The Narrow Path Ministries

Perhaps the chief proof text which preterists use is found in Mark 13:30 (and its parallels in Mt 24:34 and in Lk 21:32)

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [ταυτα (these) παντα (all) γενηται (become)]

A number of Greek scholars wrote “exegetical insights” at the beginning of each chapter of William D Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek. Royce Gordon Gruenler wrote his “exegetical insight” for chapter 22 entitled “Second Aorist Active/Middle Indicative”.

Gruenler pointed out that a verb in the aorist tense in Greek states only the fact of the action without specifying its duration. He specified that the same aorist form occurs in Gabriel’s words to Zechariah in Luke 1:20.

And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place. [γενηται (become) ταυτα (these)] because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.”

Now which things were to take place before Zechariah was able to speak again? Verses 13-16 give us the answer:

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,

Did these things take place before Zechariah regained his speech? 1, 2, and 3 did, but not 4 and 5.

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

He says that the passage in Luke 1:20 likewise may be rendered, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things begin to come to pass.” He states that the verb is an ingressive aorist and should be translated from the perspective of initiated action.

So before that generation passed away, the things Jesus predicted did begin to come to pass, in particular, the destruction of the temple.

I could see at least three possible ways of how someone might understands Matt 24 and Luke in regards to the point you are making.

1. the use of the word "all" in Matt and not in Luke. - I would think might be of some importance.

2. the possibility that all the points you showed us (1 - 5) in Luke that Gabriel said would happen did actually happen in some sense prior to Zachariah being able to speak again.

3. and then of course your way of saying it is a "start" and not necessarily a completion of events.

I am not sure which way would be the "best" way of understanding that, but I could see how someone would gravitate towards a particular one based on their eschatological viewpoint.

Can anyone point out logical, biblical reasons to elliminate any of the above possibilites?

Thanks, Douglas.

The only one of your 3 ways I would strongly question is:

2. the possibility that all the points you showed us (1 - 5) in Luke that Gabriel said would happen did actually happen in some sense prior to Zachariah being able to speak again.

I don't see this as a possibility at all for point 5.

5. His son would turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.

There is no way that John the Baptizer, as a baby, turned many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.

He did this in his adult ministry in calling people to repentance and to baptism.

Hello Paidon,

After looking in to what you posted I noticed what seems to me to be a problem with your premise, specifically points 4 and 5. I'm not sure that you can make a case that these statements apply to anything that has to take place before Zecharia's mouth would be opened. In verses 13 and 14, Gabriel begins,

"Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth..."

One could easily argue that this is the only part of his statement that need apply to the opening of Zecharia's mouth, because when he continues in vs. 15, an obvious shift in his statement occurs--note the word "for" (γάρ).

"for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."

At this point, Gabriel has simply begun to expound on the career of John the Baptist, which news would evoke much rejoicing at his birth, but were in no way intended to be fulfilled before his father could speak. Later, when we read of the birth, these facts are borne out.

"Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, but his mother answered, “No; he shall be called John.” And they said to her, “None of your relatives is called by this name.” And they made signs to his father, inquiring what he wanted him to be called. And he asked for a writing tablet and wrote, “His name is John.” And they all wondered. And immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he spoke, blessing God."

In my opinion, there is no need to understand vs. 20 as "And now you be silent and unable to speak until these things begin to happen."

Blessings in Christ

look2jesus, you wrote:One could easily argue that this is the only part of his statement that need apply to the opening of Zecharia's mouth, because when he continues in vs. 15, an obvious shift in his statement occurs--note the word "for" (γάρ).

If it is "an obvious shift", then why did Greek scholar Royce Gordon Gruenler, not recognize it as such?

I just read a large number of commentators on this verse, and found that some indeed limit the terms of the prophecy in the way that you do. I see this is a desperate attempt to save the prophecy from being false, probably for the reason that those who espoused this explanation, were not aware of the implications of the Greek ingressive aorist as Gruenler explained. Had they been aware, they would not have had to resort to limiting the terms of the prophecy in this way.

Paidion wrote:If it is "an obvious shift", then why did Greek scholar Royce Gordon Gruenler, not recognize it as such?

hmmmm, maybe Royce Gordon Gruenler has a "blind spot" that causes him to understand that passage in a certain light. Maybe he has a particular theological perspective that causes him to understand it in a particular way. And then maybe he is right? I don't know for sure, but there are many reasons why this person may have understood those passages in a particular way.

