γενεά geneá and the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer
- Thread starter claninja
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
That is how I used to interpret it, and I still think it's a valid interpretation. But, I lean more towards believing it's either talking about a generation in terms of a time period (in that sense, a generation is normally 30 to 40 years) or to the people living during the time which all the things Jesus said would indicate that His coming is near.
The Greek word "houtos" is translated as "this" in Matthew 24:34, but it can also mean "the same" like in this verse...
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same (Greek: houtos - Strong's G3778) shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So, with this in mind...
Matthew 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
In verse 33 Jesus refers, not to literally everything He had previously said, but to what He said in relation to things that would let people know that His second coming is near. So, in verse 34, I believe it's quite valid to see Him saying that the same generation (same people) who are alive when the things occur that indicate His second coming is near, will not pass away until all those things are fulfilled and they will pass away when He comes. I also think it's quite valid to see Him as referring to the same generation or time period during which people would see the things that would indicate that His coming is near as not passing away until those things are fulfilled. He was asked a question in relation to the timing of His second coming, so that makes this particular interpretation even more valid.
Regardless, they are clearly more ways of understanding what "this generation" can mean than thinking it can only refer to the generation of Jews living at the time He was speaking.
I would allow that the word can refer to the entire human race instead of just the Jews. I think that's a valid interpretation that would not cause any contradictions with anything else Jesus said or with any other scripture.
Last edited:
The word interpreted “generation” is broader than many acknowledge. Both the Greek words genos and genea can refer to race – as in the Jewish race – or "the successive members of a particular genealogy." It can also refer to a type of people who share the same traits.
We find this in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Deu 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.
Jesus said:
Mat 12:39 An evil and adulterous generation [Gr. genea], seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
This clearly refers to an general moral category of humans, not a 40-year time period.
Jesus said:
Mat 17:17 O faithless and perverse generation [Gr. genea], how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
Luk 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation [Gr. genea]: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation [Gr. genea], among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. It seems that you are bringing bias into your understanding of verses 30-31 in that case. You are trying to find a way to make those verses unrelated to all of the surrounding verses, but I don't see any way to do that.
What I'm wondering is how you can reconcile those verses with your interpretation of Matthew 24:34. The context indicates that His coming and the gathering of the elect will occur when this generation (and heaven and earth - Matt 24:35) pass away. As much as I disagree with the preterists who claim that Jesus came in 70 AD, I think their interpretation of Matthew 24:30-31 makes more sense in relation to their interpretation of Matthew 24:34 than yours does. I can't see how it can make any sense to think that this generation passed away in 70 AD, but that the coming of the Son of Man and gathering of the elect occurs long after that. It's clear to me that what will put an end to this generation is the second coming of Christ.
Jesus indicated that not just the sun being darkened, and moon not giving its light, etc. would occur immediately after the tribulation of those days, but His second coming and gathering of the elect would occur at that time as well.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
How long have you been trying to reconcile your understanding of verses 30-31 with verse 34? Years? I'm sorry, but it can't be done. You should consider the alternative interpretations of verse 34 that you've been shown that don't contradict verses 30-31 because they have the second coming of Christ as being the event that causes this generation to pass away, which I believe the context strongly indicates as being the case. Right now, you have His second coming occurring long after this generation has passed away. In the very next verse (verse 35) Jesus talks about heaven and earth passing away. Do you believe that occurred in 70 AD or that Jesus was talking about the same future event that Peter described in 2 Peter 3:10-12?
Like I have repeated: there are broad varying meanings given with each lexicon and commentator.
BTW, you didn't answer my question: You do know he disagreed with the position of biblical inerrancy?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I don't understand the point of this question. Joseph Thayer was just one person. Does scripture say that things like this must be discerned by way of people like Joseph Thayer telling us what scripture means or by way of spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
No, it just means he can't be fully trusted. I think he knew Greek very well and was qualified to give the various definitions of the Greek words, but that does not mean he can be fully trusted to have known which definition of a word should be used in any given verse.
Of course not. But it felt like you were elevating him as some great trusted reliable authority with a superior insight to each of us. I do not respect anyone who denies the inerrancy of Scripture.
I see a validity in each of the arguments. I just do not take serious Full Preterists parading themselves as superior biblical authorities when they have a constant boring bias unobjective fixation with AD70 and the coming of Titus. They pretend to be authorities when they in fact heretically deny the literal physical future coming of Christ. They twist the meaning of the sacred text and the sense of originaakl words to support their error. It gets old after a while.
Again, not related to the OP. The OP is about how to properly use a lexicon/concordance.
If you reject thayer’s definition of genea in Matthew 24:34, it makes zero sense to even appeal to it in the first place. That’s the point.
As to “this”, I completely agree with you. And this is why using lexicons and dictionaries and Greek resources is import- because English can sometimes be ambiguous while the Greek not so much. This is a great example where the preterist position gets the lexical sense wrong. The specific word for “this” is a near demonstrative pronoun in Matthew 24:34 BUT doesnt necessarily mean near in proximity to the speaker. There is another demonstrative pronoun that would indicate that. Instead “This” in Matthew 24:34 is a near demonstrative pronoun that more likely references something that is near in context. So “this” generation refers to the generation within the context of the olivet discourse.
Again, this is a strawman argument. The OP is not about whether Thayers is the ultimate authority on word definitions and usages. The OP is about correctly using a lexicon, like thayer’s, IF you are going to appeal to it.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
<Yawn>. As if we need you to tell us that.
No offense, but that's stupid. I either have to think he's wrong about everything or right about everything? That's basically what you're saying. Nonsense.
Preterists, like futurists, make the mistake of thinking that Jesus only spoke of one time period and one event in the Olivet Discourse. That is false. Jesus spoke of two different events. One was the local event in Judea and Jerusalem that occurred in 70 AD and the other is related to His still future second coming at the end of this temporal age before the eternal age to come of the new heavens and new earth is ushered in.
Apparently, the OP is also about the idea that if you disagree with Thayer on even one thing, then you shouldn't use his lexicon at all, which is utterly ridiculous.
Another strawman. The OP is not that thayers is the ultimate authority on word meaning. The OP is about using thayers correctly if you are going to appeal to it.
Also, Are you not aware that scholars and translators that translate the Bible into English, use tools such as lexicons in the process? For example, Vern Poythress, who worked on the esv, preferred the BDAG (Bauer) lexicon as a resource.
“In my own experience working on the English Standard Version (ESV), a conservative revision of the Revised Standard Version (RSV), I encountered considerable complexities in using the lexicons. These complexities have convinced me that, for some types of translation, Bauer rather than Louw-Nida serves as the best first resource.” (https://frame-poythress.org/wp-cont...ionComparingBauersAndLouwAndNidasLexicons.pdf)
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I'm done with you. You are a complete waste of my time. No matter what I say, you will just say I'm making a strawman argument. I have a million better things to do than deal with your nonsense.
No, you don’t. The issue here is how to correctly use a lexicon. You’ve not directly addressed this. You just continue to make personal jabs, which is telling.
Again, another strawman. Absolutely fine to question Thayer’s accuracy. Many do. But it makes zero sense to question Thayer’s accuracy while at the very same time appealing to it to support your position.
If genea being understood as “whole multitude living at the same time” was solely a preterist belief, then you would have point. However since that’s not the case, your statement is irrelevant
Similar threads
- Locked
