This Generation, Part 1
November 2nd, 2009 by Mark C.
I was going to continue with the next article in the series on my web site, about how the definition of the Kingdom has been changed over the years. But I’ve been doing some reading, especially in the Early Church Fathers, and will be expanding that article. In the meantime, this article is from the Future Events section, and deals with one of the most crucial issues regarding the nature and timing of the Kingdom of god. Thanks to Alex Hall for much of the research in this article.
One of the main reasons that other viewpoints don’t like the idea of a futurist interpretation of prophecy is that certain sections of Scripture appear to have Jesus say that the end would come before that generation passed away. There has been much speculation about whether Jesus was mistaken or misunderstood, since the Kingdom apparently did not come to pass in the lifetime of his disciples. C. S. Lewis wrote in his essay, “The World’s Last Night” (in 1960),
“Say what you like,” we shall be told by the skeptic, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass away till all these things be done.’ And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement, “but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side.
The three schools of eschatology (Preterism, Historicism, and Futurism) have three different ways of avoiding the skeptics’ conclusion that Jesus was wrong or mistaken. The Historicist and Preterist views both consider that certain things which Jesus said would take place “before this generation passes” were realized in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. But we saw that those events did not match the prophecies of either the Hebrew Prophets or Jesus himself, because the dead were not raised, Jesus did not return visibly, and the Kingdom was not established. All these things are said to happen immediately after the Tribulation of those days. The only other explanation is that the Tribulation and subsequent events are yet to happen in the future.
Then what about the statement that “this generation shall not pass till all be fulfilled” in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32? They are all in the context of Jesus’ parable of the fig tree. That context shows that the point of the parable is not to tell when the end would come, relative to the time at which he spoke. Rather, the point of the parable is to illustrate how the things he referred to would be signs that the end was near. This is not to suggest, however, that Jesus was referring to the generation that would be alive when the signs began to be seen, as some suggest. If that were what he meant, he would have said “that generation” rather than “this generation.”
The key is to understand how the word “generation” is used by the Gospel writers, especially Matthew. The Greek word is genea, and has more than one possible meaning. Strong’s defines it as, “A generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):- age, generation, nation, time.” E. W. Bullinger defines it as, “Birth; race, descent; offspring. It denotes an age or generation from the point of view of race (as aion does from that of duration).” W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison state, “The term refers firstly, not to chronological duration, but to character, and it is pejorative.” In Cranfield’s commentary on the Gospel of Mark, he states that genea is the Greek word used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew word dor, meaning seed, family, and people. He continues:
“Probably here – ‘whoever is ashamed of me in this adulterous and sinful generation’ (Mark 8:38) – generation means ‘age,’ ‘period of time,’ which is the primary meaning of the Hebrew dor, the word it most often represents in the LXX, and a possible meaning of genea. The whole phrase, ‘this generation,’ is contrasted with ‘when he shall come with his holy angels’ and so is roughly equivalent to ‘in this time’ (10:30) which is contrasted with ‘in the coming age.’ The time meant is the time before the Parousia. But it is not thought of simply as a period of time; the thought of the men living in it and of their character is also present and prominent – hence the adjectives adulterous and sinful” (p. 284).
Several other commentaries also refer to the use of this word.
“Genea – expresses the idea of kinship, those of the same lineage who are born about the same time…or more generally an ‘age’ or lengthened period of time…Finally (d) the word is used, as often in the OT (Deut. 32:5, 20; Ps. 12:7, 24:6, etc.), with a moral connection as in Phil. 2:15 and Acts 2:40. In the latter passage the word has an eschatological coloring. ‘This crooked generation’ is the present, swiftly transient period of the world’s history, which is leading up to the day of judgment and the New Age.”
–Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 444, (“generation”)
“That genea (rendered generation) does express ‘the current age’ of ‘the world period’ is obvious in the Gospels (Luke 16:8; Matthew 24:34 and less clearly Matt. 23:36).”
–Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 639
Nevertheless, these scholars don’t prove the point as much as a simple observation of how the word “generation” is frequently used in the Hebrew mindset. Deuteronomy 32:5 and 20 both refer to a “perverse generation.” The moral character is used to define the present generation, the same way Paul refers to this “present evil age” (aion) in Galatians 1:4. The Gospel writers use this thinking particularly. In Matthew 11:16-24, Jesus condemns “this generation.” He says in Matthew 12:39 that it is an “evil and adulterous generation” that seeks after a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of the Prophet Jonah. Was the sign of Jonah (i.e., that the Son of Man would rise from the grave after three days and nights) only given to those contemporaries of Jesus who lived at that time? The sign of the resurrection is given to all people of this evil generation. (See also Mark 8:12.)
Matthew uses the term “this generation” repeatedly in his Gospel.
Matthew 12:
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
(See also the parallel record in Luke 11:29-32.)
