New Thoughts (10/09/11-10/11/11)
I see three main points I wish to comment upon in these verses. The first is an old theme for me, that of distinguishing between aspects of knowing. As the NASB translates the passages, we have both ‘know’ and ‘recognize’ as translations for the same term: ginooskete. This is, I believe, the second most common term for knowing, with the oida form of eido being the first. The knowing represented in ginosko, tends to be more experiential, more relational in nature. Vine’s suggests the distinction that ginosko speaks to the progression of attaining knowledge whereas eido indicates its fullness. In another sense, ginosko “implies an active relation between the one who knows and the person or thing known.” Oida, on the other hand, speaks only of perception, awareness.
Zhodiates distinguishes the two thusly: Ginosko bespeaks experiential knowledge, where oida is intuitive. In other words, the knowledge of ginosko is a more thoughtful processing of information than is oida.
Here, then, we are discussing experiential knowledge, stuff already encountered and understood. Then, we arrive at this point: “When you see these things…” This seeing is a form of eido; ideete. Perceiving by the senses, observing, seeing; these are the idea at hand, although there is also the sense of perceiving in thought. This seems to be at odds with the distinction Vine offers, in that what our senses perceive, and provide as input to the mind are the initial data, and the experiential knowledge represented in ginosko stands as the result of having processed that input.
If it seems I am belaboring the distinction over much, consider that this has a strong impact on understanding how Jesus is utilizing the example of the fig tree. In typical form for teaching by parable, He points to the very familiar. Look at the tree. You see leaves coming out, and a lifetime of prior experience has taught you to recognize summer announced. I like the added stress Luke places on this point: You know it yourself. Nobody has to explain the significance to you. Used to be that around New England, sighting of a robin at the end of winter was a similar evidence for spring, but it seems to me I see them right through the winter any more. The point remains, though. You see things in the natural order, and you recognize the cyclical activity. You know when you see a, that b is next. There’s no question in mind, it’s intimately familiar, like that foreboding we’re feeling right now. The leaves are changing, and as beautiful as it may be for a few weeks, we know what comes next, and we’d just as soon that maybe we could skip forward to spring. But, winter is inevitable. It will come.
Take that whole thought process, then, and apply it to what Jesus has been describing about events preceding or accompanying His return. That’s the idea. When you see these things happening it should be just as obvious to you that He is coming soon as is the arrival of summer upon noting the growth of leaves. It will be obvious to you. Again, you will not need anybody else to tell you. That is a theme that it seems Jesus is nailing down very carefully. It is of particular import given what follows, that no one, not even the angels and not even the Son, knows the timing of that return (Mt 24:36).
Let me just take a brief side journey on that note. There is something we ought to understand from that point, which I may explore more fully in its place. The point is, there are things that are within the scope of God’s knowledge that He has sovereignly determined He will not share with us, or with anybody. As much as we may like to point to that verse that says He will not act without first informing His prophets, there are boundaries upon that verse. God is sovereign. That which He has determined is for Him to know and Him alone, is not a fit topic for our inquiry. I still hold that He is not afraid of our questions, nor offended thereby, but it is assuredly His prerogative to determine that on certain subjects, no answer shall be given, and there we must accept His determination in peace. If He does not wish for us to know, it is for good reason. Of that we can rest assured.
In this matter, the exact timing is not going to be revealed. How many times down through history have there been those who come with claims of having learned the timetable? We had one such this year, already, and if I recollect the reports, we are due for this particular liar’s second failed prediction in a few days. What part of ‘nobody knows’ eludes these people? And what sort of believer is so easily led to conclude that this leader or that is the one exception to God’s rule? Indeed, what sort of believer supposes there is any exception to God’s rule?
The uncertainty of the timing of His return (from our perspective), is strong cause to understand that when He does return, we’re going to know it. The signs are laid out for us. They are as evident and clear to our perception as those green shoots on the trees in spring. Here, it seems to me, we find a countervailing boundary, one upon the sense that nobody knows. We don’t know the timing, as to when it will start, but when it does, we shall assuredly be aware of it. And the nature of the events Jesus has outlined here suggests that there will be plenty of time for dreadful anticipation, plenty for us to endure, should we be amongst those to live through that period.
