Archive for this generation
The Allies Of Infidelity
In a series of articles recently written by a Hyper-Preterist whose name need not be mentioned, a panic note has been struck again concerning the meaning and scope of the phrase “this generation.” Since Matthew 24: 34 is the stronghold of Hyper-Preterist interpretation, it does not surprise me to see the overwhelming mass of literature written by adherents of that view in their attempt to make their system as airtight as possible.
As to be expected, these articles are all geared toward combatting various views of Matthew 24: 34, one of which has been promoted at this blog. In one article, the fellow actually has the chutzpah to claim that “interpreting genea as ‘race’ has no solid contextual or lexical evidence.” Of course, he neglects to tell his readers that Strong’s Concordance lists “nation” as one of the accepted meanings of the Greek word.
But it gets better. The author then claims that “genea” cannot possibly mean the race of Israel, for the Jews no longer exist as a people! Naturally, such a statement piqued my curiosity; and so I looked to see what kind of arguments one would employ to support this concept. Sure enough, what I read was enough to convince me that, once again, Hyper-Preterists are allies of infidelity!
The author supplies a list of quotations from various academic sources, such as the Collier’s Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Americana, Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, etc., and garnishes his citations with quotes from Christian writers (among them the infamous John L. Bray). The position held by these sources is that the Jews are not ethnically descended from Abraham, but are mainly of Asian extraction.
This argument is not new. For many years it has been current coin among white supremacists and Anti-Semitic individuals, many of whom have held high positions in the academic world. It is revealing, however, to find that many of the persons supporting this view were also atheists and infidels.
Here’s a case in point. Dr. Revilo P. Oliver (1908-1994), a former professor of classics at the University of Illinois, was a man who dedicated the greater part of his life to promoting racism and anti-Semitism — that is, when he was not busy attacking the doctrines of Christianity.
In a 1985 article entitled “Another Jewish Problem,” Dr. Oliver praises Arthur Koestler’s radical book The Thirteenth Tribe (1976), which casts doubts upon the ethnic descent of the Jewish people. Oliver writes: “Koestler’s book had one beneficial and quite unexpected result: it seems to have quashed the vogue of one of the strange flights of Christian self-deceiving imagination, a febrile claim that ‘bad’ Jews were really Khazars while ‘good’ Jews were the descendants of the horde of bandits whom the Christians’ god, as stated in the Jew-book, so admired that he became their supernatural accomplice in the crimes and atrocities narrated in that collection of tall tales.”
Such caustic writing is typical of Oliver’s style in general — something of a cross between Ambrose Bierce and Francois Rabelais. Dr. Oliver wrote elsewhere that Jesus Christ is a mythical personage who never existed. Oliver has long been the darling of white supremacist organizations such as Stormfront and National Alliance; and it is interesting to find that few of these organizations believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — or any God, for that matter!
Of course, the ethnic fallacy is based on disbelief in the word of God, and of Jehovah’s promise as given in Jer. 31: 35-37. It is also founded upon a faulty perspective of the actual evidence. However many Khazars converted to Judaism, it is clear that the Khazars never absorbed the holy nation. On the contrary, the Jews absorbed the Khazars!
Until someone can show me a Khazar, I’ll continue to believe that God’s promise holds good: “For I am with thee, saith the Lord, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet I will not make a full end of thee” (Jer. 30: 11). This promise has been substantiated by history. A full end has been made of the Khazars, while the Jews remain.
What caught my eye, however, in the Hyper-Preterist article was a quote from H.G. Wells’s “The Outline of History.” Incidentally, I have read this book, and have it on my shelf. Wells, apart from his questionable moral character (he had an illegitimate child with novelist Rebecca West), was an evolutionist who believed in a local flood theory. He was also more or less a confirmed Anti-Semite.
The gravest charge against Wells, however, is that he consistently undermined the doctrines of Christianity.
In Chapter 29 of his book, Wells writes: “Now it is a matter of fact that in the Gospels all that body of theological assertion which constitutes Christianity finds little support. There is… no clear and emphatic assertion in thse books of the doctrines which Christian teachers of all denominations find generally necessary to salvation. Except for one or two passages in St. John’s Gospel, it is difficult to get at any words ascribed to Jesus in which He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah… and still more difficult is it to find any claim to be part of the Godhead, or any passage in which He explained the doctrine of the atonement or urged any sacrifices or sacraments upon His followers… All that is most characteristically Christian in worship and usage He ignored.” (Outline of History, 3rd Edition, pg. 499).
