Thursday, August 29, 2019

Sabellius' Modalism & Tertullian's Economical Trinity

Both Sabellius and Tertullian were from North Africa. It is easy to get the Economical Trinity, of Tertullian, and the Modalism of Sabellius, confused. At first glance they look and sound very much the same. Josef Lossl states: “Tertullian’s elaborate discussion of many biblical text illustrates how important the biblical argument was in the early church, and how much ground the Monarchians held in this area. Tertullian had to offer a complete re-reading of the relevant text in order to lay the foundations for his own project. This then turned out to be massive – no less than an almost full blown ‘Trinitarian Theology,’ the first of its kind.
Starting from the insight that God, ‘I and the Father’ ( John 10:30), ‘are one’ in the sense that there is a unity of being as well as purpose and will in God, he puts out that in terms of the ‘economy of salvation’ this unity develops into, or reveals itself as, a “trinity:” Father, Son and Spirit. Cautious of potential Monarchian criticism, he insists that God is one in being (or substance) and there is only one degree of being in God. In other words, the Son and the Spirit are no lesser gods. The differentiation consists in the function of each divine ‘person’ within the company or history of salvation. This results in God taking on different forms and ‘gradations’ (cf Dünzl 2007:32). Tertullian tries to compare this with the flow of water. The source is analogous to the Father, the river to the Son and the canal to the Spirit. The substance and ontological status of the water are the same in each case, but the form and function are different.”
It is clear to see from Lossl (and, even from Tertullian himself) that Tertullian was a harbinger of a new Godhead theology. Such phrases as “re-reading of the relevant text” (meaning a new reading from what was commonly considered to be the correct reading), and the admission that Tertullian’s writing on the trinity was “the first of its kind,” plus the declaration by Tertullian that the unity of God “develops into, or reveals itself as, a ‘trinity’” is sure evidence that here we have an innovation to Christian teaching—that was unorthodox by all accounts. The visible difference between Tertullian’s Economical Trinity and Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism) was Tertullian’s introduction of the term persons. The introduction of the word “persons” has been the single most unfortunate event in the development of the Trinity. Great thinkers of the Church have attempted to correct the error: Augustine said, “three somewhats;” Anselm, “three I know not what;” Barth, “three ways of being” or “three modes;” Professor Moses Stuart said, “distinctions.” It was John Calvin that articulated it clearly, and then Watts that brought it to America, where Moses Stuart took up the phrase and made it a pillar of New England Trinitarianism: “A threefold distinction in the Godhead.”
Moreover, Tertullian’s allegory of water: fountain, river and canal to represent Father, Son and Holy Spirit is little different (if any) from Modalism’s illustration of light: sun, rays and heat.

(Excerpted from "Godhead Theology" pages 91, 92)

 Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:


Read other Essays from the pen of the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

"Glory With The Father"

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

"How Is God One?"

"Hebrew Monotheism"

"An Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 8:6-7"


"The Apostolic Creed"

"Jesus Is Father God"

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"

"Elohim, the Plural form For God"
"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

"Logos Christology"

"The Seven Spirits of God"

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)
Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.
Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4



The Jesus Debate is a written debate between Bishop Jerry Hayes and Prof. Willy Olmo. This book contains all papers submitted between this two knowledgeable men. Bishop Hayes affirms and defends the Oneness of God; Prof. Olmo affirms and defends Arian Unitarianism.
Own this classic debate by ordering from the link provided here:


The Hayes vs Mulbah Debate is a formal written debate on the subject of the Godhead, between Bishop Jerry L Hayes (Onenessarian) and Minister Andrew Mulbah (Trinitarian). This work contains the debate in its entirety plus other related material. Included are the two Creeds from which both disputants argue their respective views: The Apostolic Creed (the statement of faith for the Oneness/Modalistic Monarchian theology) and the Athanasian Creed (the official statement of faith for the Trinitarian theology).
Own this remarkable debate today, by ordering it from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Hayes-Mulbah-Debate-Oneness-Trinity/dp/1727358953/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-8


THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY




Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Melchizedek and Elohim














Own this classic debate today! For more information click on the link at the end of this article.
Own this classic debate today! For more information click on the link at the end of this article.

Who Was Melchizedek?