Let me just add this: For all that we tend to see signs of the end all around, and read it into every bit of troubling news, I think we had best thing long and hard as to whether these are truly the signs. It seems to me that if there remains any room for doubt in our minds, then these probably are not the signs. It is well to be aware and observant, but it is not well to be so sensitized to events that everything seems prophetic, everything points to the nearness of the end. No. Seems to me that Jesus is exceedingly clear on this: When it comes, you’ll know it. There’ll be no guesswork, no question. His or not, you will know. I would also tend to suggest that given the record of prophetic fulfillment, the likelihood that it’s going to come about in a fashion that matches our imagined expectations is small indeed. We will know it, but not by looking for what we think it should be. We will know it because the evidence will be so painfully clear as to be undeniable, no longer requiring any great deal of processing on our part to comprehend. We will know it with certainty because of one factor alone: We have the Holy Spirit abiding within, advising us and recalling to mind those things we were taught in the moment when memory is needed. Praise God for that!
With this passage one faces a bit of a dilemma. How is it possible to take the statement that ‘this generation’ will still be around to see these events? From Paul’s letters, it’s plain to see that this was already a problem for the early church, with some claiming that the final judgment had already come and gone, making those who heard the message part of the contingent left behind. Paul was vehement in opposing this position. Yet, it remains fact that Paul, John and all the other apostles are long dead, as are all others who were alive when Jesus was here in physical presence. So, how are these words true? That they are true I must hold as my position, whether I understand the sense of it or not. For, all Scripture being God-breathed, there is no place in it for falsity, certainly not on the lips of the Son of God Himself. It is a case of discerning in what sense Jesus intended His statement.
Given the varied opinions I have come across in just the few lexical references I use, it seems doubtful that I shall arrive at any firm and unquestionable conclusion here. For example, Zhodiates takes the meaning to be that the sects of the Sadducees and Pharisees would continue. Yet, as I understand it (based on some comments by the descendants of the Pharisees, and upon other articles) the Sadducees have been gone from the scene for many centuries now. That would seem to preclude this from being the intended meaning. Thayer, on the other hand, wishes to make of it a reference to some unspecified multitude alive at some unspecified point in time. This would seem to make the point almost entirely tautological, which does not seem a particularly satisfying solution. Really, Jesus is just telling us that those alive at the time will be alive at the time? What would be the point? The nearest one could come to an intelligible point from such an understanding is to bound the duration, i.e. those alive at the onset will be alive through the conclusion. I could almost accept that understanding, yet it is still not satisfying.
So, then, to the commentaries. Barnes takes the statement as applying to the more immediate fulfillment seen in the fall of Jerusalem, which would have come about some forty years subsequent, keeping it within the range typically understood to be a generation’s time. The Bible Knowledge commentary holds with Thayer, that Jesus only means that the generation alive to see the end will see Jesus’ return. Still seems like a nonsense statement to me, but they do point out that those to whom Jesus was speaking at the time had already been informed that the kingdom was taken from them (Mt 21:43). Except, that’s not true, is it? Jesus isn’t talking to the crowds of Jerusalem here, but to His disciples, and to be sure, the kingdom was not taken from His disciples. The Bible Exposition commentary seems to be saying that those alive at the first of the indicated signs will be around for the whole, i.e. that Jesus is indicating duration, not schedule. The IVP insists that the whole colloquy applies to the destruction of the Temple rather than the Second Coming. Thus, the generational reference refers to that destruction, and that destruction is interpreted as the final sign of His return. The period from final sign to conclusion remains wholly undefined.
The Jewish NT Commentary holds that the reference is to the Jews as a whole, as a race, continuing, and offers Jeremiah 31:34-36 in support, which notes the continuation of Israel so long as sun and moon persist. They note the several problems with taking ‘this generation’ as indicating those to whom Jesus spoke, that this would require either that the words were already fulfilled, or that they were false, neither of which is acceptable. Attempting to view it as pointing to some future generation has its own problems, mostly in identifying what generation that might be and how we would know it. It is noted that some have tried to establish the linkage to the founding of Israel in 1948, others with the recovery of Jerusalem in 1967. Still others hold it has not yet come at all. The authors note an additional issue in determining the duration specified. Was it the forty years of biblical usage/ The seventy to eighty common to man? The full span of the last person born into that time, which might be more than one hundred? The issue is left unresolved.
Matthew Henry refers back to Grotius for his explanation, and holds verse 34 up alongside Matthew 24:36 to arrive at his explanation, as both these must simultaneously hold. Thus, the ‘these things’ of verse 34 are taken as referring specifically to the destruction of the Jewish nation, and Jerusalem in particular. Jesus, he notes, often stresses the nearness of desolation, so as to more strongly convince us to prepare ourselves. The latter verse, with its reference to the day and the hour unknown, points further ahead, to the final Day of the Lord. The two must not be conflated, and it was exactly such conflation that led to the issues Paul addressed with the church in Thessalonica. Jerusalem’s end was not the world’s end, but rather a shadow thereof.
