For those who are interested, please click here to purchase a copy of this book. It also has an appendix with Adam Clarke's commentary on Matthew 24 which is in public domain, with additional explanatory notes written by me along the way.
I would like to offer a small contribution with a fresh and biblical perspective on the phrase “this generation” (with an emphasis on “this”) in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32 that I thought many might enjoy reading.
I have heard of the term "this" briefly alluded to in other writings, but no one to date (that I am aware of) has ever given it a detailed report. To do so is quite revealing. And it leaves one with a scathing testimony against those who would attempt to "reinvent the wheel" regarding this little demonstrative Greek pronoun "this" and to preach about "another Jesus" in another era of one's own making.
History is repeating itself all over again. The Stone which the builders (the Jews) rejected, is still being rejected today (by Christians no less) for future rebuilt temples with the reinstatement of Levitical priesthood, animal sacrifices and OT festivals, and even literal circumcision (Ezk. 44:9)—all based upon a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Daniel's 70th week, along with the visions and prophecies of Isaiah, Zechariah, Amos, and even of Ezekiel’s which depicts the idyllic nature of the Church age and not a re-visitation and rebuilding of all of these types and shadows. Understood correctly, Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 depict not the future restoration of Israel’s national existence in the land of Palestine in 1948, but their annihilation which occurred in 70 AD. And Christ is still “a Stone that causes men to stumble (over His words) and a Rock that makes them fall.” The Jews, as well as many in the church today, are still dull of hearing and are all still chasing after carnal, natural ordinances; and not after the reality which with all of its splendor and beauty is seen in Christ. All I can say is, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.” Sadly, many in the Church are lending their ears to a spirit that is not of Christ, but is anti-Christ. But enough of that for now, let's move on to determining what the word “this” means in “this generation.” It really does settle the matter with regards to what “generation” Jesus had in mind. But bear in mind, what is written below are no pithy arguments or things stated by some simpleton. What is written below is going to take some deep thinking as to what is being stated. But once understood, one will come away knowing that “this generation” that Jesus was referring to is not another generation in our time; otherwise, He would have said “that generation.” As someone has rightly said, “the truth is in the details.” Well, the truth is in the details of this little word “this.”
Now in both Greek and English grammar, “this,” “that,” “these” and “those” are all what are known as "demonstrative pronouns" in the Greek language, or "demonstrative pronouns" and "adjectives" in the English language. Now it is certainly true that a demonstrative answers the question, “Which generation?” But the very purpose behind using the little word “this” is to single out “which” generation Jesus was exactly referring to, distinguishing it from any other possible generation. It is as simple as that. As any Greek or English grammar book and online website will tell you, the word for the demonstrative “this” refers to something close by or proximal, while the demonstrative “that” refers to something more distant (distal) or far away. Similarly, “these” refers to people, places or things more nearby, while “those” refers to people, places or things more distant or far away. [1]
Concerning these Greek demonstratives, the Greek expositor A.T. Robertson writes:
They may point out, as far or near…as in apposition…, as well known…, as already mentioned. (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 693).In grammar, “apposition” is when a phrase or word is placed along side another as an explanatory equivalent. Understood as such, according to Robertson, it is “deictic” and “marks an object by its position in respect to the speaker” (ibid). He also notes that they are “pointing.” And what Robertson refers to “as already mentioned” is what he terms also elsewhere in his book as “anaphoric,” meaning, “one that denotes an object already [just] mentioned or otherwise known” (ibid), such as in the case of the words of a literary writer that were just spoken or in the immediate context or words of a debater.
Greek authorities Dana and Mantey add,
…it is desired to call attention with special emphasis to a designated object, whether in the physical vicinity of the speaker or the literary context of the writer....a. For that which is relatively near in actuality [“the physical vicinity”], or thought [in “the literary context of the writer”], the immediate demonstrative is used. [For example, in a literary context:] outos gar o Melchisedek..., “For this Melchizedek, Heb. 7:1...b. For that which is relatively distant in actuality [“the physical vicinity”], or thought [in “the literary context of the writer”], the remote demonstrative is used. [For example:] esothey eh guvn apo tns opas ekeivns, “The woman was saved from that hour, Mat. 9:22... (A Manual Grammar of the Gk. N.T., pp. 127-128). Italics and words in brackets mine.In English it is no different. The English rules for these demonstratives (as is the case with many other languages) are understood in the same way as Robertson and Dana and Mantey have described them above with regards to their Greek usage. For example:
In linguistics, demonstratives are deictic words (they depend on an external frame of reference) that indicate which entities a speaker refers to and distinguishes those entities from others. Demonstratives are employed for spatial deixis (using the context of the physical surroundings of the speaker and sometimes the listener) and for discourse deixis...where the meaning is dependent on something other than the relative physical location of the speaker, for example whether something is currently being said or was said earlier. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrative).The most common categories of contextual information referred to by "deixis" are those of: person, place, and time. Other categories include: discourse and social. Again, Wikipedia notes:
Person deixis concerns itself with the grammatical persons involved in an utterance, (1) those directly involved (e.g. the speaker, the addressee), (2) those not directly involved (e.g. overhearers—those who hear the utterance but who are not directly addressed) and, (3) those mentioned in the utterance....
Discourse deixis, also referred to as text deixis, refers to the use of expressions within an utterance to refer to parts of the discourse that contains the utterance — including the utterance itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis)Nothing could be further from the truth when someone says that, “the context determines how these demonstratives are to be defined.” There is nothing anywhere in any definition that substantiates this. The only definitions given are those stated above. This is very telling indeed, and should cause one to pause with concern and deep reflection on all of this when attempting to establish the context as the premise for understanding how these words are to be defined, and as to whether “this” should be “that,” or “that” should be “this.” When someone has already used these words with regards to persons, places or things within their own immediate physical vicinity, or within the immediate context of their own writing or debate, we cannot force upon their usage of these words anything more than what they have already clearly stated. Their words are set in stone once and for all. They have spoken them, and no one can reinterpret them to mean something other than what or who they are referring to.
