to be crucified. Jesus came to His own, and they did not receive Him. No other generation will be given such an opportunity. The Lord of Glory was in their midst, and they crucified Him, choosing a murderer in place of God’s only begotten Son. The following verses are Biblical descriptions of “this generation” that is, the generation that Jesus addressed:
“Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city.”
Of course these indictments had been heard before. John the Baptist uttered very close to the same words, indicating a brood of vipers and a wrath to come TO THEM.
“But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, and saying: ‘We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not lament.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”
Not long after this indictment the religious leaders accused Jesus of being in league with Satan because He cast out demons. Jesus once again called them a brood of vipers. They were condemned by their words (Matt 12:37). The scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign and Jesus informed them that “en evil an adulterous generation craves for a sign.” Jesus warned the unregenerate of His day that “the men of Ninevah shall stand up with this generation at the judgment and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah.” Judgment was certain to come upon “this generation” because “something greater than Jonah is here.” Jesus compared “this generation” to that of “unclean spirits” who occupy a man’s house, exacerbating the man’s spiritual condition. “That is the way it will also be with this evil generation,” Jesus said. This all took place in one of their synagogues (12:9). Is this the “house” that will be occupied by “unclean spirits” which the Book of Revelation describes as “the synagogue of Satan”?
Jesus told them on another occasion, “The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls [THE SON COMETH!!!], it will scatter him like dust.” There is no mistaking the audience, the context, and the time of judgment, the generation with whom Jesus spoke would be destroyed within forty years, along with the temple and the city. “And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parable, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THEM.” Too bad modern interpretations don’t understand at least that much.
The “woes” of Matthew 23 and the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem were a result of all that John the Baptist and Jesus had been warning the scribes, Pharisees, chief priest regarding the judgment that would come upon them if they did not repent. “All these things,” Jesus said, “shall come upon this generation.” It is after hearing about the desolation of their house (i.e. the temple) that the disciples asked about the “temple buildings”. Jesus answered the disciple’s questions relating to the times and signs of Jerusalem’s destruction, always with the background of Matthew 234 in view, since His comments in that chapter had raised the questions (24:3). The Old Covenant order would ended with the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be the “sign” of the “end of the age”, the age of the Old Covenant.
Since the events described in Matthew 23 precipitated the questions of Matthew 24, we should expect to see some connection between the two chapters. If Matthew 24 is an elucidation and expansion of Matthew 23, then we should expect the events of both chapters to describe the same period o time. We only assume this to be true because we have Biblical cause to make the connection. The two chapters contain two verse that speak of time.
“Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” (23:36)
“Truly I say to you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place.” (24:34)
These verses form eschatological bookends for determining when the predicted events that occur between these two time markers are to be fulfilled.
First of all, you will notice that DrB made some very strong comments against my position… I don’t mind that at all. The one thing though that was not accurate is his statement that I am ignorant of dispensationalism. As a general statement, that is simply not true, for I used to be a dispensationalist, though admittedly, I was not the same kind of dispensationalist that he currently is. I invite you to follow the Back Alley debate between DrB and I to judge for yourself.
Thank you. The Jewishness of Matthew does play an important clue and role in interpreting the Discourse, and helps to account for some of the distinct differences found in the Lukan account of the Discourse.
You have a knack for understatement
Yes.
Part of it… a very strong part of it, when coupled with Matthew 24:34.
Let me see if I understand your question, for if I do, you have unwittingly proven my point for me. You are asking if it would be possible for that verse to be fulfilled at the final judgment rather than something that must happen in their natural lifetimes. In a vacuum, of course. But notice what you have proven for me. “This generation” means THEM… not some future generation, not the race of Jews as a whole. I agree that this verse by itself does not mention the timing of the judgment to come upon them, but it does indicate upon whom the judgment would come. The generation of Jews then living. That is the meaning of “this generation”… and if you then go on to read Matthew 24 which immediately follows this verse, Jesus goes on to describe the punishment that will befall them, and caps it off using the same phrase “this generation” and makes an explicit timing reference…. They will not all die until all the things He just prophesied happen. Most futurists concede that “this generation” means the then living generation in Matthew 23:36 but suddenly, in the same context, this same phrase switches referent in Matthew 24:34 in a highly forced exercise IMHO. There is no compelling reason to do so other than the fact that the obvious reading (the one that shaves best with Ocam’s razor) does not fit in with their system.