Wilmington’s notes the association of Israel with the fig tree as possibly supporting the understanding that the reference is to Israel as either a nation or a people. This has led some to look for the rebirth of Israel as marking the approach of the end. Others take it to mean the race shall continue to the end. It is stressed, though, that whatever understanding one seeks must account for the fact that none know the exact date. The UBS Handbook notes that attempts to stretch the sense of generation to include subsequent descendants and thus the Jews as a whole run into problems in that they defy the natural sense of the words and the setting. Jesus is speaking to a specific group of people at the time and ought to be understood as they would have understood Him. Thus, ‘this generation’ must be taken at face value. It remains to discern what the phrase is applied to. What are ‘all these things’? The authors, while stressing the need to avoid holding to any firm conclusion, do note that those who point to the fall of Jerusalem have the most reasonable answer.
In Hard Sayings, there is good discussion on this whole question, and the resolve comes that ‘this generation’ must be heard in the same sense here as on the several other occasions when Jesus uses the phrase. It really means just that: This generation now living of which you who asked the question are a part. Again, the solution requires that we also seek out what was meant by ‘all these things’ that would come to pass. Here, it is noted that as Mark relays the whole discussion, it began with the disciples’ question as to when ‘all these things’ would be fulfilled (Mk 13:4). The reasonable conclusion, then, is to take Jesus’ all these things as providing answer to the disciples’ all these things, and that reference is clearly back to Jesus’ prediction as to the destruction of the temple. Matthew has somewhat occluded the obvious with his incorporation of end time themes into the originating question. Clearly, Jesus was incorporating that matter in His answer along with discussion of Jerusalem’s fall. Whether or not that had been part of the original question or whether Matthew had the benefit of hindsight in folding it in there is more debatable.
Overall, that seems to me a more satisfactory answer to the riddle. It is well that we do not seek to stretch the terminology beyond its natural meaning in seeking to force Scripture to hold. That should not be necessary, and we do ourselves a great disservice if we allow that to become our practice. As already noted, we have evidence of the dangers even within the text of the New Testament. Those who arrived at the conclusion that the end had already come were acting in this fashion. Having seen what appeared to be error in the Scripture, they took the path of assuming their understanding complete. They read their theory back into the text and then, unsurprisingly, saw the text as supporting theory. They did not even notice how they had stretched and bent the natural meaning of words to arrive at their conclusion, nor that their conclusion was at odds with the overall thrust of Scripture.
This danger never lessens. We are ever at risk of wrestling so hard with a particularly difficult bit of the message that we lose sight of the message to which the bit belongs. As one who enjoys this practice of spending says on a few verses, it’s something I need to be reminded of myself. It’s actually something I ponder from time to time. We have this propensity, some of us, to really get down into the details of the text, to consider the choice of words, the syntactical details. In proper proportions, this does the Word the honor it is due. At the same time, it’s a most unnatural way to work with a text.
With the exception of certain forms of engineering specifications, it’s very rare that I would pay such close attention to the linguistic specifics of any written document. When parsing something as conversational as the typical material in the Gospels, it’s a completely unnatural action. Do you really listen to your friend with your attention on which words he chose to describe whatever he is describing, with your ear tuned to catch the least nuance of tense and person? I think not. There’s a degree to which this a natural part of processing language, but it’s hardly the focal point of listening. No, we are trying to garner the message being delivered, the sense of it. We are seeking to engage with what is being said to us, at least if we are not daydreaming about other things instead. Indeed, were we asked even an hour later to record exactly what was said to us, we’d be troubled to provide a precise transcript. We would doubtless wind up paraphrasing to one degree or another. In spite of the God-breathed nature of Scripture, I find no cause to suppose that these men were somehow more precise and accurate in their recollections. This does not in any way reduce the nature or the accuracy of Scripture. It should, however, give us a bit of a caution as to just how much freight we place on a particular choice of word or tense.