Just think about it for a moment: What if my interpretation of what I think someone has spoken about “in the context” is wrong? How has that helped me to determine what “this” or “that” is pointing to? It doesn’t! Such an argument is self-refuting. The little demonstrative “this” tells us exactly what it is that is being referred to both in time and place, not the context!
Even the very definition of the word "demonstrative" leaves one with no doubt as to what or whom a writer or speaker is referring to. Webster’s Compact Dictionary defines it as: "1. self-expressive; 2. explanatory; 3. conclusive." Webster’s New World Dict. says, "1. to show clearly; 2. to point out," which is the same thing that Robertson has said earlier of them being “pointing.”
Defining "Generation"
Now before going any further detail on the word “this,” as a side bar, the word also for “generation(s),” genea, doesn’t denote either a past or future race of Jews, because Israel as a “race” doesn’t immediately cease to be “after all these things are fulfilled,” no matter whether one is a preterist or a futurist, for even the "futurist" sees the Second Coming of Christ as occurring before the ushering in of the millennium which the Jewish race is suppose to immediately enter into afterward. On the other hand, a “generation” of contemporaneous individuals within a given, stated, period of time could eventually “pass away” once all of these things that Jesus speaks about are fulfilled. "Races" do not, generally speaking, "pass away," but "generations" do. Generations come and go within a stated time period!
In Vine’s Expos. Dict. of Old and NT Words, Kittel’s Theo. Dict. of the NT, and Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, the Greek genea for “generations,” used 42 times in the NT, is also understood to mean by these lexicographers as: 1) an age or time; 2) a family or progeny; 3) a generation or multitude living at a given time; 4) a race or kind.
And some even add a 5th category of that which is “begotten” or “birthed” by another. But the status-quo, or consensus, seems to hold to the first four usages. And what is extremely important to notice here are Vine’s words, which state: “The word genea is to be distinguished from aion [‘age’], as not denoting a period of unlimited duration” (ibid, vol. 1, p. 42; italics his, words in brackets and bold italics mine). The truth of Vine’s statement here can be visualized in the distinction that is noted between these two words in Col. 1:26: “This message was kept secret for centuries [or “ages”; Gk. aionon], and generations [Gk. geneon] past, but now it has been revealed to God’s people” (NLT). Eph. 3:21, likewise affirms, “to Him is the glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus, to all the generations [geneas] of the age [aionos] of the ages [aionon]. Amen!” (YLT)
Now, while the Greek word genea may not in and of itself denote contemporaries, it is just as important to note that it doesn’t denote any period of “unlimited duration” either. This is extremely important to understand so that one is careful not to make the claim that it can refer to just any and all evil generations throughout the entire gospel era. Luke chapter one, verse 50 clearly delineates this understanding for us, by asserting: “And his mercy is unto generations and generations on them that fear him” (ESV). Or, again, in Acts 13:36: “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption.” And even more telling is Jesus’ own words again on this matter: “But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” (Lke. 17:25). God again uses the same phrase through Moses: “Not a man of this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give to your forefathers, except Caleb son of Jephunneh…” (Deut. 1:35-36). And so as to leave no one with any further doubt as to the difference between “this” and “that,” the NIV likewise says one chapter later: “...that entire generation of fighting men had perished from the camp, as the LORD had sworn to them” (Deut. 2:14). Here we see a proper use of “this” and “that,” and a clear distinction as to how these two demonstratives are to be used and understood; with one referring to what is “present,” with the other referring to what is more “distal,” or in the past; with one denoting something “near,” while the other denotes something “far away.” Would anyone dare to insinuate that God is talking about any other generation than the one that was then living? Neither should we of Jesus! If there is no reason to question God’s usage in Deuteronomy, then there should be no reason to question Jesus’ usage of these words throughout the gospels! There is no mystery here. This is plain and simple language for all to understand. And we shouldn't make it any more difficult than it really is!
Another important thing to note is that the word “kind,” which is identified with “a race” above, is not to be mistaken with a “sort,” “nature,” or “character” of certain individuals, as some have also mistakenly understood this to mean in their books and newsletters that they have written. On the contrary, “race” is referring to an ethnic group or breed of people that are related by common descent or heredity. There is a “homonym” for the word “kind” (such as race) that does include the idea of a particular “sort,” “nature,” or “character,” but that is not the meaning to be derived here in Mat. 24:34. Some more descriptive words for “race” or “kind” would also be: tribe, clan, stock, line, breed, people, or nation. As said before, clearly Jesus didn’t have in mind “a race” that was to pass away.
Now “genea” is overwhelming acknowledged by all of the authorities listed above to mean nothing more than a “generation” of people then living during Christ’s Olivet discourse. It is not a “race/kind”; not an “age/time”; nor a “family/progeny” (and especially not a “kind” of people as understood of a particular “sort,” “nature,” or “character”), but it is “a multitude of people living at a given time.” So the question now really becomes for us: Which particular generation is Jesus referring to? In His past, or in our future? The demonstrative pronouns “this” or “that” point to which generation Jesus is referring to. But before we talk about all that some more, let's first of all see how other translations translate the Greek word genea, which shows how even they didn't agree with each other when it came to the translation of this word.
Everywhere in the NASB, genea is translated 41 times “generation(s),” but only once as “kind” (Lke. 16:8).
In the NIV, it is translated 37 times “generation(s),” once “descendents” (Acts 8:33), once “it” (Mk. 8:12; the 2nd occurrence "it" referring to its 1st occurrence in that verse as “generation”), once “kind” (Lke. 16:8; cp. also to NASB above), once “past” (Acts 14:16), and once “times” (Acts 15:21).
In the KJV, it is translated 37 times “generation(s),” twice as “time(s)” (Acts 14:16; 15:21), twice as “ages” (Eph. 3:5, 21), and once as “nations” (Php. 2:15). And except for Eph. 3:5, the NKJV correctly changes three of the KJV’s translation of “time” and “ages” as “generation.”