I think look2jesus made a good argument against Royce Gordon Gruenler.

Paidion wrote:implications of the Greek ingressive aorist

I will admit that when you start throwing out terms like that, you start sounding like a Calvinist trying to persuade someone to understand a particular text as they do.

"ingressive aorist" ??? you talking about my mother in law (just kidding)

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...

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).

Dear Paidon,

Thank you for your response. A few comments are in order. First of all, it isn't my intention to limit the prophecy at all, it just seems obvious to me, for the reasons I stated, that the text itself limits the prophecy to what we see being fulfilled in vss. 57ff.

Secondly, and Douglas already made this point for me, just because you're a greek scholar doesn't mean you don't have a particular axe to grind. After all, the entire argument made here in Luke 1 is really about showing that a possible parallel situation exists in Luke 21 verse 32. It seems clear to me that what Gruenler, and I suppose you to some extent, is trying to do is to undermine the preterist in his interpretation of Jesus' words in Luke 21. That would indicate a possible reason for why he argues the way he does, would it not?

Thirdly I'll ask you, in what way did John the Baptist begin to turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, at the time of his circumcision? You said yourself that John did this in his adult ministry. You said that there was no way he did this as a baby. It seems evident to me that even were "begin to happen" the correct translation, you still end up with the identical problem. In my opinion, this is further reason to discount Gruenler's argument.

Fourthly, isn't Gruenler's re-translation an attempt (desperate or not I don't know) to "save the prophecy from being false?"

Just some things to ponder.

Peace brother

L2J wrote:Thank you for your response. A few comments are in order. First of all, it isn't my intention to limit the prophecy at all, it just seems obvious to me, for the reasons I stated, that the text itself limits the prophecy to what we see being fulfilled in vss. 57ff.

All right. If it’s obvious to you, then it’s obvious to you. (How’s that for a tautology?) But it’s not obvious to me, and there are many others for whom it is not obvious.

L2J wrote:Secondly, and Douglas already made this point for me, just because you're a greek scholar doesn't mean you don't have a particular axe to grind. After all, the entire argument made here in Luke 1 is really about showing that a possible parallel situation exists in Luke 21 verse 32. It seems clear to me that what Gruenler, and I suppose you to some extent, is trying to do is to undermine the preterist in his interpretation of Jesus' words in Luke 21. That would indicate a possible reason for why he argues the way he does, would it not?

I don’t consider myself to be a Greek scholar (unless “Greek scholar” is defined as “a person who has studied Greek). And I’m not into axe grinding. What I am into is the pursuit of truth and reality. I’ve been engaged in this pursuit for all of my adult life. That explains why I spent years studying Greek. That explains why my understanding of Christian matters has gradually changed throughout the years. I used to be an “easy believist”; now I see that discipleship is required by the Lord. I used to believe in unconditional security; now I believe a disciple will lose out if he tries to save his life for himself. I used to believe that God is a compound Trinity; now I believe that the Father begat a divine Son, and that they can extend Their Personalities or Spirit anywhere in the universe (The Holy Spirit). I used to be a dispensationalist; now I am a historic premillenialist. These changes in understanding did not come about suddenly, but gradually after many years of study and thinking.

No. Gruenler was not trying to “undermine” the preterist interpretation of Jesus’ words in Luke 21. By examining the use of the aorist tense, he saw how Jesus’ words were able to be true. For clearly (to Gruenler) some of Jesus' prophecy did not come to pass in that generation, even as some the Gabriel’s prophecy did not come to pass before Zechariah regained his sight.

L2J wrote:Thirdly I'll ask you, in what way did John the Baptist begin to turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, at the time of his circumcision? You said yourself that John did this in his adult ministry. You said that there was no way he did this as a baby. It seems evident to me that even were "begin to happen" the correct translation, you still end up with the identical problem. In my opinion, this is further reason to discount Gruenler's argument.

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.”

L2J wrote:Fourthly, isn't Gruenler's re-translation an attempt (desperate or not I don't know) to "save the prophecy from being false?"

Well, Gruenler, like the rest of us, trusted in the word of Christ. But I don't think he devised his "re-translation" for that purpose. Rather he discovered that the grammar showed the prophecy to be true!