The first available document, exterior to the holy Scripture, that has Modalistic significance is a fragment dated from AD 50, that was found in the Qumran caves. It designates Melchizedek as Elohim.
The document is labeled 11Q13 and reads: 11QMelch—
"...[And it will be proclaimed at] the end of days concerning the captives as [He said, To proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. 61.l). Its interpretation is that He] will assign them to the Sons of Heaven and to the inheritance of Melchizedek; f[or He will cast] their 5 [lot] amid the po[rtions of Melchize]dek, who will return them there and will proclaim to them will proclaim to them liberty, forgiving them [the wrong-doings] of all their iniquities. And the Day of Atonement is the e[nd of the] tenth [Ju]bilee, when all the Sons of [Light] and the men of the lot of Mel[chi]zedek will be atoned for. [And] a statute concerns them [to prov]ide them with their rewards. For this is the moment of the Year of Grace for Melchizedek. [And h]e will, by his strength, judge the holy ones of God, executing judgement as it is written concerning him in the Songs of David, who said, ELOHIM has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement [Ps 82:1]. ... And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgements of God... and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial."
In Psalms 45:6-7 the psalmist looks far to the future and views the dual natures of Christ, as a man might stand in a plain, and view two great mountains in the far distance. The two great mountains stand one in the front of the other, and one, a little to one side; the peaks of both mountains clearly visible—one taller that the other. The man in the plain does not see, cannot tell, that the two mountains are not one, so he speaks of both peaks as of one mountain. So does the psalmist speak of Jesus Christ. Two natures are in view: verse 6, the God nature; verse 7, the Man nature. The point is made, however, in verse 6 Jesus is called “Elohim.”
“Thy throne, O God (Elohim) is for ever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with he oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (Psalms 45:6-7.
The Identity of Melchizedek has been the subject of much nobler scholars than myself. Regardless of this, I do feel that the Scripture is more than just tantalizing about his identification, and it falls my lot to investigate and make some humble comments. With that as our purpose we will looking to Hebrews 7:1-4a:
“For this Melchizedek, King of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning form the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom, also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was ...”
From the description given of Melchizedek in the above text, it would hardly seem possible to get him confused with anyone else. There seems to be only one possibility, of which we are given a pointer in verse three where the text says that he was, “... but made like unto the Son of God;” The Greek word is “aphomoiomenos” translated “made like” (A. T. Robertson’s “Word Pictures of the Greek New Testament” volume 5, page 381). It is perfect passive participle of “aphomoioo.” Robertson says that it is an old verb used only here in the New Testament. “Holy men of God” we are told, “spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21b). surely, the writer of Hebrews was a holy man of God, therefore, the Holy Ghost had a hand in him using a word not used anywhere else in the Scripture. To my mind, at least, it would appear that an uncommon word was needed to describe an uncommon relationship between Jesus and Melchizedek.
Robertson interprets the word as: “to produce a facsimile or copy.” That is to say: Melchizedek was (made like) a facsimile, or copy of Jesus, according to the writer of Hebrews. The “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary” defines ‘facsimile’ as: 1. An exact copy; 2. The transmission of graphic matter (as printing or still pictures) by wire or radio and its reproduction.
It seems clear, that just as surely as Hebrews 1:3 teaches that Jesus is “The express image of His (the Father’s) hypostasis (substance),” Hebrews 7:3 just as cloudlessly teaches that Melchizedek is the exact copy (the exact similitude of the fact, transmitted from one place to another) of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is one with the Father, because Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15 declares Him to be the image of the Father, why, then, would not Melchizedek be one with Christ since Hebrews 7:3 avowals that he is an exact reproduction of Christ‽
The similarities between the two are unmistakable;
  1. Christ is the King of Righteousness (Jeremiah 23:5,6) “Behold the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
  2. Melchizedek is the King of Peace (Hebrews7:2); Likewise, Christ is the king of Peace: (Isaiah 9:6) “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
  3. Melchizedek was without father, mother, or descent (Hebrews 7:2);Even so; Jesus, as to His divine nature, had no sire, nor mother. Mary was the mother of the Son of God, i.e. the humanity of Christ (Galatians 4:4), but it must not be said that she was the Mother of God. As God, Jesus did not have a Father, He was the Father come in flesh (Isaiah 9:6; John 14:9).
  4. Melchizedek had no beginning nor ending of days (Hebrews 7:2); In Revelation 1:8 Jesus said of Himself, “I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:”
  5. Melchizedek would have no end of life (Hebrews 7:2); In like manner, Jesus said in Revelation 1:18, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of death.” Also, Paul gives his testimony as to Jesus being the ONLY one with IMMORTALITY: (1 TIMOTHY 6:14-16), “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
  6. It is said of Melchizedek, that he was the “priest of the most high God,” (Hebrews 7:1). The same title is given to him in Genesis 14:18. The priesthood of Melchizedek was man-ward—from God. This is in reverse to the priesthood of the tabernacle, or temple. The priesthood of Aaron or Levi was God-ward—from man. All other priest were priests of men, from men, and for men, to God; i.e. to represent man to God. Not so, with Melchizedek; his priesthood was “of the most high God.” This priest did not represent man to God, but was the direct opposite, he represented God to man. The priest of men offered sacrifices of men, from men, to God. This priest offered the sacrifice of God to man! In Genesis 14:18Melchizedek is seen offered Abraham bread and wine at the cutting of the Abrahamic covenant. The one of whom Melchizedek is the exact copy (Jesus Christ), 1800 years later, offers the same offering at the cutting of the New Covenant. Only this time all mystery is torn from the ritual and the explanation is plainly given: “This is my body; this is my blood of the new covenant.” Jesus was saying: This is heaven’s offering unto man, and I am the priest of the most high God, officiating at heaven’s altar; bringing to man an offering for sin: for God, from God, OF GOD (Matthew 26:26-28).
  7. Melchizedek was a King/Priest: “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, ...” (Hebrews 7:1), which was forbidden under the Law of Moses. The priests were to come from the tribe of Levi and the kings from Judah. (Jeremiah 33:17,18 “For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.”) However, Jesus is, indeed a King/priest. He is “...a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Hebrews 5:6,10); and the “King of kings” (Revelation 19:16).

