Saturday, July 12, 2008

Re: about your prediction of Jesus' return by 2037

AN

Thanks for your message. As per my policy stated on my CED blog's front page, "Private messages I receive on creation (including Christianity),

[Left (click to enlarge): Jerusalem: Before 1967, BBC]

evolution or design topics, I reserve the right to respond publicly via this blog, minus the senders' personal identifying information," I am responding to you via that blog, after removing your personal identifying information. For clarity, your words are bold.

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:02 AM
Subject: about your prediction of Jesus' return

>Hello. I probably agree with you the most out of anyone with your position on creation, Adam, the flood, etc..

Thanks for your feedback. I presume you are referring to my post, What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design, and in particular to:

Jesus Christ's return (second coming). Jesus will return (Mat. 16:27; 24:30; 26:64; Acts 1:11; 1 Cor. 11:26; 1 Thess. 4:16; Heb. 9:28; Rev. 1:7)! My interpretation is that we are in the period predicted by Jesus in Lk. 21:24-28, between Jerusalem being no longer under Gentile rule ("Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" - v24b) which happened in 1967, and Jesus' return "with power and great glory" (v.27). That period will be characterised by "nations ... in anguish and perplexity" (v.25) and "Men ... faint[ing] from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world" (v.26). "When these things begin to take place" Jesus encouragement to His followers is to "stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (v.28). I assume (along with leading Christian theologians such as the late Anthony A. Hoekema and William Hendriksen) that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70, predicted by Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Mt 23:37-24:51, Mk 13:1-37; Lk 21:5-36), was a `type' of the second coming of Jesus. And therefore Jesus' prediction that "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32) applies also to the generation that will live to see Jesus' return. And since Jerusalem no longer being under Gentile rule in 1967 is one of the "all these things" that that generation living at the time of Jesus' return will experience, I therefore assume that Jesus will return before the bulk of that generation that lived in 1967 passes away, i.e. before 2037. See also my, "The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ."

So others can know what we are talking about, here is Lk 21:24b-31 (NIV), with the key words highlighted:

24 ... Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." 29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Although I have used your word "prediction" in the title of this post, I do not claim or agree that it is my prediction that Jesus will return before 2037, but rather it is my "interpretation" of Jesus' prediction in Lk 21:24b-31 (as my blog states above).

[Right (click to enlarge): Jerusalem: After 1967, BBC]

Moreover, my interpretation is not a strained one, but is based on a sound exegesis of the text in the light of historical fact, and expressed in the form of a logical IF-THEN deductive argument, as follows:

IF: 1) "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (v24b) is: a) one of "these things [that will] begin to take place" (v28) before Jesus' second coming, and b) was fulfilled in 1967 when Jerusalem came under Jewish rule for the first time since the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70:

"The state of Israel was established in 1948. Even more recently, in 1967, the Jewish people gained full possession of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War. One prophecy of Jesus, unrealized for 1897 years, seems to have been fulfilled: `Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled' (Luke 21:24) ... Does the reconquest of Jerusalem by the new state of Israel have immediate bearing on the end of the present age? Is it a sign of the imminent return of Christ?" (Brown, 1984, pp.448-449).

"In St. Luke's account of the Olivet discourse there is a short but profound statement regarding the future of Jerusalem, which is taking on tremendous meaning: ... (21:24) ... Jerusalem would be in the hands of Gentile nations, as it has been for centuries, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. That Jerusalem, of which our Lord spoke, is now, since 1967, for the first time in all these centuries, no longer under the rule of Gentile nations but in the absolute control of the Jews, in fact, in the control of the new nation, Israel! To me, this is one of the great prophetic factors of our generation." (Smith, 1971, pp.207-208).

