What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?

by kepler 36 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  kepler

  Thanks to a number of notices about a website titled www.jwfacts.com, I took a quick tour and found some very informative pages and charts about the organization's positions and history. Thanks also to a number of posters for their reminders.

  I can't summarize the whole site in a topic, but it did include a history of the interpretation of the phrase "this generation", appearing in Matthew 24:34.

  "Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."

  Interpretation of this verse in the history of the JW organization, as the site notes, seems to have had six generations of revision. So far. Perhaps because the Revisers are getting closer and closer to the light.

  It was C. T. Russell that had dismissed the notion that the Greek word genea had anything to do with tribe or race, but in initial search I did see some suggestions that a full list of genea dictionary definitions could include that. Then that would make the resolution of events prophesied in the 24th chapter an open-ended proposition. But that wouldn't solve the society's problem either.

  Still, based on that outside assertion I just thought I'd look around using a Concordance of the Greek text... And what did I find?

  Matthew in the first chapter of his book gives a very clear definition of how long a generation lasts! He provides three examples. He uses the word "genea" and connects it with historical events! Matthew 1:17

  "So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ, fourteen generations."

  I am sure, what with the Society's fascination with "sacred" numbers such as multiples of seven, someone must have stumbled on this verse now and them. I have probably missed out on lots of internal discussion of this over the years, though I was previously aware that Luke had found several more generations to add to this geneaology. But we rest assured that both genealogies are correct, right? If not, that's another topic. But the important thing in this context, is that we have the author of chapter 24 going on record in the same book as to what he thought a generation entailed. Moreover, he defined it in terms of the society's own gold bar measure for events: along that timeline between the fall of Jerusalem and 1914! You might say that Jerusalem fell in 587 or 607 BC or that Jesus was born in year 1 AD or 4 BC, but fourteen generations strung between those error margins is not going to change a definition of a generation by a decade.

  Are we ready for some trial calculations?

  607 / 14 = 43.3 years. 587/14 = 41.9 years

  We could get longer if we dropped a generation.

  607/13 = 46.7 years 587/13 = 45.1 years.

  Shorter if we added, but why bother.

  Although Matthew is less explicit about when King David reigned, between five and six centuries earlier is not a bad guess. Archaelogical connections with Egyptian kings and the book of Kings itself tie down Solomon fairly well, if not David (circa 1000 BC). Between David and Abraham, we've got less tie in from other records and much controversy, but patriarchs aren't surving as many years as they used to according to the Bible. Also, we can see from the usage that it is not a question of how long an individual survived, but what was the space of time netweem the ascendancy of one generation after another. If he's a 18th century figure, then a generation is about 53 years. If he is a 23rd century figure, then it might be 85. But what do you base Abraham's existence on in either century or millenium? And there goes the imposed symmetry of Matthew's genealogical argument.

  What comes to mind at moments like this is Moliere's play "the Bourgeoise Gentleman". As Monsieur Jourdain is being schooled for society, the distinction between prose and poetry is provided by his instructor. The student exclaims, "I had been speaking prose all my life and didn't even know it!"

  In Bible study under supervision, while speaking of generations, does anyone ever bring anything like this up?
• 

  OldGenerationDude

  I have a theory about what the Governing Body has been slowly trying to do over the past couple of decades regarding its “generation” teaching.

  The mainstream teaching most accepted by Protestants , Catholics, and the Orthodox is that while the text is admittedly difficult to understand exactly how it is to be understood, it is most likely no different from other uses of the term by Christ in Matthew.

  Matthew has Jesus use the same term for his unbelieving contemporaries at 11:16. These are either contrasted with a generation with believers (12:41-42) or compared with the faithless generation of Israel that did not get to enter the Promised Land after the Exodus (12:39, 45; 16:7; 17:17).

  Again, while exegetes are quick to point out that no one is 100% sure, they tend to agree that the meaning is limited to those of Christ’s disciples who needed to obey this warning in time to leave Jerusalem before the Temple was destroyed. Discussion of the Temple was what sparked the conversation (24:1-2), and as far as Matthew was concerned discussion of the Temple is central to this prophecy’s understanding (24:15-22) primarily because it was written either before that destruction itself or (depending on when you date Matthew’s gospel) afterwards, and was the result of the text being a product of the oral tradition that came from Jesus and shaped this account.

