The Last Generation IS the Generation of the Parable of A Fig Tree

[Davy]

That's because most of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem fell. Ever notice in Revelation all the "half week" language in it -- as in the last half of Daniel's 70th week, e.g. 1,260 days (11:3; 12:6), 42 months (11:2), 3-1/2 days (11:9) ?

No it was not. You are pushing men's false doctrine called Preterism.

I was raised in a Preterist Church system. That's the idea they thought about the Book of Revelation, which was their illiterate excuse for not teaching it (as if they could even be able to, which they are not). Blind leaders of the blind.

 

[amigo de christo]

No it was not. You are pushing men's false doctrine called Preterism.

I was raised in a Preterist Church system. That's the idea they thought about the Book of Revelation, which was their illiterate excuse for not teaching it (as if they could even be able to, which they are not). Blind leaders of the blind.

Never follow preterism . but never follow the abraham accords either .

 

[rwb]

The Lord's generation were his contemporaries. What generation do you think Jesus had in mind in these passages: Mat 11:16; Mat 12:41-32, 45; 17:17; Mk 8:12;, 38; 9:19; Lk 7:31; 11:29-30, etc? Which Jewish generation was adulterous and sinful (Mk 8:38) and unbelieving (Mk 9:19 and wicked (Lk 11:29)? Which generation crucified the Lord of Glory (Lk 11:50)? So then, how can "this generation" in Mat 24 not be Jesus' contemporaries

More than the Lord's contemporaries, they were the chosen generation that shall not pass until all things are fulfilled.

1 Peter 2:9-10 (KJV) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

 

[Davy]

Never follow preterism . but never follow the abraham accords either .

That's right. Men's doctrines of Preterism are designed to deceive brethren about the SIGNS Jesus gave for the end leading up to His return, which He 'commanded' us to be 'watching'. Same problem with those on man's false pre-trib rapture theory too, it is designed to keep the deceived away from knowing what to be 'watching' for the end also. Preterism, Historicism, Futurism, are all designed to deceive brethren about the end, and thus not prepare Christ's servants to make a 'stand' against the beast along with God's "two witnesses".

 

[doran]

That of course is false.

Didn't you read the Matthew 24:29-31 verses that describe Christ's FUTURE return AFTER the future "great tribulation"?

The SIGN Jesus gave that kicks off the "great tribulation" at the very end of this present world is the false one that's coming placing the "abomination of desolation" IDOL in the Jew's temple in Jerusalem. That means a STANDING JEWISH TEMPLE in today's Jerusalem, which so far, the orthodox Jews in today's Jerusalem already have the materials ready to build their 3rd temple, but not the authority yet to do so.

The ONLY SIGN in Jesus' Olivet discourse that links to past the 70 A.D. history is the SIGN He gave regarding the structures of the Temple Mount, not one stone atop another. FYI, today, there are STILL huge stones upon today's Temple Mount in Jerusalem!

THEREFORE, that SIGN about not one stone atop another is just a 'blueprint' for the 70 A.D. destruction by the Romans. The ACTUAL fulfillment of that SIGN Jesus gave will be on the day of His future return on the "day of the Lord", the last day of this present world. ALL... stones atop another will be destroyed in that area on the day of Christ's future return. The Mount of Olives will be split in two, cleave toward the east and toward the west, and half the mount will remove to the north, and half the mount remove to the south, per Zechariah 14 when Christ's feet touch down upon the Mount of Olives.

And didn't you read Mat 24:34? Every single thing he spoke up to that point pertained strictly to Jesus' generation -- ...until ALL these things have happened." Doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

[Davy]

And didn't you read Mat 24:34? Every single thing he spoke up to that point pertained strictly to Jesus' generation -- ...until ALL these things have happened." Doesn't get any clearer than that.

Well, there you go pushing another false doctrine...

In Matthew 24, Jesus was speaking to His disciples upon the Mount of Olives, as they then represented, and still do, the 'foundation' of His Church. Thus Jesus WAS... speaking to His Church then, and that in itself is a SIGN to whom He was giving His Olivet discourse SIGNS of the end to. It's for His Church from that day of His Apostles all the way... to the end of this world when the last SIGN He gave about His coming is fulfilled.

