The 1914 generation is still going strong 100 years later

Fisherman

Consider this: The difference between a "certified copy" of a document and a notarized copy, is authorship.

I sense this discussion is winding down as all good discussions do, but I want to be clear on what I've actually said and not said here. Apparently, I'm one of the worst communicators in the world, because you appear to have misunderstood much of what I've tried to convey and for that, I apologize.

You teach that the Olivet discourse prophetic application applies only to the original audience.

Not exactly. I've said that the Jesus was speaking only to the original audience. How could it be otherwise? Why on earth would anyone think that Jesus was talking to anyone else besides those that directly approached him?

When it comes to the actual prophetic content contained in that discourse, I've said that in typology, it applies first and foremost to the original audience and that secondary fulfilments of that prophetic content must mirror the first fulfillment. The first fulfillment acts as the shadow and sets a pattern for the second fulfillment.

Since I don't seem to have done a very good job of explaining this concept, I'm going to provide a overview of this interpretational method using only JW publications as my sources:

The April 15th, 1952 issue of The Watchtower in the article, Aids for Understanding Prophecy stated: (Emphasis is mine)

"IN EXAMINING further the field of Bible prophecies there are meaningful terms that are commonly used. Some of these terms follow. A type is an image or representation of something that will come to pass at some future time. The antitype is the reality of the thing which the type represents. The type may properly be called a shadow; the antitype, the reality. Dramatic episodes and experiences serve as types, a study of which will give a person a reasonable facsimile or picture of the reality, and therefore they are called prophetic pictures. A type is also a pattern that serves as a guide in understanding the reality, and it may keep on being performed till the reality occurs, like a shadow that extends down to the shadow-casting substance."

"After taking into consideration the many different kinds of typical representations that exist in Biblical prophecies the question next arises, Do divine prophecies have more than one fulfillment? It varies with the prophecy, but there are some prophecies which have merely one fulfillment, others have two fulfillments, and there are some that have even three fulfillments."

Type and Antitype is the essence of typology. Any possible ambiguity and misunderstanding of the words of the prophet are greatly reduced by the first fulfillment, because it provides a pattern for subsequent interpretation. This interpretational method has been used in the JW religion since the time of Russell.

Next, I'm going to show that this interpretational method is used by Jehovah's Witnesses specifically with regard to the Olivet: The August 15, 1978 issue of The Watchtower in the Questions from Readers section states:

"These words are in Jesus’ prophetic reply to the apostles’ question about his future presence and the conclusion of the system of things. (Matt. 24:3, 21; Mark 13:19) Jehovah’s Witnesses have often pointed out that much of what Jesus there foretold had two fulfillments: First, a limited fulfillment in the developments leading up to and including the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system of things in 70 C.E. Second, a major application from 1914 C.E., when Jesus began his invisible heavenly presence as king of the Messianic kingdom, and including the yet future end of the worldwide evil system of things."

This is typology pure and simple. Another example is in the June 1, 1996 issue of The Watchtower in the article, Flight To Safety Before The Great Tribulation:

"FOR all who are part of Satan’s world, flight is urgent. If they are to be spared when the present system of things is wiped off the earth, they must give convincing evidence that they have taken their stand firmly on Jehovah’s side and are no longer part of the world of which Satan is ruler.—James 4:4; 1 John 2:17. In his great prophecy regarding the conclusion of the system of things, Jesus emphasized the vital need for such flight. We frequently discuss what is recorded at Matthew 24:4-14; yet, what follows it is no less important."

Next, the article asks: (emphasis is mine)

"What does that prophecy mean? In the first century, what was “the disgusting thing that causes desolation”? What did its being “in a holy place” portend? Of what significance is that development to us?"

The balance of the article is devoted to answering that question. Why is that question important to Jehovah's Witnesses? Because (According to the article) indentifying the "disgusting thing" in the 1st century enables discerning students of the Bible to indentify its modern day counterpart (i.e. The antitype) today:

"We have been living in such a time period since 1914. So we need to be alert to identify the modern-day “disgusting thing that is causing desolation” and then to be sure that we get out of the danger zone."

The article explains that the Roman armies were the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" in then goes on to state:

"What is that modern-day “disgusting thing”? The evidence points to the League of Nations, which went into operation in 1920, shortly after the world entered its time of the end."

Under the subheading, Flee From What? the article also states: (emphasis is mine)

"On ‘catching sight’ of this, on recognizing what that international organization is and how it is being idolized, lovers of righteousness need to flee to safety. Flee out of what? Out of that which is the modern-day antitype of unfaithful Jerusalem, namely, Christendom, and out of all of Babylon the Great, the worldwide system of false religion."

