“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

– Matthew 24:34

Preterism teaches that most, if not all, of the Book of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24- 25; Mark 13; Luke 21) were fulfilled in conjunction with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in a.d. 70. If this notion is granted, then almost all of Bible prophecy is not to be anticipated in the future, but is past history. Their false scheme springs forth from a misinterpretation of Matthew 24:34 (see also Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32), by which they launch an upside-down view of eschatology, which does not look to the future but instead gazes at the past.

Preterist View

Preterist Gary DeMar says, ” the generation that was in existence when Jesus addressed His disciples would not pass away until all the events that preceded verse 34 came to pass.” [1] In contrast with fellow preterist, Kenneth Gentry, DeMar believes that this passage requires that all of Matthew 24 and 25 must have been fulfilled in some way by a.d. 70 through the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.[2] DeMar says, ” Every time ‘ this generation’ is used in the New Testament, it means, without exception, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking.” [3] DeMar’ s assertion is simply not true! ” This generation” in Hebrews 3:10 clearly refers to the generation of Israelites that wandered in the wilderness for 40 years during the Exodus.

Newly revealed preterist, Hank Hanegraaff takes a similar position in his recent novel, when his character Caleb says, ” I want it remembered that we have all agreed that the truth of the prophecies of Jesus on the Mount of Olives is meaningless unless all the events He predicted occur, not just some.”[4] The narrative in the novel subsequently supports a first century fulfillment of Christ’ s prophetic discourse in a manner commonly espoused by preterists.[5] ” When Jesus says ‘ this generation,’ He doesn’ t mean ‘ that generation,’ . . .” declared Hanegraaff in a recent interview. ” This was the archetypal tribulation and it took place in the first century.” [6]

How To Find The Correct View

But how do we know that almost all of the other New Testament uses of ” this generation” refer to Christ’ s contemporaries? We learn this by going and examining how each is used in their context. For example, Mark 8:12 says, ” And sighing deeply in His spirit [Jesus is speaking], He said, ‘ Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.’ ” Why do we conclude that ” this generation,” in this passage refers to Christ’ s contemporaries? We know this because the referent in this passage is to Christ’ s contemporaries, who were seeking for a sign from Jesus. Thus, it refers to Christ’ s contemporaries, because of the controlling factor of the immediate context.

When interpreting the Bible you cannot just say, as DeMar and many preterists do, that because something means X . . . Y . . . Z in other passages that it has to mean that in a given verse.[7] NO! You must make your determination from the passage under discussion and how it is used in that particular context. Context is the most important factor in determining the exact meaning or referent under discussion.[8] That is how one is able to realize that most the other uses of ” this generation” refer to Christ’ s contemporaries.

Matthew 23:36 says, ” Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” To whom does ” this generation” refer? In this context, ” this generation” refers to Christ’ s contemporaries because of contextual support. ” This generation” is governed or controlled grammatically by the phrase ” all these things.” All these things refer to the judgments that Christ pronounces in Matthew 22- 23. We should now realize that in each instance of ” this generation,” the use is determined by what it modifies in its immediate context. The scope of use of every occurrence of this generation is determined in the same way.

The same is true for Hebrews 3:10, which says, ” Therefore I was angry with this generation.” ” This generation” is governed or controlled grammatically by the contextual reference to those who wandered in the wilderness for forty years during the Exodus.

The Correct View

Now why does ” this generation” in Matthew 24:34 (see also Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32), not refer to Christ’ s contemporaries? Because the governing referent to ” this generation” is ” all these things.” Since Jesus is giving an extended prophetic discourse of future events, one must first determine the nature of ” all these things” prophesied in verses 4 through 31 to know what generation Christ is referencing. Since ” all these things” did not take place in the first century then the generation that Christ speaks of must be future. Christ is saying that the generation that sees ” all these things” occur will not cease to exist until all the events of the future tribulation are fulfilled. Frankly, this is both a literal interpretation and one that was not fulfilled in the first century. Christ is not ultimately speaking to His contemporaries, but to the generation to whom the signs of Matthew 24 will become evident. Dr. Darrell Bock concurs:

What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation. . . . The tradition reflected in Revelation shows that the consummation comes very quickly once it comes. . . . Nonetheless, in the discourse’s prophetic context, the remark comes after making comments about the nearness of the end to certain signs. As such it is the issue of the signs that controls the passage’s force, making this view likely. If this view is correct, Jesus says that when the signs of the beginning of the end come, then the end will come relatively quickly, within a generation.[9]