The meaning of “this generation” in such passages cannot be those people alive at the time these words were spoken, for that generation was not more wicked than other generations. It speaks of the generation of mankind in this present evil age. Further, in Matthew 16:1-4, Jesus repeats his statement about an “evil and adulterous generation.” He refers to this “faithless and perverse generation” in Matthew 17:17. Then in Matthew 23:13-39 he condemns the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them hypocrites. He refers to the blood of prophets having been shed, from Abel to Zecharias, saying “you slew them.” Obviously he was not accusing the specific men to whom he was speaking, but rather spoke corporately of those who were like them. He then says, “All these things shall come upon this generation.” As seen in these passages and others (such as the above-mentioned Mark 8:38; 10:30; Philippians 2:15; Acts 2:40; etc.) the phrase “this generation” is a way of referring to the people in this whole evil age with such characteristics.
So what Jesus was saying in his parable of the fig tree was that this present evil generation will not pass away until all of the signs to which he referred are fulfilled. The point of comparing it to a fig tree was to illustrate that the signs would be shortly before the end, and would indicate that it was near. It had nothing to do with how soon it would happen relative to their lifetimes. Some have claimed that when Jesus said no one knows the day or hour, he meant only that no one knows the exact time he would return, but that the general time-frame was at hand. But looking at the context of his statement, we see that the point of the parable of the fig tree was to demonstrate that those signs, when they come, will indicate the general time frame.
The disciples had asked Jesus when “these things” (i.e., the destruction of the Temple) would happen, and what would be the sign of his coming and of the end of the age (Matthew 24:3). In his reply, he mentions wars, famines, and earthquakes happening with greater frequency like birth pangs (verses 4-13), and that the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached “in the whole world” and “then shall the end come” (verse 14). (The Gospel had not been preached in the whole world in 70 AD.) Then, relative to “the end,” he speaks of the Abomination of Desolation which triggers the Great Tribulation (verses 15-28), and “immediately after” that, there would be signs in the heavens and then the world would see the Son of Man coming in the clouds (verses 29-31). After describing all these signs, he brings up the parable of the fig tree.
Matthew 24:
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
So you can see, his point is that the signs he was speaking of are what would indicate when the general time frame was approaching. He was not saying that it was near at that time. It is in this context that he says:
Matthew 24:
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
To interpret this as meaning “the generation at that time” shall not pass until the signs are fulfilled would not fit with his declaration that the signs which he described in verses 4 through 31 are what would indicate that the end of the age was near. In hindsight, we know that while the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the other signs to which Jesus referred did not happen. There was no Abomination of Desolation followed by the Great Tribulation, followed immediately by signs in the heavens and the return of the Son of Man in the clouds. Thus he must be referring to “this evil generation” the way several other passages, especially in Matthew, use it. This evil generation will not pass until all those signs are seen. This was Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question of when the end would come: Nobody knows the exact day and hour, but the general time frame would be indicated when those signs are seen.
To Be Continued…
Mark C.
This makes a really good case for not being lured into man-made interpretive frames for calculating “generations” according to theoretical numbers, etc. Thanks for sharing this.
Hey Mark,
I’ve struggled with this passage quite a bit. I am really wondering how all of the scholars cannot seem to get this to fit. Before I ask my question, I would like to say that I am content with not knowing exactly what a passage means (I doubt anyone really understands ALL of the sayings of Jesus perfectly).
I dont ask this to play Devil’s advocate. I really would like a logical answer, particularly answering ‘What did Mark want his readers to understand by using:
13:4 -πότε ταῦτα ἔσται, καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα.
13:30 -ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται?’
It would be odd if Mark had two entirely different meanings for “all of these things (ταῦτα πάντα) within the same discourse.
I think the fact that there is no scholarly agreement on what Mark 13/Matt 24 is referring to should make us pause from diligently seeking to force an answer out of the text. As we have seen with the Historical and Preterist interpretations, forcing the text into our own view of prophecy causes significant problems.
Again, I dont mean to cause any problems. I really am looking for some sound answers. I am not yet persuaded that ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη means “this people/race.” That seems to do violence to the simple meaning of the Greek.
Perhaps Sean and Obo can give their thoughts.
Dustin
This generation is still here and hasn’t changed. In some ways they are wiser than the generation of Christ, though the wisdom they walk in is different.
Jesus once commended the children of this world by noticing how in wisdom they walked, but reminded them that what they have made friends with in this world is ready to receive them into everlasting destruction, for they were close friends with mammon.
One definition of wise is ” being crafty”.
Jesus knew when to answer according to their folly and also when not to. He knows how to do both.
Dustin,
First of all, for those who don’t read Greek, here are the two verses in question:
13:4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?”
13:30 “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
The first question is naturally, “what things are they referring to?” The immediate context in Mark 13 only refers to one event: the destruction of the Temple.
Mark 13:
1 As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him, “Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!”
2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.”
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately,
4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?”
It seems to me if the disciples were referring only to the destruction of the Temple, they would have said “this thing” not “these things.” Jesus had been speaking about the Kingdom and end-times throughout his ministry, and had just quoted Psalm 110:1 in the previous chapter (“Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool”). His disciples knew all the prophecies of the coming Kingdom.
In Mark and Luke, the disciples ask, “when shall these things be?” and “what will be the sign when these things are fulfilled?” Matthew clarifies what “these things” are by wording it as, “when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” They (rightly) associated the destruction of the Temple with the other events that would lead up to his return and the end of the age.