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) of the Greek is very telling indeed, for it is translates "genea" as “generation(s)” IN EVERY SINGLE OCCURRENCE, as it really should be! My Marshall’s literal Interlinear Greek-English NT does the very same thing!
And in Lke. 16:8 above in the NASB, where genea is translated “kind,” it is overwhelmingly translated “generation” in: KJV, NKJV, AKJV, ESV, ASV, ERV, BBE, DRB, DBT, WBT and WEB. Weymouth’s translation (WNT) even goes so far as to translate it in English: “…for, in relation to their own contemporaries [Gk. ten genean], the men of this age [Gk. aionos] are shrewder than the sons of Light” (words in brackets mine), with the idea being understood here, as in most commentaries, that in each successive generation that men find themselves living in, they learn to become shrewd in taking advantage of all the going trends of the day.
In 1Pet. 2:9, “chosen generation” in the KJV, “people” in the NIV, or “race” in the NASB and YLT, are all translations from the Greek, genos, which literally means “offspring,” and is not to be confused with the Greek, genea, which as we said above, overwhelmingly denotes “a multitude of people living at a given time.” In Peter, God’s “chosen [or elect] offspring” and “royal priesthood” are chosen throughout the gospel era, not just from a single generation at a particular given time.
So in summary, the Greek genea, especially with regards to the phrase “this generation,” does not denote a particular “family,” “race,” “kind,” “type,” “sort,” or “age” of people that was to extend from Jesus’ day up until our day, or even beyond as Vine’s has assured us and as common usage in Scripture of this word dictates to us, but it only denotes “a multitude of people living at a given time.” For not only did Jesus say to His present disciples, “when YOU see ALL these things” (which included seeing the coming of the Son of Man in power), but He also used the demonstrative pronoun “this” in “this generation” to refer to their generation, along with the present particle “happening” (in Mk. 13:29 and Lke. 21:31) that will not allow for such a s-t-r-e-t-c-h of the imagination to include some sort of people at any given time throughout the gospel era. And Jesus definitely didn’t have a generation way off in our future in mind either, because He was talking specifically to His disciples in answer to their question of when the end of the era of the temple buildings would occur that they had all just spoken about. It was to be something that they would themselves witness in their generation, not ours!
Jesus was not being ambiguous here as to what events and ideas were to portray and usher in the sole subject of discussion at hand here that would occur in His disciple’s lifetime, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem that would put an end to the Jewish age (and not “world” as some translations denote). And the fact that all that Jesus spoke about did in fact occur in 70 AD is a testament to the validity that all His words to that end were fulfilled―every single one of them! Any “ambiguity” within us only arises from our own misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or misapplication of His words in Mat. 24:29f, Mk. 13:24f, and Lke. 21:25f in thinking that these things were all referring to His Second Coming, when they weren't! Now this is not to deny the physical Second Coming of Christ, but this is just not what Jesus was referring to in His Olivet discourse. That was referring to His coming in judgment upon Israel in 70 AD. Space and time will not permit me to go into any further details, as it is not the purpose of this discussion to write about such details here. However, I would highly recommend reading John Bray’s book entitled: Matthew 24 Fulfilled. See also my article: The Coming of the Son of Man.
Now in getting back to our subject at hand, it should also be noted briefly here that the Greek “genea” for “generation,” and “autn” for “this,” are both in the singular, not plural. So we are definitely talking about a single and particular generation within a definite and particular time frame; and not an indefinite race or sort of people throughout time, or even in many future successive generations (plural).
It has already been determined by Greek scholarship that the most commonly accepted NT usage of genea is “generation,” which denotes a whole multitude of individuals living at one particular time. And by Jesus saying “this” generation, He was describing His generation of contemporaneous Jews (other than His believers and also those outside of the Jewish nation) as that adulterous, wicked, unbelieving, perverse and sinful generation that He had always referred to them as when using this phrase; although in the Olivet discourse He could have been referring to all who were then living, including His disciples. But it seems more likely, by Jesus’ repeated usage of this phrase elsewhere, that He most likely intended to characterize and classify those Jewish individuals as well who heard His message and who were at that time rejecting Him. “This generation,” in the greater context of all the gospel narratives, is indeed that specific multitude of Jews who were Christ's contemporaries, and whose hearts remained hardened to God. They were indeed a specific generation of people living in His day, though not necessarily the totality of all those who were alive in Jesus’ day.
In addition, if it is any consolation, Arndt and Gingrich in their lexicon noted above, state that everywhere Jesus used the phrase “this generation,” that it was a:
generation [of] contemporaries….Jesus looks upon the whole contemp. [contemporary] generation of Jews as a uniform mass confronting Him n y. autn [Gk. italics here: 'this generation']...Mt 11:16; 12:41f; 23:36; 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 7:31; 11:29-32, 50f; 17:25; 21:32...(ibid, p. 154, under point #2). Words in bold and in brackets mine.
Back To Greek Demonstrative Pronouns
As noted earlier, the Greek demonstrative pronoun tells us exactly what item the speaker or writer is referring to in time or in space. Matthew 24:34 is no exception to this rule. And everywhere where the phrase "this generation" is spoken of by Christ throughout the gospels, He is speaking of His generation.[2] And it is also of importance to note Christ’s conclusive remarks to his Jewish contemporaries in Mat. 23:36 (also referred to as "this generation") which was His last message just before departing from the temple to give the Olivet discourse on the Mount of Olives. Mat. 23:36 serves us to understand and buttress the fact of how Jesus was to be understood just a little while later in Mat. 24:34. Jesus had no other generation on His mind than the one who was His contemporaries. And the rules of English and Greek grammar on demonstrative adjectives and pronouns dictate to us how we are to understand Jesus’ words and that He meant exactly what He said, when He said exactly what He meant.