The Romans armies were the type and the League of Nations is the antitype. Unfaithful Jerusalem was the type and "Christendom" is the antitype. And like I've been saying for pages now on this thread, Jehovah's Witnesses have used this interpretational method with the Olivet for many, many years.

And this is not an isolated occurance in JW literature. A similar discussion occurs in the May 1st 1999 issue of The Watchtower in the article Let The Reader Use Discernment. Describing the relocation of the "Great tribulation" in 1970 to a future event, the article states: (emphasis is mine)

"Then a significantly adjusted explanation was offered: “To correspond with the events of the first century, . . . the antitypical ‘great tribulation’ did not begin in 1914 C.E. Rather, what took place upon Jerusalem’s modern antitype in 1914-1918 was merely ‘a beginning of pangs of distress’ . . . The ‘great tribulation’ such as will not occur again is yet ahead, for it means the destruction of the world empire of false religion (including Christendom) followed by the ‘war of the great day of God the Almighty’ at Armageddon.” This meant that the entire great tribulation was yet ahead."

Note that the idea of a future "Great tribulation" itself springs direcly from typology. It is an antitype of the tribulation that occured during Jerusalem's destruction in the 1st century. I thought all Jehovah's Witnesses knew this.

Next I'm going to show that Matthew 24:34 itself has been interpreted under the typological model. Since the first fulfillment sets the pattern for the second fulfillment, it would not be consistent to assign a different meaning to the word, "Generation" today than it carried during the typical fulfillment.

The October 1, 1978 issue of The Watchtower in the Questions from Readers section states: (emphasis is mine)

"Jesus was not referring to a race of people over the centuries or just to Christians. He was first of all referring to his listeners and other Jews at that time."

Note that this validates what I've said over and over and over on this thread; that the prophetic content of Jesus' words applies first to the original audience. Secondary fufillments would apply only by extension using the first fulfillment as a pattern. Drawing a direct corollary to that fact, the article next states:

"Thus, when it comes to the application in our time, the “generation” logically would not apply to babies born during World War I. It applies to Christ’s followers and others who were able to observe that war and the other things that have occurred in fulfillment of Jesus’ composite “sign.” Some of such persons “will by no means pass away until” all of what Christ prophesied occurs, including the end of the present wicked system."

In fact, the farther back you go and the closer you get to the inception of the current "Great crowd" doctrine, the more firmly Jehovah's Witnesses adhered to the typical fulfillment:

"A generation, according to Psalm 90:10, is from seventy to eighty years. The generation that witnessed the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 does not have many more years left." The Watchtower 1968 p. 715

"The fact that fifty-four years of the period called the 'last days' have already gone by is highly significant. It means that only a few years, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God." Awake 10/8/1968 pp. 13-14

"The thirty-six intervening years since 1914, instead of postponing Armageddon, have only made it nearer than most people think. Do not forget: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” The Watchtower, 1950 p. 419

I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses no longer teach this, but that's not the point here. The primary point I've tried to make on this thread is that the "Great crowd" teaching was formulated at a time when they did and that this idea is still an intrinsic part of the doctrine

You also teach that the original audience means all related christians back then including the Apostles, and that it is not relevant what audience actually was present at the Olivet.

I said the original audience were the actual participants in the spoken conversation. Who do you think the original audience in a spoken conversation would be? Do you think it is those that were actually speaking or would it be those who only read about it after the fact many years later?

You also teach that the wts is using a prophetic parallel method you describe to derive their modern day "antitypical" parallel fullfilment of the Olivet.

That not my own personal contention or teaching. It is a fact.

I am focusing on this statement "The parallel falls apart with the pasage of time.." Let's have the wheels touch land at this point.

Fair enough.

In the first fulfillment of the Olivet the "Time of the end" lasted less than 40 years. In the proposed second fulfillment, we are very close to the 100 year mark since the "Time of the end" ostensibly began and still no "Great tribulation."

If you've been a JW for any length of time, you've seen Matthew 24:34 reinterpreted in 1995, 2008 and 2010. Counting the pre-1995 understanding that makes four separate interpretations in less then 20 years. Isn't it obvious that it is the passage of time that has forced multiple reevaluations of this scripture?

I'd like to refocus your attention on what was said about the "Great crowd" in 1984:

"The early members of this group are now in their 60’s or 70’s or older. Jehovah did not allow the ingathering of this group to begin too soon. The “great crowd,” including many of the earliest members thereof, will survive into the “new earth.”"

Did Jehovah allow the ingathering of this group to begin too soon? Did Jehovah make a mistake? Or is the parallel with the first fulfillment simply falling apart because of human error in interpretation? What do you think?