2) The destruction of Jerusalem in AD66-70, being the end of the Old Covenant age, was a "type" or "microcosm" of the end of this present New Covenant age, in the personal, visible, second "coming" of the Lord Jesus Christ "with power and great glory" (v27):

"By the process of prophetic foreshortening ... two momentous events are here intertwined, namely, a. the judgment upon Jerusalem (its fall in the year A.D. 70), and b. the final judgment at the close of the world's history. Our Lord predicts the city's approaching catastrophe as a type of the tribulation at the end of the dispensation." (Hendriksen, 1973, pp.846-847).

"In the Olivet Discourse, therefore, Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world; hence the intermingling." (Hoekema, 1978, pp.148-149);

"The question of the disciples in verse 7 [Lk 21:7] clearly refers to the date of the fall of Jerusalem, but it also seems to involve the date of the end of this age. The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times." (Shreiner, 1989, p.834);

"I contend that biblical prophecy can have a double or even multiple fulfillment. A passage like the one we are exploring may have a preliminary fulfillment (such as the destruction of Jerusalem) and an ultimate fulfillment (the destruction and renewal of the world)." (Bloesch, 2004, p.81);

"the `Lucan discourse looks back at the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view; it sees the crisis that the earthly coming of Jesus brought into the lives of his own generation, but sees it now as a harbinger of the crisis which Jesus and his message, and above all his coming as the Son of Man, will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth' (21:35).' " (Bloesch, 2004, pp.81-82);

3) The "this generation" that "will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (v32), is: a) in the ordinary sense of the word, of people living at the time, "When these things begin to take place" (v32), i.e. from when "Jerusalem" was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (v24b) in 1967:

"... genea ... generation ... of all the people of a given period" (Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, p.89);

"if the term [generation] is understood as a normal life span, it may refer either to the generation in which Jesus lived while on earth or to the generation living when these signs begin to occur." (Bloesch, 2004, pp.80-81);

"[Lk 21:32]. This generation ... Naturally people then living" (Robertson, 1930, pp.261-262);

"...genea ... the people of any generation or age, those living in any one period ...`this generation' means the present generation (... Luke ... 21:32...) ... the generation present immediately preceding His return, who witness the events signaling His coming" (Zodhiates, 1992, pp.362-363);

and b) is "as determined by the normal span of life," i.e. 70 years:

"Gen-er-a'tion ... The age or period of a body of contemporaries ... as determined by the normal span of life ..." (Davis, 1924, p.253);

THEN: Jesus will return "with power and great glory" by 1967 + 70 = 2037.

However, note that 70 is just the traditional "normal span of life" ballpark figure. It may be that the actual normal average lifespan of those born in 1967 is more like 80. And since the text says, "this generation will certainly not pass away," strictly literally it would mean that the entire generation that was alive in 1967 could almost pass away before Jesus returned:

"Gen-er-a'tion ... The generation lasts as long as any of the members survive (Ex. i. 6; Num. xxxii. 13; Judg. ii. 10; Ecc. i. 4)" (Davis, 1924, p.253).

But since the first of the assumed double fulfillment of this prophecy of Jesus, namely the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, was only ~40 years after Jesus prediction that that generation then would not pass away before Jerusalem's temple (and therefore Jerusalem itself) was destroyed (Mt 24:2,34; Mk 13:1,30; Lk 21:6,32), I personally expect (not predict) that Jesus will return before 2037.

>And even though I strongly disagree with your view of Jesus' words that "This generation will not pass away" is applying to this generation and that Jesus will come back before 2037, I respect it.

Thanks for respecting my view. See above on references that, "This generation will not pass away" is "applying to this generation" and the steps in my argument "that Jesus will come back before 2037".

>But I'm suggesting that you take it down from your site about what you believe about the second coming.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I would only take it down from my site if it was shown that my facts or reasoning was wrong, which it has not been.

>First of all, Hoekema and Hendrickson believed strongly in Covenant Theology, and that the Church is now the Israel of God, and were amillenialists.

I am an amillenialist also, but I fail to see what that has to do with it. That "the Church is now the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16; 3:28-29), comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, does not preclude God still using Jerusalem being "trampled on by the Gentiles" as a sign (indeed since 1967 the only dated sign) of Jesus' second coming.