These are the kinds of people who endorse the arguments that Hyper-Preterists routinely use to support and defend their system. But not only is such thinking liberal, it is morally and intellectually dishonest, and grounded upon a priori unbelief in the Scriptures and the faithfulness of God to fulfill the promises He made. As history has taught, men like Revilo Oliver, H.G. Wells, and countless others belong to the class of men who shape and mold secular thought, but who have little need for a personal Redeemer.
After seeing such views put forth, what could I do but politely close the page, and return to the Word of Truth. After all, why should Christians take seriously the arguments of people who habitually sleep with the enemy? This is just as bad as polygamy. But then, there are Hyper-Preterists who support polygamy, so what’s the difference?
Whatever your views of doctrine may be, the only way you can legitimately support your beliefs is through Biblical and etymological evidence alone. To resort to the writings of atheists and infidels, merely because they agree with your position, and support your worldview, is ethically unsound and demonstrates a lack of spiritual integrity. Make no mistake, friends. Hyper-Preterism is, and always will be, an ally of infidelity!
Conversation With Philip B. Brown
In this 43-minute podcast, Brian Simmons speaks to Philip B. Brown of New Wine For The End Times. Brown has written a book in which he applies ancient Jewish eschatology to the solution of the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism. Brown has also written some articles in which he refutes the Preterist eschatological system. In this discussion, Brown shows that while the second coming of Christ was imminent in the first century, it was dependent on Jewish national repentance.
Listen now: Conversation With Philip B. Brown
More Thoughts On “This Generation”
Here is a brand new 12-minute Bible study which is guaranteed to set Preterists a-thinking when it comes to the true meaning of the phrase “this generation.” In this podcast, Brian Simmons brings Old Testament analogy to New Testament texts, demonstrating that the two generations (the “generation in the wilderness” and “this generation”) stand for and represent the Jewish nation under the two respective covenants.
–Adam was one man who represents the totality of the human race.
–One generation gathered out of Egypt represents the totality of the Jewish nation under the force of the Old Covenant.
–One generation gathered in the first century represents the totality of the Jewish nation under the force of the New Covenant.
Listen now: http://ia331406.us.archive.org/1/items/MoreThoughtsOnthisGeneration/morethoughts.mp3
Rev. Joshua William Brooks– On “This Generation”
(from Essays On The Advent and Kingdom of Christ, 1840)
“There is one other point which I shall here anticipate, inasmuch as it proves a stumbling-block to many; viz. verse 34: “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” This is by many supposed to be equivalent to Matthew 16: 28: “There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” But the words are entirely different; and, though the latter passage has an undoubted reference to the term of man’s life, the former has not necessarily such a signification.
“So far as I have noticed, our Lord Jesus never used the word generation to signify the term of man’s life; but commonly to express the peculiar character of the nation or people to whom He applies it. Thus we find mention in the Scriptures of a “sinful generation,” an “evil and adulterous generation,” a “faithless and perverse generation,” a “generation that set not their hearts aright;” and on the other hand we have a “righteous generation,” the “generation of them that seek Him,” the “the generation of Thy (God’s) children,” etc. And as frequently is the word genea translated in this place of Matthew generation, used to express a nation, or the posterity of some individual.*
* Thus in the Septuagint we have such phrases as geneas Enak and genean Enak, Numbers 13: 23, 33, both meaning the children or descendants of Anak; also Genesis 43: 7: “The man asked us straitly of our kindred;” Numbers 10: 30: “I will depart to my own kindred;” and Lev. 20: 18: “Both shall be cut off from their people,” in all which the word in italics is genea in the original. There are likewise testimonies which I have noticed of a more direct character; as in Jer. 10: 25: “Pour out thy fury upon the families that call not upon thy name;” wherein geneas is exegetical of the word heathen in the same verse. Again: “Death shall be chosen rather than life by all that remain of this evil family;” which is evidently, from the context, spoken of the nation (Jer. 8: 3). Both in Matthew and Luke’s Gospel’s “the men of Nineveh,” or Ninevites, is the antithetical phrase for “men of this generation,” or Jews. So of Sodom, etc. (See Matt. 12: 31, 42, 45; Luke 11: 31, 32, etc). And the identical phrase translated “ a perverse generation” in Matt. 17: 17, is in Phil. 2: 15, rendered ” a perverse nation.”
“I will just add, that most commonly, when the word generation means a period of time, it is the New Testament used in the plural number: and this in some instances when it is translated in the singular number: e.g., Luke 1: 50; Acts 15: 21.
