Desertboot said
Jehovah’s Witnesses are currently redefining what ‘this generation’ is and this is changing the foundation of their beliefs around the timing of Armageddon.
Welcome Desertboot!
That sounds very interesting. Care to discuss further? What are they changing to and why are they changing?
I’m not offay with the specifics, but you may know that the foundation of their religion is based on the idea that Jesus took the throne in 1914 in heaven, and therefore, Armageddon will start whilst people who lived in 1914 are still alive. Given we’re now in 2022, they’ve had to adjust the ‘this generation’ teaching and they opened it to include even babies, even if you were in your mother’s stomach – more or less. Of course, we reach another snag so now they are calling it ‘overlapping’ generations. They do have some stuff on their website but I haven’t been able to go there just yet – my capacity has been limited for taking it in.
I do think their current underlying belief is that people living right now, will mostly see Armageddon.
I suspect that eventually there will come a timely revelation that will resolve the issue for them.
I’ve only had two real interactions over the years with practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses. Once, many years ago, a young lady who I was doing my best to spark asked me if I would sign a document testifying to her unwillingness to receive blood transfusions in case of an accident. I told her I couldn’t because if she was hurt I’d want the doctors to do everything they could to help her. I didn’t want to be responsible for her death even if that’s what she preferred. That bedewed any potential sparking of course.
Just a few years ago I happened to be managing a project involving several folks i didn’t know that well. Right before Christmas I sent out an email wishing everyone a happy holiday season. I received one reply berating me for assuming everyone celebrated Christmas. I was taken aback and wasn’t really sure how to respond. I number among my friends a Vietnamese atheist, a pious Hindu, Jews, Catholics, a Wiccan and a Christian minister so i was well aware that not everybody does it the same. But I had never encountered anyone who considered an innocuous holiday sentiment to be a personal insult. It was only later through a third party that I discovered this individual was a Jehovah’s Witness.
QUESTION: How long is one generation?
A generation as defined by the Bible is in Genesis 6:3 which is 120 years, which is verified by the children of Israel living in Egypt for 4 generations being 480 years. That is 430 years plus 40 years in the wilderness. The other 10 years are thereabouts.
Also it declares in the 10 commands of Exodus 20:5 that the punishment of God would last from the third to fourth generations, and the Roman empire lasted 480 years as it was falling by the third generation.
—————-
COMMENT: In Matthew 24:34 ”Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened”.
My own interpretation of that is that each and every person has our own “last days” and our own personal “Armageddon” and so the ends times happens to every person inside of our own lifespan – our own generation.
I’m with the jurist on this. The “these things” that will happen before the present generation passes away is not some vague and milquetoast, metaphorical personal Armageddon that each of us might experience for himself. It is a list of major astonishing events, and many of those events don’t seem to be realized in any personal come-to-Jesus moment each of us might have (some might be so taken, but not all).
It does seem to be a factor that when one wants to find failed prophesy then they will see what they want to see.
The old Greek of the NT is a primitive language which makes so that many passages can be interpreted in assorted ways.
A personal prophesy which applies to each individual is clearly aligning with the rest of the Gospel as a personal message and not as a group mentality where we all sink-or-swim on the same boat.
People search for an Armageddon on the other side of the planet instead of looking inside of their self – which is often how they misunderstand a lot of the other passages too.
when one wants to find failed prophesy then they will see what they want to see
And conversely, if one wants to save a prophecy, one often takes the words in completely unnatural senses, or just flat out ignores parts of the prophecy that don’t fit, to make it speak of something no one ever would have taken it to mean unless he were trying to prove that it was not a failed prophecy.
The old Greek of the NT is a primitive language which makes so that many passages can be interpreted in assorted ways
Rather than us speaking in general terms about how passages can be taken in multiple ways or debating whether Koine Greek is properly described as “primitive”, it might be useful for you to offer your reading of the passage, and show how each of the things Jesus predicts can be read as taking place in an interior personal Armageddon. So for example, when Jesus says–pointing to the buildings of the temple complex–all these shall be cast down, and goes on to describe the events and signs in answer to the disciple’s question, “Tell us, when will this be”, what is he talking about?
If the prophecy is so vague that it can be naturally read to say several radically different things, doesn’t that already militate against it as a prophecy? It seems to me a vague prophecy is no prophecy at all, with the result that the more one works to save a prophecy by saying that practically no one has been able to understand what it is really saying, the more one undermines the prophecy itself.
QUOTE = And conversely, if one wants to save a prophecy, …
REPLY = In my case it is not to save the prophesy but just to interpret the given passage correctly, because the understood interpretation is not fulfilled then that is a BIG sign that the accepted interpretation is not accurate.
—-
QUOTE = … it might be useful for you to offer your reading of the passage …
REPLY = In the text of Matthew 24:3 the Disciples ask three question:
Tell us:
1) when shall these things be?
2) and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
3) and of the end of the world? KJV.
While the given answer to each of the three are not so well defined or separated.
—-
QUOTE = … doesn’t that already militate against it as a prophecy?
REPLY = Yes it does. People interpret it wrong based on the demand of fulfilling a grandiose prophesy instead of evaluating the words more realistically.
It is a rather absurd idea that Jesus was purposely giving a prophesy that only applied 2000 years into the future. As such the message is that every person has our own last days and our own end times has more substance and more credibility. Plus it can be applied both ways as like a two-edged-sword so it can apply to the entire world and apply to each personal individual.
The one and only answer to the end times given in that text is this:
24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
That one (1) verse applies to the entire world at the end time – as answers to the third question.