>They would never endorse the view that Jesus will come before 2037 or anything of that nature.

I did not claim they did . All I claimed of Hoekema and Hendricksen was that they regarded "the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70" as "a `type' of the second coming of Jesus" (see above).

>2nd of all, even if you aren't alive in 2037 and Jesus DOESN'T return then, people will not remember you for your excellent work in the creation/evolution/design debate, they will remember you for your failed prediction.

If I "aren't alive in 2037" (which is likely because otherwise I would be 90) then I would "be with Christ, which is better by far" (Php 1:23), so I don't think I would be concerned what people "in the creation/evolution/design debate" `down below' remembered me for!

And it is not a "prediction" of mine but rather an interpretation of Jesus' prediction (see above). So even if this interpretation of mine turned out to be wrong, I don't see why I should be thought badly of any more than any other Christian who has a wrong interpretation of a Bible passage.

>Secondly, just because Jesus said "No one knows the day or the hour" doesn't mean we can't extent this to "No one knows the year" either.

I am not saying that I know the "year." I said, "I therefore assume that Jesus will return before the bulk of that generation that lived in 1967 passes away, i.e. before 2037." That's a timespan of 2037-2006 = 31 years - nearly a third of a century!

And in the very passage, Lk 21:29-32, Jesus tells us we can, and should, "know" the season, i.e. when "summer" "is near" by seeing "these things happening":

29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

>And at the risk that this MIGHT HAVE BEEN what Jesus meant, you are risking disobeying Jesus.

Even if it turns out to be a wrong interpretation of Jesus' prediction in Lk 21:24-31, I don't see why that is "disobeying Jesus". If anything, I consider I would be at a greater risk of "disobeying Jesus" if I ignored what He said in that passage, that the "generation" that saw "Jerusalem" no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (in 1967), "will certainly not pass away until all these things" (including His "coming in a cloud with power and great glory") "have happened" , and that "When these things begin to take place" we Christians are to "stand up and lift up [our] heads, because [our] redemption is drawing near."

>The easiest way to avoid this would be to take the prediction off. I do believe making predictions like this is unbiblical.

It is not a "prediction" but an interpretation of Jesus' "prediction" (see above).

>And a guy like you that does some pretty good scholarship in the area of creation and evolution, doesn't ever want to be grouped with guys like Hal Lindsey, and John Haggee for making failed predictions do you?

See above on "failed prediction". And there is a huge difference between the many strained predictions of the likes of Hal Lindsey and my comparatively modest interpretation of Lk 21:24-31.

>The easiest way to avoid that then, is take it down. For the sake of the success of the gospel PLEASSEE take this prediction off your blog, even if you firmly believe it 100 percent.

Sorry, but I fail to see what my interpretation above has to do with "the success of the gospel"! And while I do believe that my interpretation is true, I do not claim or believe that it is "100 percent" true.

>Even if it comes true, you won't be vindicated for it, because we'll all be at the judgment, so there's no point in keeping it on your blog.

So even if it was "true", according to your scale of values, I should remove it because "I won't be vindicated for it." Sorry, but I don't share your scale of values. For me, to suppress what I believe to be true, just because I "won't be vindicated for it," would be a form of lying.

>It seems the risks and dangers far outweigh any benefits, although I'm not sure what any of the benefits might be.

Again, I fail to see what "risks and dangers" there are from my publishing my interpretation of Jesus' prediction in Lk 21:24b32, that He would return "with power and great glory" before the "generation" of those who were alive in 1967, when Jerusalem was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles."

And since I regard my interpretation as true, that is sufficient "benefit" for me to publish it. But even if it was not true about the "generation" being of those alive in 1967, it would still serve to remind both Christians and non-Christians that Jesus did predict that He will return "with power and great glory" (v27) after "Jerusalem" was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (v24b), which happened in 1967, and "near" (three times for emphasis) in time to it:

"When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (v28);

"When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near" (v30);

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near" (v31).

