Think Wink.

Continuing in my series in the preterist arguments in the reading of New Testament prophecy as found in R. C. Sproul’s book, The Last Days According to Jesus, I will now consider probably the source of the whole crisis of eschatology: the “parousia-delay” of the words “this generation.” Jesus says in Matthew 24:34-39,

“34 Truly, I say to you, this generation [he genea] will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

Before getting into the actual arguments of the preterist camp, I will address some alternative interpretations of he genea and the “coming” of the Son of Man as discussed in chapter 2 of the book. WARNING! This will be a lengthy post. Make sure that you have some time to read.

First there is that of David Hill. He argues that although Matthew 24:34 itself seems to indicate a near-future event that would indicate the generation of Jesus’ disciples (cf. Matthew 16:28), vv. 35-36 argue the other way. He sees Matthew 24:35-36 as a shortening of the historical perspective, the distant future being spoken of in terms of near future events. Thus the “this generation” refers to the people of God that will survive until the end of time. However, this would not rule out a literal, forty-year generation. Someone could say that an event was going to occur but not know the exact hour of the event within that forty-year span. It is crucial that we keep in mind that Jesus was answering the “when” of his prophecy concerning the fall of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem.

J. Stuart Russell makes an interesting argument from the preterist camp. Ninety-nine of every one hundred persons reading this passage would see Jesus in Matthew 24:34 referring to those he was talking with. The common sense reading of the passage refers not to a future generation, but the contemporary generation.

Matthew 24:34 brings into mind a parallel prediction found in Matthew 16:27-28, “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” The Greek word behind “come/coming” in this text is not parousia but rather erchomai. But this passage is talking about some kind of coming of the Son of Man. Also, when Jesus says “will not taste death” he really means “will not die.” Thus Jesus is saying that some of his disciples would be alive to see the erchomai of the Son of Man.

Thus the question we must ask with both Matthew 16:28 and 24:34 is what will the disciples see at this coming? Mark says that the kingdom will come “with power” (Mark 9:1). Luke just says that the kingdom of God will come. But all three authors link this coming of the Son of Man to the coming of the kingdom of God. This coming has been explained in terms of many different events in redemptive history, i.e. the Transfiguration, resurrection, the ascension, Pentecost, all of which outwardly manifest the kingly glory of Christ.

William L. Lane sees the transfiguration of Jesus as the fulfillment of Mark 9:1. It is a real and outward manifestation of the power and glory of Christ, if only momentarily. This manifestation Lane says points beyond itself and to the parousia found in Mark 13:26. Lane links the two events but keeps them distinct.

The main problem with this view is that the transfiguration occurred only six days after the prediction. Jesus’ prediction implies that some will taste before this coming, but not all. None of Jesus’ audience died within that six-day period. To say that Jesus’ had in mind the transfiguration but didn’t know that it would happen so soon would indicate a misconception on Jesus’ part. This does not completely rule out this interpretation but rather makes it extremely unlikely and highly improbable. The destruction of Jerusalem fit’s the time frame wording of Matthew 16:28 much better because it keeps the event far enough away to warrant Jesus to say that some would die before it occurred. And if this is the case, then Jesus would most likely be speaking in the same terms in Matthew 24:34 as well.

Now in regards to the term “this generation” some would argue that it refers not to a physical generation but to a type of people. Jesus is referring to people like the disciples, namely believers in Christ. Hence believers would not pass before the parousia of Christ, which would certainly include the disciples of Jesus. Some take “this generation” to refer to the wicked people in the Olivet Discourse and thus before Christ returns there would always be a generation with wickedness present.

Herman Ridderbos advocates such a view. He views “this generation” as a frame of mind instead of a frame of time. He argues that a temporal view would weaken the force of Jesus’ pronouncement. Instead of a terminal date, Jesus is trying to convey the certainty of his coming. However, this is ignoring the very question that Jesus was answering and that the disciples had asked. The question wasn’t “if” but “when.”

