Letting the Bible Speak for Itself—The Literal Meaning of “This Generation”

From Gary DeMar's multi-part response to Ed Hindson's article in the May 2005 issue of the National Liberty Journal on the topic of "The New Last Days Scoffers".

When Jesus answered His disciples' questions about "when these things" related to the temple's destruction would be and what signs would indicate His coming, He said, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). "This generation," therefore, is the timing key. If we can know what the Bible means by "this generation," we can determine the timing of the events Jesus describes. Every time "this generation" is used in the Gospels, it always refers to the generation of people who were alive when Jesus spoke. "This generation" never means a future generation. Thomas Ice, an associate professor of Religion at Liberty University and the Liberty Theological Seminary, in a radio debate with me, admitted that each use of "this generation" in the Gospels, except the one used in Matthew 24:34, refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. In his written debate with Kenneth L. Gentry, Ice writes: "It is true that every other use of 'this generation' in Matthew (11:16; 12:41-42, 45; 23:36) refers to Christ's contemporaries, but that is determined by observation from each of their contexts, not from the phrase itself." This means that seventeen times it means Jesus' contemporaries, and one time it means a future generation. William Lane disagrees:

Like he does with Acts 2:16, Ice must add words to Matthew 24:34 to get it to say what he needs it to say. For example, in Charting the End Times, Ice and LaHaye reconstruct Matthew 24:34 to read this way: "The generation that 'sees' these things will not pass away till all is fulfilled." In the LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible, of which Ed Hindson is one of the editors, the verse is given this treatment: "[T]he future generation that will live to see all the signs listed in the previous verses fulfilled in their lifetime" will not pass away until all is fulfilled. The near demonstrative "this" is removed, and from 5 to 19 words are added to make the verse refer to a future generation. And this is interpreting the Bible literally? Hindson writes the following in the Liberty Bible Commentary:

There is nothing in the entire context of the Olivet Discourse that says anything like this. Dr. Hindson is reading his dispensationalism into the chapter. William Sanford LaSor writes, "If 'this generation' is taken literally, all of the predictions were to take place within the life-span of those living at that time." D.A. Carson takes a similar position: "[This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke. . . . [T]o make 'this generation' refer to . . . the generation of believers alive when eschatological events start to happen, is highly artificial." There you have it. If Matthew 24:34 is interpreted literally, it refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking.

Matthew 24:33 tells us as much: "even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door" (Matt. 24:33). The first use of "you" certainly refers to Jesus' first-century audience. So why wouldn't the second use of "you" refer to the same audience? Hindson comments that this verse "has caused some to speculate that these predicted events only relate to the coming destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, within the disciples' lifetime." He doesn't explain why this is not what it means except to reference commentaries by John Walvoord and R.C.H. Lenski whose explanations are convoluted and do not deal with the way "this generation" is used elsewhere in the Gospels.

You will notice that Matthew 24:34 expressly states that it's "this generation" that will not pass away until all the things listed in the previous verses take place. How significant is the use of "this" rather than the non-specific definite article "the" that is substituted by Hindson, LaHaye, and Ice? The use of "this" in the NT tells us that what's being identified is near either in time or distance. By changing "this" to "the," the entire meaning of the verse changes. Instead of a specific generation, it now reads as if it could be any generation. "This" is a near demonstrative, and as the name suggests points "to someone or something 'near,' in close proximity." Near demonstratives "appear as the singular word 'this' and its plural 'these.' The distant demonstratives, as their name suggests, appear as 'that' (singular), or 'those' (plural)." The near demonstrative "this" is used nearly 950 times in the NT, and it always refers "to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos [that] refers to something comparatively farther away."

Now, now, don't be upset with Topcat, he didn't mean you Dr. E. or Suzy, only women who disagree with him.

If they were caught up (pardon the pun) in the rapture cult, I would be concerned.

I note that Ms. Markell has lots of links to Hal Lindsey articles, including one entitled "Israel: God's Time Clock". Now, we alreay know how Hal got himself in trouble back in the 1980s by making Israel "God's Time Clock". And we know about his discredited theory about the meaning of the term "this generation", the very subject at hand.

If the women you pinged were Lindseyites, I'd be concerned as well.

Personally I think it is an affront to God to be saying the temple will be rebuilt and the Jewish nation will be pleasing to God. God's divine plan was to make Christians. Anything else sound sacrileges.

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. It is difficult to learn the arguments of the opposing sides in these debates because we are not all on the same page.

There are so many passages concerning Israel in scripture that it is hard to ignore them. Here are a few things to watch for.

Israel became a nation in unbelief. She rejected Christ, and therefore she thinks that the temple should be rebuilt and the sacrifice should begin again. Some of us believe that Israel will be converted as a nation, but it cannot happen before the rapture, otherwise she would be taken with the church. Thus they a relegated to blindness until the times of the gentiles ends.