  When the text is thus applied to the parousia in the future, “generation” thus has reference to the Church or congregation of Christ. Jesus was thus indicating that the Church would still be in existence as a “faithful generation” (represented by the apostles who asked Jesus the question and were listening to his reply) in contrast to the “faithless generation” who history would record as losing their lives when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and leveled the Temple in the mundane fulfillment of the prophecy.

  The previous change of the “generation” teaching before this one—the vague one that suggested it was any of Christ’s faithful alive to see the sign but without temporal indicators came close, but it was highly unpopular and un-motivating. While the current “new light” of “overlapping” generations helps with the “timing” issue so important to get the JW faithful to “do,” it still seems to linger around the mainstream understanding.

  My theory is that someone had been reading mainstream theology on this matter and thus the Governing Body, in an aid to deal with a lot of other time-sensitive issues that could not be settled by its previous 1914 interpretations, has been trying to pull away from Russell-Franz teachings without having the disaster the World Wide Church of God encountered when it pulled away from Armstrong’s similar “unorthodox” views. From what I’ve recently heard from those closely associated, the members of the current Governing Body is preparing (and has been since Franz passed on) the way to fully do away with the Russell-Franz theology, and its problems with the Russell-Franz “generation” teaching is the very heavy and thick icing on an otherwise (and compared with the “1914 generation” teaching) easy to toss-away cake of unorthodoxy.
• 

  Sulla

  Are you suggesting, OldGenerationDude, that the JWs would like to jettison the linkage between 1914 and the timing of the End? The idea being to keep the JW ecclesiology (the one true Church was re-established in 1919) and the emphasis on the nearness of the End without the troublesome limits on the timing of it?

  In your view, does this seem like something that can be done? I've always thought that the idea that JWs were getting close to some upper bound on the time left (40 years seems like a reasonable length for a generation, 1975 is good timing for all this to end, the 1914 people are getting long in the tooth, etc) has always been the critical factor in JW motivation, even if the Governing Body thinks that 1919 is the key factor.
• 

  Bobcat

  While it is true that one can find commentators who ascribe the generation of Mt 24:34 to Christ's disciples, the context, on several levels makes this a non-viable conclusion.

  The term "this generation" is used in Mt 23:36, mere hours before its use in Mt 24:34. Or, from the readers point of view, only 10 or 15 minutes reading time apart. Yet, there is no explanation or hint in Matthew that there is a change in meaning for the exact same term. In Mt 23:36 the meaning is clearly Jesus' contemporaries. One has to assume that Matthew wrote for the purpose of helping his readers to understand. Changing the meaning of terms so quckly, without any hint of explanation, just doesn't make sense. Not if you want your readers to understand.

  In the immediate context of Mt 24:34, the disciples are addressed as "you" ("YOU" in the NWT to show plurality). Here is the context:

  (Matthew 24:32-35 NWT) 32 "Now learn from the fig tree as an illustration this point: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and it puts forth leaves, YOU know that summer is near. 33 Likewise also YOU, when YOU see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to YOU that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.

  If Jesus meant that his disciples would not pass away until these things take place, wouldn't it have made better sense to say, "You will by no means pass away until all these things occur." Changing suddenly to the third person ("this generation") only creates confusion if he is trying to refer to the same ones he calls "you" (second person).

  This becomes even more apparent in Luke. Immediately following the statement about 'this generation passing away' and 'heaven and earth passing away,' Luke has Jesus saying in 21:34, "But pay attention to yourselves ...". Here, Jesus switches back to the second person and begins the statement with the adversative "but." As if to say, ' This generation will pass away ... but don't let this happen to you.'

  Moreover, there is the term "passing away." (This is one word/verb in Greek.) This is what happens to "this generation." The context itself helps define it: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." AMG's Greek dictionary defines this verb (in its metaphorical sense) as "to pass away, to perish." BDAG defines it to mean, "to come to an end and no longer be there." Also, "to lose force, become invalid." (With reference to "Jesus' words.") Louw/Nida defines it: "to go out of existence, to cease to exist."