“It is likewise very important, as respects the use of the word in this prophecy, to observe, that the previous chapter thus concludes: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: for I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” This is evidently addressed to them nationally, since the generation then rejected the Lord to the last; but the words imply that there should be a time when they (“ye,” that same people or nation, though not the same individuals) should say, “Blessed is He that cometh,” etc.
“I consider this passage, therefore, as affording a sort of paraphrastic exposition of the words now under consideration: for it declares of the Jews, that they should be preserved nationally, (and probably it implies that they should remain in their unconverted state), during the time of the desolation, even until the advent of the Lord.” (pg. 17-18).
Conditional Deferment of Christ’s Parousia Required By Use of The Greek Particle ‘An’
One of the strongest, most emphatic means to negate something in Greek is by the use of the double-negative “ou me.” The figure of speech, “Repeated Negation,” is a type of Synonymia in which two negatives are placed in apposition to strengthen the force of an assertion.
This particular form of negation was used by our Lord on forty-six separate occasions. In the King James Version it is usually translated “by no means” or “in no wise.” In Matthew 24: 34 it appears in the former clause, as follows: “Verily I say unto you, in no wise (ou me) shall have passed away this generation.” The double-negative is likewise found in the former clauses of the following texts which indicate the time of the Lord’s second coming. Matthew 10: 23; 16: 28; 23: 39.
But in the latter clause of Matthew 24: 34, the action of the verb is modified by the Greek particle “an,” which, though untranslatable in English, makes the entire clause conditional and contingent upon some circumstance either express or implied. Edward Robinson writes that this small and practically untranslatable particle always imports and element of contingency or doubt into any statement where it is included, “giving to a proposition or sentence a stamp of uncertainty, and mere possibility, and indicating a dependence on circumstances.” (A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg. 43).
This is corroborated by the leading authorities on Greek literature. Giving this primary sense of the usage of the Greek particle ‘an,’ William W. Goodwin, Ph. D. writes: “It denotes that the action of the verb to which it is joined is dependent upon some condition, express or implied.” (Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, pg. 54).
Hence its usage in the latter clause of each of the four New Testament timing-statements used by traditional commentators to support the concept of an A.D. 70 parousia, cannot be overlooked without creating grave errors in the interpretation of eschatological passages.
Regarding this use of the Greek particle “an,” Dr. E.W. Bullinger, an acknowledged authority on Greek grammar, writes that it “has no meaning in itself that can be expressed in translation, but which, whenever it is used, makes the whole clause, or sentence, conditional.” (Foundations of Dispensational Truth, pg. 62).
Thus, when we come to study the Greek text of Matthew 24: 34, we see that the former clause contains the strongest negative that could possibly be used, whereas the latter contains an equally-defined conditional element. So likewise in Matthew 10: 23, 16: 28, and 23: 39. Translated into plain English, the text of Matt. 24: 34b reads: “Until all these things may take place (heos an panta tauta genetai)”.
Incidentally, Young’s Literal Translation preserves (though somewhat ambiguously) this contingent element inherent in the Greek text. Here is how Young translates these four all-important verses:
(Matthew 10: 23) “And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come.”
(Matthew 16: 28) “Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.”
(Matthew 23: 39) “For I say to you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed [is] he who is coming in the name of the Lord.”
(Matthew 24: 34) “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things may take place.”
Well, what are we to infer from all this? Quite simply, we are to infer exactly what the inspired texts indicate; namely, that the fact of Christ’s coming was certain, albeit His coming at a specified period, within the lifetime of the first-century disciples, was entirely contingent on some condition not necessarily expressed by the text. Naturally, we ask, what was that condition?
The condition was, as quite clearly stated in the Old and New Testament Scriptures, the repentance of the Jewish nation (Lev. 26: 40-42; Jeremiah 22: 3-4; Hosea 5: 15; Micah 5: 3; Matthew 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21). It was this alone that would bring the “times of refreshing” and the fulfillment of ALL THINGS that were written by the prophets. Jesus clearly stated that the nation would not see Him again until they repented. Their seeing Him again is certain (Matthew 24: 30; Rev. 1: 7; Zech. 12: 10). This same certainty, however, is conditional upon national repentance.
The concept of prophetic deferment is demonstrated by the fact that all of Israel’s blessings were conditional upon the obedience of the nation (Exodus 19: 5-6; Leviticus 26; Deut. 11: 13-15, etc.). The supreme blessing, the advent of Messiah, was first offered to Israel as a nation under law, providing groundwork for the conditional elements later put forward in connection with the timing of Christ’s return. Most Bible scholars agree that the law remained in effect for national Israel until the destruction of the temple and the nation’s dispersion in A.D. 70. Israel’s failure to meet the conditions required of them under the Mosaic charter explains why the blessing of a returned Redeemer never materialized during the lifetime of those to whom it was first promised.