There are many verses in scripture that must be considered to come up with a cogent doctrine. Each verse has two interpretations, one for each side of the debate. I think that there are tiebreakers if we look long and hard enough, but to call the opposing view an affront to God, may just be an affront to God.

1Thes 5:1-6 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

What does the preterist watch for? You seem to be saying that there are no signs to signify that summer is nigh.

In spite of what Ms Markell says;

In the beginning (1830 or so) there was little (15 year old) Margaret MacDonald, of Scotland, who had a dream that Christ came for His Church to take them before the Great Tribulation.

Then, her brothers latched on to her mystical ways and began a little religious group in Plymouth, England.

Soon, J. N. Darby heard about Margaret and her Plymouth brethren and was intrigued by her dreams and prophecies.

Around 1850 Mr. Darby took his Bible and her prophecies and invented dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism had a side benefit...the emphasis on the imminent return of Christ ("you don't want to be in a bar or place of entertainment when Christ returns") and that led to revival and a great missionary movement.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Fast on the heels of the rising interest in dispensationalism, several sincere and dynamic men began to meet (in 1875) in what was to become the Niagara conferences.

At the beginning of these meetings there was joyful disagreement about when the Lord would return and in what manner. But over the years Niagara became the rock upon which Dispensationalism, Millenialism and Pre-tribulationism were built, not to mention Fundamentalist Evangelicalism. In fact, Fundamentalists who don't like to be called Fundamentalists, can call themselves Niagarans.

Around the turn of the century C.I. Scofield, who had become a regular at Niagara began putting it all into a reference work tied together with the Bible. In 1909, his edition began its run as "The Bible" of Fundamentalists. By 1955, you knew someone was born-again because of the black-leathered, onion-skin-papered Scofield Reference Bible they carried. All believers had one. Those not well grounded, didn't. You could tell.

Then Harry A. Ironside (call him H.A.), pastor of the temple of Fundamentalism, Moody Church in Chicago, wrote several popular books which laid out the prophetic landscape so everyone could understand it.

He was helped along by a doctor from Grand Rapids, MI named M.R. DeHaan who wrote even simpler and more popular books.

M.R. DeHaan was followed by and even simpler and more popular writer, Hal Lindsay.

And in the last days, Jerry and Tim made it simpler yet. Wait another 20 years, if the Lord tarries, and someone will simplify it even more.

But, make no mistake, the dispensational, pre-tribulationist views of Evangelical Fundamentalism today, powered by Moody Bible Institute, Dallas and Denver Seminaries, among others (Trinity Seminary in Deerfield, IL and Columbia International University in Columbia, SC among others, have a more balanced approach) are not the views of the early Church fathers, who were Millenialists, but had no misgivings about the Church suffering through the Tribulation.

Just remind Ms Markell that that Pre-Trib stuff came from the mind of a little mystic named Margaret.

Just remind Ms Markell that that Pre-Trib stuff came from the mind of a little mystic named Margaret.

Let's not forget her friend, Mary Campbell. Both were members of Edward Irving's congregation in Glasgow, Scotland, and both gave many 'Prophecies'.

Contrary to the publicity, the first "Charismatic Manifestations" were not at the Azuza Street Mission in 1907, they were at Edward Irving's congregation in 1830, in a form that any modern day Charismatic would recognise.

Oddly enough, both Campbell and McDonald were later denounced as 'false prophets' by many former members of Irving's congregation. Campbell (who died young) later admitted that many of her 'prophetic utterances' were actually inspired more by the newspaper than they were the Spirit of God.

I am curious about your statement, "brought the Kingdom near". What do you mean by this?

Before Jesus, the Jewish concept of "the Kingdom" was thought of as something future, and earthly. That Jesus did not appear as an expected earthly King and warrior was one reason why they rejected him.

Jesus made it clear in his teachings, however, that his kingdom was spiritual, not worldly. If you study the synoptic gospels, you will see that his teaching is greatly concerned with the Kingdom, what it is, and how to enter it. The Olivet Discourse begins and ends with the Kingdom.

From these teachings, we can see that he brought it near, for you enter God's Kingdom through Jesus. He is the way. He is the gate. He is the seal, for as he himself pointed out, narrow is the way. One enters it by being born again.

I appreciate your comment Seven_O. I have never claimed to be an expert on eschatology. But the problem I have always had with the rebuilding of the temple, rising of the Jewish nation, and rapture seems, IMHO, inconsistent with other major doctrines of the Bible including the salvation message.

Many of the people here who are arguing that God chose Israel and is raising Israel up as a nation also will argue that conversion is synergistic (i.e. man has "free will"). If man has “free will” how on earth could the nation of Israel become converted? If people are going to argue that the nation of Israel will become converted than they cannot argue man has "free will" to make a decision for choosing Christ. It’s an inconsistent viewpoint of two fundamental doctrines and seems like simple logic to me. However this simple distinction seems to be lost.