It may be a statement out of joint with many great minds, but from all the information given above, my faith is: The Melchizedek of the Old Testament is one and the same as the Jesus of the New Testament.
We conclude then: The King of Righteousness appeared in the pages of Israel’s history, just long enough to officiate the cutting of the covenant with Abraham, and again, for a brief moment, to establish the everlasting covenant, on better promises, by offering Himself as a sacrifice: for God, from God, and OF GOD. That Jesus was God is demonstrated by Paul's words recorded by Luke in Acts 20:28,
“...feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

The document found in the caves of Qumran (11Q13), which identifies Melchizedek as Elohim—the God of Israel, is pure Monarchian logic. It would go something like this:
Major premise: Jesus is Elohim (Jeremiah 23:5-6);
Minor premise: Jesus is Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:2);
Conclusion:
Melchizedek is Elohim


Apostolically Speaking 

 Read More From the Bishop On Christology

Own this book today! Click on the link below.


the Jesus Debate: A Debate On The Person of Jesus, Between Modalism/Oneness and Arianism/Unitarianism
the Jesus Debate: A Debate On The Person of Jesus, Between Modalism/Oneness and Arianism/Unitarianism
The Jesus debate is a formal discussion on the person of Jesus Christ between the Modalist and Unitarian theologies. Modalism holds that God has manifested Himself in the economy of One triune being. The One Being existing in the different modes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While the Unitarian view holds that God is but one being Who is limited to the Father; that the Son is separate and distinct Being from the Father Who is not God, but the Son of God. Modalism (called Oneness in the twenty-first century) teaches the full deity of Jesus and His full humanity as well. the Arian view of Unitarianism represented by Willy Olmo in this book affirms the Father to be the only person of God and Jesus to be His Son.
 Buy Now


Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:




Read other Essays from the pen of the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-worlds-made-by-son.html

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/12/hebrews-138-vs-1-corinthians-1528.html

"Glory With The Father"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/12/glory-with-father.html

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/02/philippains-26-8-answering-trinitarian.html

"How Is God One?"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-is-god-one.html

"Hebrew Monotheism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/02/hebrew-monothesim.html

"An Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 8:6-7"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/02/an-exegesis-of-first-corinthians-86-7.html

"Answering Trinitarian Objections To The Oneness Faith"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/03/answering-trinitarian-objections-to.html

"The Apostolic Creed"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/05/i-believe-in-one-god-1-solitary-in.html

