Matt.24:34 (This) generation οὕτος STRONG’S NUMBER: g3778 Mk 13:30 (This) genereation οὕτος STRONG’S NUMBER: g3778 Lk.21:32 (This) generation οὕτος STRONG’S NUMBER: g3778 Dictionary Definition g3778. οὗτος houtos nominative singular masculine; αὕτη hautē nominative singular feminine; τοῦτο touto nominative singular neuter; from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated): — he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who. AV (356) - this 157, these 59, he 31, the same 28, this man 25, she 12, they 10, misc 34; this, these, etc. In addition however Jesus delivered this discourse in Aramaic not the Greek that the Gospels are written in, so there is even further possibility of something having been lost or added in translation. .
Nevertheless we are ever nearing the time when the Gospel has been translated into all languages spoken by mankind. The first time this can actually be said to be true. .
The first time the Gospel has been translated into all languages spoken by mankind? Sure, I agree. That's great and it is to the glory of God. However, it isn't relevent to the prophecies.
It's not the variations in translation that I am referring to, but the fine distinction of meaning which you may be imputing to the English, that was not intended in the original. If you really want to go into fine distinctions of meaning, then you can only ever go to the original. Furthermore, if I understand you correctly to be advocating Preterism, then if we consider that the Church throughout the ages has not held to Preterism either in creeds, documents, councils, or even in numerical preponderance of individual Christians, the only conclusion is that she has not read that verse, the original, the Greek, the way you do. And if you look closely at the Strong's Greek dictionary for the word, you'll observe it lacking the nuance you attribute to it. There is absolutely no possibility that something meaningful was altered in translation, because it's not the verbal utterances, but the written Scriptures as we have them, that gets called the Word of God.
It isn't quite accurate to say "the Church throughout the ages has not held to Preterism." There were many Church Fathers, for example, who at least held a partial-preterist view (DeMar's The Early Church and the End of the World is an excellent resource). Origen sounds like a full-preterist at times. Even non-preterists admit that the plain meaning of v. 34 is the present generation. It isn't a particularly controversial passage in that sense. I would also say this: eschatology didn't blossom until much later in church history. Dispensationalism, for example, is rather new.
All the more reason then to suspect the possibility that between the Aramaic utterance of The Word to the inspired translation of what he said into Greek by one of The Word's disciples there may be some discrepancy. Else we bow to the notion that any word in any language can be infallibly translated into any other language without any loss or addition in meaning. The true meaning of these texts exists in the utterances of The Word of God, not necessarily in the written words of a translation, of a translation, of The Word of God. . Never the less, the written word is the best that we have, and we are speculating about past or future events possibly presumptuously. Deut.18:20. .
I was careful to add the details of that, namely, "... in any official sense". Which you'll agree with me is accurate. And even if we only look at the numerical popularity of the position through the ages (which I also mentioned), it fails that test as well. I know, but Origen also advocated universalism, which was (later) concluded to be heretical. An individual authority is not a great foundation; you want to be looking for vast sweeping consensus on a topic. You cited it in support of your position, so non-preterists couldn't have cited it in precisely the meaning that you do. Yes I know, but dispensationalism is also heretical. A new teaching can always be concluded to be heretical just from the definition of what 'new' means.
Those aren't tests I particularly care about, tbh. There have been plenty of bad teachings that gained popularity in the church throughout history. My point was that preterism isn't an innovation. I'm aware that an individual authority isn't a great foundation. I do not cite Origen as an authority. The only authority I have appealed to this entire time is Scripture. I'm simply stating that my readings of the text are not unique to me. They are not unique to the 21st century. You can read a quick discussion on it published by Dallas Theological Seminary. And if you know anything about DTS, they are not preterists. Uh...so what options for eschatology are there? Is amillennialism the only non-heretical eschatological view in your book?
Pre- and post-millenialism are both options and have had their adherents, but yes amillenialism seems to be the view that's gained sweeping consensus through the ages, and may be considered the teaching of the church universal from that. Much of the reasoning behind eschatology comes from the lived experience of Christians through the centuries. The early church fathers were convinced the end of the world would come in a few generations, so premillenialism was widespread. Once it became clear that that wasn't going to happen, amillenialism became the view, for everyone, and so it stayed down to this day among most Christians. Premillenialism has spiked back during times of crisis, such as during the black plague in the middle ages (again, lived experience); but it quickly subsided. The only other major time that amillenialism was reconsidered en masse, was among some of the radical anabaptist and reformed sects of the Reformation; there too it came from lived experience, in this case of the Papacy, which from its power and evil, convinced them of the impending end of the world; therefore many of them became all premillenial, to wide consternation from the Anglican divines. Once it became clear to those groups, by the 18th century, that there was no impending apocalypse after all, even the Reformed returned returned to the amillenial position. The main reason some Reformed today hold to the premillenial position now is as a kind of hero-worship of famous figures from the Reformation; "if they thought this an important position, then I'll hold it too". In other words today's Reformed who hold it, don't do so from a lived experience, but from a dry worship of the past (which is ironic). But yes, then in the mid-1800s you have the invention of dispensationalism among the baptist groups. It can be seen as wrong simply from the definition of the word 'invention'.