With Paul, I would be willing to pay more heed, because he is one trained in oratory and rhetoric. But, here we are looking at something more like the journal of an average Joe. Matthew might have had some more developed skill in accurate recall, but not necessarily. Mark? We’re hardly sure of who he is, let alone what skills he might have had. But, if we continue to suppose he is largely recording Peter’s teaching, well we have a sense of Peter. He’s not a particularly erudite man, as we would measure such things. He did not go to university, did not train for public debate. He fished. He was rather occupied with the stuff of living, before he met Jesus. Afterwards, the urgency of his apostleship kept him from pursuing any such training in rhetoric. His words remain simple, unpretentious statements of his recollections – aided by the Holy Spirit to be sure, but still every bit his own.
Let me take from this, then, a particular caution to myself, that I not become overly entangled with linguistics as I continue on with the Gospels. It is the message that matters far more than it is the grammatical constructs by which the message has been relayed. Let me be more curious as to the flavor of that message than with the technical aspects. Let me seek to hear my Lord speak through these His servants rather than expect some academic concern for the propriety of grammatical usage from these comfortable men.
This is not to say I ought to dismiss linguistic issues altogether, but such pursuits ought to serve as tools to clarify or to validate understanding, and not as a basis for discovering new or hidden meanings. Every tool provided for the study of Scripture is good when it is used properly. Every such tool becomes an evil if used improperly. Just as we were studying in Romans 7 last week, the Law is good, but sin made evil use of it. So, the tools of Scriptural studies, the lexical aids, the encyclopedias, and every other means given us to understand. These things are good, and when used to arrive at the Truth, their use is good. But, when they are turned to the pursuits of vain imaginations, while the tools remain good, the use does not.
Returning to the text, then, I would like to ponder the closing comments of this particular section. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away.” This is a viewpoint that echoes through the Scriptures. It is not some new conception on the part of Jesus, but an expansion. The Psalmist, for example, writes along a similar vein. “They (the heavens and the earth) will perish, but You endure. They will wear out like clothing, and like clothing You will change them; and they will be changed” (Ps 102:26). This would certainly seem to point to the same perspective that Jesus is sharing. I would note, as well, the concluding line of that Psalm. “The children of Thy servants will continue, and their descendants will be established before Thee” (Ps 102:28 NASB). One could almost hear that arguing for understanding ‘this generation’ in the wider application of ‘this people, this race’. However, I don’t really wish to pursue that further.
Isaiah also addresses the real situation that applies to these most permanent of objects. “Lift your eyes and look at the sky, or look at the earth below your feet! The sky will vanish like smoke. The earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants will also die. But! My salvation is eternal. My righteousness shall not lessen” (Isa 51:6). Again, it’s the same lesson that Jesus has been imparting. The temple? You think that’s impressive? You think that’s the very model of permanence? No, no. It will be most thoroughly destroyed, and that within your lifetime. The earth? It’s no more permanent than the temple. The planets and stars? Their change may go too slowly for you to observe, but they assuredly change. And one day, that change shall be so cataclysmic in scope that you will surely notice it, you who are around at the time. All of this, all that so impresses itself upon your senses and that you think so firm and steady, it will all be gone. Only God remains unchanged and unchanging. He is the true permanence.
If we look forward to the text of Hebrews, we find that His permanence is of great value to those He has called as His elect. When it was said, ‘yet once more I will shake heaven and earth’, that bespeaks the removal of everything that can be shaken – created things. Only that which cannot be shaken can remain (Heb 12:27). Now, here’s where it gets good: We receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken (Heb 12:28)! This is marvelous, but it also implies a certain responsibility on our part. Seeing we have received this kingdom, how must we respond? “Therefore, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe.” Then, comes the concluding point: “For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29).
One could follow this linkage further, and recognize Peter’s description of that final shaking, how the very elements will be consumed by fire (2Pe 3:10). And, who is that fire, but our God Who is a consuming fire? If, then, creation is going to be destroyed, it shall come about by one hand and one hand only. It either comes by God’s decree or it does not come at all. What is clear from even this very brief survey is that this is His decree. It resounds throughout. Just as the great hope of the Gospel resounds throughout, the scarlet thread, as it has been described, so does this message regarding the cessation of all we deemed permanent.
What our senses inform us is permanent is not truly so. Mountains seem so permanent, but even in recent years we’ve had the local reminder that they are not. The Old Man of the Mountain up there in New Hampshire is no longer to be seen. Mountains may fall. This is but a small loss when measured against the final shakeout. We concern ourselves with the possibilities of an asteroid crashing to earth, or of the impacts of a coronal mass ejection transfixing our orbital course. Yet, these are small things when measured against the final shakeout. These still belie a false sense of permanence in us. In some ways, it strikes me that our whole penchant for protecting the environment and so on belies that same false understanding. Yes, we ought to be good stewards over the earthly order that God has entrusted into our care. Yet, we must know it is but for a season. We cannot hold it constant, any more than we could keep the old man up there on the mountain.
