The "ye" principle, this generation, & Mt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21.

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

This exemplifies how we know if "ye" is applied to a future generation or the generation being directly addressed.

In Gen 49:1, Moses explicitly said that he was talking about the distant future which he called the "last days." Therefore, we know the "you" meant "your descendants."

Sure we know this from “hindsight” that it was the distant future. But I'm sure his sons certainly thought “the last days” their father spoke of meant “their generation” in their “last days” of their lives when he said “which shall befall you in the last days.”

Originally Posted by Twospirits
Deut. 28:36, “The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.”

Was this fulfilled in this/their generation? No, it was hundreds of years before they had a king over them and this prophecy was fulfilled. They had long since died.

Correct. And again, it's all perfectly obvious. Moses was clearly talking about a future generation, whereas Christ was talking about the generation listening to him.

Again we can know this from “hindsight,” but did the immediate audience of Moses “this generation” know that? I highly doubt it for the Lord said “unto thee” would these "prophetic events occur."

Originally Posted by Twospirits
So when we follow this principle of God's Word and read such passages as Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 we clearly see that the “you” Jesus is speaking to is defined by whichever generation would be around when these “prophetic events come to pass.” It is not confined to the apostles and disciples of that day anymore than Moses prophecy was confined to the generation of Israelites who were his initial audience to whom his proclamation was given.

No, that does not follow, because Jesus identified the "you" as "this generation" and the central event of his prophecy was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which happened in 70 AD. There is no way to push the Olivet Discourse into the future.

I gave some examples of many other prophetic texts that explicitly states “you and ye” without expressing a time of fulfillment such as “last days” and that's the point of giving these passages you asked for. To show biblically that the “ye and you” in the surrounding passages of “this generation” in Jesus' Discourse is not contained to that generation only. Like Moses prophetic message was a continuing prophecy lasting hundreds of years up to its fulfillment, so is Jesus' narrative given in like manner; from its beginning to the time of His coming. I have given passages that confirm the “ye principle” that is inherent in prophetic scripture, they cannot be denied.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sure we know this from “hindsight” that it was the distant future. But I'm sure his sons certainly thought “the last days” their father spoke of meant “their generation” in their “last days” of their lives when he said “which shall befall you in the last days.”

Upon what do you base such "certainty"? Can you cite any scholars who agree with you? The first scholar I checked agreed with my interpretation (G. J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary):

“in the latter days” is a phrase that only appears in prophetic contexts. In some passages it has a clearly eschatological sense (e.g., Isa 2:2; cf. NT “last days”), but elsewhere it seems to have a less technical sense, “in the distant future,” after certain other things, which the prophet has just described or hinted at, have happened (cf. Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; 31:29; cf. TDOT 1:210–12). Such a sense here would explain why Jacob looks beyond the period of Egyptian slavery and exodus to the era of settlement in Canaan.

We cannot prove what the original audience might have "thought" when they heard these words, but we can discern the correct meaning "in hindsight" and that's all we need to correctly interpret the text.

Correct. And again, it's all perfectly obvious. Moses was clearly talking about a future generation, whereas Christ was talking about the generation listening to him.

Again we can know this from “hindsight,” but did the immediate audience of Moses “this generation” know that? I highly doubt it for the Lord said “unto thee” would these "prophetic events occur."

I see no evidence supporting your assertion. In Deut 28, Moses was clearly speaking of a future that included both the immediate audience and their distant descendants.

I see no confusion in the meaning of the "ye" and "this generation" that can be exploited to create a foundation for futurism.

I gave some examples of many other prophetic texts that explicitly states “you and ye” without expressing a time of fulfillment such as “last days” and that's the point of giving these passages you asked for. To show biblically that the “ye and you” in the surrounding passages of “this generation” in Jesus' Discourse is not contained to that generation only. Like Moses prophetic message was a continuing prophecy lasting hundreds of years up to its fulfillment, so is Jesus' narrative given in like manner; from its beginning to the time of His coming. I have given passages that confirm the “ye principle” that is inherent in prophetic scripture, they cannot be denied.

God bless---Twospirits

As far as I can tell, you have given no evidence that the "you" coupled with the phrase "this generation" used by Christ in the Olivet Discourse could refer to anyone other than the generation to whom Christ was speaking.

Here's the proof: In the Olivet Discourse, Christ addressed the people as both "you" and "this generation" in the context of a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which we know was fulfilled during their lifetime. This eliminates any possibility that he was really speaking of some other yet future generation.

All the best.

[Clifford]

So were the Early Church Fathers of the early few centuries AD waiting for the Lord's return either during their time or sometime in the future:

http://www.freeworldfilmworks.com/when-chap05.pdf

Many Blessings.

So I guess either those Early Church Fathers were mistaken or the Apostles. I will side with the Apostles. Just like it has been said many times on this forum you can't take phrases like "this is the last hour", "the end of all things is near", "the Lord is near" etc that were written by the Apostles to mean 2000 years or more.