Paul’s council with the chief of the Jews at Rome, and their formal rejection of the Gospel, forms the pivot upon which all Dispensational truth turns. After an all-day exposition of Moses and the prophets (Acts 28: 23), the leaders of the dispersion rejected Paul’s ministry to the nation, just as they had rejected Peter’s. Paul pronounced the solemn sentence of judicial blindness upon the nation (Acts 28: 26-27), and thenceforth the salvation of God was sent to the Gentiles (Acts 28: 28). At this point, the imminent parousia was no longer possible. The kingdom was put on hold, and the parenthetical Dispensation of the Mystery began.
Since there was no national repentance that satisfied the conditions required to bring about Christ’s certain return and the subsequent national restoration and New Covenant blessings, there was no return of Christ. The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 attested to the fact that the period of national probation had ended, and all things regarding the parousia of Christ put in abeyance until a future time. The “times and seasons” of Christ’s return now remain in the safe-keeping of the Father’s Divine counsel.
Such an interpretation as ours fits in, of course, with consistent Protestant exegesis of the Scripture, where timing elements expressing imminency are taken quite as literally as language descriptive of those very events which were to happen “soon” – if only Israel had “received” John the Baptist as Elijah (see Matthew 11: 14), and Christ as Messiah.
This “apotelesmatic” principle, when properly and systematically applied, is the Christian’s only answer to the non-Protestant interpretive methods of those who take the timing-texts literally, but use a subjective understanding of the same to impose false meanings on the plain and literal statements of inspired Scripture, thus tampering with the controlling context of the very time-indicators upon which they profess to base their interpretations.
We hold, emphatically, that the timing-statements are to be taken quite as literally as those that indicate the nature of what was to occur when the inspired writers received the oracles of God. A proper understanding of the usage of the Greek double-negative ‘ou me,’ as well as the particle ‘an,’ in all the primary texts which speak of the Lord’s second advent, while not the sole foundation of an apotelesmatic interpretation of New Testament prophetic passages, is an essential key in the hands of Christians who would unlock sacred truth, and a powerful weapon against those who attack our “blessed hope.” Maranatha!
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.- On Matthew 24: 34
(from The Foundations of Dispensational Truth, 1911)
“Verily I say unto YOU, this generation shall by no means pass till all these things may be fulfilled.”
Here again, we have the same Divine assurance as to the weighty truth of the whole statement; and the same two words in the respective clauses. In the former we have the same emphatic certainty as to the continuance of that very generation till an uncertain condition might be realized.
We need not have pressed the point so strongly in our former paper as to the exact meaning of the verb which refers to the arising of the first sign of the tribulation. For there is again the same Particle, “an,” which makes the whole of the second clause contingent (because it was conditioned on the repentance of the nation in Acts 3: 19-26). Had the nation then repented, ALL that the prophets had spoken would have been then fulfilled; and that generation would not have passed away without witnessing the fulfillment.
In the former section we have dealt fully with this last great prophecy of the Lord on the Mount of Olives, and we saw that, through the condition of Israel’s repentance not being fulfilled, all was postponed after the first preliminary sign of its commencement had taken place.
We cannot exclude the “YE” and the “YOU;” or imagine that the Lord was speaking, not to them, or merely to us now, but to some generation yet to come. It is far more simple and according to truth that we should take all the Lord’s words literally, which we can do the moment we deal with them chronologically, and see the true breaks given us so prominently in Acts 3: 19-28 and in Acts 28.
If we do this, then at the same time we have an answer for those who maintain that the verses (Matt. 24: 29-31; Mark 13: 24-27; Luke 21: 25-28) which speak of the actual coming of the Son of Man in power and great glory referred to the destruction of Jerusalem; for we see that nothing which occurred in that solemn event could for a moment satisfy the Lord’s plain, emphatic, and solemn words. All was then imminent. It cannot be that the many and repeated commands to “watch” were not intended for them, but were intended only for us! Those who heard the command so frequently spoken cannot be excluded as though it did not concern them; and if it did concern them, how could it do so except in the way and on the grounds we are striving to emphasize?
Surely the interpretation of this charge to “watch,” and all the other expressions we have considered, belong exclusively to them, though the application cannot be diverted from ourselves today.