Here are some comments by DeMar which may prove instructive in setting the context that I had elucidated upon before:
Why did Jesus treat this first century generation of Jews so harshly? Why was their generation destined for destruction? They made up the generation that had to make a choice either to accept or reject the promised Messiah who became flesh and dwelt among them. Certainly every generation must make a decision about Jesus. But no other generation will ever have the chance to turn Him over to the Romans to be crucified. Jesus came to His own, and they did not receive Him. No other generation will be given such an opportunity. The Lord of Glory was in their midst, and they crucified Him, choosing a murderer in place of God’s only begotten Son. The following verses are Biblical descriptions of “this generation” that is, the generation that Jesus addressed:
“Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city.”
Of course these indictments had been heard before. John the Baptist uttered very close to the same words, indicating a brood of vipers and a wrath to come TO THEM.
“But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, and saying: ‘We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not lament.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”
Not long after this indictment the religious leaders accused Jesus of being in league with Satan because He cast out demons. Jesus once again called them a brood of vipers. They were condemned by their words (Matt 12:37). The scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign and Jesus informed them that “en evil an adulterous generation craves for a sign.” Jesus warned the unregenerate of His day that “the men of Ninevah shall stand up with this generation at the judgment and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah.” Judgment was certain to come upon “this generation” because “something greater than Jonah is here.” Jesus compared “this generation” to that of “unclean spirits” who occupy a man’s house, exacerbating the man’s spiritual condition. “That is the way it will also be with this evil generation,” Jesus said. This all took place in one of their synagogues (12:9). Is this the “house” that will be occupied by “unclean spirits” which the Book of Revelation describes as “the synagogue of Satan”?
Jesus told them on another occasion, “The Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whomever it falls [THE SON COMETH!!!], it will scatter him like dust.” There is no mistaking the audience, the context, and the time of judgment, the generation with whom Jesus spoke would be destroyed within forty years, along with the temple and the city. “And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parable, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THEM.” Too bad modern interpretations don’t understand at least that much.
The “woes” of Matthew 23 and the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem were a result of all that John the Baptist and Jesus had been warning the scribes, Pharisees, chief priest regarding the judgment that would come upon them if they did not repent. “All these things,” Jesus said, “shall come upon this generation.” It is after hearing about the desolation of their house (i.e. the temple) that the disciples asked about the “temple buildings”. Jesus answered the disciple’s questions relating to the times and signs of Jerusalem’s destruction, always with the background of Matthew 234 in view, since His comments in that chapter had raised the questions (24:3). The Old Covenant order would ended with the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be the “sign” of the “end of the age”, the age of the Old Covenant.
Since the events described in Matthew 23 precipitated the questions of Matthew 24, we should expect to see some connection between the two chapters. If Matthew 24 is an elucidation and expansion of Matthew 23, then we should expect the events of both chapters to describe the same period o time. We only assume this to be true because we have Biblical cause to make the connection. The two chapters contain two verse that speak of time.
“Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” (23:36)
“Truly I say to you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place.” (24:34)
These verses form eschatological bookends for determining when the predicted events that occur between these two time markers are to be fulfilled.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
On a side-note Gavin... an added benefit to preterism, in addition to making eschatolog sensible, is that it bolsters Trinitarian debate for it can decimate the whole name-bearing argument that the current rhetoric seems to rest so heavily upon.
Gavin
New member
DrB,
Since dispensationalism AND preterism are probably a bit much for one thread, I have opened another one in the dispensationalism section. If you want to discuss it there, that would be spantastic.
DD,
Okay, I get it. The use of genos in 23:36 favors the translation "generation" instead of "race" in 24:34. Cannot really disagree with that.
So I agree that genos in Matthew 24:34 refers to the actual generation that was there listening.
I still have some more questions. For one, we know from John that Jesus died in 30 AD. If you disagree, let me know and I will show you why I think so. So the latest these words could have been uttered was 30 - thats a whole forty years earlier than 70. Considering that the average life span was considerably less around Jesus' time, and that these men he was speaking to were already adults, would many of them have been alive still to be punished? I suppose so, but I would still appreciate a comment here.
