At All Costs: How Dispensationalists Confuse
"This Generation":
The dispensationalist interpretation of "this generation"
in Matthew 24:34 (by Dan Delagrave).
Nothing Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, or Tim LaHaye
have ever written has come true. Despite this fact,
many continue to cling to what these men teach,
and AT ALL SILLY COSTS! After all, once original
audience relevance is disregarded, it's anything goes!
The failure of so many Dispensational predictions in recent
times has had a negative and positive effect. On one hand,
some have lost their pep for Scripture in general because
their hopes were dashed and their pride was humiliated.
In particular, some have abandoned the study of eschatology
altogether, choosing instead to adopt such falsely humble
mottos as "it's not important", "let's just preach the
gospel", "we'll know when we get there". Thus, the
"de-eshatologization of religion". These people usually
view those who are "into prophecy" as divisive and
wrong spirited. Sad. (:
On the other hand, the fact that so many sensational
futuristic predictions of recent times have never
materialized as predicted has caused many sincere students
of Bible prophecy to go back to the Bible for another look.
This group of believers have come to see that, as with all
false teaching, the problem all along has been the taking
of Scripture out of context <which Futurism /
Dispensationalism is famous for!>.
Folks, it's time to go back to basics! What we need
today more than anything is accurate exegesis.
Scripture interprets scripture, if we let it.
The grammatical-historical hermeneutic will keep us in
the ballpark. Careful attention must be paid to what
Scripture meant to the original audience, and also to
the historical context in which it was made. These two
rules of interpretation, if heeded, will eliminate the kind
of wild-eyed speculation we see today.
The historical context for the fulfillment of Bible prophecy
is given in the time-frame indicator "this generation".
Jesus said:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled."
Jesus was obviously referring to the contemporary generation
of that day. I.e., the lifetime of the disciples. This is
consistent with numerous other Gospel references.
For instance:
Jesus said he would be "rejected of this generation"
(Lk.17:25). The generation that rejected Jesus was
that first century generation.
He said, "This is an evil generation: they seek a sign;
and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of
Jonas the prophet." (Lk.11:29). The sign of Jonas
was given to that same generation when Jesus rose
from the dead.
In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounced seven woes upon the
Pharisees and scribes of his day, calling them the "children
of them which killed the prophets", and saying to them,
"Verily I say unto you; All these things shall come upon
this generation.". In Luke 11:50-51, he said to the
Pharisees, "The blood of all the prophets...shall be
required of this generation.". Less than forty years later,
God avenged the blood of His Son, and all the prophets,
in the destruction of Jerusalem.
"All these things" included three major things:
1) The destruction of the Temple, which was the centerpiece
of the Olivet Discourse.
2) The coming of the Lord.
3) The end of the age.
In other words, all three elements of the disciples'
questioning would be fulfilled in a single time period -
"this generation". This, in turn, means that we cannot
separate the Lord's return from the desolation of Jerusalem,
which happened in 70 A.D. The two events went hand-in-hand.
REDEFINING "THIS GENERATION"
Dispensational theologians have necessarily had to change
the meaning of "this generation" to accommodate their
preconceived expectations of Jesus one day sitting on
a big chair in Jerusalem. In general, they define
"this generation" as "the generation that sees all the
signs", which they presuppose to be the present generation,
or some future one. The problem with their definition is
that the chief sign was "Jerusalem compassed with armies"
(Lk.21:20), which occurred in 70 A.D. In fact, the very
centerpiece of the Lord's Olivet sermon was the destruction
of the then-present Temple. It would be SILLY to think that
Jesus was speaking of a yet future destruction of Jerusalem
and the Temple, since that would have misled the very ones
he was speaking to; the disciples.
But what about the various "birth pangs" Jesus mentioned,
such as false teachers, wars and rumors of wars,
earthquakes, famines, and pestilences?? Aren't we seeing
these things today? CONTEXTUALLY, these were things
that led up to the compassing of Jerusalem with armies,
the chief "sign" (v.3), and did indeed characterize that
first century period. Josephus, the Book of Acts, and
the New Testament epistles document the proliference
of these activities in the first century. Unfortunately,
Dispensationalists have panned the birth pangs out
over nearly two millennia!
TWO TRIBULATIONS???
Stranger still, Dispensationalists claim that Luke's mention
of "Jerusalem compassed with armies" is not referring to
what Matthew and Mark called "the abomination of desolation"
and ensuing "tribulation of those days", despite the
admonition to "flee to the mountains" in all three synoptic
accounts. In other words, according to their theory,
Luke only wrote about the tribulation coming in 70 A.D.,
while Matthew and Mark only wrote of a worldwide tribulation
that has still yet to arrive nearly 2000 years later. The
reason for this inconsistency is obvious - Jesus said he
would return "immediately after the tribulation of those
days". Therefore, in order to deny a past-fulfillment of
the Lord's coming, Dispensationalists have to teach two
different tribulations, one in 70 A.D., and one yet to come.
THE 1948 GENERATION???
"The 1948 generation" is a mainstay of Dispensational
teaching. It has been proven wrong by time itself, not
to mention a consistent exegesis. The proof text they
use is the parable of the fig tree; Luke's version reads:
"Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot
forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is
now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things
come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh
at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Lk.21:29-31)
The "fig tree" is a symbol for Israel in Scripture.
According to the theory, the fig tree parable is foretelling
of Israel "shooting forth it's leaves" by becoming a nation
again in 1948 after being dispersed for 1900 years. Since
the pronouncement by Jesus concerning "this generation"
textually follows the fig tree parable, Dispensationalists
conclude that the generation that saw Israel become a
nation again in 1948 is the generation that will see the
Second Coming of Christ.
