Mark Smith is like many skeptics. He combines a vivid imagination with a healthy ignorance to prove a preconceived outcome. He apparently has a religious background because he does what many religious types do: list a multitude of verses to prove a point even if the verses contribute nothing to resolving the issues that were raised.
Mr. Smith's contribution to the debate over Matthew 24:34 (TSR, July/August 2000) would be impressive to those prone to believing whatever people tell them. However, the careful investigator and the legitimate skeptic would naturally want to pursue his arguments further. Let's break his arguments into bite-sized pieces and analyze his argument to see if he might be trying to hide something from the reader. Then we will see if the scholars really say what Mr. Smith would like people to believe.
In his introductory remarks, Mr. Smith piously states that I had created a new definition for generation when I said that it could mean a group of people that have common characteristics. Perhaps, a generous reader could send Mr. Smith a decent dictionary and paper clip the page on which the term, generation, is defined. A generation is a group of people, often in the line of descent from an ancestor, that share unique traits not common to those outside the group.
For example, we could identify the Jews who sojourned in the wilderness during the forty years after Israel left Egypt as a generation. It would be the wilderness generation. The generation would include the man who died in the tenth year of wandering as well as the baby born in the thirtieth year. Each could claim membership in the wilderness generation. One could even define smaller generations or groups such as those who lived in Egypt before entering the wilderness or those born in the wilderness who entered the promised land.
The point here is that a generation is identified by specific characteristics. One should not define the term generation in a way that limits context and then force fit one's notions into that definition as Mr. Smith wants to do. Farrell Till (TSR, March/April 2000) properly appealed to context to identify the generation in Matthew 12 and Matthew 23. He correctly argued for his position based on the context of the passage and not by forcing context to fit a narrow definition.
Mr. Smith then said that I mutilated the definition of contemporary by removing from it any time element. Not really. What I did was to make time a characteristic of the generation (as opposed to making the generation a captive of a preconceived time period). I correctly required the time element to be derived from the particular context in which the generation appeared.
Contemporary, by definition, refers to a period of time and is a generic concept. Context determines specifically when that time occurs and the length of time that it spans. In the example above, all Israelites in the wilderness generation would be contemporaries who lived during the forty-year period of time in which Israel sojourned in the wilderness. Some of that generation may have been born many years before Israel left Egypt and would have died in the wilderness. Some may have been born in the wilderness and then lived for many years after Israel entered the promised land. They were all members of that one generation because they all shared one unique characteristic, and they were all contemporaries.
This is the point that Brian Rainey (TSR, March/April 2000) also misunderstood. By definition, a generation is a group of people associated with a point in time and nothing more. We must look at the context in which the generation appears to determine who is included in the generation and when they lived.
A proper analysis of genea in Matthew 24:34 begins with context. We specifically look for unique events in the passage that can identify the generation. We then know that the genea will, by definition, be contemporary with those events. We can determine the time period in which the genea lived by searching historical records to see when the events took place. Rainey, unfortunately, did not do this. He got caught up in the physical circumstances under which Jesus spoke. He lost sight of the prophecy Christ was speaking that provided the context from which the generation would be identified.
Mr. Smith goes on to list a multitude of resources that are supposed to prove his case. He lists them without comment purportedly because the sheer number of items must mean something. Lists apparently have some magical meaning to Mr. Smith. However, when one sees a list offered without comment, one should be skeptical and seek to discover whether the writer has an ulterior motive for wanting to avoid explaining the lists.
What exactly do the scholars say? Do they say what Mr. Smith wants the reader to believe? Let's investigate the lists Mr. Smith compiled and see what they really tell us.
Bible Translations: The Bible translations listed by Smith can be divided into two basic categories. One category translates Matthew 24:34 as "this generation...." The other translates it as "this present generation...." When faced with a situation like this, the competent Biblical investigator will always asks two basic questions: (1) What does the actual Greek text say? (2) Are there variations among the Greek manuscripts that would support different translations? Smith does not ask these questions. It is possible that he does not know why these questions are important. When we look at the Greek text, we find that there is no Greek word for "present" in the verse. Nor is this idea implied through other words in the verse. Further, no such word appears in any of the manuscripts that exist. The truest and most accurate translation of Matt 24:34 is simply "this generation...."
Because he wants to use the translations as the foundation for his position, Mr. Smith has the obligation to explain what caused some translators to add the word, "present." He did not. The reader should now suspect that Mr. Smith has a purpose for listing a large number of translations on this crucial point and to do so without making an effort to explain the differences. The motivation of the translators is important. Find that motivation and you will discover what Mr. Smith is trying to hide from the reader.
The list of translations shows us that many translators go beyond a simple, direct, word-for-word translation of Matthew 24:34. The scholars tell us that translators can incorporate their personal beliefs into their translations and that Mr. Smith can play similar games with the translations.
Lexicons, Dictionaries, and Encyclopedias: A lexicon of New Testament words is a derived work. It lists words in the New Testament and seeks to derive definitions for those words from the various contexts in which the words are found. With regard to Matthew 24:34, the lexicons define genea in two basic ways. Some define it broadly as the whole multitude of men living at the same period of time (with the time period being determined by context). Others define it more narrowly as a group of people living specifically at the time of Christ (requiring that context be limited to the first century).