What was the last SIGN Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse? The SIGN of His coming in the clouds to gather His Church.

So anyone trying... to base the fulfillment of those SIGNS in Matthew 24 just on the little destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. only shows their Biblical illiteracy and willful ignorance.

Furthermore... Jesus said the 'generation' He was pointing to would not pass until ALL THOSE SIGNS are fulfilled. And also the generation will literally 'see' ALL those things, i.e., all those SIGNS of the end. That means the FINAL GENERATION OF HIS FUTURE RETURN.

 

[Jay Ross]

We have a problem with our understanding of the Biblical translations because the translations have been structured around our interpretation and understanding of the translations and not around the embedded context contained in the original language's contextual text.

The meaning of the word translated as "generation" in Matthew 24:34 is "an age" which is made up of a season and a little while. We know from that the length of the season in the seventh age is 1,000 years and the little while period that is to follow the season is around 20-30 years in duration.

Now the probability is that there will be around 40 or so descendant generation born during the seventh age. Now if the descendant generation that exists during the little while period is the descendant generation that see all the signs and wonders spoken of during the Mt Olivet discourse, then they all will have had to have been played out during the little while period, however, the actual span of the end time prophecies spans more than just one age.

Rather than trying to solve all of the mysteries embedded in God's prophetic words, we will be better off if we primarily focus just on our relationship with God and complying with the boundary conditions that define that relationship.

Christ told us the primary step is to "believe in Him whom He has sent" and that this foundational truth will come down out of heaven in our near future to form the largest mountain/religion in all of the earth.

Shalom

 

[doran]

Well, there you go pushing another false doctrine...

In Matthew 24, Jesus was speaking to His disciples upon the Mount of Olives, as they then represented, and still do, the 'foundation' of His Church. Thus Jesus WAS... speaking to His Church then, and that in itself is a SIGN to whom He was giving His Olivet discourse SIGNS of the end to. It's for His Church from that day of His Apostles all the way... to the end of this world when the last SIGN He gave about His coming is fulfilled.

What was the last SIGN Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse? The SIGN of His coming in the clouds to gather His Church.

So anyone trying... to base the fulfillment of those SIGNS in Matthew 24 just on the little destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. only shows their Biblical illiteracy and willful ignorance.

Furthermore... Jesus said the 'generation' He was pointing to would not pass until ALL THOSE SIGNS are fulfilled. And also the generation will literally 'see' ALL those things, i.e., all those SIGNS of the end. That means the FINAL GENERATION OF HIS FUTURE RETURN.

So, in your world, "this generation" really means "that generation"? Nice bit of mental gymnastics. Does that mean, then, that every time when Jesus spoke of "this generation" he really meant "that generation" also?

You're really full of yourself, aren't you when you accuse anyone of "biblical illiteracy" and "willful ignorance"? Besides, "the little destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd temple" was a much bigger deal than you can imagine. For starters, it brought and end to the Jewish Age, a/k/a the Mosaic Law Covenant -- and end which was inaugurated at the Cross (Mat 27:51). It also brought an end to Old Covenant Judaism, as that was ordained under the Old Covenant by God. Judaism is a dead religion! (70 A.D. was what the writer of Hebrews was referring to in Heb 8:13) No temple meant that God finally divorced Israel (Jer 3:8) when his Shikinah Glory initially departed from the temple and the Land and Holy City (Mat 27:51). God abandoned Israel as a nation. In addition, there's no Levitical Priesthood -- again a priesthood that was also decreed under the Mosaic Covenant. And no priesthood meant no sacrifices or offerings were possible, which were also decreed under the Law of Moses. And without the shedding of blood, there is no remissin of sins, is there? And all this disaster to Israel actually became a blessing to Christ's Church because because now his Church would acquire its own identity apart from the Jews and their Judasim. In short, 70 A.D. was the final nail in the coffin of the Mosaic Law Covenant. And this had to be since Christ warned his disciples often that it's impossible to pour new wine (New Covenant administration) into old wineskins (Old Covenant administration). And the reason it was impossile is because the New Covenant is totally UNLIKE the Old in numerous ways (Jer 31:32). The two covenants are actually antithetical to each other!