Clifford

[Clifford]

So when we follow this principle of God's Word and read such passages as Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 we clearly see that the 'you' Jesus is speaking to is defined by whichever generation would be around when these 'prophetic events come to pass.'

That is completely false. Jesus specifically said "this generation", not some future generation. And we know it was that generation because his predication about the Temple being destroyed came about just and he said.

Clifford

[CWH]

So I guess either those Early Church Fathers were mistaken or the Apostles. I will side with the Apostles. Just like it has been said many times on this forum you can't take phrases like "this is the last hour", "the end of all things is near", "the Lord is near" etc that were written by the Apostles to mean 2000 years or more.

Clifford

If I say this is "my last hour", "my end of all things", "the end is near" what does this mean? It most probably means my life or something is coming to an end. I can accept the Preterist interpretation of the end of Jewish age or what I call the apostolic age but I cannot accept the interpretation of that is the meaning of the end of the world. I see it as meaning of the end of the Jewish/Apostolic age and the end of the world age as according to context.

Many Blessings.

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

We cannot prove what the original audience might have "thought" when they heard these words, but we can discern the correct meaning "in hindsight" and that's all we need to correctly interpret the text.

Exactly! We can know its correct meaning by hindsight. Wasn't trying to prove what Jacob's sons thought, but what they very possibly thought when they heard those words. My point was in proving the “you principle” used in prophetic scripture is inherent. What the “original generation of Moses thought,”(like the 1st century hearers) when they heard those prophetic words, didn't change the fact that its “fulfillment” would come upon a future generation, the “this generation” that the events would find their fulfillment in. The same applies with Jesus' Discourse.

I see no evidence supporting your assertion. In Deut 28, Moses was clearly speaking of a future that included both the immediate audience and their distant descendants.

Correct, it was a near and far reaching prophecy, in its beginnings and fulfillment; an intermediate prophecy. Certain events would occur in their history as the prophecy moved to its fulfillment; in the same way would Jesus' Discourse be fulfilled.

As far as I can tell, you have given no evidence that the "you" coupled with the phrase "this generation" used by Christ in the Olivet Discourse could refer to anyone other than the generation to whom Christ was speaking.

Here's the proof: In the Olivet Discourse, Christ addressed the people as both "you" and "this generation" in the context of a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which we know was fulfilled during their lifetime. This eliminates any possibility that he was really speaking of some other yet future generation.

As I noted, the Discourse is a near and far reaching prophecy, it would begin in the 1st century and end with the coming of Christ. By the way, I haven't got to the point of giving the evidence, had to first confirm the biblical “ye principle.”

God bless---Twospirits

[TheForgiven]

I'm wondering why there's a discussion using ancient Latin nouns such as "ye" and "thee", etc.

What's wrong with "you" or "them"?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Exactly! We can know its correct meaning by hindsight. Wasn't trying to prove what Jacob's sons thought, but what they very possibly thought when they heard those words. My point was in proving the “you principle” used in prophetic scripture is inherent. What the “original generation of Moses thought,”(like the 1st century hearers) when they heard those prophetic words, didn't change the fact that its “fulfillment” would come upon a future generation, the “this generation” that the events would find their fulfillment in. The same applies with Jesus' Discourse.

Greek has two distinct words for "this" and "that" just like in English. If Christ was talking about a future generation he would have said "that generation" not "this generation." The first century audience understood perfectly that he was talking about them and events that would transpire "soon" in their lifetimes because "the time was at hand." And we know in hindsight that they were correct because his words were fulfilled in 70 AD.

It seems to me that everything confirms everything else with great simplicity and supreme clarity. We don't have to make up anything to establish the Preterist doctrine. It is what the text plainly states.

Correct, it was a near and far reaching prophecy, in its beginnings and fulfillment; an intermediate prophecy. Certain events would occur in their history as the prophecy moved to its fulfillment; in the same way would Jesus' Discourse be fulfilled.

That does not work with the Olivet Discourse. There is no clear division between "near and far reaching" prophetic elements. And besides, there is no need to invent a "far reaching" interpretation since everything about the prophecy makes sense if the symbolic elements, such as "the Lord coming on clouds," are interpreted symbolically (as they should be). Any attempt to push part of the Olivet Discourse into the future destroys the integrity of the text.

Christ introduced his prophecy by predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The "end of the age" was marked by the destruction Temple and so fits perfectly with the disciples question mistranslated as "when will be the end of the world?".

A doctrine as far reaching as Futurism cannot be founded upon speculations and disputed interpretations. This is why Preterism is so powerful. It is built upon the foundation of what the Bible plainly states and coheres perfectly with the "Big Picture" of the continuous narrative beginning with the final prophecy of the OT.

As I noted, the Discourse is a near and far reaching prophecy, it would begin in the 1st century and end with the coming of Christ. By the way, I haven't got to the point of giving the evidence, had to first confirm the biblical “ye principle.”

