Monthly Archives: January 2020

More on “This Generation”

Posted on by
2

Gary Demar, in preparation for an up-coming debate on the subject of the Rapture writes the following (source: https://americanvision.org/21827/preparing-for-my-debate-with-kent-hovind-on-the-rapture/):

In the process of my preparation and publicity of the debate, someone asked if I would debate Alan Kurschner. I’ve seen his name, and I know that he has responded to some of my material over the years, but have not read much of his work. I found this article especially interesting: “Preterist Gary DeMar Promoting Fake Exegesis.”

He took issue with the following comment of mine:

There are numerous examples of flawed starting points when it comes to the topic of eschatology. “This generation” becomes “this race” or “the generation that sees these signs.” In the first case, the Greek word for “race” (genos) is not used in Matthew 24:34. Jesus uses the Greek word genea.

There’s nothing fake about what I wrote. Jesus does use genea and not genos. Mr. Kurschner then makes this comment:

At the outset I am not defending the “race” interpretation. I don’t think it is the correct interpretation here. My point here instead is to correct DeMar’s ignorant claim that genea never means “race” within its semantic range.

He then offers the following from “[t]he most authorative [sic] Koine Greek Lexicon,” A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Third Edition (BDAG).

γενεά, ᾶς, ἡ (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, En; TestSol C 13:7; TestJob, Test12Patr; GrBar 10:3; Philo, Joseph., SibOr, Just., Tat.) a term relating to the product of the act of generating and with special ref. to kinship, frequently used of familial connections and ancestry. Gener. those descended fr. a common ancestor, a ‘clan’ (Pind., P. 10, 42 the Hyperboreans are a ἱερὰ γενεά [holy race]; Diod. S. 18, 56, 7; Jos., Ant. 17, 220), then

  1. those exhibiting common characteristics or interests, race, kind as in Lk 16:8 εἰς την γ[ενεαν] την ἑαυτῶν [in their generation] the people of the world [αἰῶνος] are more prudent in relation to their own kind [γενεαν] than are those who lay claim to the light (difft. GBeasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mk 13, ’57, 99–102).

Then there’s this from Mr. Kurschner:

So DeMar is wrong on that front. Then in the same article, DeMar concludes his discussion by citing all the instances of the term in the Gospels. And get this. The one single instance that BDAG cites as meaning “race” in Luke 16:8, DeMar leaves out! Talk about fake exegesis! He mistakenly has Luke 18:8 instead of Luke 16:8, either he did this on purpose or he is sloppy by copying and pasting from his source that contains the error.

Actually, I am not wrong. I disagree with the authors of BDAG as do a number of Bible translations.

Yes, it was a copying error. It’s not the only time I’ve made such a mistake, and unfortunately, it won’t be the last. I certainly didn’t do it on purpose (better to leave it out) since I deal with Luke 16:8 in other places (see below). That’s a point to keep in mind. One article does not make an argument.

To be honest, like Mr. Kurschner I do not believe genea in Luke 16:8 should be translated as “race.” It doesn’t fit the context.

In his book Jesus v. Jerusalem, published by American Vision, Joel McDurmon writes the following:

Then Jesus gives an explanatory note: “the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light” (16:8). While I normally stick with the ESV, it incorrectly translates aion here as “world” instead of “age.” Most of the other modern translations get it right. It could more simply and more accurately be translated, “the sons of this age are more shrewd in their own generation than the sons of light.” He is clearly referring to the “age” which was coming to a close … and the children of that generation.1

Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel is the best book that expounds on the fact that Jerusalem “was responsible for ‘all the righteous blood shed upon earth’ and that she was ‘the city that kills the prophets’ (Matt. 23:35, 37).” It was that generation that was judged not a “race” or “kind of people.”

“Age,” referring to a period of time, is closer in meaning (parallel) to “generation,” also a period of time, than “kind” or “race” in the same way that the two uses of “sons” are parallel.

Also, look at the translation problem in the BDAG quotation that Mr. Kurschner references above: “people of the world.” This, too, is problematic since the Greek word is αἰῶνος (aiōnos), not kosmos, and yet BDAG translates it as “world.” This is typical in some translations. For example, the KJV translates aiōnos (αἰῶνος) as “world” in Matthew 24:3.