Jesus’ use of “this generation” throughout the Synoptics seems to argue in favor of being a reference to the contemporary generation rather than a future generation or frame of mind. Let us take a survey of the Synoptics and examine the useage of “this generation.”

Matthew 23:36, “Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”

Matthew 11:16, “But to what shall I compare this generation?”

Matthew 12:39, 41, 42, 45, “An evil and adulterous generation…The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it…The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it…So also will it be with this evil generation.”

Luke 11:50-51, “so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.”

Mark 8:38, “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation.”

Luke 17:25, “But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.”

J. Stuart Russell furthers the case for a contemporary/temporal meaning to “this generation” by arguing reductio ad absurdum. In summation he argues that interpretation of genea to be race would destroy the prophecy. Suppose someone said that the Parliament in Britain shall be destroyed. When asked when this person replies, “Before the Anglo-Saxon race is extinct.” Russell argues that this “prophet” would be disbelieved and viewed as derogatory. Russell calls it “safe prophesying” to make such a prediction of indeterminable length.

Additionally, most scholars hold that the term “this generation” refers not to some far distant generation, but rather the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries. From J. Stuart Russell to Bertrand Russell to William Lane, all agree on this point. However, “all these things” must also be viewed as Jesus’ parousia. Here there is much arguing to avoid the preterist view.

The issue here is that those who either make “this generation” to mean something other than the contemporary generation or “all these things” restricted to the destruction of Jerusalem are trying to keep Jesus’ words from being proven false and to preserve the biblical texts. If “all these things” and “this generation” are taken prima facie then either this event happened in AD 70 or some of Jesus’ predictions failed to take place within the given time span.

Now at this point in the book, Sproul brings to the front-burner two questions in light of “all these things” taking place in the first century: (1) How can it be said that these things did in fact take place; (2) if they did, what about the Blessed Hope of the resurrection and the future return of Christ? These two questions are very big questions indeed.

First a quick discussion of hermeneutics. Everyone says that they take the Bible literally. But what do they mean by literally? Martin Luther was the first scholar to really say that he reads the text in the sensus literalis. What Luther meant was that the text should be read in its intended sense or “literary sense.” Poetry is read as poetry, didactic is read as didactic, historical narrative is read as historical narrative. Today when it is said to read the Bible literally, it is meant that everything is read in straight forward didactic and indicative language. Thus poetry is didactic. But this isn’t reading the text according to its genre. It is reading the Olivet Discourse (and Revelation) in this wooden literalism that creates the crisis of parousia-delay. The events of the Olivet Discourse did not happen in this wooden literal sense.

There are three solutions to solving this problem of a literal fulfillment: (1) We read the discourse in the wooden literal sense and create the crisis; (2) We can read the events literally and the time-frame references figuratively, i.e. a future generation; (3) We can interpret the events figuratively and the time-frame literally.

Preterists follow option three. The reason being is that it plays to its hermeneutical strength. It takes everything in its plain (prima facie) sense. But this also interprets Scripture in light of Scripture. As has been shown earlier in this post the Synoptic Gospels reads “this generation” as the contemporary generation. Also, J. Stuart Russell demonstrates that much of the celestial language is figurative like in the Old Testament prophets. The events are described in very figurative language and the time-frame is described in very straight forward language. Option three is the best hermeneutically.

Now some might argue that there is a primary fulfillment in AD 70 and a secondary at the consummation of the world. But there is a danger here in that the Scriptures can be extremely enigmatic. J. Stuart Russell asks what prevents there from being a third, fourth, fifth fulfillment of a prophecy. But this is why we always interpret the obscure texts in light of the clear texts.

Now for the question of the Blessed Hope in preterism. Full-preterism would say that all New Testament prophecies have been fulfilled by AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem. Moderate or partial preterism says that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70. However it still holds to the Blessed Hope based upon other New Testament texts. But this question will be taken up in another post.

Related posts:

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 4

The Nature of Prophecy

A Hermenuetical Question