Also, maybe you could just briefly just DEFINE preterism? I guess I had just assumed that it meant that Jesus physically returned in 70 AD, but I just heard somewhere that he only returned SPIRITUALLY.
And then my other questions as well remain, if you think we are done with the first.
Since dispensationalism AND preterism are probably a bit much for one thread, I have opened another one in the dispensationalism section. If you want to discuss it there, that would be spantastic.
DD,
Okay, I get it. The use of genos in 23:36 favors the translation "generation" instead of "race" in 24:34. Cannot really disagree with that.
So I agree that genos in Matthew 24:34 refers to the actual generation that was there listening.
I still have some more questions. For one, we know from John that Jesus died in 30 AD. If you disagree, let me know and I will show you why I think so. So the latest these words could have been uttered was 30 - thats a whole forty years earlier than 70. Considering that the average life span was considerably less around Jesus' time, and that these men he was speaking to were already adults, would many of them have been alive still to be punished? I suppose so, but I would still appreciate a comment here.
Also, maybe you could just briefly just DEFINE preterism? I guess I had just assumed that it meant that Jesus physically returned in 70 AD, but I just heard somewhere that he only returned SPIRITUALLY.
And then my other questions as well remain, if you think we are done with the first.
smilax
New member
Note: though we might not take the Bible "literally," dispensationalism does not take the Bible in historical context.
Programmatically, a generation was defined by forty years. Think of God dealing with Israel in the wilderness. Then check Psalms xcv, 10. The length of life really has limited application to this.
The belief that the majority of end-times prophecy has been fulfilled.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I have no problem with accepting a date of Christ's death at that time. I am not dogmatic on the specific year... anywhere from 30AD to 33AD is fine with me.
We know for a fact of history that many of that then current generation was still alive, both wicked and righteous. The Apostle John lived well past AD70, and Peter and Paul certainly would have if they were not martyred. The average life span statistics can be tricky... they were considerably lower for women because of childbirth but it was nowhere unheard of for men (especially Jewish man who because of the law avoided a lot of diseases and other health issues through fastidiousness) to live long lives.
Sure.. orthodox preterism is the belief that a majority of eschatological events were fulfilled in and surrounding the events of the Jewish was in 67-70AD. However, we do not deny the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection, and the future final judgment... we do however deny that a lot of texts that are used to support those three events are about them at all, but rather are past (i.e. preter means past).
Well, if you don't mind Gavin... I want to present the other three proofs on "this generation" becuase you need the background for some of the other stuff we will be discussing.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
ais66 uses it heavily in the trinity thread.... AVMetro would be the best to really define the argument for you, and explain how preterism defeats it since he has seen me use if against them before. Perhaps you can PM him?
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Gavin:
Okay… on to the next “proof.”
To recap:
PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.
PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.
In the Olivet Discourse, the disciples ask Jesus certain questions, and these were not asked in a vacuum. The questions were prompted as follows (my commentary will be placed in italics and in parenthesis)
First using Mark as a source:
Then as He went out of the temple (the Temple that existed back then), one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” ( they are asking about the Temple that existed back then)And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (referring to the Temple that existed back then!)
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be?….” (it matters not that they asked Him more questions, obviously one of the things that they wanted to know was when the Temple would be destroyed)
Next using Luke as a source:
Then, as some spoke of the temple, (the Temple that existed back then)how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, “These things which you see—(the Temple that was before their very eyes right then) the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? (again, part of “these things” MUST include the destruction that He just prophesied that prompted their questions to begin with)
Lastly using Matthew as a source:
Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. (the Temple that existed back then) And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? (the Temple that existed back then) Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here ( notice the word “here” it is referring to those actual stones, the ones that existed then) upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
All these of the Synoptics of the Olivet Discourse contain the very solemn declaration by Jesus, “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, Mark 13:31)
Now we know when the city and Temple were destroyed. It was in 70AD. If that is “one” of “all these things,” then ALL of the rest of that passage, at least up to Matthew 24:33, Luke 21:31, and Mark 13:31 happened in the first century as well. It is inescapable. The destruction the then existing Temple is a completely unique, datable, and nonrepeatable event. If the prophecy was not primarily fulfilled in the first century, it can never be.
Okay… on to the next “proof.”
To recap:
PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.
PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.