Weymouth evidently recognized the importance of this little demonstrative adjective "this," by even translating it in his own translation of Mat. 24:34, "I tell you in solemn truth that the present generation will certainly not pass away without all these things having first taken place." This is not a biased translation based upon ones own eschatological viewpoint, but based upon an understanding of the text that is rooted in a proper understanding of the original languages and grammar. Greek expositor A. T. Robertson agrees that Christ "had plainly stated in verse 34 that those events [the destruction of the city and temple] would take place in that [or their] generation" (Word Pictures in the NT, vol. 1, p. 194; italics and words in brackets mine). He also acknowledges, though, that verse 35 speaks of Christ’s 2nd Coming. But at least he is honest and forthright in his understanding of the grammar of the Greek in verse 34, as he is also with Mk. 13:30 and Lk. 21:32 as referring to: "naturally people then living" (ibid, vol. 2, p. 261). Moffatt’s translation, Today’s English Bible, the New English Bible, the Amplified Bible and the Good News Bible all follow suit. In fact, the Good News Bible reads: "Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have all died." Good going for the Good News Bible! And even more telling on all of this is the fact the International Standard Version and God’s Word Translation, translate “this generation” in almost every occurrence where it is found in the gospels, with variations of : “the people who are living today” and “the people who are living now.” But in the Olivet discourse they didn’t bother to do this, but just leave it as “this generation.” Hmmm! Do you think it is because now they have a bias as to how it should be really understood there, and instead of correctly translating it as they have everywhere else, they just chose to leave it alone in this instance? Your guess is as good as mine! But the important fact is that on more than one occasion they realized that the phrase had relevance for Jesus’ day and none other!
Gary DeMar likewise notes,
The use of the near demonstrative "this" locks the time of "this generation" that was near to Jesus. If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He would have said "that generation." (http://preteristarchive.com/Modern/2007%20demar%20geisler%20generation.html).John Bray similarly adds,
…in a real sense, verse 34 itself governs when it was to be understood when all these things would occur, rather than the other way around as House and Ice would have it (Matthew 24 Fulfilled, p. 214). (Note: Wayne House and Thomas Ice wrongfully argue that the context determines its usage).Many will recognize this fact in other verses where the phrase “this generation” is found in the gospels, but then speak of it here in Mat. 24:34 as a “present” thought in the mind of Christ (whatever that means), but only to be realized some time in our future. And some even think it should be translated as “that” generation due to the fact that in their minds the context can only be speaking about future rebuilt temples once again being destroyed along with Christ’s physical Second Coming. So they “reinvent the wheel” on the rules of grammar regarding these demonstratives to suit their own a priori interpretation. But as we have already seen, according to the rules for demonstrative adjectives and pronouns, such an argument is flawed. A “present generation in thought that is to be realized in our future” makes no sense at all, but only makes complete and utter nonsense of the rules of grammar. And as stated earlier, the “context” doesn’t determine how the word “this” is to be understood, but “this” determines what is to be understood in the context. This demonstrative in and by itself determines (or demonstrates) that what is said in a given context as either proximate or distal. Nothing else determines this. This is a serious oversight by those who say "the context" determines the meaning of “this” or “that.” If that were true, it would render these demonstratives both meaningless and useless. The context only assists us to let us know what has already been referred to or spoken about as either occurring “spatially” or in “a writer’s mind,” and whether these demonstratives are used as adjectives or as pronouns. But nothing more is to be ascertained from these. And for those who reinterpret “this” to mean “that,” well, we won’t even bother with such ridiculous notions. These demonstratives say what they mean, and mean what they say. They cannot be changed once they have already been stated.
Now when someone is pointing out “this man,” “this woman,” “this car,” or “this generation” they are naturally pointing to a person(s), place or thing that is in close approximation to themselves; whereas in literature it is to what has just been presently spoken about in the thought of the writer. Conversely, when someone is speaking or writing about something that is more distant, or more removed from the speaker or writer in either time or space, such a person would use the demonstrative “that” or “those.” In other words, they would say “that” generation over there or off into the distant future or past, as opposed to “this” generation, which is contemporaneous.
Now, except for the flippant translation of the New International Reader’s Version, all bible translations, commentaries, and Greek expositors (that I’m aware of) who translate the Greek word autn (“this”) in Mat. 24:34, Mk. 13:30 and Lke. 21:32, translate it into English using the word “this” and not “that“―every single one of them! And they shouldn’t translate it as “that,” because “this” means “this,” and “that” means “that.” In fact, everywhere in the NT that this Greek word autn is found in the KJV it is translated “this.” Not in one single place has it been translated with the word “that.” In fact, there is an occurrence in the NIV, in Acts 5:38, where “this” is replaced actually with the word “present.” It reads: “Therefore, in the present [Gk. autn] case I advise you.” This lends credence to the fact that the translators recognized that the Greek word for “this” here means something proximate, and not distal at all. So, the verse could very well read: “Therefore, in this case I advise you.” Now who reading that would think of any other “case” other than the one presently before them?
And even more telling in all this, is when Jesus said in Mk. 13:29 and Lk. 21:31 "when you see these things happening, you know that it [the coming kingdom of God and of Christ coming in judgment with power upon Jerusalem] is near, right at the door." The Greek word for "happening" here is "the present participle" (Vincent's Word Studies in the NT, pp. 120, 212). And a "present participle" is "normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb,"[3] and is "used to express present action in relation to the time indicated" (Dictionary.com). Online Wiktionary also adds that it is to be understood as "an ongoing action in the present." So when Jesus said, "when you see these things," the present participle "happening" agrees to the fact that it was a contemporaneous action that the disciples would continually see being played out in their own lifetime. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary also states with regards to Mk. 13:29: "So ye, in like manner, when you see all these things come to pass—rather, coming to pass" (note the present tense verb "coming"). And the NIV, NASB, AMP, as well as many more translations, translate this word in a similar manner.