Does God elect people to His salvation? I believe so. So let’s assume that God does work in a monergistic fashion and saves His elect. Under this scenario would God raise up the nation of Israel that rejected His Son? Possibly. Would He bring them all to a state of conversion? Possibly. And would Christians be caught up leaving the converted Jews - to do what? If God is the reason of our conversion, why wouldn’t He go and convert the whole lot and be done with it?

Whether you believe in synergistic or monergistic salvation you have a problem with the rapture and tribulation. In my mind it has always seem inconsistent with other doctrines of the church.

What does the preterist watch for? You seem to be saying that there are no signs to signify that summer is nigh.

The return of Jesus. What else do you need to watch for?

"Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming." (Matt. 25:13)

The context of the parable in Matt. 25 indicates that we should always be ready for our Lord's return. We should be found diligently doing the things he has called us to do.

"Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning; and you yourselves be like men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately." (Luke 12:35-36)

The next event that we are to watch for, prophetically speaking, is the "knock" when the Master is at the door.

Some glad morning when this life is o'er, I'll fly away;
To a home on God's celestial shore, I'll fly away (I'll fly away).

When the shadows of this life have gone, I'll fly away;
Like a bird from prison bars has flown, I'll fly away (I'll fly away)

Just a few more weary days and then, I'll fly away;
To a land where joy shall never end, I'll fly away (I'll fly away)

I'll fly away, Oh Glory, I'll fly away; (in the morning)
When I die, Hallelujah, by and by, I'll fly away (I'll fly away).

Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening and MAYBE SOON!
Coming again, coming again!..Oh what a Wonderful day that will be...Jesus IS Coming Again!

Amen - just had a conversation with someone here on FR about this very topic. She claimed a "prophet she respects very much" told her that if Terri Shiavo were killed, a "wave of evil" would come upon this country.

I tried explaining the Truth, but she wouldn't hear it. Kept saying that God is "doing a new thing in HIS people". So, apparently, God contradicts His own word.

It's dangerous and deceitful teaching to think that God's revelation isn't complete in His word. That somehow there's more that we mere humans can dream and interpret. That we can know more than what He's already stated. Folly. Foolish and arrogant thinking, that. It shows, ultiamtely, a lack of Trust in His word and His capabilities. That somehow God needs help in bringing about His will.

It pains me, because it's exactly how I thought and believed before my regeneration into His glory.

What does the preterist watch for? You seem to be saying that there are no signs to signify that summer is nigh.

One point of clarification. The "summer is nigh" quote is from a portion of the Olivet Discourse that has to do with the events on AD70 and the destruction of the Temple. Jesus gave His first century disciples a list of things that would occur prior to the destruction, including persecution, earthquakes and famines, the "abomination of desolation", Jerusalem surrounded by armies. When they saw these things the disciples were to flee to the mountains surrounding Judea, which, according to history, they did.

This, as I said, was all fulfilled in AD70. We shouldn't be looking for first century-specific signs today.

My post from another thread:

Briefly ...

Events related to the first coming of Christ (started or fulfilled during the 1st century).

1) Binding of the strongman and inauguration of the kingdom (Matt. 12:28,29; Rev. 20:2,3)

2) Death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; identification with the "First Resurrection", beginning of the "thousand years" (Rev. 20:4)

3) Temple veil torn in two, decay of old covenant has started (Heb. 8:13).

4) Ascension and Session of Jesus to the Father, seated on David's throne in heaven (Dan. 7:13,14; Acts 1,2)

5) Pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, fulfillment of Joel 3, evidence that Christ is seated on David's throne (Acts. 2:31)

6) Transfer of authority, keys of the kingdom from old Israel to the new Israel (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; 21:43; 28:18)

7) Temporal punishment of "this generation", "abomination of desolation", Temple destroyed and Jerusalem judged in AD70; final end of the old covenant (Matt. 23:36; 24:4-34; Luke 11:49,50; 21:20)

8) Conversion of the nations; "the fullness of the Gentiles"; "all Israel" being redeemed; gradual increase of the kingdom (Matt. 13:31-33; 28:19,20; Rom. 11:25,26)

Events related to the second coming of Christ (some time in the unidentifiable future).

1) End of the "thousand years", Satan loosed for a brief time (Rev. 20:7)

2) Christ returns to resurrect all men, both the just and the unjust (Matt. 24:36ff; John 5:29; 11:24; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 15:12; 2 Cor. 5:10)

3) "Day of judgment"; All men are judged and separated (Matt. 10:15; 25:31ff; Rev. 20:12,15)

4) Judgment of Satan, death, and Hades (Rev. 20:14)

5) Consummated new heavens and new earth with the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21,22)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1427700/posts?page=870#870

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.