It's obvious to me that you've been duped into taking all the apocalypic phrases in Mat 24:1-35 literally instead of taking your cue from the OT prophets how they couched judgment prhases into spectacular apocalyptic language often with large doses of hyperbole to boot. For examplew, the "sign of the Son of Man" is not the same as visibly seeing the Son of Man. The "sign" was Jesus invisibly coming in judgment of Israel for committing their greatest sin ever -- their rejection of him as their Messiah.

Also, for your info, a careful exegesis of the two major sections of the Discourse (vv.1-35) with v.36ff would reveal at least 13 contrasting differences between those two large sets of passages. After all, Jesus did answer a two-part question put to him by his disciples in v.3. Verse 4 thru 35 answers the WHEN, and and v. 36ff. answsers the WHAT of the sign of Jesus' coming and of the end of the age.

 

[Davy]

So, in your world, "this generation" really means "that generation"? Nice bit of mental gymnastics. Does that mean, then, that every time when Jesus spoke of "this generation" he really meant "that generation" also?

Your double-speak ain't going to get-er-done. Why don't you try and actually read... the Scriptures instead trying to push your ignorance around them?

Matt 24:33-35
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.

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
KJV

What Jesus said above is easy to understand.

What were "these things" He was talking about? EASY! The SIGNS of the end He gave while upon the Mount of Olives with His disciples.

What is the last SIGN of the end He gave there? EASY! The SIGN of His future coming and gathering of His saints!

That means ALL... of those SIGNS He gave in that Chapter, i.e., "these things", will be SEEN BY THAT GENERATION!

And what's that LAST SIGN again that He gave? The day of His future coming! That ain't happened yet today, in case you've yet to notice; it is still for some time in our near future.

This means then... the generation He was pointing to is the LAST GENERATION on earth that will literally SEE His future return. That generation will SEE "all these things", i.e., SIGNS.

This is SO... EASY!

 

[doran]

Your double-speak ain't going to get-er-done. Why don't you try and actually read... the Scriptures instead trying to push your ignorance around them?

Matt 24:33-35
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.

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
KJV

What Jesus said above is easy to understand.

What were "these things" He was talking about? EASY! The SIGNS of the end He gave while upon the Mount of Olives with His disciples.

What is the last SIGN of the end He gave there? EASY! The SIGN of His future coming and gathering of His saints!

That means ALL... of those SIGNS He gave in that Chapter, i.e., "these things", will be SEEN BY THAT GENERATION!

And what's that LAST SIGN again that He gave? The day of His future coming! That ain't happened yet today, in case you've yet to notice; it is still for some time in our near future.

This means then... the generation He was pointing to is the LAST GENERATION on earth that will literally SEE His future return. That generation will SEE "all these things", i.e., SIGNS.

This is SO... EASY!

Oh, so that is why Jesus used second person personal pronouns at least 13 times in that passage? Maybe he didn't know third personal pronouns existed? Or he really meant to say "they" -- i.e. the generation that would be the "last", but he became confused, did he? Or as you have done, you make "this" generation conveniently be "that" generation because it better suits your theological agenda? But I should learn to read the text? Just for your info, the phrase "that generation" is only found in the NT once -- but never in any of the Gospels.

As you yourself, have said, "This is SO EASY" -- but only if you learn to exegete passages instead of using the eisegetical method.

And what do you do with v.15 -- Daniel's "abomination that causes desolation" phrase? This is stuck right in the middle of Jesus' prophecy. So, which generation witnessed that: "this", "that", or "all generations in between"?

 

[Davy]

Oh, so that is why Jesus used second person personal pronouns at least 13 times in that passage?

That is one silly, ignorant argument. Did you dig out your Harbrace manual for that? Your understanding of the matter appears like you read it out of a Harbrace instead the direct Word of God.

I prefer to stick to The Word of God on the matter, and only use the Harbrace guide for writing when I need it. And in this case of Christ's Olivet discourse of Matthew 24, the Harbrace certainly is NOT needed.

 

[doran]

That is one silly, ignorant argument. Did you dig out your Harbrace manual for that? Your understanding of the matter appears like you read it out of a Harbrace instead the direct Word of God.