Now in English grammar "participles" come in "two varieties, past and present...each present participle ends in ing. This is the case 100 percent of the time."[4] Another example of this would be to say: "He is coming," and not "will be coming" or "is to be coming." In the Greek these present tense verbs can also have a future application, and unlike demonstrative pronouns their usage can only be determined by the context. The context is the key in determining how these participle verbs are to be used here.[5] So according to this present participle’s usage in the context of Mark and in Luke, Christ’s twelve disciples were to “see all these things” taking place in their own lifetime in what He referred to as "this" (or their) generation. They were to begin to start "happening" in their present day and their “continuance” was to be seen right up until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
So the unique, foreign and flippant translation of the New International Reader's Version mentioned above as being the only version to translate the Greek "autn" as "that" is flawed, if not for just this reason above of the "present participle" alone that denotes something that was to occur that the disciples would themselves “see.” Let alone for the fact that the Greek demonstratives for "this" and "that" mean exactly what they are intended to mean in the Greek, just as our own English words "this" and "that" do. "This" does not, cannot, mean "that," or vice-versa. No translator or person can just arbitrarily change these words to mean whatever they want them to mean. They have already been stated. They are set in stone and they are what they are, clearly articulating what the person meant by them.
Sadly, some translations of the Greek NT have not been careful enough to pay closer attention to how these demonstrative pronouns should be translated. A Greek Interlinear, such as that of Marshall's NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament is a valuable resource in this regard. A word-for-word literal translation based upon such an Interlinear would not make these common errors that revisions keep trying to correct; even when it comes to trying to accurately portray these demonstrative pronouns. Many revisions have been made just with regards to these demonstratives alone. Just compare some of the translations with one another and you will see all of this for yourself firsthand!
Now without going into too much detail, there are a few Greek demonstrative pronouns for our English word "this" which are all derivatives of the root "outos." And some of these pronouns even find special usages as personal or intensive pronouns. So, basically, we have the demonstrative pronoun "outos" and its Greek derivatives for the English translation "this," and we have the Greek "ekeivos" strictly used for our English word "that," with further translations of the word "that" in the form of other Greek relative pronouns and conjunctions (see Bullinger's A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the Greek and English NT, pp. 769-776, 790-793).
A. T. Robertson adds:
…outos does, as a rule, refer to what is near or [just] last mentioned and ekeivos to what is remote (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 702).And in his introduction to his Greek interlinear, Marshall notes:
The construction of the [English] demonstrative adjectives is peculiar in the Greek. The definite article is used as well as the demonstrative adjective in one of two possible positions: either---outos o oikos, "this the house," or o oikos outos, "the house this." The definite article is of course not wanted [or needed] in English, and the proper translation is obvious---"this house." Ekeivos ('that') similarly. [6] (Italics, bold, quotation marks, and words in brackets mine for emphasis and clarity).In Luke 18:14 notice how these two demonstratives occur in sharp contrast with each other; with one referring to the publican (“this” one, Gk., outos), the other to the Pharisee (“that” one, Gk., ekeivov). Young’s Literal Translation, in agreement with Marshall’s word-for-word Interlinear, reads: “I say to you, this one went down declared righteous, to his house, rather than that one.”
Another excellent example of these two usages seen side by side is in James 4:15, where it reads:
Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."The word in the Greek for "this" is in James is "touto," and the word for "that" is "ekeivo." "Touto" can never mean "that," and "ekeivo" will never mean "this," just as it is in our own English language with "this" and "that." As stated earlier, the Greek "autn" ("this") in Mat. 24:34 is to be handled the same way. In all these examples just mentioned, these Greek demonstrative pronouns are used in their adjectival form. And some more Greek words that are used as such are: toutou, toutous, toutw, toutwv, toutois, tautas, tautns, tautn, tautnv, tautais, tauta, and autai. These are all the derivatives spoken about earlier of the Greek stem “outos.”
William D. Mounce in his Basics of Biblical Greek, on p. 107, likewise writes: “The demonstratives in Greek are outos (this/these) and ekeivos (that/those).” And then he mentions all the forms of this stem outos that are listed throughout my article which mean “this” or “these,” but never “that.”
Anyway, so much for a little lesson on the rules of grammar. But simply stated, what is true for us in our language and how these words can mean nothing else than what we are saying, it is also equally true in the Greek language and in many other languages.
Will The Real Greek Authority, Please Stand Up!
Now when someone like the founding pastor Chuck Smith (a dispensationalist) of the Calvary Chapel’s all over the United States and the world says:
In the Greek it [the word "this" in "this generation"] could be translated 'that generation'. That generation which sees the fig tree bud forth, that generation which sees the Lord build up Zion shall not pass until all these things--the appearance of the Antichrist, the seven years of tribulation, and the second coming of Christ--be fulfilled. That generation that was living in May of 1948 shall not pass until the second coming of Jesus Christ takes place and the kingdom of God be established upon the earth (Snatched Away, The Word For Today, ©1978, p. 45; words in brackets mine).He's wrong! What Greek authority is he referring to? Has he now become an authority unto himself? Would this qualify him as one who has a "private interpretation"? You bet it does! Maybe he got this from just an arbitrary reading of the Strong’s Concordance or by warming up to the NIRV[7], which we know he didn’t, because that imprecise and loose translation of the Bible didn’t come into print until 1996 (NT only in '94). So where he garnered his idea from, one can only speculate. But I do know that his end-times theology concerning Matthew 24 has caused him to "stumble" over these words of Jesus here, forcing him to put a meaning and bent upon this Greek demonstrative pronoun that no reliable translation, commentary or Greek expositor will support. Does he all of a sudden have a handle on the Greek that all the reliable translations and Greek expositors supposedly do not seem to have when they all translate it with the word "this"? So, who would you prefer to believe? Chuck Smith, or the overwhelming majority of witnesses against such an idea? Clearly, Smith’s interpretation is a "private interpretation."[8] The Greek word "autn" is not to be understood to mean “that” here, but only “this.”