Matthew 26: 64: Another Hyper-Preterist “Proof-Text” Examined
Continuing our study of the various proof-texts used to support Hyper-Preterism, we come to Matthew 26: 64, which has often been taken by scholars out of its context and used to justify just about every subjective-based doctrine under the sun. Yes, even Hyper-Preterism. Standing before Caiaphas, the High Priest, our Lord said (in answer to his question whether He was Christ or not): “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26: 64).
Despite the general consensus, there is no difficulty in our Lord’s meaning. The difficulty arises from the particular application of Christ’s words. These words are correctly understood as referring to an actual event. But what that event is, is a matter of dispute. Hyper-Preterists attempt to solve the problem by placing the event within the lifetime of Christ’s original audience. But the question may be honestly asked, who was Christ’s original audience?
The Hyper-Preterists will say that it was the Sanhedrin. But isn’t their interpretation somewhat subjective? Because the Sanhedrin got knocked out of commission in A.D. 70, it is not impertinent to ask whether Hyper-Preterism only chooses this interpretation to support their own view. But why the Sanhedrin? May not Christ’s words be much broader in scope? May they not apply to the Jewish nation as a whole?
I confess that this is the interpretation which relieves the above text of all difficulty. For Christ was firstly speaking to an individual; wherefore, Matthew records that “Jesus saith unto him.” But He was addressing an individual who was representative of the nation as a whole. And this is where the switch from third person singular to second person plural comes in. Let us amplify the passage thus: “Jesus saith unto him [the high priest]; Thou [thyself] hast said [it]. Nevertheless, I say unto you [the nation of the Jews], Hereafter shall ye [the selfsame nation] see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of glory.”
Note that the word rendered “hereafter” may also be translated as “later on” (see Dr. Bullinger’s note on Matt. 26: 64, Companion Bible, pg. 1374). So, in effect Christ is saying that “later on,” that is, at some future time, the Jewish nation will see Christ coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Now the question is, does this interpretation fall into line with other portions of prophetic Scripture? Why, it most certainly does. For in Matthew 24: 30, Christ Himself said that “all the tribes of the land” (that is, the land of Israel) will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven. This is also referred to in Revelation 1: 7: “Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him; and all the kindreds of the land shall wail because of Him.” These verses quite manifestly point to the Jewish recognition of Christ as Messiah, Who will (like Joseph) make Himself known “the second time” (Acts 7: 13).
The same event is referred to in Zechariah 12: 10, where it is written, “And I will pour upon the House of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”
Zechariah is prophesying what will happen when the Lord brings Israel into the New Covenant, at His second coming. That this doesn’t refer to a past event must be conceded by every fair-minded student of Scripture. Far from “acknowledging” Jesus as the Christ in A.D. 70, the Jewish nation lived to foment another rebellion in 135 A.D. under Bar-Chochebas. Hence, in A.D. 70 there was no “mourning” or “recognition” on the part of the guilty nation which would answer to the prophetic type of Joseph becoming “known” unto his brethren.
In his “Dialogue With Trypho the Jew,” Justin Martyr says to his opponent: “And if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,– one in which He was pierced by you; a second, in which you shall know Him Whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart,– then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by the means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation.” (xxxii).
Hence Justin Martyr understood Zechariah 12: 10, and by implication the related Scriptures (Matt. 24: 30 and Rev. 1: 7) as still unfulfilled in his own day. His opinion regarding the futuricity of these texts is also repeated in his “First Apology” (see chap. lii). Thus much for the testimony of the early Christian church.
But what more has Christ to say? In one of His last discourses, Jesus told the nation that they would not see Him until they repented. “For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39). Now who was Jesus speaking to? The Hyper-Preterists will say, “the first-century generation.” But the Bible says nothing about a first-century generation. Rather, the phrase “this generation” is to be understood as the nation of Israel.
To prove this, let us ask, to whom was Christ sent? The apostle John says, “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not” (John 1: 11). Who was Christ’s “own?” Was it the first-century generation, or the nation of Israel? Then, too, remember how Christ told the Syro-Phoenician woman, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel” (Matt. 15: 24). That is, He was sent to the nation of Israel, and not to the first-century generation. This helps determine the scope of Christ’s statements concerning His second coming.
Returning to the matter at hand, then, we find that Christ’s words in Matthew 26: 64 cannot be confined to the Sanhedrin, any more than other prophecies of the second advent can be restricted to the first-century generation. Only show that the scope of Christ’s address takes in more than just a roomful of Pharisees, most of whom died before the temple was destroyed, and rather embraces the entire nation, and you’ll easily get at the true meaning of the solemn asseveration: “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