"Jesus Is Father God"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/07/jesus-is-father-god.html

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/10/homoousia-and-creed-of-nicaea.html

"The Triquetra And Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/12/triquetra-and-modalism.html

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/01/modalism-biblical-and-historical.html

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/02/micah-52-4-exegesis-but-thou-bethlehem.html


"Elohim, the Plural form For God"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/10/answering-trinitarian-objections-to.html

"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/04/can-deity-of-jesus-be-called-son-of-god.html

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/04/mathematical-equation-of-godhead-1x1x11.html

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/05/hebrew-monotheism.html

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/05/jesus-on-gods-right-hand.html

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-name-of-deity-tetragrammaton.html

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/06/christology-of-apostolic-church-fathers.html

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/06/christian-modalism-challenged-by-greeks.html

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-apologist-and-logos-christology.html

"Logos Christology"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/06/logos-christology.html

"The Seven Spirits of God"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/07/revelation-14-apostolically-speaking.html

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-historical-numerical-superiority-of.html

"How Is God One?" Second Edition
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-is-god-one.html

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/09/creed-of-nica-creed-of-318-affirmed.html

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-comforter-answering-objections.html

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/09/echad-vs-yachid-answering-objections-to.html

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/10/godhead-theology-of-bishop-ignatius-of.html

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/10/godhead-theology-of-bishop-ignatius-of.html

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/08/godhead-theology-of-tabernacle-of-moses_5.html

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/proper-biblical-understanding-of-word.html

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html


Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/defense-of-first-timothy-316-answering.html



Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4





The Jesus Debate is a written debate between Bishop Jerry Hayes and Prof. Willy Olmo. This book contains all papers submitted between this two knowledgeable men. Bishop Hayes affirms and defends the Oneness of God; Prof. Olmo affirms and defends Arian Unitarianism.

Own this classic debate by ordering from the link provided here:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Debate-Modalism-Arianism-Unitarianism/dp/1484036670/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-6




The Hayes vs Mulbah Debate is a formal written debate on the subject of the Godhead, between Bishop Jerry L Hayes (Onenessarian) and Minister Andrew Mulbah (Trinitarian). This work contains the debate in its entirety plus other related material. Included are the two Creeds from which both disputants argue their respective views: The Apostolic Creed (the statement of faith for the Oneness/Modalistic Monarchian theology) and the Athanasian Creed (the official statement of faith for the Trinitarian theology).

Own this remarkable debate today, by ordering it from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Hayes-Mulbah-Debate-Oneness-Trinity/dp/1727358953/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-8


THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY
Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:


Posted by at 1 comment:

Saturday, August 10, 2019

THIS GENERATION



What Did Jesus Mean by: "This Generation?"
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Jesus, Matthew 24:34)
It is with a careful step that I come before you by way of this correspondence, having established in our previous writing that the Kingdom of the Son of Man (i.e. the kingdom of the people of the saints of the most High) was established within the generation of the contemporaries of Jesus. In establishing that proposition, Matthew 24: 34 was offered. In this verse Jesus said that: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” One must consider the subjects of the word “all” which Jesus said would be fulfilled; second, His meaning of “generation” must be determined.
First, in considering the list of things included in the “all” a quick inventory of the verses leading up to verse 34 would prove helpful.
Jesus is answering a three-part question that was asked Him by His disciples: “Tell us, when shall these things be?” and, “ what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Verse 3). The following items are included in the “signs:” Jesus said they were to look for:
  1. The coming of false messiahs (christs) (verse 5).
  2. The birth pangs of wars, famines, pestilence is, and earthquakes (see verses 6, 7, 8).
  3. Persecution of the Church (see verses 9, 10).
  4. The appearing of false prophets (see verse 11).
  5. The love of the saints growing cold (see verse 12).
  6. The Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in all the world (see verse 14).
  7. The appearing of the “abomination of desolation,” spoken of by Daniel the prophet (see verse 15).
  8. The great tribulation (see verse 21).
  9. The darkening of the sun and the moon; the falling of the stars of heaven; the shaking of the powers of heaven (see verse 29).
  10. The appearing of the “sign of the Son of Man in heaven” (see verse 30).
Then Jesus said: “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (see verses 33-34).
The “signs” of the times as spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24 are said to take place within a particular window. Jesus said, “This generation shall not pass, til all these things be fulfilled.” This statement has plagued Futurist from the very first. What did Christ mean? Is it possible he meant what he said; or, does “generation” here, have some special meaning that is particular to this passage alone? This writing will explore three interpretations assigned to the word “generation” as given in Matthew 24:34.