>I hope this didn't sound mean spirited, but the reason for this email in the first place was to offer advice so you can maintain a helpful site.

I do not think your email was "mean spirited," but I do think it impertinent, virtually demanding of a complete stranger that he remove something from his blog that you don't approve of. It reminds me of the story about the immature Christian who deludes himself that he has "the gift of rebuking"!

I also think it was wrong, confusing my interpretation of a Bible prediction with the prediction itself.

>-AN

See quotes below (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine), hyperlinked from the above inline references.

PS: See also my Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come?

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!


"... genea, -as, e (< gignomai),. [in LXX chiefly for dowr, doe (Cremer, 148);] 1. race, stock, family (in NT, gennema, q.v.). 2. generation; (a) of the contemporary members of a family: pl., Mt 1:17 (cf. Ge 31:3, metaph., of those alike in character, in bad sense, Mt 17:17; Mk 9:19; Lk 9:41, 16:8; Ac 2:40; (b) of all the people of a given period: Mt 24:34, Mk 13:30, Lk 21:32, Phl 2:15; pl., Lk 1:48; esp. of the Jewish people, Mt 11:16; 12:39,41, 42, 45; 16:4; 23:36; Mk 8:12,38; Lk 7:31; 11:29,30-32,50,51; 17:25, Ac 13:36, He 3:10 (LXX); ton g. autou tis diegesetai, Ac 8:33 (LXX). (c) the period covered by the life-time of a generation, used loosely in pl. of successive ages: Ac 14:16; 15:21, Eph 3:5, Col 1:20; eis geneas kai g.[...]. Is 34:17, al.), Lk 1:50; eis pasas tas g. tou aionos ton aionon, Eph 3:21 (Ellic., in J.; DCG, l, 639 f.). [...] (Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," [1921], T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, Third edition, Reprinted, 1956, p.89. My transliteration).

"Again, we must give attention to the allegation that the Olivet discourse contains two or more different prophecies. The NIV Study Bible contains this commentary on Matthew 24: `It appears that the description of the end of the age is discussed in vv. 4-14, the destruction of Jerusalem in vv. 15-22 (see Lk 21:20) and Christ's coming in vv. 23-31.' ["NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1985, p.1477] ... The possibility of a double reference is rejected, I think too quickly ... The NIV Study Bible suggests, `if the term [generation] is understood as a normal life span, it may refer either to the generation in which Jesus lived while on earth or to the generation living when these signs begin to occur.' ["NIV Study Bible," pp.1521, 1581]" (Bloesch, D.G., 2004, "The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, pp.80-81).

"I contend that biblical prophecy can have a double or even multiple fulfillment. A passage like the one we are exploring may have a preliminary fulfillment (such as the destruction of Jerusalem) and an ultimate fulfillment (the destruction and renewal of the world). ... the events of the immediate period leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem portend a greater and more universal catastrophe when Christ returns in judgment at the end of time.' [Mounce, R. H., "Matthew," 1991, p.228]" (Bloesch, 2004, pp.80-81).

"Commenting on Luke's rendition of Jesus' eschatological discourse ... Joseph Fitzmyer contends that the `Lucan discourse looks back at the catastrophe in Jerusalem (A.D. 70) in a microcosmic view; it sees the crisis that the earthly coming of Jesus brought into the lives of his own generation, but sees it now as a harbinger of the crisis which Jesus and his message, and above all his coming as the Son of Man, will bring to 'all who dwell upon the entire face of the earth' (21:35).' [Fitzmyer, J.A., "The Gospel According to Luke, X-XXIV," 1985, p.1329] The notes on Matthew in The New Jerusalem Bible reflect a similar stance: `This eschatological discourse of Matthew combines the announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem with that of the end of the world.... Though separated in time, these two [events] are inseparable in the sense that the first is the inevitable forerunner and prefiguration of the second. The destruction of Jerusalem marks the end of the old covenant-Christ has thus manifestly returned to inaugurate his kingly rule. Such a decisive intervention in the history of salvation will not occur again until the end of time when God will judge the whole human race, now chosen in Christ, with the same judgment he pronounced (in A.D. 70) upon the first chosen people.' ["New Jerusalem Bible," 1985, p.1649]" (Bloesch, 2004, pp.81-82).