You can see how the repeated expressions of judgment on that generation are found in Luke’s gospel as well as the book of Acts: 13:34-35; 17:22-37; 19:41-44; 21:5-36; Acts 2:40 (cp. Phil. 2:15). “Generation” is the best translation. Even Mr. Kurschner agrees.

The thing of it is, I have dealt with Luke 16:8 in other places and mention the fact that genea is sometimes translated as “race” or “kind.” For example, quoting Jack Lewis:

The meaning of generation (genea) is crucial to the interpretation of the entire chapter. While Scofield, following Jerome, contended that it meant the Jewish race, there is only one possible case in the New Testament (Luke 16:8) where the lexicon suggests that genea means race. There is a distinction between genos (race) and genea (generation). Others have argued that genea means the final generation; that is, once the signs have started, all these happenings would transpire in one generation (cf. 23:36). But elsewhere in Matthew genea means the people alive at one time and usually at the time of Jesus (1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 45; 23:36; Mark 8:38; Luke 11:50f.; 17:25), and it doubtlessly means the same here.”2

In a footnote, I added the following:

The New American Standard translates genea in Luke 16:8 as “kind,” but “generation” is equally valid. The King James Version, the New King James, and American Standard Version, and Young’s Literal Translation translate genea as “generation.”

In the margin, the NASB adds, “Lit. generation.” There was no need for me to spend time making these points since the New Testament consistently translates genea as “generation” and not “race.” This is especially true in the gospels (Matt. 1:17). It seems that futurists (Kurschner is an advocate for the pre-wrath rapture view) have to find just one verse that they can use to upset the exegetical applecart of preterists.

In the same outline, I included this:

The following is Charles Ryrie’s comment on Matthew 24:34 from his Study Bible: “this generation. No one living when Jesus spoke these words lived to see ‘all these things’ come to pass. However, the Greek word can mean ‘race’ or ‘family’ which makes good sense here; i.e., the Jewish race will be preserved, in spite of terrible persecution, until the Lord comes.” Stanley Toussaint, a dispensationalist, dismisses Ryrie’s line of argument: “A second interpretation, held by a number of futurists, affirms that the noun γενεά means race, that is, the Jewish race. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich give ‘clan’ as a primary meaning, but they list only Luke 16:8 as an illustration in the New Testament. It is difficult for dispensational premillennialists to take this view because this would imply that Israel would cease to exist as a nation after the Lord’s return: ‘This race of Israel will not pass away until the Second Advent.’ But Israel must continue after the Second Advent into the millennium in order to fulfill the promises God made to that nation.”3

Even the dispensational Darby Translation translates genea as “generation” in Luke 16:8:

And the lord praised the unrighteous steward because he had done prudently. For the sons of this world are, for their own generation, more prudent than the sons of light.

There are others: American Standard, English Revised, Webster’s Bible Translation, Weymouth New Testament.

I’m glad that Mr. Kurschner brought this material to my attention. I wished I had known sooner so I could change Luke 18:8 to 16:8 on page 173 (2020 printing) of Wars and Rumors of Wars. In the next edition of Wars, I’ll include this material since Mr. Kurschner believes it’s significant.

  1. Emphasis added. [↩]
  2. Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew (Sweet Publishing, 1976), 2:128. This quotation is found in my 100-page outline on Matthew 24:1-34 that I’ve made available at American Vision over the years: “The Olivet Discourse in Outline: Biblical and Historical Parallels that Point to a Pre-A.D. 70 Fulfillment.” [↩]
  3. Stanley D. Toussaint, “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” Bibliotheca Sacra (October-December 2004), 483–484.

Defining Preaching

Posted on by
Reply

Kevin DeYoung writes (source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/what-is-preaching-and-who-does-it/):

One of the best books I read last year was Preaching in the New Testament (IVP, 2017) by Jonathan Griffiths. As part of D. A. Carson’s series New Studies in Biblical Theology, I expected the book to be exegetically rich and the cover to be slate gray. I was not disappointed on either account. Griffiths, a pastor in Ottawa, Canada, makes a compelling case that there is such a thing as preaching and that not every Christian is called to do it.