Depending on one’s eschatology, the word generation has been understood three different ways:
  1. Generation: a race; in this case the race of the Jews. 
  2. Generation: a period of time lasting anywhere from 40-100 years; assigned to the generation alive when these “signs” began to take place. 
  3. Generation: a 40-100 year period of time beginning when Jesus spoke the prophecy and assigned to his contemporaries (generation) exclusively. 
It appears to me that a proper understanding of Matthew chapter 24 depends on a correct understanding of verse 34.
Matthew 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”
And, further, it is certain that how we see these prophecies determines directly how we should live our Christian lives. When attempting to answer the question, “How then shall we live?” one must have a correct understanding of Kingdom theology, of which the prophecies of Daniel, the teachings of Jesus (in the Gospel of Matthew) on the kingdom, and John’s visions (in the book of Revelation) are all key components.
We will take up the three above-mentioned interpretations of the word “generation” in turn.
First, there is a consideration of the meaning of the word “generation” as it applies to “race.” The word “generation” in the Greek is “genea,” pronounced “ghen-eh- ah;” Strong’s #NT1074 has as its meaning: a generation; and by implication an age (the period or the persons) - age, generation, nation, time. The word genea is presumed to be from the word genos (Strong’s #NT 1085) which means: kin: born, country(man), diverse city, generation, kind(red), nation, offspring, stock. Gnos does, in fact, indicate (race) in Acts 7:19; 2 Corinthians 11:26; Philippians 3:5; Galatians 1:14; 1 Peter 2:9. On the strength of this association of the two words (i.e. genea and genos), some persons have postulated the meaning of “generation,” as used by Jesus in Matthew 24:34, to indicate the race of the Jews. In which case Jesus would be saying that the Jewish race would not disappear from the earth before all the things he prophesied would be fulfilled. By this interpretation the fulfillment of Matthew chapter 24 is projected into the end of human history.
A second interpretation is a particular “generation” (a whole multitude of men living at the same time - Thayer) living at the time all the signs of Matthew chapter 24 begin to take place. In this view, Matthew 24:33 is cited as the reason for this understanding. That verse reads: “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.” And then Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (verse 34).So, the reasoning goes: The generation (verse 34) that sees these things (verse 33) shall not pass till all is fulfilled (verse 34).
The third interpretation of “generation,” as used by Jesus in Matthew 24:34 is to understand Him in the most common sense of the term. Always, when interpreting any written material (especially Holy Scripture) the first consideration must go to the most common usage of words or phrases. In this way the most common understanding of a word or phrase is the most probable meaning, unless the context of the passage indicates a special interpretation is required. There is no such indicators in the words of Jesus from His Olivet Discourse; the opposite is true.
The discourse of chapters 24 and 25 is but a continuation of the discourse from chapter 23. That is to say: The dialogue between Jesus and His disciples in Matthew 24:1-3 was a result of the teachings of Jesus from chapter 23. It was in chapter 23 that Christ spoke of judgment coming upon His generation (see 23:33, 36-38). By Matthew 24:34 the subject had not changed. Jesus was still speaking of His generation. He has kept His contemporaries in view. Joseph Henry Thayer says that “genea” (generation) of Matthew 24:34 means: “the whole multitude of men living at the same time” as Christ.
There is some debate as to just how many years a generation covers. Some suggest 40 years, others 70 years, and still others 100 years (see Genesis 15:16). At any rate, the meaning of Jesus is clear that the judgment of which He spoke (in chapters 23 and 24) was immanent within his generation. Within 40 years of this prophecy Jerusalem was captured by the Romans and the temple was completely destroyed effectively ending Jewish temple worship; within 100 years the Romans had so depopulated the land of Jews that no Jew was allowed in all of Judea on penalty of death.
In determining just how Jesus is using the term “generation,” in Matthew 24:34, one must discover how He was accustomed to using the word. A listing follows of all the places Jesus employed “genea” (generation):
Matthew 11:16; 12:34, 39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:33; 23:36; *24:34. Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30. Luke 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 16:18; 17:25; 21:32.
One will notice that all the above references are from the synoptic Gospels. Not once did He (Jesus) alter His application of the word from meaning the people who were His contemporaries. For any Bible teacher to give the word “genea” (generation, as it appears in Matthew 24:34) a meaning that is adverse to the way Jesus employed the word in every other place, is a blatant violation of the law of context.
The problem with the interpretation of “race” is that Jesus never employed the word “genea” (generation) in that sense. In addition, those who championed such an understanding admittedly have an agenda for which they are willing to interpret the word out of its context; and, A TEXT WITHOUT ITS CONTEXT IS A PRETEXT.
The second interpretation of: “the generation alive when the signs began” fares no better when one considers that there have always been wars and rumors of wars; earthquakes have happened throughout history (in fact, more in Roman times than now); each age has produced its share of self proclaimed messiahs - so, How could anyone know which generation would be the “end-time generation?” In modern times scholars (so-called) have pointed to the year 1917 (World War I—as the Beginning of Sorrows), and postulated the generation alive during that year as the End-Time Generation. Yet, others (just as scholarly—[?]) have pointed to the founding of the state of Israel in the year in 1948 as the beginning of the End-Time Generation (also called the Rapture Generation), and projected the date of 1988 for the Lord’s return. (This group chose as a definition for generation a 40 year time span; 40 years from the founding of Israel as an independent state in 1948 would bring us to 1988.) They were all wrong!
I would ask you to excuse a couple down-home sayings that are very appropriate at this moment: It is time to stop riding a dead horse; or said another way: stop working with a dog that just won’t hunt.
The Futuristic view of Matthew 24 (and most of Revelation, for that part) has proven itself false with the passing of time. It has embarrassed the Gospel of Christ, and weaken the position of the Church in the world. We must accept that the predictions of Jesus contained in Matthew 24:4-34 were fulfilled just as He said they would be—in the first century. Then we can get on with applying ourselves to the establishing of His kingdom in the earth, instead of spending all of our energy on hoping to escape into the ether (the wide blue yonder). That day will come—for sure; but now there is work to be done. OCCUPY TILL HE COMES!