True, and one of the foundational texts which underpins that contention is this: But if I am casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you. One cannot rob Satan's kingdom without first binding Satan. Only then can his demons be cast out! Anyone who isn't helping me is harming me. But if I am casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you. One cannot rob Satan's kingdom without first binding Satan. Only then can his demons be cast out! Anyone who isn't helping me is harming me. Matt.12:28-30. The whole passage Matt.12:24-30 is evidence that Satan was bound at the time Christ said this. Unless he has been released since and there are more than one 'binding' of Satan it has already taken place and continues, and Satan is therefore contrained during what we now call The Church age for a figurative period of 1000 years, (not necessarily a fixed time period except in the mind of God who alone knows when the church age will end and the New Creation takes place), which is what Christian aspirations are actually fixed upon, not a millenium of Christ's physical rule upon earth and a fulfilment of Old Testament physical promises to Israel. The practical application of amillenialism, in a Holy Spirit empowered Church, is that we should all be helping Christ, not hindering Him during our time on earth in the Kingdom. Matt.12:30. .
I can't say I find this line of reasoning convincing, but you won't find me agreeing with dispensationalism either
This is quite telling, and it seems to have been overlooked. The early fathers were premillenialist! After a time, doubt crept in and people started to disbelieve the prophecies, so the theologians eventually began to 'explain them away' with amillenialism and a very loose interpretation of prophecies like those in Revelation. Surely I can't be the only one to whom this is obvious.
Not speaking about you here, but I think that for most Christians, catholics, protestants, the new is good. New church, like a new iPad every year. Not so for me. Not all, by any means. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, others, already held to amillenialism. But others did interpret the prophecies in the literal way. To be honest, nobody knew how to understand them, because there was no pretext or cultural experience from the OT about what they meant, and thus misunderstanding was widespread. After misunderstanding the prophecies to be literal, the church fathers by the 2nd and 3rd centuries quickly understood that this was something else entirely. That "no one knows the time when the end of the world will happen." And thus amillenialism became the default.
What is obvious is that many bible 'scholars' have got prophetic interpretation wrong in the past, (and not all of them are JWs). Our assumptions as to what those prophesies may actually mean, and even whether some of them even are actual prophesy rather than allegory, metaphor, exaggeration or already fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled or having multiple fulfillments, our assumptions are capable of errancy even if the prophesies are not. Add to that the fact that even Jesus admitted there were things as a human being even he did not yet know, and God has secrets which God does not want yet to reveal, then prophesy becomes a very hit and miss affair, even when identifying historical events in hindsight. It is also somewhat of a distraction when 'certainty' that our interprtations of scripture are 'correct', begins to interfere with what we actually do and believe concerning how we live out our time on earth as citizens of Christ's Kingdom. This is exactly why the church re-evaluated its assumptions and concentrated more on hunkering down to do the job rather than either panicking or misbehaving depending on whether it expected a prompt parousia or a delayed return. Matt.24:45-51, Matt.25:5, Luke 12:45. It would seem, judging from the texts I have quoted, that Jesus even prophetically foresaw the danger to the church of a delayed Parousia but the early church fathers were a bit impatient and just didn't see the necessity for these warnings, so ignored them for quite some time, until forced by historic reality to re-evaluate their over enthusiastic expectations and consequently dodgy prophetic exegesis. .