In the Olivet Discourse, the disciples ask Jesus certain questions, and these were not asked in a vacuum. The questions were prompted as follows (my commentary will be placed in italics and in parenthesis)
First using Mark as a source:
Then as He went out of the temple (the Temple that existed back then), one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” ( they are asking about the Temple that existed back then)And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (referring to the Temple that existed back then!)
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be?….” (it matters not that they asked Him more questions, obviously one of the things that they wanted to know was when the Temple would be destroyed)
Next using Luke as a source:
Then, as some spoke of the temple, (the Temple that existed back then)how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, “These things which you see—(the Temple that was before their very eyes right then) the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? (again, part of “these things” MUST include the destruction that He just prophesied that prompted their questions to begin with)
Lastly using Matthew as a source:
Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. (the Temple that existed back then) And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? (the Temple that existed back then) Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here ( notice the word “here” it is referring to those actual stones, the ones that existed then) upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
All these of the Synoptics of the Olivet Discourse contain the very solemn declaration by Jesus, “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, Mark 13:31)
Now we know when the city and Temple were destroyed. It was in 70AD. If that is “one” of “all these things,” then ALL of the rest of that passage, at least up to Matthew 24:33, Luke 21:31, and Mark 13:31 happened in the first century as well. It is inescapable. The destruction the then existing Temple is a completely unique, datable, and nonrepeatable event. If the prophecy was not primarily fulfilled in the first century, it can never be.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
To recap:
PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.
PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.
Now continuing:
PROOF NUMBER THREE: The other “near” temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23
Okay continue to let build upon this puzzle. If it is possible that Matthew 24:34 can mean something else, and even though the context is clearly first century, what other texts illuminate this? The clincher for me is when we compare
Matthew 24:33-34 –So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
with
Luke 21:31-32 – So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.
And then add in
Matthew 16:27-28 – For the Son of Man will come in the
glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
This combination of verses tells us exactly what time frame Matthew 24:34 is referring to. Let me explain….. Matthew 24:33 mentions that when all these things happen “it” is near. What is “it”? Luke equates “it” with the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God would be near, AT THE DOORS.
Matthew 16:28 tells us that there were some standing there that would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom. The parallels are inescapable.
And Matthew 16:28 gives us then the definition of “this generation not passing away,” it means “some of those standing there.”
And this cannot mean the Transfiguration as some futurists try to do to avoid the obvious implications here. Why? Two reasons at a minimum. Verse 28 does not stand alone. It is intimately connected with verse 27 which cannot be said to refer to the Transfiguration.
Second, the Transfiguration happened only 6 days later. Can you imagine that Jesus would say something so inane as “some of you standing here will still be alive in six days”? I bet ALL of them were still alive. Jesus introduced this prophesy with His most solemn…. “Most assuredly I say.” That ALWAYS introduces very heavy and profound stuff, not inane prophecies that even Jean Dixon would have a shot at getting right. He must have been speaking about an event that was far enough in the future that many of his listeners would be dead, but not so far away that all of His listeners would be dead.
Not enough? Well here is some more circumstantial evidence from the Gospels. Jesus made an intriguing comment at the end of the Gospel of John insinuating that out of the disciples, John would live to see His coming. Isn’t it ironic that tradition holds that only John lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem and lived passed it? Or how about
Matthew 10:21 – For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
The time was short for Israel.
And
Mark adds more to the context,
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.
Not as an appeal to authority, but I thought you might be interested in some notable commentators that also saw this connection (so you can see that I am not some lone nut!!):
**and I have to apologize but I know that I get some of the following information from another source that I failed to document… I am not trying to purposely plagiarize (I believe some may be from DeMar actually)
Henry Hammond (1605-1660) gives this harmony of Matthew 16:27-287, John 21:18-23, and Matthew 24 and their relationship to Jesus’ judgment on Jerusalem: The nearness of this story of Christ’s transfiguration makes it probably to many that this coming of Christ is that transfiguration of His, but that cannot be, because the 27th verse of the Son of Man’s coming in His glory with His angels to reward etc (to which this verse is clearly connected) cannot be applied to that. And there is another place, John 21:23 (which may help the understanding of this) which speaks of a real coming, and one principal person (agreeable to what is here said of some standing here) that should tarry, or not die, till that coming of His. And that surely was fulfilled in John’s seeing … famous destruction of the Jews, which was to fall in that generation, Matthew 24, that is, in the lifetime of some there present, and is called the Kingdom of God and the Coming of Christ and by consequence here most probably the Son of Man’s coming in His Kingdom, …. That is, His coming in the exercise of His Kingly office, to work vengeance on His enemies, and discriminate the faithful believers from them.
