This Generation

Till has to correct a biblicist's thinking on the Bible's teaching concerning when Jesus said he would return. From the Alt Bible Errancy discussion list, 31 May 1998:

Harry Staiti:

Mk 13.28-30, Mt 24.32-34 and Lk 21.29-32 all predict that

Jesus would return in a unspecified time and that time was to be 
within the first century.

>> 

All the authors state that Jesus would return in ~their~

generation.

>

TREVOR

I'm assuming you've recently joined the list, since this issue has 

been under discussion on other threads. The three passages you

cite above are from three authors, but they all record the same 
speech by Jesus. I just want to clarify that for anyone who has 
not taken the time to look them up. There are no significant 
differences between the three, so essentially we have but one 
statement to deal with:

>

"But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun

will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the 
stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will 
be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in 
the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and 
they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky 
with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels 
with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect

from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

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." (Matt 24:29-34, NAS)

>

Although there are some variations in the preceding discourse

between what each writer includes, these verses culminate in 
all three, to end up with the statement in question. Having thus 
identified the signs of His coming (in response to the disciples' 
questions at the opening of the chapter), Jesus illustrates a point 
with the fig tree. Just as it gives certain indications of the coming 
of summer, these signs will show that Christ's coming is quite near. 
In fact, He goes on to explain that the generation which sees "all 
these things" will not pass away. In the context, there is every 
reason to believe that "this generation" refers to those who see 
the signs. It is only the bias of those who want to see an 
implication of a first century return that requires it to refer to 
the generation alive at the time Jesus was speaking.

>

New Testament Prophecy Failures

The following is an excerpt from "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled", by Farrell Till:

NEW TESTAMENT FAILURES

Except for the book of Revelation, the New Testament isn't considered as prophetic as the Old Testament; nevertheless, one can still find examples of unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises in the New Testament.

All twelve apostles to be rewarded: When Peter asked Jesus what reward the apostles could expect for forsaking all to follow him Jesus said, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28). A lot of theological rhetoric has been expended on the meaning of "the regeneration." Did Jesus refer to the church era that began on the day of Pentecost when he would sit on the "spiritual" throne of David or did he have in mind a period that would follow his second coming? Regardless of the time period he was referring to, the passage poses a problem. How, for example, could Judas, who was one of the twelve at the time this was said, ever be permitted to sit on a throne in a judge's capacity? In another gospel account, Jesus himself called Judas the son of perdition (John 17:12). So will the "son of perdition" be awarded a throne to sit on during the regeneration? That hardly seems possible, because Jesus said at the last supper that it would have been better for Judas if he had not been born (Mark 14: 21). If he should be awarded a throne in Jesus's kingdom that would make this statement false, wouldn't it? How could it, in any sense, be said of a man elevated to such a position as this that it would have been better for him if he had never been born? Some Bible apologists argue that Jesus, omnisciently knowing that Matthias would be chosen to succeed Judas (Acts 1:23-26), said twelve thrones instead of eleven because of his intention to keep his apostolic crew in full force. If that is so, one might argue that he, omnisciently knowing that Saul of Tarsus would later be called into the apostleship as "one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15:8), would have been more exact had he said thirteen thrones rather than twelve. Others insist that the number twelve should not be interpreted so literally, that this is just a case of the figure of speech known as ampliatio, the retention of a name or designation after the reason for the original designation has ceased to exist. In counterargument, however, the opposition has every right to ask if there will ever be an end to figurative and spiritual interpretations of scriptures that pose serious problems for the inerrancy doctrine. There were twelve apostles present when Jesus made this prophecy, so why should we not believe that he meant twelve?