"Political events too have been urged as the fulfillment of some of the prerequisites laid down by Scripture for the return of Christ. There are many prophecies about the return of the Jews to their homeland. Frequently, it was expected that these events would be inaugurated by the Messiah him self, but it was also held that they would precede his return. At just about the time we have proposed for the end of the Chalcedonian era in theology, the fifteen-hundredth jubilee of 1951, the Jews finally did return to political power in the Holy Land. The state of Israel was established in 1948. Even more recently, in 1967, the Jewish people gained full possession of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War. One prophecy of Jesus, unrealized for 1897 years, seems to have been fulfilled: `Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled' (Luke 21:24). Between 1948, when Israel was established, and 1967, when Jerusalem was recaptured, the `times of the Gentiles' were brought to an end-at least for the present-in the Holy Land. ... Does the reconquest of Jerusalem by the new state of Israel have immediate bearing on the end of the present age? Is it a sign of the imminent return of Christ? Christians have been warned by Jesus himself to be cautious about trying to discover the time of his return, yet he also advised them to `watch.'" (Brown, H.O.J., 1984, "Epilogue: Signs of His Coming?" In "Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present," Doubleday & Co: New York NY, pp.448-450).

"Gen-er-a'tion. 1. A begetting or producing, or the person or thing produced (Gen. ii. 4; v. 1) ; in Hebrew only plural Toledoth. 2. Each succession of persons from a common ancestor (Gen. i. 23; Ex. xx. 5 ; Deut. xxiii. 2) ; in Hebrew expressed by a modification of the proper numeral or by Dor with an ordinal number. 3. The age or period of a body of contemporaries, not in the modern sense of the average lifetime of all who survive infancy, but the average period of the activity of any body of contemporaries as determined by the normal span of life. The generation lasts as long as any of the members survive (Ex. i. 6; Num. xxxii. 13; Judg. ii. 10; Ecc. i. 4) ; in Hebrew Dor." (Davis, J.D., 1924, "A Dictionary of the Bible," [1898], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Fourth edition, Fifteenth printing, 1966, p.253).

"[Matthew] 24:1-25:46 The Last Things ... A few points are worthy of special notice ... The prophetic material found in this sixth discourse has reference not only to events near at hand (see, for example, verse 16) but also to those stretching far into the future, as is clear from 24:14, 29-31; 25:6, 31-46. Cf. Luke 21:24. ... By the process of prophetic foreshortening, by means of which before one's eyes the widely separated mountain peaks of historic events merge and are seen as one, as has been explained in connection with 10:23 and 16:28, two momentous events are here intertwined, namely, a. the judgment upon Jerusalem (its fall in the year A.D. 70), and b. the final judgment at the close of the world's history . Our Lord predicts the city's approaching catastrophe as a type of the tribulation at the end of the dispensation. Or, putting it differently, in describing the brief period of great tribulation at the close of history, ending with the final judgment, Jesus is painting in colors borrowed from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. ... It is not claimed, of course, that any exegete is able completely to untangle what is here intertwined, so as to indicate accurately for each individual passage just how much refers to Jerusalem's fall, and how much to the great tribulation and second coming. ... The main emphasis in both chapters is on the necessity of always being on the alert, active for the Master, faithful to him." (Hendriksen, W., 1973, "The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, Reprinted, 1982, pp.846-848).