Preterists have reversed the interpretative process by declaring first that ” this generation” has to refer to Christ’ s contemporaries, thus all these things had to be fulfilled in the first century. When one points out that various events in Matthew 24 were not fulfilled, preterists merely repeat their mantra of ” this generation,” saying that all these things had to be fulfilled in the first century. In fact, when one compares the use of ” this generation” at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 23:36 (which is an undisputed reference to a.d. 70) with the prophetic use in Matthew 24:34, a contrast seems obvious. Jesus is contrasting the deliverance for Israel in Matthew 24:34 with the predicted judgment of Matthew 23:36.

I do not think that any of the events in Matthew 24:4-31 occurred in the first century. I have shown in earlier commentary on Matthew 24:4- 31 that none of these events took place in the past, thus, this is still a future time to which our Lord envisions.

Prophetic Perspective

It is common for preterists to speak of what they call ” audience relevance.” By this, preterists believe that since the New Testament was written in the first century then it has to relate directly to the original audience. ” The original audience factor cannot be overlooked; the message of Revelation must be relevant to them,” [10] proclaims Dr. Kenneth Gentry. ” With the particularity of the audience emphasized in conjunction with his message of the imminent expectation of occurrence of the events,” continues Dr. Gentry, ” I do not see how preterism of some sort can be escaped.” [11] The same logic is often applied to the Olivet Discourse. E. B Elliott rightly notes, ” Not a vestige of testimony exists to the fact of such an understanding.” [12] Such a notion is pure assumption and if actually true would render it impossible for Scripture to provide a prophetic statement beyond the generation (40 years) that received the prediction.

I believe that Jesus uses the phrase ” this generation” in Matthew 24:34 as a tool of literary emphasis. As noted earlier, Jesus is contrasting the deliverancefor Israel in Matthew 24:34 with the predicted judgment of Matthew 23:36, based upon the varied responses of two different generations of Israelites. This provides the basis for Christ’ s contrast of the two generations- the first generation unbelieving while the final one is trusting.

The future sense of ” this generation” in a judgment context sets a precedence for its interpretation in contexts that are both judicial and eschatological. If the desolation experienced by ” this generation” in Matthew 23:36 can be understood as a future fulfillment that came some 40 years later, it should not be a problem to understood the Tribulation judgment as a future fulfillment that will come on the generation that will experience it at the end of the age. However, the difference is not simply a span of time, but the nature of that time as eschatological. For the ” this generation” of Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32, ” all these things” (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:28) must refer contextually to the events of the ” Great Tribulation,” the conclusion of ” the times of the Gentiles,” the coming of Christ in glory, and the regathering and redemption of Israel, all of which are not only declared to be future by Jesus at the time of speaking (Mark 13:23), but also cast in typical eschatological language (for example, ” end of the age,” ” such as not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall,” ” powers of the heavens will be shaken” ).[13]

Instead of audience relevance, it important to know the prophetic relevance from which a prophecy is given. This means that sometimes a prophetic revelation is spoken from the timeframe of when a prophecy will take place. Such is often the case in Revelation (for example 21:9- 10). John is often shown a vision of the future and thus he speaks from the perspective as if those future events were taking place at the time in which he is observing them and writing them down. Jesus is speaking in His Olivet Discourse in verse 34 of Matthew from the timeframe of a still future time and is saying ” this generation.”

We see the same kind of thing going on in Psalm 2:7, where the Father says of the Son, ” Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” This passage speaks of the Father’ s incarnation of the Son, which interpreters believe occurred at Christ’ s first coming. Yet David wrote this Psalm a thousand years earlier. An audience relevance assumption would surely lead to a gross misinterpretation of this prophetic Psalm. Looking at the Psalm as one that is speaking from a timeframe of the distant future is the only way that it makes contextual sense. The same is true of Christ’ s statement about ” this generation” in His Olivet Discourse. He is speaking from the timeframe of the distant future. Maranatha!

(To Be Continued . . .)

 

Endnotes
[1] Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), pp. 67-68.

[2] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), pp. 198-201.

[3] DeMar, End Times Fiction, p. 68.

[4] Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer, The Last Disciple (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004), p. 93.

[5] Hanegraaff and Brouwer, Disciple, pp. 92- 96. Matthew 24:34 is featured in a two-page layout just following the acknowledgments connoting a preterist interpretation. Preterism is also clearly communicated in the ” Afterword” on page 395.