I prefer to stick to The Word of God on the matter, and only use the Harbrace guide for writing when I need it. And in this case of Christ's Olivet discourse of Matthew 24, the Harbrace certainly is NOT needed.

In other words, personal pronouns make for nice stocking stuffers, perhaps, but they mean nothing in the Word of God? Your version of the Word of God uses different pronouns, does it?

If I recall correctly, you attempted to justify, either last week or the week prior, Jesus' choice of second person pronouns by claiming that the disciples were representatives of Christ's church. Do you even know what the word "apostle" means? Apparently not; for you got it totally backwards! It means "sent one", "a messenger", a delegate or ambassador of the one sending. An apostle represented Christ, not the Church! Christ did the sending, not the Church! The Church did not choose the disciples, or appoint any to the apostolic office, or send any messengers to Christ. Talk about grasping at straws!

 

[Davy]

In other words, personal pronouns make for nice stocking stuffers, perhaps, but they mean nothing in the Word of God? Your version of the Word of God uses different pronouns, does it?

If I recall correctly, you attempted to justify, either last week or the week prior, Jesus' choice of second person pronouns by claiming that the disciples were representatives of Christ's church. Do you even know what the word "apostle" means? Apparently not; for you got it totally backwards! It means "sent one", "a messenger", a delegate or ambassador of the one sending. An apostle represented Christ, not the Church! Christ did the sending, not the Church! The Church did not choose the disciples, or appoint any to the apostolic office, or send any messengers to Christ. Talk about grasping at straws!

All that is like an unbelieving Greek philosopher trying to explain God's creation, just going around in circles.

But what Jesus said about the 'generation' He was pointing to that would SEE ALL THESE THINGS, meaning ALL the SIGNS that He gave in His Olivet discourse, and with the last SIGN being that of His future return, He thus made it EASY TO KNOW HE WAS POINTING TO THE GENERATION ON EARTH THAT WILL LITERALLY 'SEE' HIS FUTURE RETURN.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

It's that line Jesus said that if we don't 'watch', then His coming will be unto us 'as a thief'. His coming is not supposed be to us "as a thief".

Study the Book of Isaiah, because that is one of the Books of the prophets that Lord Jesus was pulling from about that "as a thief" idea. His coming is supposed to be a surprise upon the wicked and deceived who don't know to 'watch', nor what to be watching. It's not supposed to catch us, His Church, by surprise, even though we still cannot know the day of His coming.

Coming as “a thief”. His coming is not supposed to be to us “as a thief”

Have you ever considered it’s a matter of perspective? 1 Peter 4:12-14 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: [13] But rejoice, inasmuch as you are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, you may be glad also with exceeding joy. [14] If you be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you; for the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

As a thief …whether we consider it thievery. What one man calls as a thief, another man may call it as having been given a better hope.

 

[doran]

All that is like an unbelieving Greek philosopher trying to explain God's creation, just going around in circles.

But what Jesus said about the 'generation' He was pointing to that would SEE ALL THESE THINGS, meaning ALL the SIGNS that He gave in His Olivet discourse, and with the last SIGN being that of His future return, He thus made it EASY TO KNOW HE WAS POINTING TO THE GENERATION ON EARTH THAT WILL LITERALLY 'SEE' HIS FUTURE RETURN.

The only thing Jesus' generation (i.e. "this generation") "saw" (vv.4-35) was his [invisible] coming in judgment against Israel in 70 A.D. for committing the greatest sin ever -- the rejection of Him as their Messiah. Jesus' invisible coming in judgment against Israel is analogous to God's coming in judgment against Egypt (Isa 19:1), which he did when he brought the Assyrian army down on the Egyptians (v.4).

 

[Davy]

The only thing Jesus' generation (i.e. "this generation") "saw" (vv.4-35) was his [invisible] coming in judgment against Israel in 70 A.D. for committing the greatest sin ever -- the rejection of Him as their Messiah. Jesus' invisible coming in judgment against Israel is analogous to God's coming in judgment against Egypt (Isa 19:1), which he did when he brought the Assyrian army down on the Egyptians (v.4).