"When we ask what the New Testament teaches about the sign of tribulation, we must, look first of all at the so-called `Olivet Discourse - 'Jesus' eschatological discourse found in Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-37, and Luke 21:5-36. This is, however, a very difficult passage to interpret. What makes it so difficult is that some parts of the discourse obviously refer to the destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future, whereas other parts of it refer to the events which will accompany the Parousia at the end of the age. The setting for the discourse is as follows: when the disciples pointed out to Jesus the buildings of the temple, Jesus replied, `I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down' (Matt. 24:2). When Jesus had seated himself on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him and said, `Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?' (v. 3). Note that ... the question of the disciples concerns two topics: (1) when will this be? (literally, these things; Greek, tauta)-an obvious reference to the destruction of the temple Jesus had just predicted; and (2) what will be the sign of your coming (Greek, parousia) and of the close of the age?-a reference to Christ's Second Coming. We may properly conclude, therefore, that the discourse will deal with both of these topics. As we read the discourse, however, we find that aspects of these two topics are intermingled; matters concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (epitomized by the destruction of the temple) are mingled together with matters which concern the end of the world-so much so that it is sometimes hard to determine whether Jesus is referring to the one or the other or perhaps to both. Obviously the method of teaching used here by Jesus is that of prophetic foreshortening, in which events far removed in time and events in the near future are spoken of as if they were very close together. The phenomenon has been compared to what happens when one looks at distant mountains; peaks which are many miles apart may be seen as if they are close together. ... In the Olivet Discourse, therefore, Jesus is proclaiming events in the distant future in close connection with events in the near future'. The destruction of Jerusalem which lies in the near future is a type of the end of the world; hence the intermingling. The passage, therefore, deals neither exclusively with the destruction of Jerusalem nor exclusively with the end of the world; it deals with both-sometimes with the latter in terms of the former. ... Though the, tribulation, persecution, suffering, and trials here predicted are described in terms which concern Palestine and the Jews, they must not be interpreted as having to do only with the Jews. Jesus was describing future events in terms which would be understandable to his hearers, in terms which had local ethnic and geographic color. We are not warranted, however, in applying these predictions only to the Jews, or in restricting their occurrence only to Palestine." (Hoekema, A.A, 1978, "The Bible and the Future," Paternoster Press: Exeter UK, 1978, British Edition, 1979, pp.148-149).

"[Lk 21:]32. This generation (he genea haute). Naturally people then living. Shall not pass away (ou me parelthei). Second aorist active subjunctive of parerchomai. Strongest possible negative with ou me. Till all things be accomplished (heos an panta genetai). Second aorist middle subjunctive of ginomai with heos, common idiom. The words give a great deal of trouble to critics. Some apply them to the whole discourse including the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, the second coming and the end of the world. Some of these argue that Jesus was simply mistaken in his eschatology, some that he has not been properly reported in the Gospels. Others apply them only to the destruction of Jerusalem which did take place in A.D. 70 before that generation passed away. It must be said for this view that it is not easy in this great eschatological discourse to tell clearly when Jesus is discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and when the second coming. Plummer offers this solution: `The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.'" (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II: The Gospel According to Luke," Broadman Press, Nashville TN, pp.261-262).

"Apocalyptic discourse ( [Lk ]21:5-38). The temple that elicited the admiration of his disciples was beautiful indeed. ... Jesus, however, predicts that the temple will be completely demolished (21:5-6). The Romans fulfilled this prophecy in A.D. 70. ... Jesus now warns his disciples against eschatological enthusiasm and braces them for future persecution (21:7-19). The question of the disciples in verse 7 clearly refers to the date of the fall of Jerusalem, but it also seems to involve the date of the end of this age. The fall of Jerusalem becomes a type of the end times. .... Jesus specifically answers the question about the destruction of Jerusalem (21:20-24). One will know that Jerusalem's time of destruction has arrived when foreign armies surround it. This encirclement is a signal, not of the need for heroism, but the need to flee. God's avenging wrath will be poured out on the city, bringing distress to the entire populace. `The times of the Gentiles' (v. 24) refers not to the Gentile mission but to Gentile authority over Jerusalem. Josephus's Jewish War contains a graphic commentary on the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. From the destruction of Jerusalem Luke moves to the coming of the Son of man (21:25-28). Luke does not specify the temporal relationship between these events, but the former clearly functions as a correspondence of the latter. ... The signs picture in dramatic terms the breakup of the natural world order, and the resulting terror and fear which seize the human race. The Son of man will return during these troubled times. The message for believers is: When the world begins to convulse, take hope! Your redemption is imminent." (Shreiner, T.R., "Luke," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 1989, "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, pp.834-835).