Fisherman

what I've actually said and not said here

Only the author can explain what he actually meant. ( Not to say that it is not possible for a person to say one thing and later on to claim a different meaning to his words.)

I sense this discussion is winding down as all good discussions do,

I respect your academic aproach. It is very intersting, enriching, and mentally challenging.

Original audience

You ask me what do I think you mean when you say original audience. I did not undersatnd what you meant when you used the term original audience although you explained your term, beause you qualified original audience (as if there could possibly be another audience except those individuals that were actually present with Jesus at the Olivet, so by qualifying audience with original you seem to imply that Jesus could have another audience other than the original. If you meant to say who was actually " present with Jesus at the Oilvet or who actually heard Jesus' Olivetic discourse, Math 24:3 says: "his disciples aproached him privately." If you ask: "Who was Jesus talking to?" or "Who was the original audience?" That depends on what you mean. The wts teaches "disciples" in the cited verse to mean : Andrew, James, Peter and John (gt chapter 111) Interstingly they teach that the Apostles observed the fulfillment of the prophecy as time passed by and they apply the prophetic part of the Oilvet to the Christians back then. Do you agree with this part?

Fisherman

By the way, I perceive that you are an excellent communicator, an academic teacher, if not a doctor. Seems to me you are a doctor. It is with respect that I respond to your post. That is how I view your education.

Mickey mouse

I'm late to this discussion but it has been interesting reading. I have especially enjoyed TD's comments. He's been on my 'would most like to meet' list for a while.

kaik

TD I want to thank you for the excellent input you had provided here.

Did Jehovah allow the ingathering of this group to begin too soon? Did Jehovah make a mistake? Or is the parallel with the first fulfillment simply falling apart because of human error in interpretation? What do you think?

Likely is that there is a human error in interpretation when it comes to prophecies that extended beyond the life of Jesus and the first apostles.

Island Man

The "The 1914 generation is still going strong 100 years later - 2014 study article." thread is still going strong 21 pages later

Fisherman

TD

"He was first of all referring to his listeners and other Jews at that time." VS "I've said over and over..... first to the original audience. " <prophetic part>

What did the wts actually mean by listeners?

Answer: Only the author knows what he meant. The JW reader concludes that wts means that Jesus was refering to the Christian listeners in 66 CE and other (non believing) Jews that did not listen. Here the wts seems to be using the word "listeners" to mean those (Christians) that listened or obeyed Jesus words to flee Jerusalem. In the gt book that I cited above the wts qualifies the term listeners by highlighting that Jesus' Apostles( distinguished from all Christian disciples ) "observed the prophecy's fulfillment as the years passed by." So listeners seems also to mean (not only the Apostles that Jesus spoke to directly(privately) at the Olivet (Mark 13:3 )(original audience?)) ALL the Apostles that JC spoke to directly.

Prophetically speaking, in terms of prophetic application, wts seems to be saying that original audience means:

Apostles, Christians, Jews

Although all Apostles were Christians not all Christians were Apostles. Since, literally speaking, the Apostles were the original audience, they would be the ones that understood or observed the prophecy fulfilled.

It is relevant to consider that there are 3 parallel versions of the Oilvet. One version significantly interprets the term "Shikuts" used in the Mathean. It seems also significant that the Oilivet is a continuation of another discussion between Jesus and his Apostles, so that information should be considered. All parallel versions should also be considered as they seem complimentary.

In terms of an Olivetic prophetic parallel other than original audience, is that at least considerable.? Consider Rev 7:14 . It is arguable that passed in 70CE.

If the fullness of Jesus' prophecy only means 70 AD, that is one way of looking at it. But it is not the only way. You described the academic rules of "typology" considering wts parallel fulfilment.

In my opinion TD, (what do I know?) you are a great comunicator. It is very funny how you put it, that you can only teach the "GC" to one generation. I reason that you mean, that because when they are dead, the next guys are going to have a hard time believing, and the dead, alleged GC can't believe it anymore. Since, the GC survives the GT, how can a dead GC actually be the GC at all? They are supposed to survive the GT and that is what makes them the GC. Brilliant observation.

Fisherman

If an entity copies or reprints a document without the original author's authority, and, in spite of the author's expressed prohibition to copy his document, can the substance of the unauthorized copied document be trusted? At most, maybe, but not certainly. In terms of it being used as evidence, it cannot be trusted.

TD

The JW reader concludes that wts means that Jesus was refering to the Christian listeners in 66 CE and other (non believing) Jews that did not listen.

"He was first of all referring to his listeners and other Jews at that time."

Why would a JW reader conclude that "...at that time" means something other than, "at the time Jesus made the statement?"

The 1914 generation is still going strong 100 years later - 2014 study article.

Share this