[6] Hank Hanegraaff on the preterist radio program ” Voice of Reason,” (November 21, 2004) on the Internet at www.lighthouseproductionsllc.com/broadcast.htm.

[7] See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), p. 65.

[8] See Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991), pp. 106-09.

[9] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51- 24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), pp. 1691- 92.

[10] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), p. 396.

[11] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 397.

[12] E. B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, revised edition, 4 vols. (London: Seeleys, 1851), vol. iv, p. 535.

[13] J. Randall Price, ” Historical Problems with a First-Century Fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse,” in LaHaye and Ice, editors, End Times Controversy, pp. 379-80.

“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away.”

– Matthew 24:32- 35

Upon completion of His discourse about the tribulation and second coming, Jesus now provides five parables that illustrate and drive home the point of what He had just taught. Since these parables are connected to Christ’ s preceding Discourse, then they provide important parabolic focus upon the eschatology lesson just given. All five of these parables form a group. In other words, all the parables must refer to the same event, in this case, verses 4 through 31. This means that it would not make sense to have the first parable refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 and then have the final four relate to a still future return of Christ.

The Unity Of The Parables

Partial preterist Kenneth Gentry believes that the first of these five parables relates to verses 4 through 31, which he thinks was fulfilled in a.d. 70. However, he then takes the last four parables to refer to a still future second advent. ” Following his prophecy of the Temple’ s demise the Lord turns to consider his glorious Second Advent (24:36ff),” Gentry declares. ” He specifically says there will be no such signs of that distant event.” [1]However, fellow preterist, Gary DeMar believes that the entire Olivet Discourse (all of Matthew 24 and 25) has already been fulfilled through the a.d. 70 event. DeMar notes:

Similarly, there is little evidence that the ” coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:27, 30, 39, and 42 is different from the ” coming of the Son of Man” in 25:31. Compare 25:31 with 16:27, a certain reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70.[2]

I have already shown throughout this exposition why none of Matthew 24:4- 31 was fulfilled in the first century, however, I agree with DeMar that the entire Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and 25 refer to the same time period. Even though DeMar is wrong to see all of Christ’ s Discourse as past, he, nevertheless, has a more stable position than that of fellow preterist Gentry who wants to break the narrative between 24:35 (past) and 24:36 (future).

All of these parables relate to Christ’ s teaching in the previous section of Matthew 24:4- 31 and do not introduce a new theme in His teaching. The purpose of these parables is to drive home major lessons in light of the previous teaching. It would not make literary sense for Christ to teach something, as He did in verses 4- 31, and then give parables or illustration of that teaching, as He does in verses 32- 51, but shift topics in the second parable to another event that He has, according to Gentry, not yet introduced. It makes no literary sense. No! All five parables serve as illustrations for Christ’ s single teaching in verses 4 – 31. Why would Christ, the master teacher, confuse His students by introducing a whole new item during His parabolic session that He had not previously touched on during His teaching session?

It appears that Gentry’ s schizophrenic interpretation can be explained by the fact that, even as a preterist, he cannot bring himself to take certain clear phrases that link the second coming and judgment as something that occurred in the first century. DeMar has no such sensitivity. With all of the ” coming” passages in 24:36- 51, it is too difficult for even Gentry to shoehorn them into an a.d. 70 fulfillment. Especially difficult is ram, cramming, and jamming Matthew 25:31- 46, which links judgment with Christ’ s coming. This coming and judgment must refer to a future event since those judged ” will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (25:46).

Five Parabolic IllustrationsThese parables or illustrations of Jesus are as follows: First, the fig tree illustration (24:32- 35); second, the days of Noah illustration (24:36- 39); third, a comparison of two men and women illustration (24:40- 41); fourth, the faithful house holder illustration (24:42- 44); and fifth, the wise servant illustration (24:45- 51).

These five parables are important lessons that relate to Israel. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all the parables in the New Testament relate directly to Israel. Often they relate to Israel’ s rejection of Jesus as their Messiah and speak of consequences that will flow from such an act. Christ told His disciples in Matthew 13:10- 17 that He would speak to ” this people” (Israel) in order to blind them to the truth because of their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. However, believers could come to understand the meaning of His parables because we are receptive of the revelation offered by Christ. Therefore, they all relate to Israel in some way, shape, or form and usually tell us something about God’ s plan for the future.