At the heart of Griffiths’s examination is this well-defended conclusion:

Preaching in the New Testament is a public declaration of God’s word by a commissioned agent that stands in a line of continuity with Old Testament prophetic ministry. (128-129)

Building on the work of Claire Smith, Griffiths argues that in the New Testament euangelizomai, katangello, and kerysso are semi-technical terms referring to the proclamation of the gospel. Griffiths charts all 54 uses of euangelizomai (“announce good news”), all 18 uses of katangello (“proclaim” or “announce”), and all 59 uses of kerysso (“make proclamation as a herald”). While the three terms are not employed in a uniform sense, they are “semi-technical” in that they normally refer to preaching by some recognized authority. Of the three verbs, kerysso is the most specialized term with the narrowest range of meaning. But even with the other terms, Griffiths notes, there are no examples in the New Testament where believers in general are commissioned or commanded to “preach” (36).

Preaching is a certain kind of speech carried out by certain kinds of people. Of course, there are other kinds of word ministries given to all believers (Eph. 6:13-17; Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 3:15) but preaching (especially the speech signified by kerysso) is a ministry set apart. Paul’s charge to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:1-2) indicates not only that preaching is a task for one with commissioned authority, but also that the preacher is a man of God (2 Tim. 3:17) like the prophets of old (61-66). Likewise, Romans 10 assumes that New Testament preaching stands in continuity with the Old Testament prophetic ministry of Isaiah. We also see that being commissioned (i.e., sent out) is an essential prerequisite for preaching ministry.

As Griffiths moves through 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 2-6, 1 Thessalonians 1-2, and Hebrews, he reinforces the main themes of the book: that New Testament preaching is powerful, that God speaks through gospel preaching, that God expects people to respond to preaching with faith and obedience, that preaching requires a commissioned speaker, that preaching stands in continuity with Old Testament prophetic ministry, and that preaching is, therefore, a unique word ministry.

Concluding Thoughts

So what does this mean for the church today? Griffiths offers several points of application, let me mention three of my own (which overlap with some of his).

1. Preaching is not what every Christian does. The work of heralding is related to other word ministries but is not identical with them. There are no instructions for non-leaders to preach or proclaim the gospel. Obviously, the Bible was written in Greek not in English. The apostles never used the word “preach,” but the words they did use under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit mean something distinct from bearing witness, one-to-one discipleship, or leading an inductive Bible study. There is such a thing as preaching, and not every Christian is called to do it.

2. The act of preaching is inherently authoritative. For some reason, I had not seen before how clear this is in Romans 10. Preachers preach the gospel. Yes, that’s clear. But what is also clear is that preachers don’t just decide themselves that they want to preach. They must be sent. Preaching implies a commissioned agent authorized to preach. Rightly understood, there is no preaching that does not come from an authority in the church and no preaching that does not carry with it God’s own authority. A corollary to this point, then, is that complementarians should not speak of “women preachers,” nor should we describe the word ministry of women as “preaching.” The use of such terminology is unwise and unbiblical.

3. Preaching is meant to lead to an encounter with God. The word of Christ preached is not only a word about Christ; it is a word from Christ (Rom. 10:17). Though coming from human lips, the preached word is nothing less than the divine word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). Think of the book of Hebrews, a word of exhortation (13:22) that most scholars now think is the earliest extant full-length Christian sermon. We see that preaching comes from a congregational leader (13:7-24). We see that preaching is an exposition of Scripture. And we see that in preaching we come face-to-face (or ear-to-ear, we might say) with the living God (3:7, 15; 4:7). God’s voice is heard in the Sunday sermon, which is why we are right to give preaching the central place in our worship services and why we should pray regularly for the powerful preaching of God’s Word.

Communion with Christ

Posted on by
Reply

Nick Batzig, in an article “Communing with Christ in the Supper” writes:

Recently, a video of Francis Chan surfaced in which he tries to explain what he now believes about the real physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Without wishing to dissect the many erroneous arguments Chan made about the unity of the visible church throughout the first fifteen hundred years of church history and the role of preaching in the early church, I do wish to make a few observations about his misplaced statements about how the Supper was viewed throughout church history–and especially by a few of the leading sixteenth century Protestant and Reformed theologians.