"In St. Luke's account of the Olivet discourse there is a short but profound statement regarding the future of Jerusalem, which is taking on tremendous meaning: `And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled' (21:24). ... Jerusalem would be in the hands of Gentile nations, as it has been for centuries, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. That Jerusalem, of which our Lord spoke, is now, since 1967, for the first time in all these centuries, no longer under the rule of Gentile nations but in the absolute control of the Jews, in fact, in the control of the new nation, Israel! To me, this is one of the great prophetic factors of our generation. If the Jews can hold this city and maintain their sovereignty here, I cannot help but think that we are at the end of the age of the times of the Gentiles." (Smith, W.M., "Signs of the Second Advent of Christ," in Henry, C.F.H., ed., 1971, "Prophecy in the Making: The Jerusalem Conference on Biblical Prophecy," Creation House: Carol Stream IL, pp.207-208).

"...genea; gen. geneas, fem. coll. noun from ginomai (1096), to become. Originally meaning generation, i.e., a multitude of contemporaries. In NT Gr. genea literally means space of time, circle of time, which only in a derived sense signifies the meaning of a time, a race; then generally in the sense of affinity of communion based upon the sameness of stock. ... Metaphorically spoken of the people of any generation or age, those living in any one period, a race or class, e.g., `this generation' means the present generation (Matt. 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 7:31; 9:41; 11:29-32, 50, 51; 17:25; 21:32; Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15). ... The word genea in Matt. 24:34 may have had reference to the kind of Jew with whom Jesus was conversing during that particular time (Matt. 21:23; 23:29). He was telling them that this generation or type, such as the Sadducees and Pharisees of that day, would not pass away until all these things occurred ... which has proven to be true. He was prophesying the destruction of their nation (Matt. 24:15-28). Others have understood Jesus to be saying that the generation present immediately preceding His return, who witness the events signaling His coming, will not pass away. Christ's return will not be thwarted." (Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Reprinted, 1994, pp.362-363).

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

haha, from the people that you read, and the library of yours that you have posted online, your response to me definitely shows you know how to argue a point. Well I guess you should be good at defending your positions, since you debated so long in forums anyway. I understand that you are making interpretations instead of "predictions" now.

I just know that many people have been turned off on Christianity because of guys like Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, John Hagee, and others that take very strange and overly literal interpretations of scripture (much much stranger than yours, you're right), and I guess I fear that when someone makes an interpretation like this and sets a date (even one that allows for a lot of wiggle room), that it could end up being deleterious to someone's faith, or put a stumbling block in a non-Christian's path to Christianity. If this interpretation does not come to pass, the non-Christian would just have more of a reason to look down on Christianity as false, and it would give them more reason to go about pronouncing that Jesus' predictions never really came to fruition. That's why I think it is very risky to make predictions.

