γενεά geneá and the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer

  • 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!

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
11,091
5,914
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
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.
The broad meaning of the word is the broad meaning of the word. Fact! Thayer is not the final authority on any given passage, the Holy Spirit is. He is only speculating like each of us. He has no more insight on this passage than us.

Also, i struggle with the fact he does not believe in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
11,091
5,914
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
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
There are 2 events in Matt 24 - AD70 and the one final future coming of Christ. He believes this is talking about the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: claninja

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
2,523
799
113
68
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks for proving my point with the laughing emoji @WPM

So then correct me if I’m wrong, @Davidpt @Spiritual Israelite @WPM ….

You all appeal to thayers for the broad definitions it supplies for genea but then reject thayers for defining genea in Matthew 24:34 as “whole multitude living at the same time”?

My thinking goes something along these lines.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation(genea) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

genea
ghen-eh-ah'
from (a presumed derivative of) genoV - genos 1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time.

Verse 36 obviously is connected to 2 Peter 3 10. This indicates so are verse 34-35 since verses 34-35 can't be divorced from verse 36. Which then means we need to look at 2 Peter 3 for some more insight into verses 34-36.

Let's start with the following in 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

As to verse 6 it is crystal clear, in light of 2 Peter 2:5, as to what the world that then was is referring to.

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Verse 6 in 2 Peter 3 is meaning the world of the ungodly according to 2 Peter 2:5.

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation(genea), among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Does this verse support that genea can fit someone ungodly? Obviously, it can and does since these would be meaning the godly--among whom ye shine as lights in the world--therefore making these ungodly in comparison--a crooked and perverse nation(genea). Thus this verse in saying, that in this present age(genea) the ungodly live and dwell among the godly. Personally, I think it should have been rendered generation not nation. Maybe it is in other translations? But this is only the KJV not other translations. That aside.

Getting back to 2 Peter 3, let's now focus on verse 7. the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store. Does this imply an age? Of course it does. Is not one of the defs of genea an age? An age that can only involve 30-40 years? Even Philippians 2:15 alone proves that genea is not always meaning an age involving just 30-40 years, or how ever long one assumes a generation typically involves. No one can argue that Philippians 2:15 is not equally true even now. Meaning no one anyone would take serious if they did argue that.

There are more dots to connect here, yet from what I have submitted alone, it's rather easy to connect the dots and conclude that the generation that passes away when everything has been fulfilled is meaning the age, thus the heavens and the earth, which are now, and that the world of the ungodly passes away with it, thus the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Which then makes sense of 2 Peter 3:13.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Because, in the meantime, the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. And when this present heaven and earth passes away(Matthew 24:35), this promise is fulfilled---a new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
 
Last edited:

claninja

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
620
118
43
the south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
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.

Another strawman. You can think he’s wrong. Many think Thayers is outdated. But it’s absurd to appeal to Thayers for the definition of genea while disagreeing with his definition of genea. Just provide another resource, if you disagree with thayers instead of appealing to it. Thayers may very well indeed be out of date and another resource should be used in that case.


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.

Unrelated to the OP

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.

Incorrect. Another strawman. I’ll give you another example with a different word: melló

In acts 24:15, Paul uses the word mello in regards to the resurrection. Now, melló, in thayer’s, has multiple senses - things that are about to be, things that will certainly be, things to intend or have in mind. Now Thayers does NOT list acts 24:15 under “things about be” but instead under “things that surely will happen”.

Let’s say a preterist disagrees with thayer’s definition in acts 24:15 and thinks it should be understood as “things about to be”. Why in the world would a preterist appeal to Thayer’s then? Using your very own words, that would be “stupid”.

Instead why would a preterist just not appeal to different lexical source that actually defines it as “about to be” in that context. In other words if the preterist is truly correct, that it can mean about to be in that context, surely there should be some lexical resource to support the preterist position, otherwise its just the preterist cherry picking.

<Yawn>. As if we need you to tell us that
Apparently, since you all require logical fallacies when using it.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
11,091
5,914
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Another strawman. You can think he’s wrong. Many think Thayers is outdated. But it’s absurd to appeal to Thayers for the definition of genea while disagreeing with his definition of genea. Just provide another resource, if you disagree with thayers instead of appealing to it. Thayers may very well indeed be out of date and another resource should be used in that case.