Greek scholars are split on whether to define genea as those to whom Christ was speaking at that time or those at some time in the future who would witness the events He had just prophesied. The grammatical construction of the text does not preclude these groups being different. It supports a broad definition but allows the narrow definition. People who write commentaries will advocate one position or another depending, generally, on their theological bent as Mr. Smith has done.
Smith offers no comment on the two distinct definitions given for genea in Matthew 24:34. To do so would require him to investigate the motivations of the lexicographer. Find that motivation and you discover what Smith wants to hide from the reader.
The list of lexicons and dictionaries shows us that scholars are divided on the application of genea in Matthew 24:34. The scholars would tell us that the context for the verse can go one way or the other and that Mr. Smith is playing games if he claims anything else.
Commentaries and Scholars: Among these lists, Mr. Smith has sixteen Bible commentaries, and he cites A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament. The reader should read again what Smith excised from that book and then read the actual text as cited below (excluding the Greek text citations) where we find Robertson commenting on verses 34 and 36.
"34. This generation." The problem is whether Jesus is here referring to the destruction of Jerusalem or to the second coming and end of the world. If to the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a literal fulfillment. In the Old Testament a generation was reckoned as forty years. This is the natural way to take verse 34 as of 33 (Bruce), "all things" meaning the same in both verses.
"36. Not even the Son." Probably genuine, though absent in some ancient MSS. The idea is really involved in the words "but the Father only." It is equally clear that in this verse Jesus has in mind the time of his second coming. He had plainly stated in verse 34 that those events (destruction of Jerusalem) would take place in that generation. He now as pointedly states that no one but the Father knows the day or the hour when these things (the second coming and end of the world) will come to pass. One may, of course, accuse Jesus of hopeless confusion or extend his confession of ignorance of the date of the second coming to the whole chain of events. So McNeile: "It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Jesus as Man, expected the End, within the lifetime of his contemporaries. And that after his explicit denial that he knew anything of the kind! It is just as easy to attribute ignorance to modern scholars with their various theories as to Jesus who admits his ignorance of the date, but not of the character of the coming."
Judging from the care that Smith has exercised in separating words from the text, the reader should suspect that Smith has sought to hide from the reader the existence of different views on Matthew 24:34. In other words, all scholars do not agree on the interpretation of the verse. One can, as Smith has done, always find a group of scholars that will argue in favor of one particular view. He can also selectively cite from commentaries to make it seem that only one view exists. Smith has chosen his referees carefully.
Smith no doubt reviewed and edited all of his citations, as he did with Robertson, to make sure that they embellished his point. He identifies a well-known view on Matt 24:34. Unfortunately, he generously ignores explanations of any other views lest he have to comment on views that do not match his theme. Smith's approach may be likened to international boxing matches where the referees are all Russian. The Russian boxers always seem to win their matches. Smith has only shown that he can slant evidence to prove what he wants people to believe.
The plain meaning of the Greek text in Matthew 24:34 is that a single generation will witness the events prophesied by Jesus. The people who make up that generation will witness not only the first of the events but also the culmination of those events. The time period will be that period from the first to the last events. Scholars disagree on when these events were meant to take place.
Did Christ look straight into the crowd and say that this generation (you to whom I am speaking) would not pass away till all of the prophecy was fulfilled? Or, did Christ, as part of the prophecy, say that this generation (those who would witness these things) would not pass away till all was fulfilled?
Farrell Till (TSR, March/April 2000) claims that the most sensible interpretation is that Jesus was referring to a first century fulfillment of the prophecy. Some scholars would agree with him; some would not. His opinion seems as valid, and as suspect, as any other.
Till claims that this is a case in which one must assume Biblical inerrancy in order to prove Biblical inerrancy. Not exactly. Certainly, the events prophesied by Jesus have not occurred. No one argues against that. What does that mean? If a man were to prophesy in 1929 that the Dow Jones average will reach 20,000, would he be a false prophet if that event had not occurred by December 2000? If a prophet said that the same generation that witnessed a man landing on the moon would also see the Dow reach 20,000, would he be wrong? Till claims that the reader must assume that the prophet in this example is right before the reader can argue that the events prophesied will come to pass. In reality, all one has to do is wait to see if the prophesied events actually do come to pass.
The key to understanding Matthew 24:34 is the phrase "all these things." Jesus has prophesied that there is a generation that will witness "all these things" and that it will not pass away until it witnesses each and every event. Many scholars see the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the physical fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. Coincidentally, Smith seems to quote exclusively from those scholars. A person can always try to match the language of Matthew 24 with the events that occurred in A. D. 70 . However, scholars who promote this interpretation admit that there are problems with it. The match is close in some cases, but it is far from a perfect fit.
In the arena of Biblical prophecy, people are prone to taking historical events and interpreting them as the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. For example, people are always trying to identify some pope or political leader with the number 666 in Revelation because the person was a scoundrel. Today, many people see the establishment of Israel in 1948 as the fig tree in Matthew 24:32 and the key that started the clock on "all these things." Jesus clearly prophesied his second coming and the judgment of men for their sins. He did not specify the time period in which those events would occur.
What do the scholars say? Greek scholars can provide us with a literal translation of Matthew 24:34. They cannot tell us how it is to be applied, although they may be able to limit the applications. People who write commentaries offer different views about what the verse means, but no one seems to have a theory that perfectly matches the events Jesus prophesied.
Mark Smith presented a one-sided look at the issue and probably fooled some people. The scholars would say that Mark needs to go back and do his homework.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver Spring, MD
20902; e-mail, RHutchin@AOL. com)