By the way, I’m glad you brought this up. I noticed that in my article I had said, “The disciples had asked Jesus when ‘these things’ (i.e., the destruction of the Temple) would happen…” But now that I think about it, it must be more than just the destruction of the Temple. Comparing Mark 13 with Luke 21 and Matthew 24, it seems to me that when Jesus and his disciples spoke of “these things” they had in mind all the things that were to take place prior to the establishment of the Kingdom. Anyone have any thoughts about this?
In any case, when Jesus gets to the parable of the fig tree and says “when you see these things come to pass…” he is definitely referring to all the signs that he had just been speaking about, not just the destruction of the Temple. And he says that this evil generation will not pass away until all of the signs are fulfilled. His point was not to say how soon it would be (i.e. within their lifetimes), but that “all these things” were signs that the end of the age was approaching, and they would all need to be fulfilled before the end finally comes.
Thanks for taking my question, Mark.
I’m sure you are aware that Matt and Luke redacted their material from Mark. I don’t think that the proper way to read the Gospels is through harmonization. Each Gospel has their own distinctives. This is why I chose Mark in my previous post.
Regardless of what he disciples equated the events to, Jesus said that this generation would not pass away until all these things have occured. Now, I know that Christ did not come back at 70AD, so this gives us a few options:
1- “This generation” really does not mean THIS generation.
2- “Generation” is to be redefined.
3- We are misunderstanding the Dan 7:13 quote
4- Jesus got it wrong
Again, I really dont know the best way to go about this. Looking for some more discussion.
Dustin
or postponement cf. Acts 1
From the ESV Study Bible, pick your poison folks.
Also…
This matter is quite simply resolved if we consider that “coming” in this context could mean “coming in judgment” with respect to 70 AD. There are numerous examples in both the Old and New Testament where “coming” is viewed this way. See the letters to the churches in Revelation – did Jesus physically come to the church in Ephesus (I believe this is the one)? Did God physically come in judgment to the nations (Moab, Egypt, etc.) as spoken in the OT?
So, the generation that was alive when Jesus spoke these words did see his coming in judgment on Jerusalem. They did not, obviously, witness his second coming of judgment on the whole world and the ushering in of the new.
Of course, if we are tied to a prophetic system with respect to the millennium, it is difficult, if not impossible, to entertain this simple and common-sensical interpretation.
Sean, I remember you mentioned previously this supposed postponement in Acts, and i could not see such a thing. Where exactly do you read that?
Or:
5 – Jesus didn’t exactly say such a thing.
And btw, any way one may wish to interpret “generation” in order to make it fit snugly in place, let’s not forget the twin proclamation uniquely found in Matthew:
“But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.”
Acts 1 clearly indicates a delay…kingdom is not coming now, but the spirit is…(v 6-8)
Process of elimination of Dustin’s choices:
1- “This generation” really does not mean THIS generation.
I assume you mean it refers to a future generation? In that case it would have been THAT generation.
3- We are misunderstanding the Dan 7:13 quote
No other understanding would fit with all the prophecies.
4- Jesus got it wrong
I doubt it very much!
Which leaves us with:
2- “Generation” is to be redefined.
I also don’t think the suggestion that it was postponed would fit with the point of the parable of the fig tree, which was that these things were signs of the end, in answer to the disciples’ question of when the end would be. Acts 1 indicates a delay before the Kingdom, but it doesn’t indicate that the delay was unexpected or that the kingdom that was going to happen sooner had been postponed.
—
Process of elimination of the ESV Study Bible choices:
(1) The beginning but not the completion of “these things” does not fit with the purpose of the parable of the fig tree, and the statement that this generation will not pass until ALL these things are fulfilled.
(2) Likewise the idea that both the current generation and the one at the end of the age are referred to doesn’t fit with the point of the parable of the fig tree.
(4) I don’t think there is any precedent for interpreting it as the Jewish people, and besides, who says the Jewish race will pass away when Christ returns?
(5) Again, if he was referring to a future generation, why would he say THIS generation?
Which again leaves us with:
(3) Since “the generation of . . .” in the OT can mean people who have a certain quality (cf. Ps. 14:5; 24:6; cf. Gk. genea in Luke 16:8), others understand “this generation” to refer either (a) to “this generation of believers” throughout the entire present age, or (b) to “this evil generation” that will remain until Christ returns to establish his kingdom (cf. Matt. 12:45; Luke 11:29).
[I think (b) makes more sense in light of how genea is used elsewhere.]
As for Tim’s suggestion, the prophecies speak of Jesus coming in judgment at the end of the age when he sets up the Kingdom, not at some time prior. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD can certainly be seen as A judgment of God, foreshadowing the final one, but it was not THE judgment to which the prophets and Jesus himself referred. It will be part of the predicted sequence of events: A of D > Tribulation > Signs in the heavens > coming of the Son of Man.
John E, I will be dealing with Matthew 10:23 in part 2 next week.
It seems to me that this generation needs all the judgments of God to get them near to repentance, and even then there are many that will simply not repent, but instead will blaspheme the God who gave them life and all the benefits of it even as they
refused to honor him as God their maker.