Books were written purporting that 1988 would be the year
Christ returned, based on a Biblical generation being forty
years. But when 1988 came and went without so much
as a 7-yr. peace treaty, it was back to the drawing board.
Amazingly, many today still teach the 1948 generation,
despite being 56 years removed from 1948. Needless
to say, they have had to revise the length of a generation
several times in order to keep this interpretation alive!
What about the fig tree parable? Notice the words
"and all the trees" (Lk.21:29). If "shooting forth"
means for a people to become a nation at a particular
point in time, then did all the nations shoot forth in
1948?? Jesus told his disciples to behold the fig tree
"and ALL the trees"! Not surprisingly, Dispensationalists
prefer to quote Matthew's version of the fig tree parable
because Matthew's version doesn't say "and all the trees"!
The truth is, Jesus was simply recapitulating in a parable
what he had just told the disciples concerning various
things leading up to his return. Yes, these things
concerned Israel, the "fig tree", and all the trees,
or "nations" (Matt.24:7). But they would all fall within
the scope of the disciples own lifetime, or "generation"
and the distinct, first century language bears this out
("holy place", "Judaea", "on the housetop", "sabbath").
THE 1967 GENERATION???
The latest invention is "the 1967 generation". I guess
this one gives them a few more years to salvage their
credibility. According to the theory, the "times of the
Gentiles" (Lk.21:24) began with the Babylonian captivity
in 586 B.C. and ended in 1967 when the Jews recaptured
East Jerusalem from the Arabs. Thus, it is taught that
the generation that saw East Jerusalem taken by the Jews
in 1967 is the one that will see the return of Christ.
<Of course, now it is 2007 AD and they will once again
have to stretch the time frame for "a generation"!>
In a past article, I showed by comparing Lk.21:24 with
Revelation 11:2 that "the times of the Gentiles", contrary
to popular teaching, ended in 70 A.D., as it referred to
that "forty-two month" Roman War on Jerusalem from
66-70 A.D.
"And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be
led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will
be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles
are fulfilled." - Luke 21:24
"But leave out the court which is outside the temple,
and do not measure it, for it has been given to the
Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot
for forty-two months." - Revelation 11:2
<The Roman War/Jewish War on Jerusalem lasted
42 months.>
So, "the 1967 generation" will come a go without a blink
too. Then what?? Maybe "the Gulf War generation"???
A RACE OF PEOPLE???
Some Futurists interpret the expression "this generation"
as "the race of sinful humanity". No dates to get anyone
in trouble, just "the race of sinful humanity". Some even
define "this generation" as "the JEWISH race". But is that
saying that the Jewish race "passes away" at the Second
Coming?? Surely not. The bottom line is, the race
definition just doesn't fit the flow! The disciples wanted
to know "when" the Temple would be destroyed, and
what the sign of the Lord's return and the end of the age
would be. They no doubt knew from their Jewish history
that the Temple's destruction was directly equated with
"the day of the Lord's wrath" and an end of an age.
That's why Jesus answered all three facets of their
questioning by saying that "ALL" those things would
be fulfilled in a single time period, or "generation".
The words "this generation" implied that there were
OTHER generations, and also that Jesus was speaking
of a PARTICULAR generation. How does that harmonize
with "the race of sinful humanity"?
AT HAND
The "at handedness", or nearness of the kingdom in the
first century cannot be denied. John the Baptist warned
the people of his day to "repent, for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand" (Matt.3:2). Jesus said to the multitudes,
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand."
(Mk.1:15). "At hand" is the ultimate immanency statement!
How do Dispensationalists handle the dilemma of imminence??
Dr. Thomas "Pre-Trib Research Center" Ice says that
"at hand" is similar to the Super Bowl being at hand to
the Buffalo Bills for a number of years but not yet being
attained.
What kind of scholarship is that?? Ice's Buffalo Bills
analogy concerning the immanency statement "at hand"
is inconsistent with several other New Testament references
which demonstrate the meaning to be NEAR fulfillment,
not delay. Critics of Christianity have zeroed in on just
such inconsistencies!
I once pointed out to Dr. Ice that his futuristic
interpretation of "this generation" stands alone from
all other Gospel references.
His solution?? He said, "Sometimes it's warranted".
In other words, whenever one needs to justify isolating
a word from all other references in order to defend a
preconceived position just say "sometimes it's warranted".
Again, what kind of scholarship is that??
When pressed on this, Dr. Ice appealed to his "prophetic
text versus historical text" theory. This theory says that
words and phrases contained in "prophetic texts" have
different meanings than the same words have when used
in "historical texts". However, Dr. Ice overlooks the fact
that nearly all of the texts containing "this generation"
and "at hand" were prophetic at the time they were spoken.
Thus, his "prophetic text versus historical text" theory is
nothing more than fancy dancing, and gives the critics
all the more to hoot about.
Why all the confusion??? At the core is a wrong
understanding of the nature of the kingdom. In order
to keep alive the idea that Jesus will one day sit on a big
chair in Jerusalem, Dispensationalists have to necessarily
change the meaning of "this generation" to something
other than what it meant to the disciples. This despite
the fact that Jesus never once said he would return to
sit on a big chair in Jerusalem! Rather, he said that
when he returned he would "sit on the throne of his glory"
(Matt.19:28; 25:31). 1 Timothy 3:16 says that Jesus was
"received up into glory".
Folks, ever-changing Dispensational theories about the term
"this generation" have been embraced for too long and
AT ALL SILLY COSTS! It's time to get this turned around!
<Let's fight for truth at all costs, not doctrine at all
silly costs! Amen!>
http://newjerusalemcommunity.net/
--
It's hard to stumble when you're down on your knees.
.
|