You well know what Jesus said with pointing to the 'specific' generation that will literally SEE His FUTURE RETURN. Your attempt to confuse that simple Truth reveals you are on a different agenda OUTSIDE of God's written Word.

 

[doran]

You well know what Jesus said with pointing to the 'specific' generation that will literally SEE His FUTURE RETURN. Your attempt to confuse that simple Truth reveals you are on a different agenda OUTSIDE of God's written Word.

The Egyptians didn't see YHWH when he rode on a swift cloud and CAME in judgement upon them, did they (Isa 19:1)?

 

[Davy]

The Egyptians didn't see YHWH when he rode on a swift cloud and CAME in judgement upon them, did they (Isa 19:1)?

Totally irrelevant, which shows you have no valid response to what I showed about the final generation Jesus was pointing to.

So why... are you against... that generation being about the final one that will literally 'see' Christ's future return? Why are you so vehemently against that?

 

[doran]

Totally irrelevant, which shows you have no valid response to what I showed about the final generation Jesus was pointing to.

So why... are you against... that generation being about the final one that will literally 'see' Christ's future return? Why are you so vehemently against that?

It's not irrelevant since it set a precedent. In both cases, judgment was in view.

I'm against "this generation" being "that generation" because words have meaning. The phrase "this generation" is used often in the Gospels and in all other instances it literally means the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. There is no compelling reason whatsoever to believe that "this" now suddenly means "that".

Moreover, the destruction of the temple took place in 70 A.D. and was limited strictly to Israel. The Gentiles are not in view to experience this "great tribulation", for example, in Lk 21:12 since Jesus tells his apostles that believing Jews would be delivered over to synagogues. Or again, "when YOU see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies (Lk 21:20). Or again when Jesus warned those in Judea to flee to the mountains. After all, this prophecy is about the last half of Daniel's 70th Week, which has to do strictly with the Jews and Jerusalem (Dan 9:24); for Daniel was told by the angel "Seventy sevens are decreed for YOUR people and YOUR holy city."

Jesus isn't talking to the wind. He's talking to flesh and blood human beings who asked him real questions. And he gave THEM real answers -- answers that clearly teach that the destruction of Jerusalem and temple would be relevant to THEM personally - and not to some remote generation very far removed from them.

 

[Davy]

It's not irrelevant since it set a precedent. In both cases, judgment was in view.

This isn't a court room, no lawyers here setting precedents, so your Egyptian story doesn't work, and is irrelevant to the topic about the final generation which Jesus pointed to in His Olive discourse.

I'm against "this generation" being "that generation" because words have meaning. The phrase "this generation" is used often in the Gospels and in all other instances it literally means the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. There is no compelling reason whatsoever to believe that "this" now suddenly means "that".

Moreover, the destruction of the temple took place in 70 A.D. and was limited strictly to Israel. The Gentiles are not in view to experience this "great tribulation", for example, in Lk 21:12 since Jesus tells his apostles that believing Jews would be delivered over to synagogues. Or again, "when YOU see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies (Lk 21:20). Or again when Jesus warned those in Judea to flee to the mountains. After all, this prophecy is about the last half of Daniel's 70th Week, which has to do strictly with the Jews and Jerusalem (Dan 9:24); for Daniel was told by the angel "Seventy sevens are decreed for YOUR people and YOUR holy city."

Jesus isn't talking to the wind. He's talking to flesh and blood human beings who asked him real questions. And he gave THEM real answers -- answers that clearly teach that the destruction of Jerusalem and temple would be relevant to THEM personally - and not to some remote generation very far removed from them.

That above is even more IRRELEVANT regarding the generation of the parable of a fig tree.

Knowing which generation He was pointing to is easy, because He declared the generation in question would literally SEE ALL THESE THINGS, which means the SIGNS of the end that He was giving upon the Mount of Olives. It's the FINAL generation that will SEE all those SIGNS, because those are about the end of this world leading up to His future return.

So theories about 70 A.D. have absolutely NOTHING to do with that final generation He was pointing to. And the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and the temple only served as a 'type' for the future FINAL destruction upon the temple mount on the day of His future return.