Thanks be to God that those who believe in Jesus are a part of his generation, the last Adam, the ones regenerated by the spirit of Christ, the ones that have received of the gifts of life and hope in
the glorious nature of their calling in God by Jesus Christ.
Sean and Mark,
honestly, I see no talk of any postponement in Acts 1 (and more specifically in 6-8 as Sean indicated), not to mention a postponement of 2000 years. All 6-8 say is that Jesus told them “the times are not your business”. Where’s the postponement? I think this is more likely a case where you guys wish to see a postponement, as something like that is not in the text.
Mark,
I’ll start from the beginning of the article. I notice you quoted all these “scholars” on what “generation” would mean. I wonder if it’s just a coincidence that all your scholars disagree with it referring to Jesus’ contemporaries? Not to mention, some of the works are apologetic, so with a theological stake in the matter. From the non-apologetic ones you quoted only all the other meanings of “genea”, but no reference is made to our verses.
Let me present the other story; it can be found (among other places) in Greek lexicons, and I’ll quote parts where actual verses are referred:
At least the first two lexicons are contradicting your theory that “this generation” in Mk 13:30 refers to “generation of mankind in this present evil age”. No such thing. You’re putting together all evil people from all times (or from Jesus until he comes, people throughout 2000 years), and make them “this generation”. That is wrong. If there’s only one evil generation, why does it say “THIS generation”; why “this”, if there’s no other? Why not “THE generation will not pass”?
You also state:
Not exactly. The previous chapter (31) speaks of how once settled in the land and enjoying its benefits, the Israelites will rebel against God. It speaks of a generation of Jews in the usual sense of a generation, a group of people living in the same time period. But anyway, leaving Mark’s gospel and jumping all over the place in the Bible to explain Jesus’ use of generation is a bad idea – the harmonization Dustin talked about earlier. Looking at Jesus’ use of word in Mark will yield an accurate idea. And you tried to do that:
I find it baffling that you reached such a conclusion in the face of these verses. That generally happens mainly when the context is simply ignored: the Jews of 1st century were asking for a sign from Jesus. The contemporaries of Jesus, Jews who encountered him and spoke to him, are asking for a sign. They are referred to as “THIS generation”. Your idea that “this generation” extends beyond Jesus’ generation is a huge apologetical anachronism and ignores the context completely.
And yes, the sign of Jonah WAS only given to those contemporaries of Jesus who lived at that time. People could see the open grave and the missing body despite the Roman guards. How are evil people today being given the sign of Jonah now? In written words of the Bible (a book despised by many of these people)? 1st century people would laugh to hear that the signs they are supposed to see are words written on scrolls… Let’s be realistic here: there’s no sign of Jonah being given to 21st century evil people. But I’m amazed to see the lengths some would go to explain away the obvious.
Then you say about:
Matthew 12:
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
that:
Could not disagree more. Context ignored, again. That generation was indeed more wicked than other generations! How can you not see that? The Ninivites repented at Jonah’s preaching, the queen of south traveled a long way to hear Solomon’s wisdom, and when it comes to somebody greater than Jonah and Solomon, the Messiah, that generation (of co-nationals, not even foreigners!) rejects him and says he expels demons with the help of Satan! Just read the context Mark.
The context will also tell you that when Jesus is said to speak about the signs of his coming and this generation, he addresses the disciples. He tells Peter, James and John “When YOU HEAR of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened … they will deliver YOU to the courts … they arrest YOU and hand YOU over … when YOU SEE the abomination of desolation standing then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains …” This is not about some 2000 years long evil generation, these things are happening to Peter, James and John and this generation that sees all this will not pass away before it happens.
A saying like “all evil people since me through 2000 years will not pass until all these happen” is robbed of the thrust it has when referring to Jesus’ generation. What’s the big deal then? That is simply a non-statement. Is anybody really seriously claiming some significance in the idea that evil people are not going to disappear from earth before all wars are fought? That makes no sense, who fights the wars if not the evil? And just replace “fight wars” with any other item in that list. What sense does it make to say that evil people will not pass away before the greatest tribulation of all times will take place?
In my dictionary, I see that among the uses of the word “generation” there is an example given of a group of people with the same experience, attitudes, beliefs etc.. The example given was “the computer generation”.
From this we can learn that the word “generation” is not limited to
any specific group, but may be applied to all groups of people.
How many “generations” could we come up with when we look at the world? The Pepsi generation, the cell phone generation, the old school generation, but in the Bible there are basicly two generations in this regard for there are two main men of the Bible,
the two Adams, the spiritual man and the natural man.
Words are used in many ways and in learning how words are used,
we can often find out how Jesus used words to communicate the gospel. A common dictionary can be a good source to see how words are used.
If we decide that a word is used one way, but the writer used it another way, we will not receive his understanding about what he wrote, and so we study the way words are used.
John E,
I quoted the “scholars” merely to demonstrate that the word genea can have the meaning I was discussing; it is one of the ways the word is legitimately used. I then went on to demonstrate why it is used that way in the passages in question.
The resurrection is the proof that Jesus is the Messiah. That is what they preached in the Book of Acts, and that is the testimony that eyewitnesses have left for us. Yes, in written words of the Bible – that’s why many of these people despise it. That’s also why the devil works so hard to destroy the Bible’s credibility. But we confess God raised Jesus from the dead based on the written testimony that has been given to everyone since then.