Hammond’s view is not unusual. In fact, most evangelical commentaries prior to the rise of dispensationalism applied these passages to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Henry Alford states that this passage refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity. The Dutch commentator S. Greijdaus offers a helpful summary of Matthew 16:27-28 in his comments on the parallel passage in Luke: “Then this coming of God’s dominion cannot refer to our Lord’s resurrection nor to the gift of the Holy Spirit which were to be realized within the year… Nor can it refer our Lord’s coming in [final] judgment which is yet even now in abeyance… Nor can the powerful spread of the Gospel be meant, for this already came about within comparatively few years… We shall have to think of the destruction of Jerusalem… In it God revealed His kingly dominion in His judgment, a precursor of His judgment on the last day.”
[I believe this is a quote from DeMar] Evangelicals have done a poor job in reconciling these time texts with other parts of the Bible and with history, which have been fodder for modern skeptics. Their argument goes something like this, “It seems like Jesus was predicting that He would return before the last disciple died, but He didn’t really mean to leave that impression.” Various authors (Archer, Lewis, Laney, Richards, Torrey) try to state that this verse (16:28) was fulfilled in alternatively the transfiguration or Pentecost, but fail to deal with the clear time indicators in the text. This time indicator in the passage precludes either an immediate fulfillment (transfiguration, Christ’s resurrection, or Pentecost) or a distant fulfillment (the Final Advent of Christ). This language is similar to the way YHWH came to “the sons of Israel” under the Old Covenant in Deut. 33:11-2.
Jude presents a similar picture in the NT. But his is a description of God’s coming in judgment. “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” The language is almost identical to that of Matthew 16:27. In addition, Jesus alludes to Daniel 7:13-14 and thus applies OT language for God as judge to Himself (Ps 62:12, Pro 24:12, Jer 17:10; 321:19; Ezek 18:30). The reference to angels is probably from Zechariah 14:5 though it also fits the context of the image in Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus assumes the OT apocalyptic language referring to YHWH’s coming and applies it to Himself. A similar pattern is found in Revelation 2:5: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.” [and notice that the condition for removal of judgment is repentance] Similar “coming” language is used in Revelation 2:16, neither of which refer to Christ’s Final Advent.
PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.
PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.
Now continuing:
PROOF NUMBER THREE: The other “near” temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23
Okay continue to let build upon this puzzle. If it is possible that Matthew 24:34 can mean something else, and even though the context is clearly first century, what other texts illuminate this? The clincher for me is when we compare
Matthew 24:33-34 –So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
with
Luke 21:31-32 – So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.
And then add in
Matthew 16:27-28 – For the Son of Man will come in the
glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
This combination of verses tells us exactly what time frame Matthew 24:34 is referring to. Let me explain….. Matthew 24:33 mentions that when all these things happen “it” is near. What is “it”? Luke equates “it” with the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God would be near, AT THE DOORS.
Matthew 16:28 tells us that there were some standing there that would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom. The parallels are inescapable.
And Matthew 16:28 gives us then the definition of “this generation not passing away,” it means “some of those standing there.”
And this cannot mean the Transfiguration as some futurists try to do to avoid the obvious implications here. Why? Two reasons at a minimum. Verse 28 does not stand alone. It is intimately connected with verse 27 which cannot be said to refer to the Transfiguration.
Second, the Transfiguration happened only 6 days later. Can you imagine that Jesus would say something so inane as “some of you standing here will still be alive in six days”? I bet ALL of them were still alive. Jesus introduced this prophesy with His most solemn…. “Most assuredly I say.” That ALWAYS introduces very heavy and profound stuff, not inane prophecies that even Jean Dixon would have a shot at getting right. He must have been speaking about an event that was far enough in the future that many of his listeners would be dead, but not so far away that all of His listeners would be dead.
Not enough? Well here is some more circumstantial evidence from the Gospels. Jesus made an intriguing comment at the end of the Gospel of John insinuating that out of the disciples, John would live to see His coming. Isn’t it ironic that tradition holds that only John lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem and lived passed it? Or how about
Matthew 10:21 – For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
The time was short for Israel.