  This is the opposite of what jesus wanted for his disciples. In Luke 21, after saying 'this genneration would pass away,' in verses 34-36 Jesus says, "But pay attention to yourselves ... that YOU may succeed in escaping all these things that are destined to occur, and in standing before the Son of man." This is the opposite of what happens to "this generation." In fact, Jesus is definite about "this generation." It "will pass away." But in Luke 21:34-36 he is tentative about the outcome for "you," his disciples.

  Finally, there is the question of how his disciples understood Jesus. The account says that Peter, Andrew, James, and John were discussing this with Jesus. (Mark 13:3) Of these, only Peter and John were Bible writers. So who did they understand were going to "pass away"?

  (2 Peter 3:10) . . .Yet Jehovah's day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a hissing noise, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be discovered.

  (1 John 2:17) 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.

  (Revelation 21:1) . . .And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.

  I have my own ideas about why the Society is taking this route. But that aside, they are completely wrong about who "this generation" is referring to.

  Take Care
• 

  kepler

  OGD, Sulla,

  I suppose that since the discussion is moving toward the sixth generation concept of "the end", then maybe a comparison of generations derived from chapter one with 2010 statements in Watchtower might be a propos. Here is what was quoted at www.JWFacts.com:

  At the 2010 annual meeting, John Barr presented the latest understanding of the generation. 97-year old Barr was an apt choice to deliver this talk, being the last of the Governing Body born before 1914. He explained the generation is now to include 2 groups whose lives "overlap" since 1914:

  "John Barr ... twice read the comment: "Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of the other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation." We do not know the exact length of "this generation," but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during the part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!" Watchtower 2010 June 15 p.5

  ------------

  Now, in my case, I have never been an inside observer; nor can I say at this point that I am impartial outside observer either. But what I note about this statement is that it never refers to generations at all, but only"groups". Based on Matthew chapter one and using historical records, we derive 43-45 year period for a generation. Although this a rather long period based on the "begetting" method of calculation, this method still does not account for the length of life for an individual cohort. For example, generating a new generation begins with the first born and then continues with a succession of siblings. The situation is further confused with children producing grandchildren before their parents are done producing sons and daughters. Maybe Matthew was actually unaware of whether Jerusalem fell six centuries earlier, but a width of twenty some years for producing children would argue for the 45 year figure for a generation. On the other hand, there is no indication in the three examples of how long individuals in a generation might survive.

  In the new concept for defining generation does not address how many actual generations are involved in the anointed overlap and relies more and more on the upper edge of a demographic bell curve. Carr's legitimacy as part of "this generation" rests on being one year old prior to 1914. But still, the gap now is more than twice as long as the generation length derived from Matthew's 14 generations between Christ's birth and Jerusalem's fall. Can forty year olds declare themselves as anointed? What about twenty year olds? If this is an-ongoing situation, then eventually the spread between the first generation of anointed and the last is clearly going to be several generations - at least from Matthew's perspective.

  Come to think of it ( and this just might be my ignorance), are there any anointed JW women? Or are all the celestial civil service appointments reserved for males? Does anyone track whether there are any anointed women? Were the people pictured on the 1984 Watchtower cover all of that designation? If so, that looks like a nearly even distribution ( 7 of 16). But what about those prior to the 20th century? If I remember right, Rutherford was expecting male houseguests at Beth Sarim.

  And then, of course, a lot of those who during the 20th century got their stripes and passed on, believed in something as an article of faith (2nd, 3rd, 4th formulation ...) that was demonstrated to be wrong.
• 

  OldGenerationDude

  Bobcat, the theology I cited does not ascribe “generation” to the apostles or Christ's disciples. They ascribe “generation” to the contemporaries of the apostles.

  You may have misread what I wrote when I mentioned that this theology states that the meaning was meant to be understood by Christ’s disciples. Matthew 24:15-16 is cited to prove the point, and that reads:

  When you see the disgusting and destructive thing that Daniel talked about standing in the holy place (the reader should understand this), then those in Judea must escape to the mountains.