But those things that Jesus called signs did not happen to Peter, James, and John. I refer you to the last paragraph of the article, which was the main point I was leading up to.
The sense is that the disciples asked what the signs of the end would be and when the end would come. In his answer he enumerated several signs, and then declared that the signs would indicate that the end was near, like the budding leaves on the fig tree, but that the end of this generation will not come till the signs have been fulfilled. They might see wars and rumors of wars, famine and plagues and so forth, but they are only “the beginning of sorrows.” The end will not come until all the signs have come to pass.
It isn’t saying “evil people” will not pass away. It’s saying the current age, identified by the evil nature of the people in it, will not pass away. And it isn’t saying it won’t pass away before the tribulation. It’s saying that the tribulation is one of the signs that the end is near, when preceded by the Abomination of Desolation, and followed immediately by the signs in the heavens, the resurrection of the dead, and the return of the Son of Man.
Mark,
Yeah, and so your article is one sided. And since you quoted scholars (and I don’t mean the apologists/theologians you also quoted), what you should have done is not merely list a “legitimate/possible” meaning of the word, but quote scholars who say that in the case of Mark 13:30 (for instance) “generation” means “Birth, race, descent, offspring, etc”. You did not. I did.
So as far as you article goes, no scholar says that eschatological “generation” occurrences refer to “Birth, race, descent, offspring, etc”. Neither does any of your scholars (and again, I mean scholars, not theologians or apologists) explain this generation as you do, as meaning “generation of mankind in this present evil age” or simply >. That is something you invented. This constitutes a big problem for your theory because this way, it simply has no foundation, and it merely is, again, plain apologetics.
It is significant that you don’t mention the word “sign” even once, although that’s what I was focusing on. Just to preach something or to read something does not make that something a sign. That idea is simply un-biblical (or extra-biblical, however you want to call it). Rather, the signs being talked about in the Bible are something that can be seen – just read the gospels’ use of this word. Have you noticed how the Jews say “SHOW us a sign”? You probably did. But it’s no use because you have the agenda of advocating a different meaning of “this generation”, you cannot allow that “this generation” simply referred to Jesus’ contemporaries. And why can’t you allow that? Because you believe the signs in Mark 13 have not occurred yet (and I’m not saying they have, it simply is of no interest to me for now if they did or didn’t, my entire focus is on what the text actually says):
And this is the crux of the matter. You reach your conclusion about what “this generation” means not on the basis of the actual text (with the context and all), but on matters outside it. The lack of historical events drives your theory on “this generation” – not the text itself; which makes your argument extra-biblical.
But you didn’t answer my question on MARK 13:30. Mk 13:30 – which I was discussing – does not say “until all the SIGNS have come to pass” but rather that “this GENERATION will not pass”. My point is that with your definition of “this generation”, the text is absurdly saying that “the generation of mankind in this present evil age” will not pass away/dissapear until all the signs have occurred. How in the world could “the generation of mankind in this present evil age” pass away before wars are fought, famine is rampant, etc? Can there be a scenario where “the generation of mankind in this present evil age (or just “evil age”)” has passed away but wars are still being fought, famine is still rampant, false Messiahs appear, Christians are persecuted, etc? The obvious answer is “NO” (duh!). So yes, Mk 13:30 makes absolutely no sense if we apply your theory to it.
Instead of
“explain this generation as you do, as meaning “generation of mankind in this present evil age” or simply >.”
please read
“explain this generation as you do, as meaning “generation of mankind in this present evil age” or simply “the group of all evil people throughout history”.
I had double brackets surrounding the phrase after “simply” but all got cut off.
Which of the sources I quoted do you consider “scholars” and which do you consider “apologists/theologians”? And what do you consider to be the difference?
I was not quoting scholars for the purpose of substantiating my viewpoint. I was, again, merely trying to demonstrate that genea can also mean something other than the people living at the same time. I probably shouldn’t have quoted anybody but just demonstrated it from lexical sources.
If you disagree with my viewpoint, that’s your privilege. But to say nobody else believes it and I just invented it is simply not true. The various possible interpretations as outlined in the ESV Study Bible were posted by Xavier in comment #7 above. I happen to favor option 3b, not only by process of elimination (as in my comment #11) but because I think it fits better with the other Scriptures on the subject.
In any case, you miss the point of most of what I am saying. And I am allowing that it is probably my fault. I just re-listened to the sharing by Alex Hall on which I based most of this, and I find that I have not communicated it very well. I’m going to be revising it in the near future, hopefully this weekend. (I also understand your point about the context of Matthew 12, which I will be taking into consideration in the revision.)
It says, “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.” The “things” he was referring to are the things he had just been talking about, which would take place leading up to the end, in answer to the disciples’ question about what the signs of the end would be.
Yes, a big part of my argument is, as you say, based on the fact that the signs Jesus referred to have not happened. But that doesn’t mean it is “not on the basis of the actual text (with the context and all), but on matters outside it.” It is the context that shows me that the whole point of the parable of the fig tree was not to tell the disciples that the end would be soon, but that the end would be marked out by the signs which he discussed. The signs would indicate that the end was approaching, so logically if the signs haven’t happened yet, the end hasn’t approached yet. But I hope to deal with this in a clearer fashion in the revision of this article.
