This generation will not pass away until ... what happens?

[look2jesus]

Hello again Paidon,

I may have misunderstood the argument that Gruenler was making. I tried to find the comments he made in the commentary you cited online so as to better understand his complete remarks, but I wasn't able to do so.

Gruenler pointed out that a verb in the aorist tense in Greek states only the fact of the action without specifying its duration.

The way I understand what he said here is that either of the two translations (perhaps not excluding other possibilities as well) of Luke 1:20 that we have been discussing, i.e., "begin to happen" or "happen", could be correct. And that his point is that the surrounding context should be our guide in determining which is, in fact, the correct one. And since he sees the prophecy as including each of the aspects that you initially enumerated for us (points 1-5 in your first post), he feels that the better translation in vs. 20 should be "begin to happen", thus upholding the words of Christ.

I wasn't under the impression that Gruenler was stating that whenever you find that verb in that tense that it should always be translated that way.

Because of this, I tried to point out that there is a legitimate way to see Gabriel's prophecy as taking a significant turn beginning at verse 15. I do retract what I said about it being "an obvious shift" but, that being said, I do feel that a careful reading of the passage may indicate that exactly what was meant to be fulfilled before Zecharia could speak again was fulfilled in its entirety. If such is the case then Christ's words are being upheld just fine without the words "begin to" being added to vs. 20.

On another point, my comments about greek scholars and axes were directed to a question about Dr. Gruenler's possible motives and not to you personally. I respect your views and enjoy reading them. (Not that I don't respect Dr. Gruenler, I know next to nothing of him!)

It is not that each individual aspect of the prophecy “began to happen” before Zechariah regained his sight. Rather, the prophecies as a group began to happen before he regained his sight. The words are: “And now you be silent and unable to speak until these things begin to happen.” That is, “until this group of things begins to happen” not “until each one these things, individually, begins to happen.”

Thank you for this clarification.


I think all Christians should hold Christ's words in the highest possible regard, and I'm quite pleased by the reverence for Christ and His doctrines evident in the postings here. I hope to uphold these high standards. But the real question that still remains is concerning the Olivet discourse and what Jesus meant when he said, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place."

Would you agree?

[Douglas]

Another interesting observation can be made.

of The points that Paidion showed us.

1. Elizabeth would bear a son for Zechariah.
2. Zechariah would call him “John”.
3. Zechariah would be glad and many would rejoice at his son’s birth,
4. His son would be great before the Lord.
5. His son would turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God,

Gruenler states that the verse 20 should be translated, “And now you be silent and unable to speak until these things begin to happen.

If Gruenler is correct in his understanding, then Zechariah should have been able to speak right at point 1. That is the day that John was born, for that was when these things BEGIN to happen. Yet Zechariah did not speak for 8 more days, after point 3. Looks like Gruenlers hypothesis of how we should understand verse 20 in Luke 1 is wrong, otherwise Zechariah should have started speaking the day John was born.

[look2jesus]

Hello Douglas,

I don't recall ever having the slightest confusion over the passage in Luke 1. By that I mean that I never read the passage and thought, "There's a problem here with the timeline concerning Gabriel's prophecy and its fulfillment." I read what the angel said and then read how the story played out and it never occured to me that there might be a problem.

After reading Paidion's post, however, I was forced to go back to the text and examine it more carefully to see if I might have missed something there. As I tried to point out earlier, and perhaps I might elaborate somewhat, I saw that the statement that Gabriel made contained two kinds of information, albeit, both in the form of prophecy: the first kind was of a more immediate concern, regarding John's birth--vss. 13 and 14. The second kind was of an obviously more distant concern, regarding John's entire career--vss. 15 through 17.

It is interesting to me that the angel said that Zecharia would be silent "until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in there time".

It looks to me like the angel himself distinguishes between "these things" and "my words". That is, "these things" will take place on a certain day (which indicates to me that he is speaking of the details surrounding the birth) and "my words" will be fulfilled in there time (indicating those prophecies which look further, to the career of John).

If Gruenler is correct in his understanding, then Zechariah should have been able to speak right at point 1. That is the day that John was born, for that was when these things BEGIN to happen. Yet Zechariah did not speak for 8 more days, after point 3. Looks like Gruenlers hypothesis of how we should understand verse 20 in Luke 1 is wrong, otherwise Zechariah should have started speaking the day John was born.

Makes sense to me!

[Paidion]

Thank you L2J for your thoughtful and courteous reply.

May I point out that "in the day these things begin to take place" may not mean a literal day, but in "the period of time" these things begin to take place? That period of time (eight days) in which they began to take place included both the birth and the naming of John.

Here are a few examples where "in the day" seems to refer to a period of time longer than a 24 h period:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

We read in Gen 1:31 and 2:1 that after six days, the creation of the heavens and the earth were completed. God did not create all things in a 24 h period.

Ecclesiastes 7:14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider; God has made the one as well as the other, so that man may not find out anything that will be after him.

"The day of prosperity" and "the day of adversity" seem to refer periods of time much greater than literal days.

Isaiah 13:13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger.

Is God's fierce anger only for a 24 h period?

1 Corinthians 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A 24 h period? Or a period of time?

There are many other such examples.

[Mellontes]

Not to mention the very fact of Malachi's prophecy stating that this same John the baptist (in the spirit of Elijah) would come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord... Most say that John the baptist arrived 2,000 years too early - despite the time being fulfilled and the kingdom being at hand. Some even say that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses of Revelation - but this is only possible if they will not receive what the Lord Jesus said concerning this matter...