And
Mark adds more to the context,
For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.
Not as an appeal to authority, but I thought you might be interested in some notable commentators that also saw this connection (so you can see that I am not some lone nut!!):
**and I have to apologize but I know that I get some of the following information from another source that I failed to document… I am not trying to purposely plagiarize (I believe some may be from DeMar actually)
Henry Hammond (1605-1660) gives this harmony of Matthew 16:27-287, John 21:18-23, and Matthew 24 and their relationship to Jesus’ judgment on Jerusalem: The nearness of this story of Christ’s transfiguration makes it probably to many that this coming of Christ is that transfiguration of His, but that cannot be, because the 27th verse of the Son of Man’s coming in His glory with His angels to reward etc (to which this verse is clearly connected) cannot be applied to that. And there is another place, John 21:23 (which may help the understanding of this) which speaks of a real coming, and one principal person (agreeable to what is here said of some standing here) that should tarry, or not die, till that coming of His. And that surely was fulfilled in John’s seeing … famous destruction of the Jews, which was to fall in that generation, Matthew 24, that is, in the lifetime of some there present, and is called the Kingdom of God and the Coming of Christ and by consequence here most probably the Son of Man’s coming in His Kingdom, …. That is, His coming in the exercise of His Kingly office, to work vengeance on His enemies, and discriminate the faithful believers from them.
Hammond’s view is not unusual. In fact, most evangelical commentaries prior to the rise of dispensationalism applied these passages to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Henry Alford states that this passage refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity. The Dutch commentator S. Greijdaus offers a helpful summary of Matthew 16:27-28 in his comments on the parallel passage in Luke: “Then this coming of God’s dominion cannot refer to our Lord’s resurrection nor to the gift of the Holy Spirit which were to be realized within the year… Nor can it refer our Lord’s coming in [final] judgment which is yet even now in abeyance… Nor can the powerful spread of the Gospel be meant, for this already came about within comparatively few years… We shall have to think of the destruction of Jerusalem… In it God revealed His kingly dominion in His judgment, a precursor of His judgment on the last day.”
[I believe this is a quote from DeMar] Evangelicals have done a poor job in reconciling these time texts with other parts of the Bible and with history, which have been fodder for modern skeptics. Their argument goes something like this, “It seems like Jesus was predicting that He would return before the last disciple died, but He didn’t really mean to leave that impression.” Various authors (Archer, Lewis, Laney, Richards, Torrey) try to state that this verse (16:28) was fulfilled in alternatively the transfiguration or Pentecost, but fail to deal with the clear time indicators in the text. This time indicator in the passage precludes either an immediate fulfillment (transfiguration, Christ’s resurrection, or Pentecost) or a distant fulfillment (the Final Advent of Christ). This language is similar to the way YHWH came to “the sons of Israel” under the Old Covenant in Deut. 33:11-2.
Jude presents a similar picture in the NT. But his is a description of God’s coming in judgment. “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” The language is almost identical to that of Matthew 16:27. In addition, Jesus alludes to Daniel 7:13-14 and thus applies OT language for God as judge to Himself (Ps 62:12, Pro 24:12, Jer 17:10; 321:19; Ezek 18:30). The reference to angels is probably from Zechariah 14:5 though it also fits the context of the image in Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus assumes the OT apocalyptic language referring to YHWH’s coming and applies it to Himself. A similar pattern is found in Revelation 2:5: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.” [and notice that the condition for removal of judgment is repentance] Similar “coming” language is used in Revelation 2:16, neither of which refer to Christ’s Final Advent.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
The background is necessary Gavin....
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
To recap:
PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.
PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.
PROOF NUMBER THREE:The other “near”
temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23.
Now continuing:
PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the “end of the world” it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.
And it is very apparent that the Olivet Discourse is not about the “end of the world” or the consummation. So, let’s start with why I don’t believe its about the end of the world. I am not going to give all of the reasons, just some of the major ones.
First of all, the disciples do not ask Jesus when is the end of the world. They asked him “when is the end of the age?” That is very important. And the context of their question must be taken into consideration. In other words, what prompted that question from them in the first place?