We do agree on quite a bit however. I interpret Matthew 24:1-35 as probably all fulfilled, while the rest of the Olivet Discourse is probably referring to the Second Advent. There are problems with every view of the discourse. Hagner and Carson along with Riddlebarger (whom I assume you share the most in common with) have to deal with the "immediately after the tribulation of those days" phrase, and somehow make this jump to the timing of the second advent. I, and others like Ken Gentry, F.T. France, R.T. France, Marcellus Kik, Gene Cook, and others have to deal with the repetition of phrases like the "the coming of the son of man" both before and after vs. 35. The people like Gary DeMar, N.T. Wright, and Dan Trotter, who take the discourse as a whole to be referring to the judgement in A.D. 70 have to deal with the fact that a lot of the things described after vs. 35 seem to be describing an extended period of time before the second advent, and judgement. and of course the premillenial dispensationalists have to deal with the fact that Christ said that "this generation will not pass away" until all the things he mentioned up until vs. 35 would take place in this generation. I would agree that all those things DID take place in Christ's generation, but I don't see any reason as of now for there to be a double fulfillment to take place. That's where we disagree the most. And to your credit, guys like Riddlebarger HAVE said that the Olivet Discourse MAY have double fulfillment in mind. So I overstated my case a bit, although I still disagree with you posting a date. However, I do think that your responding to me helped me to see your interpretation as far far more reasonable than a Lindsey or Hagee interpretation.

I know a lot of Church of Christ people believe in a tripartite dispensationalism. Do you susbscribe to this or Covenant Theology? I have been very attracted to the Church of Christ because they seem fairly arminian but also amill or postmill. It's hard to find classical arminians that are not dispy's these days.

Cheers.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>I understand that you are making interpretations instead of "predictions" now.

Thanks.

>If this interpretation does not come to pass, the non-Christian would just have more of a reason to look down on Christianity as false ...

That itself is a fulfillment of a Bible prediction: 2Pet 3:3-4 "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

Christian theologians seem frozen with fear of being wrong. None of my post-1967 commentaries on Luke make any mention of Jerusalem since 1967 not being "trampled on by the Gentiles" (Lk 21:32) as now a dated sign of Jesus' coming.

>have to deal with the "immediately after the tribulation of those days" phrase, and somehow make this jump to the timing of the second advent

On the double-fulfillent or microcosm of the macrocosm interpretation, this in Mt 24:29 means that Jesus' "coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (v30) would immediately follow the Great Tribulation.

>I have been very attracted to the Church of Christ because they seem fairly arminian but also amill or postmill.

The Church of Christ I go to is, unlike the Baptist churches I went to for many years, non-doctrinal. That is, they are based on the Bible, but emphasise love and unity. They are basically Calvinist in their theology but emphasise one's need to choose to accept Jesus (which is both Calvinist and Arminian ). One of the elders told me he is pan-millenialist, i.e. "it will all pan out somehow"!

I am a Calvinist (not a hyper-Calvinist) and an Amillenialist, but I agree with the Church of Christ that love and unity is more important than pushing those doctrines.

That Jesus is coming and we need to be ready, is the most important teaching, regarding His second coming. But my interpretation of Lk 21:24b-32 that Jesus will return within the lifetime of the "generation" (v32) that lived to see Jerusalem no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (v24b), i.e. before 2037, is compatible (to put it mildly) with that.

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

"I am a Calvinist (not a hyper-Calvinist) and an Amillenialist, but I agree with the Church of Christ that love and unity is more important than pushing those doctrines."

Wow, you'd fit in perfectly with reformed baptists then, other than your view of well...common descent, and Adam, which I hold to also. I bet they are pretty dogmatic about that. The "No Creed But Christ" types of churches have their advantages and disadvantages. I currently go to a "Christian Church", which may stay VERY close to scripture, but also has the danger of slipping into liberalism since they don't go by any of the Creeds.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

I have ordered Carl Henry's "Prophecy in the Making - The Jerusalem Conference on Biblical Prophecy" (1971), which apparently was prompted by Israel's sudden takeover of Jerusalem in June 1967.

I became a Christian only a few months before, and I remember the amazement of everyone at the time.

I would appreciate it if you, or anyone reading this, knows of any other Christian book, commentary, or article, that deals with the question of whether Jerusalem since 1967 not being "trampled on by the Gentiles" (Lk 21:24b) is now a dated sign of Jesus' coming within the generation of those alive in 1967, they would indicate it in a comment below.

Stephen E. Jones