Chan insists that the church unanimously accepted the idea that the bread and the wine become the real physical body and blood of Jesus. He says, “for the first fifteen hundred years of church history everyone saw it as the literal body and blood of Christ.” This is to fail to understand that the theory of transubstantiation was first formulated by the ninth century Benedictine monastic abbott, Paschasius Radbertus, and adopted as Roman Catholic dogma at the Fourth Lateran council in 1215. In his article “The Meal that Divides,” Keith Mathison gives a helpful survey of the development of Radbertus’ doctrine of transubstantiation and an explanation of the controversy between Radbertus and Ratramnus over the presence of Christ in the Supper in the ninth and tenth centuries.

Chan then blames the Protestant Reformation for divisions that exist in the church–largely with respect to the Lord’s Supper. He says, “it wasn’t ’til five hundred years ago that someone popularized a thought that it’s just a symbol.” Of course, this is a failure to understand the contention between Luther and Zwingli–as well as the distinctions between the view of Calvin and the members of the Westminster Assembly.

The debate between Luther and Zwingli was not–as so many have wrongly taught–that of the distinction between the real presence of Christ and a mere symbol. The debate centered on the distinction between the real local (i.e. earthly physical) presence of Christ and the real spiritual presence of Christ. Luther believed that the physical body and blood of Jesus was “in, with, and under” the bread and the wine. In this way, Luther sought to distinguish his view (i.e. consubstantiation) from the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation. The problem with Luther’s view, as Geerhardus Vos explained, is that it adopts a faulty Christology to explain the Supper. According to the Lutheran view, the divine nature of Christ must really and truly communicate to the human nature something that does not properly belong to it–namely, omnipresence. Vos explained,

“If Christ, also according to His humanity, is present in and with bread and wine, wherever these are used, then in every instance a power must be communicated to the humanity that it ordinarily (outside of Christ) does not possess. The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper thus presupposes the communication of something by the deity to the humanity.”1

Zwingli and the Swiss, by way of contrast, insisted that the Supper was symbolic and that it was the spiritual and sacramental presence of Christ that accompanied the bread and wine. Zwingli’s aversion to Luther’s view was not in the real presence of Christ but in the real local bodily presence of Christ in the Supper. In chapter 4 of his Exposition to the Christian Faith, Zwingli stated,

“The body of Christ is, therefore, not eaten by us, literally or in substance, and all the more not quantitatively, but only sacramentally and spiritually…He is not to be looked for in the world according to His humanity in literal, substantial, bodily presence, but only in a spiritual and sacramental sense.”2

The distinction that existed between Calvin and the Westminster Divines regarded the question of whether it was the heavenly corporal presence of Christ or the earthy spiritual presence of Christ that was appropriated by believers in the Supper . According to Calvin, the Holy Spirit lifts believers into heaven to spiritually feed upon the body of Christ by faith. Calvin wrote,

“Greatly mistaken are those who conceive no presence of the flesh in the Supper unless it lies in the bread. For thus they leave nothing to the secret working of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. As though, if he should lift us to himself, we should not just as much enjoy his presence!” (Institutes, 4.17.31)

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:24, Calvin explained,

“Hence the bread is Christ’s body, because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body; for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. Hence it is regarded by me as beyond all controversy, that the reality is here conjoined with the sign; or, in other words, that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread.”3

Robert Letham explains Calvin’s view of the heavenly presence of Christ in Communion, when he writes,

“Christ does not come down to us in his body and blood. Instead, we are lifted up to him by the Holy Spirit. Christ, being the eternal Son of God, is of course, everywhere. Moreover, he has permanently united himself to the human nature assumed in the incarnation. In that sense, the person of Christ is present with us as we eat and drink. Yet, on earth, the Son of God was not restricted or confined to the humanity he assumed, but was simultaneously filling all things, directing the universe even as (according to the flesh) he walked the dusty roads of Palestine. So, at the right hand of God, the Son fills and directs the universe (Col. 1:15-20), now unbreakably united to his assumed humanity, while in terms of that same humanity he is limited and in one place. Yet that humanity is never separate or apart from the divinity, the eternal Son of God with whom and in whom it is one undivided person. Thus, in the sacrament the Holy Spirit unites the faithful to the person of Christ as they eat and drink the signs, the physical elements of bread and wine. There is an inseparable conjunction of sign and reality. As truly as we eat the bread and drink the wine, so we feed on Christ by faith.” (Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper, 28-29).