That would not be the case if John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah, and if the actual Elijah (who never died) should come as one of the witnesses. Can it not be the case that both are true? After all, John the Baptist was not Elijah himself. unless reincarnation actually occurs (which is not Christian doctrine).

Matthew 11:14 - And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

Do you believe Jesus?

[Mellontes]

Thank you L2J for your thoughtful and courteous reply.

May I point out that "in the day these things begin to take place" may not mean a literal day, but in "the period of time" these things begin to take place? That period of time (eight days) in which they began to take place included both the birth and the naming of John.

Here are a few examples where "in the day" seems to refer to a period of time longer than a 24 h period:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

We read in Gen 1:31 and 2:1 that after six days, the creation of the heavens and the earth were completed. God did not create all things in a 24 h period.

Ecclesiastes 7:14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider; God has made the one as well as the other, so that man may not find out anything that will be after him.

"The day of prosperity" and "the day of adversity" seem to refer periods of time much greater than literal days.

Isaiah 13:13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts in the day of his fierce anger.

Is God's fierce anger only for a 24 h period?

1 Corinthians 1:8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A 24 h period? Or a period of time?

There are many other such examples.

If you will permit me to add...I believe you are comparing apples with the new GM...

There is a large difference between "in the day" (with no modifier) with "in the day" (including modifiers) such as "prosperity," "adversity," and "fierce anger."
Do you see what I am saying?

[look2jesus]

Greetings once again Paidion,

Concerning what Douglas wrote about the day, my own view of course, is that the day that John was circumcised was the day that his father "officially" named him and also the time in which the rejoicing happened, and therefore the prophecy was fulfilled and Zecharia was able to speak. However, that is strictly based on my reading of the text. Your point concerning the "day" in this place, understanding it as you do, is simply a matter of being consistent and a very reasonable and plausible way of understanding it without the slightest contradiction IMO, if it could be demonstrated that the standard translation were incorrect (vis a vis "begin to happen"), which I don't think it has. So in this case I'm fine with the 24 hour day theory.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I tend to agree with you in the main, however I'm not one who sees "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" as a "period of time" the way you expressed it. At this point in my studies I see the Day of the Lord as the day when Christ appears visibly in the skies upon his return to earth to rapture the living saints and resurrect the dead, both righteous and unrighteous. Once that happens I'm not sure time will matter anymore.

Anyway, I look forward to engaging with you in the future in our quest for truth. Amen?

God bless for now. L2J

[Douglas]

Thanks for the excellent topic Paidion. I have enjoyed reading and seeing another way that some people understand things. I have to admit that I do not think it should be understood the way you do, but thats ok, we are all growing and maturing in Jesus Christ and who knows, I may view it as you do someday.... you never know.

Thanks L2J, you do a very good job at explaining yourself and your ideas. I hope to see more of you on the forum. And Melontes, brother... It is very nice to see you again. I was afraid we lost you. I always love the information you bring to a disccusion, even if we do not see every little detail the same, it is always very helpful (and passionate at times)

[Mellontes]

Greetings once again Paidion,

Concerning what Douglas wrote about the day, my own view of course, is that the day that John was circumcised was the day that his father "officially" named him and also the time in which the rejoicing happened, and therefore the prophecy was fulfilled and Zecharia was able to speak. However, that is strictly based on my reading of the text. Your point concerning the "day" in this place, understanding it as you do, is simply a matter of being consistent and a very reasonable and plausible way of understanding it without the slightest contradiction IMO, if it could be demonstrated that the standard translation were incorrect (vis a vis "begin to happen"), which I don't think it has. So in this case I'm fine with the 24 hour day theory.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I tend to agree with you in the main, however I'm not one who sees "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" as a "period of time" the way you expressed it. At this point in my studies I see the Day of the Lord as the day when Christ appears visibly in the skies upon his return to earth to rapture the living saints and resurrect the dead, both righteous and unrighteous. Once that happens I'm not sure time will matter anymore.

Anyway, I look forward to engaging with you in the future in our quest for truth. Amen?

God bless for now. L2J

L2J...Do you also consider the "day of the Lord" usage in the OT as being just a 24-hour day? Did any of these events involve a visible, physical return of the Lord at those times? It is well worth the study, my friend.

How did the Lord "come down" in the following verses?:

Exodus 3:8 - And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Exodus 19:11 - And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.

Numbers 11:17 - And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

This is where many precedents can be established in the realm of hermeneutics. What right do we have to change the obvious "metaphorical" hermeneutic in these and countless other passages to that of a "literal, physical" one in the NT? The Bible was written by Jews to a primarily Jewish audience. It might be worthwhile to start thinking like they did. It is our Western Gentile culture that has stood in the way for far too long...

[Paidion]

Matthew 11:14 - And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
Do you believe Jesus?

Do you believe in reincarnation? I see no other possibility if you think Jesus was saying that John the Baptizer was in fact the historic Elijah of the Old Testament. You also have a further problem. Since Elijah was translated and never died, how did he get to be reincarnated as John the Baptizer? What happened to the Elijah who never died? What happened to his body which never decayed?

It's not a matter of my believing Jesus. Of course, I believe Jesus.

Some prophecies have a double fulfillment. John the Baptizer fulfilled the prophecies that Elijah was to come before the Messiah came, and so he did. The historic Elijah himself may be the one who comes before the second coming of the Messiah, as one of the witnesses mentioned in Revelation.