  The “you” here is a message to Christ’s disciples as is the instruction that follows.

  You may also have misunderstood what I cited from their exegesis regarding how this same text applies in eschatology. According to that view, the eschatological fulfillment at the time of the parousia would have a grander scale application:

  1. The “generation” referred to the literal lifetime of contemporaries of the apostles Jesus was speaking to when the Temple was destroyed, but in the parousia the “generation” could refer to the Church (this could be a possible reference to 1 Peter 2:9: “You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”).
  2. The “generation” that saw Jesus walk the earth was a literal one that saw the Temple destroyed within that time span, but the “generation” of the parousia may not be literal and may not be limited to an actual time.

  While I agree with your statements, they don’t apply to what I wrote. Also like my fellow Jews, I don’t necessarily ascribe to the above information. Most of my people don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and some of us don’t even believe in a personal Messiah.

  The reason I wrote this was to show that the Governing Body seems to be leaning toward this view, and I never meant to imply or write that either I or the theology I was citing was suggesting that the "generation" was believed to be the same as Christ's disciples. But it is also possible I didn’t write as clearly as I wanted to.

  And Sulla, I wish I had answers for you. I don’t know what the Governing Body is actually up to. I do know, as many of us who can attest to from reading Crisis of Conscience, that members of the Governing Body have wanted to either reconstruct or do away with the 1914 connection for decades.
• 

  Sulla

  The thing I notice, kepler, about the statement is its absurdity. 1,000 people before me on this board have pointed out the stupidity the concept that my grandfather and I are of the same generation. Unless you wanted to describe us both as the "Clinton" generation, and yet even this simply points out how preposterous the whole idea is. And yet I have engaged JWs who defend this concept with vigor.

  I'm thinking that these JWs defend this teaching because the thing they believe in is 1919, which is to say: they believe the JWs are the re-established one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. In something like a bizzarro-world papal infalibility doctrine, JWs think the church can teach gravely mistaken things about faith and morals and that the faithful are required to believe even these errors. Still, the teaching may have surpassed the "torture stake" teaching as the most gratuitous of all the JW doctrines.

  I doubt that there is any need to work through St. Matthew's gospel to evaluate it, though.
• 

  OldGenerationDude

  I do have to agree with Sulla about working through the "generation" prophecy in an attempt to find its application in literal years.

  It just dawned on me when reading your information, Kepler, that you and the Watchtower are adamant about finding a literal amount of years or time for "generation." Both the Witnesses and mainstream theology agree that the prophecy has two meanings. As I mentioned above, mainstream theology agrees with the JWs that the parousia fulfillment is likely typified by what happened in 70 CE.

  If this is true, then the Witnesses have made a crucial error beyond calculations. The 70 CE fulfillment already dealt with a literal generation that could be measured in years. As mentioned prior, it is suggested that the future fulfillment would transcend such literalism. The Witnesses always follow this rule themselves in their type/anti-type prophecy exegesis, but for some reason abandon it for the word "generation" here. Since we have already seen Matthew 24 fulfilled in a literal sense in regard to the Temple and that past generation, then the references to "generation" could not remain literal for the future since the rest of the information is also transcending a mundane meaning in the time of the end. It seems quite illogical to look for a repeat of what happened in 70 CE when the generation was literal.
• 

  transhuman68

  Occurrences of the word “Generation” in Matthew, according to Strong’s Concordance:

  Mt 1:1

  The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

  Mt 3:7

  But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”

  Mt 11:16

  “But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to their playmates”

  Mt 12:34

  You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

  Mt 12:39

  But he answered them, “an evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign: but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah”

  Mt 12:45

  Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So it shall be with this evil generation.

  Mt 16:4

  An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah. So he left them and departed.

  Mt 17:17

  And Jesus answered,”O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.”

  Mt 23:33

  You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

  Mt 23:36

  Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation.

  Mt 24:34

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

  From the RSV
• 

  Bobcat

  OldGenerationDude: (appropriate for this thread)

  Sorry if I implied that these were your thoughts. I wasn't meaning to say that.

  For the most part, all my ranting is aimed at the Society.

  Take Care