Apostolically Speaking
☩☩Jerry L Hayes
Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:


 Read other essays from the Bishop on Apostolic Kingdom Theology at the links provided here:
"Apostolic Eschatology"

The Three Horsemen of Dispensationalism
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-three-horsemen-of-dispensationalism.html

"Dating the Book of Revelation"

"The Prophets Speak of the Church"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-prophets-speak-of-church.html

 Understanding the Question (Matthew 24:3)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/08/understanding-question-matthew-243_9.html

The Millennial Reign of Christ
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-millennial-reign-of-chris.html

God’s New Covenant With Israel
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/05/gods-new-covenant-with-israel.html

Apostolic Kingdom Theology vs Futurism

Correct Method of Interpreting the Book of Revelation
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/07/correct-method-of-interpreting.html

Joel's Messianic Kingdom (The Church of Jesus Christ)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/joels-messianic-age-church-of-jesus.html




 
Letters to my Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology: An Apostolic Answer to Dispensationalism Concerning the Mission of the Lord's Church and End-Time Events
 "Letters to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology" is a compilation of twenty four letters showing how we were led astray from the apostolic teaching of Scripture to embrace a view recently come into the Lord's church, of which the apostles knew nothing. These "Letters" provide a systematic approach to Apostolic Eschatological study of Scripture. It is sure to interest all students of Scriptures. 

Own your personal copy of this timely work by ordering from the link provided here: https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Children-Apostolic-Kingdom-Theology/dp/1482716712/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Letters+to+me+Children&qid=1565369106&s=books&sr=1-2-fkmr0





The Apocalypse: Here Bishop Hayes gives a verse by verse commentary of the first three chapters of the Apostle John's Revelation of Jesus Christ, covering the letters addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor. This book is the first in a series on the Apocalypse which takes a marked Historicist position. The Bible student will thrill at the Bishop's easy evangelistic style of presenting deep and unique truths never before published. In this study a wealth of information is shared with the disciples of Christ on each verse of this great manuscript.
Order your personal copy today from the link provided here:






Thank You For Your Support By Purchasing My Books For Your Library - JLH
Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)