Our primary doctrinal source is the Bible, and the early church writings only serve to help us understand the Bible (those writings give us glimpses into how the early fathers understood it). I have long felt that the most accurate understanding of the early church would have been that which was closest in time to the 1st advent and to the living apostles who walked with Jesus; as one moves further along in time, the gradual decline in accurate understanding can be seen quite early in the writings of Irenaeus and others. I've never seen the 'first 500 years of the church' as a static thing doctrinally, but as more of a sliding object that had to be nudged this way and that to be kept on track, and the further along it went the harder it was to tell if it was still moving in a straight line. Be that as it may, let's ponder for a moment the difference between the amillenial and premillenial positions. Both should (emphasis on the word "should") agree that we will be graced with physical bodies once more at the general resurrection of believers. What is the point of a physical body unless we will exist in a physical world? Therefore it stands to reason that Jesus, when He returns (2nd advent), will rule and reign over a physical world (that is, we will not be incorporeal spirits flitting about in some celestial existence called 'heaven'). If amillenials and premillenials can agree upon this fact, then the big difference is merely this: will Jesus reign on this exact earth for 1,000 years and then Remove & Replace it with a brand new, perfect earth to rule and reign over; or will Jesus do the R&R immediately upon His return? This really is not a huge difference. I don't have a major problem with people understanding these future developments in either one or the other of those ways. What I object to is the method by which one arrives at the conclusion, namely, the method of interpreting God's word. The '1,000 years on this earth followed by eternity on a new earth' conclusion is reached by interpreting the prophetic writings at face value, whereas the 'eternity on new earth without a 1,000 year delay' conclusion is arrived at via spiritualizing the writings so as to disregard the more plain and evident meaning of the words. Did the latter method come into favor simply because Jesus didn't return as soon as expected, and therefore the church needed to find a new explanation for some words written about the timing of His return? Why, you may ask, do I object to the 'spiritual' interpretation method? I object because that method changes so much of what the Bible says. It is used to change the church into 'new' Israel. It causes people to virtually disregard the entire book of Revelation as incomprehensible to the point where only a great theologian is capable of (allegedly) understanding and explaining it. The method removes from Christian awareness certain prophetic warning signs, such as God's warning that no Christian may accept the mark of the beast, and signs to recognize the time of the end of this age. This isn't a healthy thing.
Amillenialists and premillenialists may so agree, but would St Paul agree with them though. 1 Cor.15:44. I wonder if perhaps your understanding of heaven being a place where 'incorporeal spirits, flit about in some celestial existence', is distorting your conceptions here. Jesus was no 'incorporeal ghost'. His appearances were not 'flitting abouts'. His existence was not reported as being 'celestial' but to the contrary very immediate and physical. Yet HE is the first fruits of them that sleep and WE shall be 'Like Him', also though, it does not yet appear what that 'spiritual body' actually consists of by nature. Rom.6:4. [metaphorical application]. Phil.3:21. [metaphorical and physical application]. 1 John 3:2. [literal application?] 1 Cor.15:40-44. [Literally Physical application] We need also to take into consideration that 'heaven' as a non-physical, etherial existence was an innovation in Jewish minds. Hebrews considered a resurrection to be purely physical until not long before Jesus walked the earth. Also our concept of 'heaven' is quite different from the concepts that were current among his own people when He was teaching on earth and what we know to be The Solar System, our Galaxy and the Cosmos were considered by him and them to be 'The Heavens'. In fact we still refer to them as such. So all these terms when used in scripture are context dependable and easily misunderstood by literalists and fundamentalists. .
Oh, I quite agree, Jesus rose from the dead with a physical body, and He ascended as such. Being the firstfruits, we shall be like Him. I only put that in about 'incorporeal spirits' because there are a few people out there (though probably none on this forum) who wrongly think that we will be resurrected without a tangible, physical body. An aside: I'm not wanting to get too far afield on this, but some would say that to be "absent from the body" is to be "present with the Lord" (an inference read into 2 Cor. 5:6-8), and certain people who've been clinically dead and subsequently revived have claimed that they found themselves in an afterlife in an incorporeal 'spirit body'; some have told of a pleasant, beautiful place where God was present, while others have told of a dark, forbidding locale filled with abusive demons. Presumably these 'heaven' and 'hell' places would not be final destinations, but only temporary abodes until the final judgment. But that's all beside the point I'm trying to make about interpreting prophecy based on plain context versus assuming that all future prophecies are allegorical in nature.
I'd fall into that camp. I am not of the mind that we will die, go to heaven to be in the presence of God, and then be sent back to earth in a resurrected body at a later date. Nor do I see that in Scripture.
Quite so. Our eventual destination according to scripture is either The New Jerusalem (not on earth but in a new heavens and a new earth, a new universe in fact), or some other less pleasant prospect either eternally conscious or eternally destroyed, it is hard to accurately predict from the scriptural evidence. Scripture informs us though that God prefers the first option, the heavenly Jerusalem for all of his children if He can manage it .
Not necessarily. The final judgment may be a sentence passed upon us by ourselves. It may be as simple as being attracted either to light or darkness habitually. (John 3:20). Luke 19:22. Matt.12:36-37. .