God bless---Twospirits

That is impossible for one simple reason. The disciples asked WHEN will the Temple be destroyed and the Lord come? The answer was "this generation" and history confirms this. If your interpretation were true, there would be two "WHENS" given in the answer, separated by 2000 years! That's not an answer at all. The whole prophecy becomes a grand confusion in which Christ answered "this [first century] generation" and "that [21st century] generation."

All the best.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

To begin, we must first define the meaning of a 'disciple.'

In Christianity: A disciple is one who follows the teachings or doctrines of a person (Christ) whom he or she considers to be a master or authority.

1 Peter 2:9 makes it very clear that the 'ye' biblical prophetic principle applies not only to the immediate generation, but on-going generations as well. 'But 'ye' are a chosen generation*(Greek 'genos'; a family, offspring, 'a race'), a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar (special) people; that 'ye' should show forth the praises of him who hath called 'you' out of darkness into his marvelous light.' The many prophecies spoken of by the Old Covenant prophets didn't occur until hundreds of years later, which contradicts the preterist 'you'/'this generation' audience relevance doctrine. But agrees with the biblical 'you' in 'prophetic passages,' that speak prophetically of 'this generation,'--as being 'this generation whenever it occurs.'

Sorry for the lengthy post.

God bless---Twospirits

I'll try to address points from several of your posts in this one response. I see that this "ye" principle and the corporal or singualar as well as present or future intentions [or both] are being continually considered by you. In my perspective [from the outside, looking in to your understandings and defenses] these appear to be contrived reasonings to support a yet future event or events while denying the singular then present tense emphasis of 'this genea'.

Above, you quote the 1Pet 2:9 as if to proove that the word generation related to more than one group of people or a continual group of people.
But the word in 1 Peter is Genos; not Genea nor Genemma. Yes, it is still translated as 'generation' but has a different meaning than a 40 yr lifespan which is the word Genea from the greek.

Genos would have a similar meaning as how Paul understands the word 'seed' as a spiritual regeneration process of the Holy when he talks about the spiritual 'seed' and characteristics of the Patriarchs; as that is the meaning of [genos] in 1Pet 2.

In your second post you say:

(Mark 8:38; 9:19; Luke 9:41 speaks of a generation of sinful and faithless people).

as if to say that if sinfull or faithless people continued then the 'generation' also continued.

If that were the case; the greek word would be Genemma [or Genos] as that is it's definition. There is no warrant to support that the use of Genea means anything other than a general speaking of a 40 yr lifespan in these verses. Yes, there might be 'sinful and faithless people beyond that generation; but the verses that are there do not state that sin and faithlessness would not go beyond that generation.

There is also the consideration that Jesus' generation was the last aspect of the corporal covenant of the mosaic law [Deut 32] and also the blessing of the patriarchs going to the second son, while the first son would also have blessing but would be ending when the blessing of the second or 'latter' son would be revealed. Thus the application of the sinful and faithless 40 yr lifespan of Jesus generation [as noted in Deut 32] even though sin, individual rebellion and lack of faith continue beyond that 40 yr lifespan.

In several of the instances, the verses of Mark 8:38; 9:19; Luke 9:41 are in the context of the verses above which you labeled as applying to that first century.

On a second note on the second post: You say concerning :Mt. 23:36, Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. This applied to the 1st century. and yet this is in the similar context as Matt 24's use of 'this generation'... meaning 40 yr lifespan.

Elsewhere you have noted that your able to make a distintion between suntelious and telos as if it were some great importance; but yet you confuse Genea, Genos, Gennema and the like and according to how they fit your ideas.

THIRDLY:
In post 13 you use examples from Gen and Duet. In Gen 49, jacobs sons have already been told of the blessing to the latter son Epraim through Joseph. Thus the 'latter days' are the latter days of the first son which is later given the corporal covenant of Moses [Deut] which also has 'latter ends and latter days as described in Duet 31:29 and chapter 32.

You yourself noted that the prophecy to Judah was fulfilled in the first century as their latter days.

Richard has done an adequate job of noting that the prophecies that Jesus made in Matt 24 were confined to the Genea of his day. This is not the same word or concept as Genos in I Pet 2. Though they have a similar english tranlation; Jesus was specifically talking of the current 40 yr lifespan while Peter was talking of people who were individually of a similar kind through the re-generation of the Holy Spirit within those of Faith in the incarnation of God and his forgiveness.

[Clifford]

If I say this is "my last hour", "my end of all things", "the end is near" what does this mean? It most probably means my life or something is coming to an end. I can accept the Preterist interpretation of the end of Jewish age or what I call the apostolic age but I cannot accept the interpretation of that is the meaning of the end of the world. I see it as meaning of the end of the Jewish/Apostolic age and the end of the world age as according to context.

Many Blessings.

Nowhere does the Bible speak of the end of this physical world. The King James version has misinterpreted "the end of the age" as "end of the world". The Bible is always referring to the end of the Old Covenant age when it speaks of the end of the age or the end of that Old Covenant world.

Clifford