This, however, did not mean that Calvin did not also accept a memorial aspect of the Supper. Hughes Oliphant Old–in what is the greatest historical treatment of the Lord’s Supper in the Reformed tradition–explained the dual aspect of the Supper as understood by Calvin, when he wrote,

“What we need to notice is that there is tension between understanding the Lord’s Supper as memorial and the Lord’s Supper as communion. Celebrating the Lord’s Supper as memorial assumes Christ’s absence, while celebrating the Lord’s Supper as communion assumes his presence. The way Reformed piety comes to reconcile the two will be by means of typology. In one case we are dealing with the Passover typology (Exodus 12 and 13); while in the other we are dealing with the Sinai typology (Exodus 24), the meal up on the top of the mountain.

Calvin sees the problem clearly. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:24 he says, “This do in remembrance of me…Some draw the inference from this phrase that, in these circumstances, Christ is not present in the Supper, because there can only be a memorial (memoria) of something that is absent.” Calvin admits this to be true in a certain sense. Christ is not visibly present. He does not leave his place in heaven, and yet when he is remembered the efficacy of his saving work is established among us. This is a kind of presence implied by the word “memorial,” but this is not the last word. As Calvin presents it, we must think of the Supper as communion as well as memorial. We find both words used in the New Testament to speak of the Supper, and as we have been saying, there are a number of words given by Scripture to explain the sacrament.”4

By way of nuanced distinction, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that believers really and truly feed on Christ by faith as He is spiritually present in the Supper. They explained that this is not a feeding on His physical flesh and body, but spiritually receive an application of the saving benefits of His death, when they wrote,

“Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses” (WCF 29.7).

Chad Van Dixhoorn summarizes the teaching of the Westminster Assembly on the presence of Christ in the Supper, when he states,

“‘The body and blood of Christ’ is not during the supper ‘corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine’. Christ is not present in the body or in the flesh. No Catholic, or Lutheran, or ‘high Anglican’ formula of real presence in the sense of physical presence is correct. But nor are these doctrines necessary! Spiritual does not mean artificial. Spiritual realities are true realities. And so this confession rightly insists that Christ is present ‘really, but spiritually’ in the supper. He is as ‘present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves’ are present ‘to their outward senses.’”5

The Scottish theologian, Robert Bruce (c.1554-1631), explained the relation between receiving Christ in the preaching of the gospel and the partaking of the Supper, when he wrote,

“That same thing which you possess by the hearing of the Word, you now possess more fully. God has more room in your soul, through your receiving of the Sacrament, than He could otherwise have by your hearing of the Word only. What then, you ask, is the new thing we get? We get Christ better than we did before. We get the thing which we had more fully, that is, with a surer apprehension than we had before. We get a better grip of Christ now, for by the Sacrament my faith is nourished, the bounds of my soul are enlarged, and so where I had but a little of Christ before, as it were, between my finger and my thumb, now I get Him in my whole hand, and indeed the more my faith grows, the better grip I get of Christ Jesus. Thus the Sacrament is very necessary, if only for the reason that we get Christ better, and get a firmer grasp of Him by the Sacrament, than we could have before.”6

Explanations about the presence of Christ in the Supper have been vast and nuanced throughout church history. However, the fact that Evangelicalism (broadly defined) has failed to acknowledge the real spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper is the bad fruit of nineteenth century Revivalism–rather than the careful exegetical labors of sixteenth century Reformation. For the Reformed (broadly defined), the Supper is both memorial and communion with Christ. Christ’s physical body is located solely in heaven until He comes again. However, by the Holy Spirit, He is present with His people in the means that He has appointed for their spiritual growth in grace–no less in the Supper than in the preaching of the word.

1. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere et al., vol. 3 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), p. 66.

2. https://historeo.com/Resources/A%20Short%20Exposition%20of%20the%20Christian%20Faith%20-%20Zwingli.pdf

3. John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 378.

4. Hughes Oliphant Old Holy Communion in the Piety of the Reformed Church, ed. by Jon D. Payne. (Powder Springs, GA: Tolle Lege Press, 2013) pp. 69-70.

5. Chad Van Dixhoorn “Through the Westminster Confession, 29.7-8,” on Reformation21, August 3, 2013 https://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/08/chapter-297-8.php

6. Robert Bruce, “The Sacraments in General,” in The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper: Sermons on the Sacrament preached in the Kirk of Edinburgh in A.D. 1589, ed. Thomas F. Torrance (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1958), p. 64.