Mark,
W.D. Davies and D. C. Allison are more theologians than disinterested scholars (“The Gospel according to ***Saint*** Matthew”?); the same goes for Cranfield probably (The Gospel According To ***Saint*** Mark: An Introduction And Commentary), “Dictionary of the Apostolic Church”, “Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels”.
The difference is that these theologians/apologists tend to smooth out and explain away potentially embarrassing biblical statements. So if plain English (and Greek for that matter) says “this generation will not pass until all these things happen”, we as apologists are going to argue that this generation is in fact not a generation per se, but an age, or we’ll come up with ingenious and cumbersome alternatives in order to resolve the obvious problem – that “this generation” has passed and nothing changed in fact. I’m not interested here in “defending the faith”, I’m simply focused on the mindset and beliefs of the 1st century church, even if that results in creating a tension or a conflict with my personal theological worldview. I want to get deeper into what was really going on then, and therefore I’m not willing to find excuses or come up with all sorts of apologetic solutions that harmonize everything.
So I can never agree with somebody that is willing to say that “***this generation*** is asking for a sign” refers to this evil age or all evil mankind, when it is clear that the only reason for such a theory is to avoid an embarrassing meaning of “this generation” in Mk 13:30. It is simply superfluous for me to repeat that this evil age and the evil mankind is not asking for a sign from Jesus. Evil Joe Blow simply doesn’t care about God/religion/Jesus or doesn’t believe in God/religion/Jesus and it wouldn’t ever cross his mind to ask for a sign. I’m even sorry I had to spell out the obvious. My point is: I want to be honest, and to approach the Bible with honesty, whatever the cost. Because otherwise who am I kidding but myself, first and foremost?
So that’s why I requested “scholars” who are not in the business of apologizing but tell it like it is – as the text tells it like it is. BDAG (who by the way is THE Greek lexicon) simply says:
You said:
That’s up to you. But when you do quote lexical sources, please make sure you quote them where they actually refer to our verses in question. It’s not enough just to list alternative meanings. What do the authors of the lexicon think (from a linguistic point of view of curse) about Mk 13:30, or alternatives like Mt 24:34? I could have quoted here more than the three lexicons I did, but the rest were not explicitly referring to the verses in question.
Why did I insist on this? Because if you are going to go contrary to the natural understanding of Mk 13:30, you got to at least have some valid, reasonably neutral foundation to do it. Just having a desire to avoid theological embarrassment will not cut it.
Small correction: I never said “nobody else believes”. There are obviously plenty believers harmonizing away all kinds of things, not only Mk 13:30. Second, I was expressly referring to your definition of “this generation”: “the generation of mankind in this present evil age” or “present evil age”. None of the ESV interpretations say such a thing, hence you invented this definition (or “Alex Hall” did, or the one he learned it from, etc).
Thank you for admitting that.
Here it is:
Mark 13:28-29 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 “Even so, you too, WHEN ***YOU SEE*** THESE THINGS HAPPENING, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
I would argue that a time frame located during the disciples’ lifetime is indeed “soon”. So the parable of the fig tree itself indicates a 1st century time frame. As does of course Matthew 10:23 with its tradition that the disciples, fleeing from persecution, would not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes (yes, I know, you are going to harmonize this in a later article). This is coherent of course with the picture present in other NT writings, where it is clear that they believed the end (or Jesus) would come in their life time.
One more word on the signs being fulfilled or not. Some might have been seen by the people of those times as being fulfilled:
Mark 13:6 “Many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He!’ and will mislead many. – Check (see Josephus and Acts)
Mark 13:7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be frightened – Check (66, 70 A.D.)
Mark 13:8 there will be earthquakes in various places – Check (see http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=6&letter=E)
Mark 13:9 they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them – Check (see Acts)
Mark 13:10 The gospel must first be preached to all the nations – Check (see Col. 1:23)
Mark 13:11-13 – Check
Mark 13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be – Caligula’s attempt to set up (in the Jerusalem temple) a statue of himself in the guise of Jupiter in 40 A.D.?
Mark 13:19 For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will – 70 A.D?
Did I leave out anything else except the coming of Jesus with the clouds?
Here it is again, from comment #7 above:
But as I said, I’ll be revising my explanations to make them clearer. In the meantime, I’ll just address the issue of whether the signs were fulfilled. The earlier things in the chapter are referred to as “the beginning of sorrows” and Jesus said those things would increase, but the end would not be yet. False prophets, wars, earthquakes, and persecution have all gotten worse in the years since 70AD.
Col. 1:23 in the NASB reads, “…which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven.” It doesn’t prove that Jesus’ words had been fulfilled at that time, although you could argue that it doesn’t disprove it either.
What does disprove it though, is that the thing he said would trigger the end period is the Abomination of Desolation. I have other studies on my site that examine the prophecies, if you’re interested. But briefly, Caligula’s attempt to set up the statue doesn’t qualify as the Abomination because:
1) The order to erect the statue was not carried out.