For all that we hear this chatter about how man impacts the environment and how we must do this and that to keep the environment from changing, the reality is that we are by no means capable of keeping the environment from doing what it will. Do we impact it? Doubtless. So do the fishes and the snails. So do worms and microbes. But, there is One Who truly manages the course of all these things, us included. There is One Who sets the course not only of planets and stars, but of events. There is One. And, He it is Who first fashioned these things that so impress our senses. It is also He Who has informed us repeatedly that these things are not permanent. They are temporary. They come to an end, and He alone knows the timetable. He alone knows because He it is Who sets the timetable, and He had that final moment in view even as He went about establishing the order of Creation in the first place.
Oh, my soul, lay hold of this! God is He Who declares the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10), for He is the beginning and the end (Rev 22:13). Heavens and earth will indeed cease, but His Word will not, and His Word, that Living Word embodied in the eternal Christ of God, has called you. He has decreed it! Salvation, which is eternal, as He said through Isaiah, is yours. By His own right arm, He has done it. If He could hang upon that cross and shout, “It is finished!” understand that from the very moment described at the opening of Genesis, it was equally true. The moment there was an “in the beginning” there was simultaneously an “it is finished!” The work of God is that certain. The outcome is that certain.
Heavens and earth may pass away. They will pass away. We can speak with certainty because He has spoken with certainty. They will pass away, but rejoice! He has overcome the world. He has overcome the heavens. The battle has been long, and the days often dark, but victory is ours because it is His. These things, all these things that so impress and amaze us, are just temporary. They are the introductory slide to eternity. If the temporary work of God is this impressive, just think what the final product is going to be like!
We are called to seek His kingdom first (Mt 6:33), and also His righteousness. Do you see it? “My salvation is eternal. My righteousness shall not lessen” (Isa 51:6). Seek the truly permanent. All the things of this present impermanence shall be added to you. What you need in this period when time matters will be seen to, but for your part, for my part, the focus has got to be on what really will last. Don’t get caught up in this stuff. Don’t let the weeds of the present choke out the good seed of eternity.
Lord, how easy it is. How easily I can become saddened and despondent when I look at this present life. I see my beloved suffering in her health, and how can I not be saddened by that? I see my daughter’s hopes and dreams and I see my inability to provide the fuel for those hopes and dreams and how can I not be saddened by it? I see my own present, in so many ways stripped of earthly pleasures and pursuits. It’s not that the interest is gone, just the means. And, yes, this also can drag me down in spirit. Yet, there is so much happening that is truly good and marvelous. You have moved me into this position of teaching – a thing which simultaneously thrills and scares me, for You have also given me to consider well the responsibility that attaches. You have brought us into this new family, into a place of firm foundation. Yes, there is a shaking going on. Isn’t there always? Yet, You are not shaken. In a strange way (strange to me – You are not taken aback) I am not shaken. I am steadfast, O, Lord. My heart is steadfast.
Yes, I confess that I am easily turned from my proper focus by all this stuff of life. I look about my house and see so much that needs fixing, and I see no means to fix it. Should it matter? Oh, Lord! You tell me to fret not, yet You also ask me to be a good steward. I look at these things, and find I must question my stewardship. It is this, I think, that gives me the greater grief. I can, on a good day, count all this stuff as dross. But, it is dross that You have given me, and in that sense, no dross at all, but a gift to be cherished. And yet, You point me back towards eternity. Yet, You instruct me to take my eyes off of that which is entrusted to me and put them on what is promised to me. The inheritance that is mine by Your guarantee is of such infinitely greater value that really, if I must count all this present stuff loss, what of it? So long as I am pursuing Your plan and purpose, it is well with my soul.
Let me therefore ask it of You, Lord: Am I? Am I pursuing Your plan and Your purpose with this life You have given me, or am I just putting window dressing on it? Let me ask more honestly. Inasmuch as I am doubtless guilty of playing dress up in at least some areas of my life, I pray Thee expose me to myself. Teach me to follow Your ways more fully. Move upon me, my God, that I might truly forsake those things that are displeasing to You, and let go of those things that hold me back from You. Let me be one who is looking to eternity as You have instructed. Let me hold to Your permanence, and give this present impermanence only such attention as it deserves.