Ironically, just recently, Chuck Smith unrelentingly wrote a forward endorsing the book written by Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, entitled: Breaking the Apocalypse Code, a rebuttal of Hank Hanegraaff’s book entitled: The Apocalpyse Code. In this book that Smith endorses, it states:
Even though the grammatical aspect of literal interpretation is just one of a number of areas [with regards to biblical interpretation], it lets us know that any interpretation conflicting with grammar is invalid….one should follow the rules of grammar when interpreting biblical literature. One should not come up with an interpretation that goes against the rules of grammar (pp. 75, 55).Such statements as these are remarkable, to say the least, in light of all that has been presented here in this article on the rules of grammar with respect to proper usage and interpretation of the demonstratives “this,” “that,” “these” and “those.” By Hitchcock’s and Ice’s, and including Chuck Smith’s own admissions above—he, as well as they—do not “follow the rules of grammar,” and therefore “any interpretation conflicting with grammar,” is: What was the word that they used? “INVALID!” Now I didn’t say it, they did! And they continue: “one should not come up with an interpretation that goes against the rules of grammar.” This is the problem with all those who do not speak the truth and who are engrossed in error; like a criminal they can never fully cover up all their mistakes that they leave behind. Sooner or later they get caught in their own mistakes and even begin to trip over themselves and their own words forgetting what they did or said before they begin to finally entrap themselves by their very own statements.
Now this is the same Chuck Smith who back in the ‘70’s set a date for the return of Christ to occur in 1981, and when it didn’t happen he revised the time to possibly the year 2000, similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who began to set dates as early as 1914. And when those events didn’t happen, they began to revise their statements and give even more dates for future events. And Chuck Smith even went on record calling these date-setters, “a false prophet.” Are these guys even listening to themselves? It's hypocrisy!
Similarly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses can make all kinds of claims of what the Greek text and the Bible is saying, as Chuck Smith has done above, based upon a faulty analysis of the Greek text. And it is their own "private interpretations" that have pressed upon the texts meanings that are arbitrary and absent from the text—even absent from the vast majority of reliable textual critics. Sadly, this is the case with so many Christians today and with Chuck Smith’s self-evident inexperience on how to translate our NT Greek text. The rules behind these demonstrative pronouns and adjectives are not rocket science here. They are very simple to understand and ascertain. And furthermore, the overwhelming majority of English translations and Greek expositors and lexicographers do not stand behind Smith's translation of the Greek text. So Smith, like the JW’s, has devised his own translation of the Greek text—it is The New, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Bible scholar D. A. Carson writes, "This generation…can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke….All that v. 34 demands is that the distress of vv. 4-28, including Jerusalem’s fall, happen within the lifetime of the generation then living." (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p.507). Contrary to a preterist understanding of Matthew chapter 24, Carson believes that what follows after verse 34 refers to the Second Coming of Christ, but his theology (like A.T. Robertson’s as noted above) will not allow him to misinterpret and misrepresent the proper grammatical understanding of the pronoun "this" as any other generation than the one then living. It would be a great stretch of only one with a very speculative imagination to understand "this generation" as referring to anything other than the present generation then living. In order to do so, they have to bend the rules of grammar and establish a new rule of their own making, and then use it as a pretext in order to make their eschatological model or framework fit into the text, and thus becoming an eisegesis and not an exegesis.
Grammatical Convolutions
This is evidenced by one person in particular online whom I came across who has even attempted to say that the word "this" is pointing to something that has just been presently spoken about, but was to be understood of something in the distant past (such as in Acts 7:37; 17:3; Tit. 1:13 and Heb. 7:1) or, as something that wasn’t to occur until way off into the distant future (as in Heb. 8:10 and Rev. 20:14). All of these examples are to be understood, as he coins the phrase, “near in consideration, but far away in time and distance.” And he notes how that only the context can determine the understanding of how these demonstratives are to be understood, and not the proper rules of grammar at all that are to be associated with these demonstrative adjectives or pronouns. It would be like saying “Black is black, and white is white,” and then assert “but sometimes they can be both.” We can clearly see the absurdity in all of this. “Near” means just that, “near.” And what is “far away” is not to be confused with what is “near.” The word “this” does not embrace both of these ideas at the same time. It is the job of these demonstratives to point out either one or the other, but not both simultaneously. The reason this person described above says all this is because he is attempting to make “this” to mean something presently thought about, but at the same time not to happen until many years later down the road―which is now 2,000 or so years later, to be exact. Do you see the fallacy of all this? He too is trying to “reinvent the wheel” with regards to a proper meaning of these demonstrative pronouns and adjectives.
As one peruses through the aforementioned verses above, one can readily see that the word “this” is referring to something or someone that was just presently being spoken about by a literary writer that we understood earlier as referring to “discourse deixis,” as opposed to the notion that someone or something can be, “near in consideration, but far away in time.”
For example, in Heb. 7:1, the author had just presently talked about Melchizedek to his readers, and was referencing that present statement and its current relevance with the words, "this Melchizedek." Or to paraphrase it another way: "This Melchizedek that I just spoke to you about." In the book of Acts, the speakers are addressing Moses and Jesus whom they had just presently spoken about in their discourses. "Which" Moses and Jesus? The ones we have just spoken to you about and are currently applying to this present situation.
In Titus 1:13, when Paul says of those who say the Cretans are always liars and that “this testimony is true” (our Greek word autn), he is as a literary writer using discourse deixis that is “pointing” to what he had just stated previously. He is referring to his immediate statement that he had just made. This is a fact. And as you can see, I too just used the word “this” in my last sentence here to reference what I had just stated. And when I mentioned Paul as saying of “those who say,” I was referring to those who were distant from Paul at the time of his writing, as opposed to them being near.
All the verses noted above are to be understood this way, unless, of course, we just throw the rules of grammar out the door. This is all that we can determine from the usage of the word “this” in these verses, and no more. Otherwise, we step beyond the rules of grammar for these demonstratives and make up our own rules and usages as we go along, saying such things like: “near in consideration, but far away in time and distance,” in order to form some kind of a priori theological bias. This definition that this gentleman online prescribes to clearly does not meet the definition of “this” or “that.” And according to the usages of A. T. Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and online Wikipedia, all of these verses just referred to above fall under the category of either, “as already mentioned,” “literary context,” or “discourse deictics”; and not under the category of that which is “in apposition,” “in the physical vicinity of the speaker,” or “spatial deixis.” And thus nothing could be more clearer for us on how we are to correctly ascertain these demonstrative pronouns in the Jesus' case.