2) Caligula himself doesn’t fit the other prophecies about the Little Horn or Antichrist, who is the one that will set up the Abomination.
3) The act wasn’t followed by the 3 and a half years of the Tribulation (you said yourself that it was 30 years before the destruction of the Temple).
4) The “tribulation” you referred to in 70 AD can hardly be called “tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.” It will be earth-shaking, affecting more than just Jerusalem. Jesus said, “except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved.” That can hardly be said about 70 AD.
4) That tribulation was not followed immediately by signs in the heavens and the return of the Son of Man in the clouds.
You ask, “Did I leave out anything else except the coming of Jesus with the clouds?” Besides what I said already, we know from the many prophecies that when Jesus returns there will be the resurrection, and then the kingdom will be set up on earth, during which the nations will be brought under his rule, there will be no more war, no more deception for the devil will be bound, and even life expectancy of those mortals which remain will be greatly increased. There will be abundance and prosperity, and everything wrong with the world will be made right during the Millennium. It will be a revolutionary change that affects all the world. Do you see anything like this today?
Mark,
Mark, I’ve seen it so many times already
Your definition is not there. Phrases like
“people who have a certain quality”
and
“this evil generation” that will remain until Christ returns to establish his kingdom”
lack the global aspect you embedded in your definition. Both these phrases can easily refer to Jesus’ contemporary, as opposed to your
“the generation of MANKIND in this present evil age”
or
“PRESENT EVIL AGE”.
I’m sure you’re aware many other translations read “to all creation” (like, NIV, NAB, Geneva, etc). I guess they do so because the gospel being proclaimed “in all creation” doesn’t make much sense in English. What does proclaiming in all creation mean? Have a look at what the BDAG says (5722) while discussing this verse and the Greek “pas” (meaning “all”):
1. pert. to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any
a. adj., used w. a noun without the art.
en pase ktisei – to every creature Col 1:23
Remarkably, when Mk 13:10 says “the gospel must first be preached to all nations”, the Greek has the preposition “eis panta” (eis + accusative) for “to all”, which literally means “in all”, just as Col 1:23 literally says “in all”. BDAG (2291) confirms that Mk 13:10 reads in fact “in all nations”, and also lists vs. 9, a verse having the same construction (eis + accusative) with the same meaning: “in the whole world”. So there’s really no reason to claim alleged dissimilarities.
About Caligula, fair enough, the order was not carried out, which is why I formulated my phrase as a question. So if it’s not Caligula, can it be Hadrian who built a temple to Jupiter on the site of the destroyed Jerusalem temple? (An introduction to early Judaism By James C. VanderKam, page 49, available on Google Books). Or not to mention the famous Muslim mosque now standing in Jerusalem, built on the site of the temple if I’m not mistaken). If these are not to your liking, what exactly does Mk 13:14 mean and how will that be fulfilled? This has to be properly understood by Christians because it is given as a sign, right? When you see this, you’ll know Jesus is coming. But how will you know this, if you don’t actually know what is supposed to happen?
There’s nothing in Mark 13 about 3 1/2 years of tribulation. Harmonization?
Where do you read in Mark that during the tribulation there will be earthquakes, and that more than Jerusalem will be affected? Anyway, Josephus speaks of an earthquake before the war began:
Hardly? You mean “no flesh” in general, like on the whole earth? How about the flesh of the monkeys in the African trees? Is “flesh” qualified? Of course it is. If you read carefully, the context is all about Judea and Jerusalem, from the beginning throughout: the discussion starts with talk about Jerusalem’s destruction, those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, pray that your flight should not occur during the Sabbath, etc, and this is happening to YOU (Peter, John and James). It is clear enough that the focus of the signs is on Israel and Jews (as was always with Jesus). Yes, as far as Jews were concerned, the destruction of Jerusalem was the greatest cataclysm in their history.
That there were no signs in the heavens you (or I) have no way of knowing. So this would be one sign I didn’t discuss – and I didn’t because it is closely related in time with the return of Jesus (“and then they will see the son of man…”)
No, I was referring to the signs in Mark 13.
John E,
You seem to want to try to interpret Mark 13 with no thought for other Scriptures or known history. You can’t interpret it in a vacuum like that. A very basic principle of Biblical exegesis is “connecting the dots” by comparing different Scriptures about related topics, or that have related phrases. Just because something isn’t mentioned in Mark doesn’t mean you can ignore it. For instance, the Olivet Discourse (in all three Synoptics) really can’t be understood without a knowledge of Daniel. (I’ve got several articles about that on my website, as does Anthony Buzzard.)
As for whether we would know if there were signs, I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the Bible tells us that every eye shall see him and the whole world will be under his reign. You just can’t separate the signs in Mark 13 from the rest of the things the Bible says about what will happen when Christ returns.
Mark,
I want to read and interpret the text of Mark as it stands. I cannot read Mark’s thoughts and find out how he interpreted Daniel. I can do that as far as he writes on specific Daniel passages, but not on those he does not.
One thing that is hard to realize is we today carry this big anachronistic baggage of assumptions regarding the theology 1st century Christians. Are you sure they interpreted the whole of Daniel like you do? As a matter of fact, no writer of the NT cares to speak about 3 1/2 years of tribulation – wherever you got this idea from.
John’s gospel mentions nothing about the signs of Jesus’ coming. When Paul speaks on the subject, he knows only of “While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly” (1 Thessalonians 5:3) – and his writings are the oldest in the NT.
You just can’t go ahead and make all kinds of assumptions upon how this diverse primitive church interpreted things it doesn’t talk about, or even that they knew of all the things we now have in the NT (does Mark, John or Paul know about the immaculate conception? Does Mark know the passage he quotes in 1:2 is not exactly from Isaiah as he believes? Apparently Matthew and Luke knew)
As I said before, I am not interested here on how WE interpret and harmonize things 2000 years away, but how the primitive church saw things, and why.
John E,
With all due respect, I think studying the Bible like that is a waste of time. If we believe the Bible is inspired of God, we should be seeking His thoughts, His mind, His Word. And the only way to do that is to view the whole Bible from the perspective of being His message, and examine all of it, comparing all passages on a given subject. But if you’re not interested in that, that’s your choice.
BTW, this isn’t making “all kinds of assumptions upon how this diverse primitive church interpreted things it doesn’t talk about.” It’s putting together what the Bible writers did talk about. Matthew and Luke give us knowledge that Mark doesn’t reveal in his Gospel, as does John. Why focus on Mark to the exclusion of the others? And John and Paul knew (and wrote) a lot more about these things than you indicate. (And no, Mark didn’t know about the immaculate conception because it’s nowhere in Scripture.)
If all these people were inspired by God, it’s got to fit somehow. Otherwise, as I said, it’s a waste of time.
Mark,
I apologize for having to repeat myself: what I do here (and what I’ve been doing lately) is not as much as study the Bible itself with a purpose towards systematic theology, but study the primitive church through its writings. Has it ever occurred to you that primitive Christians didn’t exactly view what they were writing as inspired by God, in the sense of God “uploading” into their brain His thoughts? Just take Luke for example, where he states at the beginning the he undertook the task of compiling an account of what happened because many others have done the same; but he is going to compile the events in order, because he has made careful investigations into the matters.
He obviously was not content with what he found in the tradition, otherwise he would have just repeated exactly what others have compiled (his order of the events certainly doesn’t match always with Mark and Matthew, not to mention John). And of course, his account differs from others’. He presents the picture of a slightly different Jesus than does Mark, Matthew or John. Just as an example, here’s one discrepancy: what did God say at Jesus’ baptism?
Matthew says “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” He has God apparently addressing the crowd, letting them know this is His son.
Mark says “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.” He has God speaking to Jesus saying he is His son.
Luke follows Mark and says “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.” Or does he? Codex Bezae, old Latin mss, church fathers (Justin, Clement, etc) from 2nd century onwards have Luke writing in fact:
“You are my son, today I have begotten you”
(mind you, the oldest mss we have with the “official” version of Luke are from the 4th century)
Now what exactly did God say at Jesus’ baptism? Which one of the three (or two if you want) is the accurate one?
One cannot seriously propose that every single word in every single book of the NT is directly inspired by God and there’s no redaction on the part of the gospel writers.
My focus on Mark’s gospel is because the most accurate (and popular among NT historians) theory in source criticism is the one called “the two source theory”, where Matthew and Luke have copied from Mark and an unknown source (called Q), they redacted the material and added their own special traditions.
How do you know Mark knew about the virginal conception? Why would he leave it out? That’d could have been some serious theological ammo for Mark, but he leaves it out? Would you have left it out?
As for John, just take a look about what Philo was saying about the logos – that HE (yes, HE) was a god, a divine person, God’s firstborn, through whom God created everything. Did John inspire himself from Philo? That would certainly explain many things in John, like the heavy emphasis on Jesus pre-existence – a concept Mark Matthew and Luke seem to be oblivious of.
So Mark, things are not as simple and easy when it comes to God inspiring every single word in the Bible. I suggest you do some reading on the formation of the Canon, and see how things evolved.
Mark 1:10: “And when he came up out of the water, at once he [John] saw the heavens torn open and the [Holy] Spirit like a dove coming down [to enter; Literal translation of eis] into Him.” [AB]
“As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.” [NIV]
• That the spirit came, “eis” (“fully to” or “into”), was changed to “epi” (“upon”, “on”). The difference between “into” and “upon” [“on”] was clear to some early Christians. The spirit coming “into” Christ made it more likely that Christ was “adopted” as God’s Son, than if the spirit simply came “upon” him. So the “eis” was changed to “epi.” The Trinity is so firmly established today that even though the Greek texts read “into,” the NIV reads “on”. The Amplified Bible does read “into,” and has a note saying that the Greek text reads that way. [see above]
Luke 9:35: “And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, this is my beloved Son: hear him.” [KJV]
“A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” [NIV]
• Scribes altered the phrase “I have chosen” to “my beloved”. This is a subtle change, but it takes the emphasis off the fact that Jesus was chosen by God, which some people recognized does not make sense if Jesus is God.
Omitted to say that the quotes are from Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 1992.
John E,
We apparently approach the Bible from entirely different viewpoints.