The parables within the Olivet Discourse, when they speak of a coming, all relate to the second coming and not the rapture of the church. This is true because the entire Olivet Discourse was given to Israel and relates to her tribulation and Christ’ s return at the end of that period. Truths relating to the rapture of the church are revealed exclusively in the New Testament Epistles, which were written specifically for the purpose of explaining the intent and nature of the Church age. The only exception to this is Christ’ s initial unveiling of the church’ s hope in the Upper Room Discourse (John 14:1- 3) shortly before His death.

The Fig Tree IllustrationThe first of these parables, the lesson of the fig tree illustration, is a widely noted passage. For example, my good friend Hal Lindsey teaches that the fig tree represents Israel, which it might, and that this means that within a generation of the founding of the modern state of Israel, Christ will return. Hal said in his famous book The Late Great Planet Earth, which was my first significant exposure to prophecy in 1970, said the following:

But the most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ” fig tree” has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ” fig tree” put forth its first leaves.

Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ” at the door,” ready to return. Then He said, ” Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these thing take place” (Matthew 24:34 NASB).

What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs- chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.[3]

I agree with so much of what Hal teaches in the area of Bible prophecy, but on this particular passage I have to disagree with him, even though I used to hold this view myself in the early 70s. I held the view then because the most influential book upon me at the time concerning Bible prophecy was Hal’ sLate Great Planet Earth. (I still believe that Late Great is an excellent book to introduce people to Bible prophecy and recommend it.) I tend to agree that the fig tree is some times used as a symbol for national Israel (see Judges 9:10- 11; Jer. 8:13; Hosea 9:10; Hab. 3:17; Hag. 2:19; Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:13, 20- 21; Luke 13:6- 7). However, whether or not the ” fig tree” is a symbol for Israel is not what a proper understanding of this passage turns upon. I think that is a non-issue when it comes to interpreting this passage. I also agree with Hal that the establishment of Israel as a nation in 1948 is prophetically significant and indicates that we are likely near the beginning of the tribulation, but I don’ t think that the parable of the fig tree is support for such a view.

The basic problem with Hal’ s view is that he takes the parable of Jesus and turns this illustration into a prophecy. Christ is simply illustrating that when one sees a fig tree (In Luke’ s version of the same treaties Christ says in 21:29, ” Behold the fig tree and all the trees.” ) begin to put on leaves (in the spring), then you know that the next season is approaching (summer). Christ then concludes, ” even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” Thus, in the context, our Lord does not put an emphasis upon Israel as a symbol. He is saying that when you see the events of the seven-year tribulation take place then you know that His second advent is near.

Hal and other who hold that view have taken Christ’ s illustration, which was meant to demonstrate a point about verses 4 through 31, and created a prophecy out of thin air, which does not even exist. The prophecy that Hal has created is that Christ’ s coming will occur 40 years after the founding of the modern state of Israel. Christ’ s illustration was not intended to be a prophecy about anything; it is an illustration about the preceding context. It should be clear by now that such a view is wrong, especially since we are over 15 years beyond his 40-year prediction. Therefore, it does not matter how long a generation is, since the events of 4 through 31 will take place within a seven-year period. That generation that sees the events of the seven-year tribulation will not pass away (in other words, it will not take hundreds of years or a long time) until Christ’ s second coming (see 24:33). This first parable drives home the point through illustration what Christ said in 24:29- 30: ” But immediately after the tribulation of those days . . . they will see the Son of Man coming.”

ConclusionWhat is the lesson to be learned from the parable of the fig tree? That lesson is that when a fig tree reaches a certain stage in the seasonal cycle (in this case puts on leaves) then one knows that they have reached a certain time of the year (in this case, that summer is near). A parable is a lesson of comparisons, moving from the known in order to explain the unknown. In this instance the leaves before summer would refer to the events of the tribulation as outlined by Christ in verses 4- 31. Thus, when one sees these events then they are to know that Christ’ s return is near, ” right at the door” (24:33). How is it that they know that Christ’ s advent is near? They will know because ” this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:34). In other words, that time period of events culminating in Christ’ s return will not exceed seven years. One day ” heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (24:35). Christ’ s words will be fulfilled; they will not just pass away and not be fulfilled. Maranatha!

(To Be Continued . . .)

 

Endnotes
[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil(Texarkana, AR: Covenant Media Press, 1999), p. 89.

[2] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), p. 200.

[3] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 53- 54.