Now such an argument of “near in consideration, but far away in time and distance” is the tragic fallacy of “circular reasoning,” which still begs the question that if what he is saying is true, then what about the established, recognized and approved rules of grammar on the words “this,” “that,” “these” and “those” as referring only to something present or off in the distance? As I said earlier, they can’t be both! Below is an online definition of “circular reasoning”:
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. Circular reasoning is problematic because the claim is made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true.Another way of stating what the person has said above as "circular reasoning" is in the very definition he gives for demonstrative adjectives. He states,
(http://www.ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm).
The Greek word hautey, translated "this" in Matthew 24:34, is a demonstrative adjective. A demonstrative adjective answers the question, 'Which?' In this case, it answers the question, 'Which generation?' The very purpose behind using the word 'this' was to single out the generation Jesus was talking about from all other possible generations. And how do we determine 'which' generation Jesus was speaking of? From the context! [9]All is fine up until his last sentence in that statement: “from the context.” And by the definition of “circular reasoning” above, he has just restated a valid original statement about these demonstratives, “with a conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.” And it “is problematic because the claim is made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true.” Simply put, he has restated a valid definition with the addition of his own words, as if his entire statement was the original definition being stated. What a tragedy! What a deception! And what a twisting and distortion of the truth!
In conclusion, it was exactly these two words, "this" and "that," that Peter used on the Day of Pentecost in juxtaposition to one another when he cried out," This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16 KJV). Peter, in essence, was saying, "All this, which you are presently witnessing here today, is that which was prophesied about many years ago in the distant past by the prophet Joel." Nothing could be more clear.
In Acts 7:37, Stephen cried out, "‘This’ is ‘that’ Moses…" Here Stephen is referring to what he is presently saying about what Moses had said in the past in the OT Scriptures. "This," what I am telling you right now, is whom I just spoke to you about. He didn’t have the physical presence of Moses in mind when he was using this demonstrative. He had in mind (or in "thought") the current relevance of Moses’ message to the Jews he was debating, and how that just as Moses was despised by his brethren, so too these Jews have despised and rejected Jesus. Stephen, likewise, could very well have said "this" Joseph that I just told you about as an example of the current relevance of his betrayal by his brothers as another example to these Jews who rejected Christ and who were no different than Joseph’s brothers. Again, the usage of "this" is in a "literary context" here and in the "thought" of the speaker, and this is not to be confused with the physical presence of someone within the vicinity of the speaker, as was the case when Jesus was speaking to His disciples. His subjects were not “near in consideration [or “thought”], but far away in time in distance.” They were either “near” or “far away,” but they surely were not both. And this surely isn’t what Dana and Mantey, A. T. Robertson, Peter, Stephen or Paul meant when one is referencing something with the word “this.”
In Jesus' case, He was not speaking in a literary context. And I think that most of us by now would wholeheartedly agree. And yet for all this, the person online that I told you about said to me when I emailed this about Jesus to him: “How do you know that? How does one know that!” I had to take a step back and think to myself: “Are you serious?” We are talking about that which is written in a literary form or spoken in a debate as opposed to that which is shared in a conversation with friends or acquaintances; thus, either discourse deixis or personal deixis. If someone cannot determine something as simple as that, then how can they determine in what context anything that is being said? The magnitude of this person's deception knows no bounds. That is what deception does. It deceives one so much to the point that even what can be clearly ascertained or understood is turned all around to mean something other than what it is clearly depicting. That is the height of deception. Otherwise, it would not be called “deception.”
Jesus was speaking to His disciples (i.e., using person deixis). And at the end of His entire discourse with them, He says to them: “Even so, when YOU SEE these things HAPPENING (here’s our “present participle”), you know that the kingdom of God is near you. I tell you the truth, THIS [present, not distal] generation will certainly not pass away UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED” (Lke. 21:31-32; and also Mk. 13:29).
The word "this" is not "that," or "those" of another era, but "these" who were Jesus’ contemporaries when He was speaking to His disciples.
May His truth keep marching on.
Footnotes:
[1] http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/demonstrative-adjective.html.
[2] See Mt. 11:16; 12:42, 45; 23:36; Mk. 8:12, 38; Lk. 7:31; 11:29-30, 32, 50-51; 17:25 (Some verses that were repeats were left out).
[3] http://www.crosscountrysoftware.com/greekparticiples.html.
[4] http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/participle.html.
[5] See also my footnotes at the bottom of my article: Full-Preterism: Full of Baloney (1 of 2) for more usages of this present participle with regards to the Greek word “mello.” Here in this current article this participle is used in the “middle” voice, there, in “mello,” in the “active” voice. But in both cases the same rules of Greek grammar apply to all of these verbs no matter what “voice” they are in.
[6] The New International Version Interlinear Greek-English NT; The Nestle Greek Text with literal Eng. trans. Introd., pp. xi-xii. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
[7] The Strong’s Concordance says of the Greek autai that among other meanings, it means: “the he (she or it), i.e., this or that (often with the article repeated):—he (it was that)…,” and of the Greek outos, “in this way…after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so), for all that…on this fashion (-wise), so (in like manner), thus, what.” Now nowhere does the KJV translate the Greek autai noted above with the word “that,” though the word “that” is translated from the Greek autai’s other Greek forms such as with the word “outws.”
So an “arbitrary” reading of the lexicon in the back of the Strong’s Concordance does indeed reveal that “this” or “that” is used more specifically in the KJV translation. But it should also be noted here that the Strong’s Concordance is not a lexicon, as such—it is a concordance. And, as a concordance, it primarily shows how Greek words have been translated by the KJV translators, but in no way reflects on whether or not such a translation is correct in doing so. This is very important to realize. And an uninformed student of the Greek can make the mistake that this is how the Greek words should or could possibly be translated, when this is not to be the case. This is the mistake that many an uniformed reader, and most likely even Chuck Smith, have all fallen prey to.