Unrelated to the OP



Incorrect. Another strawman. I’ll give you another example with a different word: melló

In acts 24:15, Paul uses the word mello in regards to the resurrection. Now, melló, in thayer’s, has multiple senses - things that are about to be, things that will certainly be, things to intend or have in mind. Now Thayers does NOT list acts 24:15 under “things about be” but instead under “things that surely will happen”.

Let’s say a preterist disagrees with thayer’s definition in acts 24:15 and thinks it should be understood as “things about to be”. Why in the world would a preterist appeal to Thayer’s then? Using your very own words, that would be “stupid”.

Instead why would a preterist just not appeal to different lexical source that actually defines it as “about to be” in that context. In other words if the preterist is truly correct, that it can mean about to be in that context, surely there should be some lexical resource to support the preterist position, otherwise its just the preterist cherry picking.


Apparently, since you all require logical fallacies when using it.
This is so petty and infantile.
 

claninja

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
620
118
43
the south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
The broad meaning of the word is the broad meaning of the word. Fact!

Never disagreed that words can have broad meanings. But a word does not carry all of its meanings in every context.

The OP is about how to correctly use a lexicon and/or concordance.

Thayer is not the final authority on any given passage

Never said Thayer’s was the final authority. The OP is about using Thayer’s correctly if you are going to appeal to it.

He is only speculating like each of us. He has no more insight on this passage than us.

I don’t disagree that Scripture is inspired. But unless you are claiming your private interpretation is infallible, you still have to deal with the actual meaning of the Greek word the Holy Spirit inspired.

Lexicons are not “authorities over Scripture”—they are simply tools that summarize how Greek words were used by the authors of Scripture and by their contemporaries

You and I did not live in the 1st century, we do not speak Koine natively, and we do not have access to the thousands of papyri and inscriptions that lexicographers study. Thayer (and BDAG, LSJ, etc.) are not “speculating”—they are reporting linguistic facts.

Also, i struggle with the fact he does not believe in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture.

valid concern. Though I do believe Thayers is a translation of Grimm Wilkes lexicon? I’d have to double check.
 
Last edited:

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
11,091
5,914
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Never disagreed that words can have broad meanings. But a word does. Ot carry all of its meanings in every context.

The OP is about how to correctly use a lexicon and/or concordance.



Never said Thayer’s was the final authority. The OP is about using Thayer’s correctly if you are going to appeal to it.



I don’t disagree that Scripture is inspired. But unless you are claiming your private interpretation is infallible, you still have to deal with the actual meaning of the Greek word the Holy Spirit inspired.

Lexicons are not “authorities over Scripture”—they are simply tools that summarize how Greek words were used by the authors of Scripture and by their contemporaries

You and I did not live in the 1st century, we do not speak Koine natively, and we do not have access to the thousands of papyri and inscriptions that lexicographers study. Thayer (and BDAG, LSJ, etc.) are not “speculating”—they are reporting linguistic facts.



valid concern. Though I do believe Thayers is a translation of Grimm Wilkes lexicon? I’d have to double check.
On top of my own studies, and like others here, i use multiple theological and scholarly resources when coming to biblical conclusions.
 

claninja

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
620
118
43
the south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
This is so petty and infantile.

My argument was about consistency in using lexical sources. Calling it ‘petty and infantile’ doesn’t answer any of the points I made. If something in the argument is incorrect, address the reasoning. If not, dismissing it with insults isn’t a rebuttal—it’s just avoiding the issue.
 

claninja

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
620
118
43
the south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
On top of my own studies, and like others here, i use multiple theological and scholarly resources when coming to biblical conclusions.

Again, that’s not the point of the OP. The OP is about how to use a lexicon or concordance correctly. You can have multiple resources—that’s great—but if you don’t actually know how to use them properly, then having a stack of them doesn’t help. The issue isn’t how many tools you own; it’s whether you’re applying them accurately and consistently.
 

MonoBiblical

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2024
1,560
257
83
52
midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Genea means a thing which is being started. Being feminine means that it receives actions, and ginomai means to father or start something into issence.
 

claninja

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
620
118
43
the south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
My thinking goes something along these lines.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation(genea) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

genea
ghen-eh-ah'
from (a presumed derivative of) genoV - genos 1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time.

Verse 36 obviously is connected to 2 Peter 3 10. This indicates so are verse 34-35 since verses 34-35 can't be divorced from verse 36. Which then means we need to look at 2 Peter 3 for some more insight into verses 34-36.

Let's start with the following in 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

As to verse 6 it is crystal clear, in light of 2 Peter 2:5, as to what the world that then was is referring to.

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Verse 6 in 2 Peter 3 is meaning the world of the ungodly according to 2 Peter 2:5.

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation(genea), among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Does this verse support that genea can fit someone ungodly? Obviously, it can and does since these would be meaning the godly--among whom ye shine as lights in the world--therefore making these ungodly in comparison--a crooked and perverse nation(genea). Thus this verse in saying, that in this present age(genea) the ungodly live and dwell among the godly. Personally, I think it should have been rendered generation not nation. Maybe it is in other translations? But this is only the KJV not other translations. That aside.

Getting back to 2 Peter 3, let's now focus on verse 7. the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store. Does this imply an age? Of course it does. Is not one of the defs of genea an age? An age that can only involve 30-40 years? Even Philippians 2:15 alone proves that genea is not always meaning an age involving just 30-40 years, or how ever long one assumes a generation typically involves. No one can argue that Philippians 2:15 is not equally true even now. Meaning no one anyone would take serious if they did argue that.

There are more dots to connect here, yet from what I have submitted alone, it's rather easy to connect the dots and conclude that the generation that passes away when everything has been fulfilled is meaning the age, thus the heavens and the earth, which are now, and that the world of the ungodly passes away with it, thus the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Which then makes sense of 2 Peter 3:13.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Because, in the meantime, the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. And when this present heaven and earth passes away(Matthew 24:35), this promise is fulfilled---a new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

I guess I’m confused how Philippians 2:15 proves genea means more than the typical time range for a generation? Maybe you could elaborate on that a little more?
 

MonoBiblical

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2024
1,560
257
83
52
midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ginomai is the verb that it is derived from. Fathers don't create children; they beget or rather start them with this verb. Genea implies the action is received; thus, it is something that starts or is starting. Verse 33 implies that the genea is the start of summer.
 

Davidpt

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2023
2,523
799
113
68
East Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I guess I’m confused how Philippians 2:15 proves genea means more than the typical time range for a generation? Maybe you could elaborate on that a little more?

The following is my view. I used Chatgpt as a tool to articulate my thoughts more clearly. It's still my view, not Chatgpt's view.



The passage in Philippians 2:15 states:

That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.

At first glance, this might seem to be talking about a specific generation of people in the first century--perhaps referring to those living at the time of Paul. However, this verse raises important questions about the meaning of the word 'genea' (generation), which Paul uses to describe the world system of his day.

Let’s ask some questions to clarify what Paul means by 'genea' in Philippians 2:15:

1. Is Paul referring only to the people alive in his day?

While it’s true that Paul wrote this letter to a specific church in the first century, the way he uses the term crooked and perverse generation suggests he is describing the broader world system under the curse of sin and rebellion. This system is not limited to one particular group of people or one generation but is a description of the current age in which all believers live, across time.

2. Could this "generation" extend beyond the first century?

The language of Philippians 2:15---about being blameless and harmless, children of God without rebuke---is something that applies to Christians throughout the entire church age, not just in the first century. It makes more sense to view this generation as representing the fallen world in general, across all time, in which believers are called to shine as lights. If this is the case, then genea refers to an age, not just a specific group of people alive during a 40-year period.

3. Is there a broader biblical precedent for this use of genea?

Yes, in several other passages, genea is used to describe more than just a 40-year span. For example:

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus says, This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. While some interpret this narrowly, I argue that the generation refers to the present world system or age, not just the specific people alive in Jesus' time.

In Luke 16:8, Jesus refers to the generation of the children of this world, indicating that genea can describe an entire age or era of people in rebellion against God, not just a 40-year period.

Thus, when Paul speaks of a crooked and perverse generation in Philippians 2:15, it makes more sense to interpret genea as referring to the present age, the world system under the curse of sin and corruption. This fits with the broader biblical usage of genea to refer to an age, not just a narrow period of time.


Once we recognize that genea in Philippians 2:15 likely refers to an age---the entire world system under sin--it helps us understand the broader implications for other passages that use genea, such as Matthew 24:34 and 2 Peter 3:7.


Jesus says in Matthew 24:34, This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. As noted earlier, many Preterists interpret this as referring to the generation alive in 70 AD. But if genea is meant to refer to an age in Philippians 2:15, we can apply the same understanding here. Jesus may be speaking not just of the first-century generation, but of the present world system---an age characterized by sin, rebellion, and corruption---that must pass away before the new creation comes. This aligns perfectly with the language of 2 Peter 3:7, which speaks of the current heavens and earth passing away in judgment.


In 2 Peter 3:7, Peter writes that the present heavens and earth are reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. This passage is clearly speaking of the present age (the world system as it exists now) that will be destroyed in judgment. If we understand genea in Philippians 2:15 to refer to the present world system, then we can see the connection: both passages describe the end of the current world order, and both use similar language of passing away to describe the transition from the old age to the new age.


To sum up, Philippians 2:15 helps us understand that genea refers to more than just a specific, narrow time period---it refers to the present world system characterized by sin and rebellion. This broader use of genea makes sense in the context of Paul calling believers to shine as lights in a crooked and perverse generation, a description that clearly applies beyond the first century.

This understanding of genea as an age helps us interpret Matthew 24:34 and 2 Peter 3:7 in a consistent way. Both passages describe the passing away of the present age---the world system under sin---before the establishment of the new heavens and new earth. The generation in Matthew 24:34 is not just the people of Jesus' time, but the current age, which must pass away before the new creation can be realized.

Therefore, the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:34, which limits the generation to the first century, overlooks the broader, more consistent biblical use of genea to describe an age or epoch. By recognizing this, we can see that both Matthew 24:34 and 2 Peter 3:7 are speaking of the same event: the passing away of the current age and the beginning of the new creation. This challenges the Preterist view and opens the door to a more comprehensive eschatological understanding of the New Testament.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,025
6,891
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Another strawman. You can think he’s wrong. Many think Thayers is outdated. But it’s absurd to appeal to Thayers for the definition of genea while disagreeing with his definition of genea. Just provide another resource, if you disagree with thayers instead of appealing to it. Thayers may very well indeed be out of date and another resource should be used in that case.




Unrelated to the OP



Incorrect. Another strawman. I’ll give you another example with a different word: melló

In acts 24:15, Paul uses the word mello in regards to the resurrection. Now, melló, in thayer’s, has multiple senses - things that are about to be, things that will certainly be, things to intend or have in mind. Now Thayers does NOT list acts 24:15 under “things about be” but instead under “things that surely will happen”.

Let’s say a preterist disagrees with thayer’s definition in acts 24:15 and thinks it should be understood as “things about to be”. Why in the world would a preterist appeal to Thayer’s then? Using your very own words, that would be “stupid”.

Instead why would a preterist just not appeal to different lexical source that actually defines it as “about to be” in that context. In other words if the preterist is truly correct, that it can mean about to be in that context, surely there should be some lexical resource to support the preterist position, otherwise its just the preterist cherry picking.


Apparently, since you all require logical fallacies when using it.
1764015432959.jpeg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: claninja

claninja

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
620
118
43
the south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Ginomai is the verb that it is derived from. Fathers don't create children; they beget or rather start them with this verb. Genea implies the action is received; thus, it is something that starts or is starting. Verse 33 implies that the genea is the start of summer.

what is your source for the definition of genea ?
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
7,783
3,445
113
75
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
The following is my view. I used Chatgpt as a tool to articulate my thoughts more clearly. It's still my view, not Chatgpt's view.



The passage in Philippians 2:15 states:

That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.

At first glance, this might seem to be talking about a specific generation of people in the first century--perhaps referring to those living at the time of Paul. However, this verse raises important questions about the meaning of the word 'genea' (generation), which Paul uses to describe the world system of his day.

Let’s ask some questions to clarify what Paul means by 'genea' in Philippians 2:15:

1. Is Paul referring only to the people alive in his day?

While it’s true that Paul wrote this letter to a specific church in the first century, the way he uses the term crooked and perverse generation suggests he is describing the broader world system under the curse of sin and rebellion. This system is not limited to one particular group of people or one generation but is a description of the current age in which all believers live, across time.

2. Could this "generation" extend beyond the first century?

The language of Philippians 2:15---about being blameless and harmless, children of God without rebuke---is something that applies to Christians throughout the entire church age, not just in the first century. It makes more sense to view this generation as representing the fallen world in general, across all time, in which believers are called to shine as lights. If this is the case, then genea refers to an age, not just a specific group of people alive during a 40-year period.

3. Is there a broader biblical precedent for this use of genea?

Yes, in several other passages, genea is used to describe more than just a 40-year span. For example:

In Matthew 24:34, Jesus says, This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. While some interpret this narrowly, I argue that the generation refers to the present world system or age, not just the specific people alive in Jesus' time.

In Luke 16:8, Jesus refers to the generation of the children of this world, indicating that genea can describe an entire age or era of people in rebellion against God, not just a 40-year period.

Thus, when Paul speaks of a crooked and perverse generation in Philippians 2:15, it makes more sense to interpret genea as referring to the present age, the world system under the curse of sin and corruption. This fits with the broader biblical usage of genea to refer to an age, not just a narrow period of time.


Once we recognize that genea in Philippians 2:15 likely refers to an age---the entire world system under sin--it helps us understand the broader implications for other passages that use genea, such as Matthew 24:34 and 2 Peter 3:7.


Jesus says in Matthew 24:34, This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. As noted earlier, many Preterists interpret this as referring to the generation alive in 70 AD. But if genea is meant to refer to an age in Philippians 2:15, we can apply the same understanding here. Jesus may be speaking not just of the first-century generation, but of the present world system---an age characterized by sin, rebellion, and corruption---that must pass away before the new creation comes. This aligns perfectly with the language of 2 Peter 3:7, which speaks of the current heavens and earth passing away in judgment.


In 2 Peter 3:7, Peter writes that the present heavens and earth are reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. This passage is clearly speaking of the present age (the world system as it exists now) that will be destroyed in judgment. If we understand genea in Philippians 2:15 to refer to the present world system, then we can see the connection: both passages describe the end of the current world order, and both use similar language of passing away to describe the transition from the old age to the new age.


To sum up, Philippians 2:15 helps us understand that genea refers to more than just a specific, narrow time period---it refers to the present world system characterized by sin and rebellion. This broader use of genea makes sense in the context of Paul calling believers to shine as lights in a crooked and perverse generation, a description that clearly applies beyond the first century.

This understanding of genea as an age helps us interpret Matthew 24:34 and 2 Peter 3:7 in a consistent way. Both passages describe the passing away of the present age---the world system under sin---before the establishment of the new heavens and new earth. The generation in Matthew 24:34 is not just the people of Jesus' time, but the current age, which must pass away before the new creation can be realized.

Therefore, the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:34, which limits the generation to the first century, overlooks the broader, more consistent biblical use of genea to describe an age or epoch. By recognizing this, we can see that both Matthew 24:34 and 2 Peter 3:7 are speaking of the same event: the passing away of the current age and the beginning of the new creation. This challenges the Preterist view and opens the door to a more comprehensive eschatological understanding of the New Testament.
Of the commentaries in this list, the following subscribe to the meaning of "generation" in Matthew 24:34 as being those alive at that time:

Bengel, Calvin, GSB, Gill, MHCW, Poole, WES

They preceded Thayer's Lexicon. Thayer was echoing them, not vice versa.

They represent recognized commentators.

GSB is the Geneva Study Bible, MHCW is the Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, and WES is Wesley's notes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: claninja