It was Jesus’ startling predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Nothing at all in the context gives any whiff of a hint that the end of the whole world, as we understand it, to be in view. The entire context of the passage is limited to Jerusalem. Here are some examples:
Matthew 24:15-16 – Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
If this was worldwide destruction, fleeing to the mountains would not do anyone any good. It is obviously a destruction limited to Judea from which the elect must flee.
Luke 21:23 – But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.
This wrath is limited to the “land,” and idiomatically Jewish way of saying “Israel” and “this people,” i.e. the Jewish apostates. It is not a wrath upon the whole planet or upon all the unsaved peoples of the planet. The whole context leading up to the Discourse is the pronouncement of doom upon the Jewish apostates (see Matthew 23). There is nothing at all in the context speaking of the end of the whole world.
One must also keep in mind the distinctly Jewish cultural context. The Jews regarded their time as divided into two great ages. The Age of Moses and the Law, and the Age of Messiah. The disciples understood that the destruction of the Temple was a momentous event and would inaugurate the Messianic age as the Law would not be possible after that point. They were basically asking when the “next age,” the Messianic age would begin. They did not believe that the age in which they were currently living was the same age that would see the “end of the world.”
Also there are also clear first century time indicators that I will just briefly list here.
The Sabbath laws including the very strictly enforced travel restrictions are in effect
Travel is anticipated with greater difficulty if it is in the winter or for pregnant/nursing women indicating first century modes of travel, most commonly, by foot for the common man (Matthew 24:19-20)
First century life, including a great deal of time spent on the housetops is indicated (Matthew 24:17)
Synagogues are flogging people (Mark 13:9)
I could go on but you have expressed an interest in moving on to the next point so I will leave it here.
PROOF NUMBER ONE: The phrase “this generation” everywhere else it is used in the NT refers to the generation then living, and the near demonstrative “this” makes it indisputable.
PROOF NUMBER TWO: The destruction the Temple then standing in AD70 limits the fulfillment of the rest of the passage to the same time frame.
PROOF NUMBER THREE:The other “near”
temporal indicators in the Gospels support the first century referent for “this generation,” specifically Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23.
Now continuing:
PROOF NUMBER FOUR: The context of the Olivet Discourse is a clear first century Judean context, NOT the “end of the world” it is made out to in modern prophecy thought.
And it is very apparent that the Olivet Discourse is not about the “end of the world” or the consummation. So, let’s start with why I don’t believe its about the end of the world. I am not going to give all of the reasons, just some of the major ones.
First of all, the disciples do not ask Jesus when is the end of the world. They asked him “when is the end of the age?” That is very important. And the context of their question must be taken into consideration. In other words, what prompted that question from them in the first place?
It was Jesus’ startling predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Nothing at all in the context gives any whiff of a hint that the end of the whole world, as we understand it, to be in view. The entire context of the passage is limited to Jerusalem. Here are some examples:
Matthew 24:15-16 – Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
If this was worldwide destruction, fleeing to the mountains would not do anyone any good. It is obviously a destruction limited to Judea from which the elect must flee.
Luke 21:23 – But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.
This wrath is limited to the “land,” and idiomatically Jewish way of saying “Israel” and “this people,” i.e. the Jewish apostates. It is not a wrath upon the whole planet or upon all the unsaved peoples of the planet. The whole context leading up to the Discourse is the pronouncement of doom upon the Jewish apostates (see Matthew 23). There is nothing at all in the context speaking of the end of the whole world.
One must also keep in mind the distinctly Jewish cultural context. The Jews regarded their time as divided into two great ages. The Age of Moses and the Law, and the Age of Messiah. The disciples understood that the destruction of the Temple was a momentous event and would inaugurate the Messianic age as the Law would not be possible after that point. They were basically asking when the “next age,” the Messianic age would begin. They did not believe that the age in which they were currently living was the same age that would see the “end of the world.”
Also there are also clear first century time indicators that I will just briefly list here.
The Sabbath laws including the very strictly enforced travel restrictions are in effect
Travel is anticipated with greater difficulty if it is in the winter or for pregnant/nursing women indicating first century modes of travel, most commonly, by foot for the common man (Matthew 24:19-20)
First century life, including a great deal of time spent on the housetops is indicated (Matthew 24:17)
Synagogues are flogging people (Mark 13:9)
I could go on but you have expressed an interest in moving on to the next point so I will leave it here.
- Status