—-
That is how I understand this.
the understood interpretation is not fulfilled then that is a BIG sign that the accepted interpretation is not accurate
What? Why? Are you assuming that the prophecy will be fulfilled? That seems unwarranted.
the given answer to each of the three are not so well defined or separated
Right. It seems that for Mathew the three things are expected to occur the same time.
But going back to my question; it seems that you want to take these as three chronologically unrelated events. So then, what parts of the discourse–on your reading–answer each of the three questions? You can’t just say, “your reading is wrong” and refuse to offer your own reading on the grounds that the passage is confusing and vague. If you want to say mine is wrong, you need to be able, at least, to suggest, if tentatively, one that isn’t wrong.
It is a rather absurd idea that Jesus was purposely giving a prophesy that only applied 2000 years into the future. Maybe Jesus/Matthew was confused and thought the world really would end in a matter of years?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth–so correct me if I’m wrong–but it seems to me that your point of departure for interpreting this is that Matthew accurately records what the historical Jesus said, and the historical Jesus really could predict the future, therefore any interpretation of this passage that would make it a failed prophecy is ipso facto a misunderstanding of what Matthew’s Jesus was really saying.
The problem of course is stated succinctly in Deuteronomy 18:22 –
If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.
If you’re clever enough you can reinterpret Mark 9:1. You can even make the chapter divisions look like it is a reference to the subsequent Transfiguration rather than the conclusion of the preceding sermon. But the truly problematic passage is Matthew 10:23-
When they persecute you in this town, flee to the next, for truly I tell you, you will not have finished going through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 10:23 ” … you will not have finished going through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” is not a good translation. The correct translation is “… you will not have finished the towns of Israel until the son of man comes”.
ie, its not that the son of man will be returning so soon that there wont be time to go through all the towns, its that the “completion” of the towns wont be possible until the son of man returns.
For Mark 9:1 the context is provided by what precedes it, Mark 8:35 “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.”
ie those who wont taste death are those who save their life though they lose it because of the gospel.
Matthew 24:34 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”
This will be the case not because these things will happen so soon, but because this generations is a “wicked and adulterous generation”
ie heaven and earth will pass away but not before the times of tribulations. This generation being wicked must pass through these tribulations before they can enter the kingdom.
All these ideas are matched in John 5:24 “whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.”
The believers in christ avoid judgement and tribulation and pass from death into life.
Like I posted earlier, there’s more than one way to apologize for that failed prophesy. Christians are good at coming up with explanations for it. They’ve had nearly 2,000 years of practice.
At the time the gospels were written, most Christians expected an imminent return, andnthe gospel writers surely shared that expectation. Look to Paul’s genuine writings in that regard. And that is likely why John 21 was tacked on to John in the early second century. According to it, Jesus had never promised a return within the lifetime of anyone from his generation. People had misunderstood what he had said. But in truth, it simply had become clear by then that the expectations didn’t mesh with reality.
brenmcg you’ll have to take it up with the editorial board of the New Revised Standard Version whose translation I used. I did go over to BibleGateway to compare versions of Matthew 10:23 and the only translator that approximates your wording is the John Nelson Darby translation, completed (sorry, bad pun) in 1867 and revised in 1884. Here is the entry over at the Bible Hub concordance-
τελέσητε (telesēte) — 2 Occurrences
Matthew 10:23 V-ASA-2P
GRK: οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις
NAS: I say to you, you will not finish [going through] the cities
KJV: not have gone over the cities
INT: no not will you have completed the cities
Galatians 5:16 V-ASA-2P
GRK: οὐ μὴ τελέσητε
NAS: by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire
KJV: not fulfil the lust
INT: no not should you fulfill
@Chess Jurist “At the time the gospels were written, most Christians expected an imminent return, andnthe gospel writers surely shared that expectation. Look to Paul’s genuine writings in that regard.”
If they’re writing at the same time as Pau you might expect them to share that expectation. But if theyre writing in the 80s-90s you’d expect them to edit out false predictions.
The language used is all deliberately ambiguous and paradoxical. “those who lose their life will save it”. “this generation will pass away … heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away.” What does “pass away” mean in that context? Its the tribulation of the end-times and this generation (wicked and sinful) will have to go through it.
@Stephen
The NAS translation “[going through]” is in brackets for a reason. Its an interpretation and not in the original greek.
“Finish”/”complete”/”perfect” is what the word means. “I have not come to abolish but to fulfill” uses the same word. “finish/complete/perfect” the prophecies of the law&prophets.
But the important point is that the correct translation is “…until the son of man comes” not “… before the son of man comes”
ie the meaning is not the the son of man will come so soon you wont have time to finish the cities. Its that the completion of the cities wont be possible until the son of man comes.
Its the same word as Matthew’s “this generation wont pass away until these things have taken place”. He’s not trying to describe something happening really soon.
@Robert
If they’re writing in 85 or 95 they’re writing 15 to 25 years after the temple’s destruction. So whatever confidence that might have given them that the prophecy was coming through should have been lost by stage. Any ordinary reading of “generation” would also mean it would have passed by then. So there should be some expectation of them removing these false prophecies.
“Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.”
yeah you’re right – I misremembered. Should have looked it up!
“Matthew complements and expands this traditional view of the Jewish mission (Go nowhere among the gentiles/nations [ἐθνῶν], and enter no town of the Samaritans …)”
Matthew is just expanding on his own notion that the kingdom was offered first to the jews and only upon their rejection was it offered to the gentiles. “On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.”
This is backed up by Matthew’s parable of the wedding banquet “The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.”
The completion of the cities of Israel can’t be done until the son of man returns.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)