For instance, the KJV translates the Greek “outw” and “outws” as “that” in a couple of places in its translation, and is thus the reason why Strong’s makes note of it. But this is not a correct translation. For “outw” and “outws” do not mean “that,” but “this.” And if one were to notice upon closer scrutiny, some translations have noticed these mistakes of the KJV and have corrected them, substituting the King James translation “that” with the word “this.”
For example, in I Cor. 7:7 the Greek “outws” is used twice, and is translated “this” in its first occurrence, and “that” in its second. The GWT, DBT, and YLT translations correct this oversight with “thus” or “these,” with the GWT translation being the better of the three. In I Cor. 11:28, the KJV translates “outws” with the word “that,” but places it in italics so that one can know that it is not in the original (kudos to the KJV translators on this one). The majority of the translations do not even translate it; whereas the WBT is so bold as to go where no other translation is willing to go and translate it with the word “that.” This too, is clearly a mistake. The last occurrence that I found where the KJV translates “outws” with the word “that,” is in I Cor. 14:21. And, again, other translations have attempted to correct this oversight. The ASV translates it “thus;” the DBT translates it “thus;” the WEB translates it “this;” and the YLT translates it “even so.”
Similarly, the NIRV as mentioned in my article, mistranslates the Greek autn in Mat. 24:34; Mk. 13:30 and Lke. 21:32 with the English “that,” and is the only translation that has attempted to do so. They are wrong on all accounts! Unfortunately, the NASB which has attempted to be a more literal translation, has followed suit with some of the same mistakes when it translates “outos” in Php. 3:7; 2Pet. 2:12 and Heb. 13:11, 17 with the English “those.” The Greek should be “these” in every occurrence. And in a literal word-for-word rendering in an Interlinear, such as that of Marshall’s, one will find this to be the case. This is also the case in Php. 3:7 with the ISV, ASV, DBT, ERV, WEB, and YLT translations. In the case of 2Pet. 2:12, no other translation translates it with the word “those,” but actually leave it untranslated, because the destruction of such is related to “these” natural brute beasts in the first part of the verse as being in the same manner or similar to “these” that have just been mentioned. In Heb. 13:11, again, some translations leave it un-translated, while the literal word-for-word in Marshall’s Interlinear reads: “For the blood of what animals concerning sins is brought into the holies through the high priest, of these [Gk. toutwv] the bodies is (are) burned outside the camp.” And when one understands this ritual in the OT, this makes complete sense when translated this way.
As stated in my article, the Greek stem “outos” and all the words derived from it means “this” or “these,” and in some contexts is translated as a personal pronoun rather than in its adjectival form. On the other hand, the Greek “ekeivos” is the word used to give us our English word “that,” and the two are not to be misused or confused with one another. Otherwise, we will never truly understand what a person meant, when they truly said what they meant. The Greek autn for “this” is never to be understood as “that,” just as “this” wouldn’t mean “that” in our own language. The translators of the NIRV clearly have only their own theological biases in mind, rather than a correct English rendering of the Greek text. Sadly, this happens much too often with our English translations of the Greek and Hebrew texts, as most of us are all very well aware of.
[8] This is the same man (Chuck Smith) who said Jesus was going to come back for His Church in 1981: "If I understand Scripture correctly, Jesus taught us that the generation that sees 'the budding of the fig tree,' the birth of the nation Israel, will be the generation that sees the Lord's return. I believe that the generation of 1948 is the last generation. Since a generation of judgment is forty years and the tribulation period lasts seven years, I believe the Lord could come back for His Church any time before the tribulation starts, which would mean anytime before 1981. (1948+40-7=1981)" (End Times, 1978, p. 35). And if you recall, Hal Lindsey made the similar prediction in his book The Late Great Planet Earth, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, which holds the same interpretive model for interpreting prophecy as these guys use.
Chuck Smith went on to say in his book above that if the Lord didn't return in 1981, then it could most likely occur in the year 2,000. He again writes, "However, it is possible that Jesus is dating the beginning of the generation from 1967, when Jerusalem was again under Israeli control for the first time since 587 B.C. We don't know for sure which year marks the beginning of the last generation" (ibid, pp. 35-36).
People had assembled into his church en-masse on the eve of Dec. 31, 1981 in great expectation of the Lord’s return. And as we are all well aware, nothing ever occurred. Many went home discouraged and despondent over the false hopes that their false bible prophecy teacher and guru had instilled in them. Some became the better for it, while others became embittered and left the Church. In spite of all this though, many still blindly remain today in the church sounding out the Calvary Chapel mantra in one form or another.
I, for one, will not leave you holding onto false prophecies, hopes, and “pipe dreams.” “This generation” was Jesus’ contemporaries. Let no man deceive you! If this is what Chuck Smith’s interpretive model of “how [he] understands the Scriptures” has led him to believe, then it should cause all of us to give pause for concern and deep reflection with regards to what he, and others like him, are teaching the body of Christ to believe in. In his own words he has labeled those who are date setters, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Edgar Wisenant who wrote "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will be in 1988", as: "false prophets". And he is even noted as saying that when the Jehovah's Witnesses dates didn't come to pass, that "they merely moved the date up a few years" (Dateline Earth: Countdown to Eternity, 1989, p. 26). Sound familiar? You be the judge. By his own admission Chuck Smith is a "false prophet"!
And after all these years Chuck Smith is still supportive of all those who support his false teachings (and vice-versa). Just recently he wrote the forward on a book written by Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice entitled: Breaking the Apocalypse Code (The Word For Today publications, 2007). These men are of the same persuasions as that of Chuck Smith. So you can rest assured that what Chuck Smith used for "how he understands the Scriptures" is the very same interpretive model that these men use in evaluating prophecy. All I can say to this is: "Buyer beware"! Such persuasions are not from above brethren. This book of theirs is a critique of Hank Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code that does an excellent job in combating the false teachings of men such as Ice, Hitchcock, and Smith. Of course, they would disagree with him. And while yet Hanegraff's book may not be the most perfect exposition on this subject, it is a lot closer to the truth than these other men will ever be.
[9] http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm
