Gary DeMar on July 7th, 2022 decided to begin a multipart response to my article on “this generation.” To see his article, please follow this link: “Is “This Generation” Past or Future?” This will be my response to his critique.
Before we get off the ground, Gary DeMar’s title incorrectly characterizes my position (a position I make abundantly clear in the article) in the title. Gary commits the fallacy of “false dichotomy” by asserting that there are only two positions on the table (either past or future) regarding the term “this generation.” As I stated in my article, I affirm that “this generation” includes the past “generation” or the “contemporaries of Jesus” but is not *limited* [key word] to that generation.
Page 2 states, “From my perspective preterists have depended far too much on their assertion that “this generation” is exclusive to the contemporaries of Jesus.”
Contrary to my clear indication of this, DeMar still believes that he is responding to someone who denies that “this generation” includes the contemporaries of Jesus and therefore begins his series by misrepresenting me.
Page 5 states, “I also hope to demonstrate that this trans-historical people includes (past generations) tied to Cain, through to the contemporaries of Jesus, and will extend down until the return of Christ. My view of genea is not limited to a singular group identified in the New Testament, my view extends and encompasses what I believe is more of the biblical data.”
Page 6 further affirms this point, “If that is the case, the general understanding of πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί must be speaking of the contemporaries of Jesus. So, whatever, position we take from here, there must be some relevance of “this generation” tied to the original audience that Jesus spoke to, a point I am sure my preterists friend would be happy to hear. However, it isn’t limited by time to only a singular quantitative generation (which is where I believe the preterist errs).”
So, according to what I see in DeMar’s first article, he has already started on the wrong foot, clearly not paying attention to what I have said in the article. Let’s look at some comments that DeMar makes that are a misrepresentation of my position:
“The idea that “this generation” means “this type of generation” is still popular. As we’ll see, it is the view of Ian Hicks. “The generation that sees these signs” is also popular except that Jesus states, speaking to His audience, “even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that it is near, at the door” (Matt. 24:33). In these cases, words must be added (“kind” or “type” and “that sees these signs” as well as eliminating “this”) to obtain the needed meaning so that “this generation” can mean any generation except the generation to whom Jesus was addressing. I’m always willing to look at arguments against the view that “this generation” did not refer to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking.“
Anyone honest enough can see that DeMar has clearly not read what I wrote, but is bringing a preconception of what he thinks I am arguing to the table. This same issue was brought to DeMar’s attention when he attempted to critique Brock Hollett. See Brock’s response where he repeatedly states that DeMar is arguing against something that is not his position and then proceeds to attack that (classic strawman fallacy).
My contention with DeMar is that he is unwilling to see that there are not two options on the table, but that other positions seek to blend together (past, present, and future) meanings of genea that climax in Matthew 24:34. Numerous scholars have done so (cf. Alford, Lövestam, Thomas, Snow, Nelson, DeWaay etc.) and yet DeMar fixates the majority of his time to attacking people like Scofield and Fruchtenbaum, who are articulating something different.
Returning to the article, DeMar asserts that his position is “straightforward” and I agree. It is a straightforward reading of the text that ignores the totality of the biblical data. The argument set forth by DeMar ignores the seed argument in Genesis 3, Deuteronomic usages (cf. Deut 32:5, 20), and the Matthean usages in the pejorative. As we will see below, DeMar won’t touch Matthew 23:34-36 with a ten-foot pole. Why? Because it is a clear refuter for his position.
DeMar asserts “Anyone reading Matthew’s gospel for the first time would understand that the use of “this generation” in Matthew 11:16 refers to Jesus’ contemporaries,” which again is an overly simplistic reading of the text and doesn’t allow for us to understand why Jesus is drawing upon this language. Where does this language come from? Why does Jesus persistently use it? Why is the pejorative language tied to it? Nothing is stated from DeMar, it is merely assumed that because his position is the simple reading of the text, it must be correct [begging the question].
DeMar only interacts briefly with my actual argument at the end of the article: “It’s quite simple why the guilt of righteous blood shed on earth would be accounted to this tiny group of religious leaders at the time of Jesus. Note what Jesus said in 23:32: “Fill up the measure [of the guilt] of your fathers.” They weren’t guilty of all these murders, but they were “descendants of those who murdered the prophets” (23:31), but their murder would be of a higher magnitude because they turned over God’s Son to be crucified. There was no greater crime in history. They would be judged because they rejected Jesus and colluded with the Roman government to murder Him. They chose the “notorious criminal” Barabbas (Matt. 27:16) over Jesus and Caesar as their king (John 19:15). They would be judged for their own sins because Jesus was the true tabernacle (John 1:1, 14) and temple in their midst (2:13–22), and they should have known better (1:11). “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation,” (23:36), that is, their generation alone because “they delivered” Him up and had Him “nailed to a cross” by “the hands of godless men” (Acts 2:22–23). All futurist views on the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse end up indicting a generation of Jews who had nothing to do with the death of Jesus.“
This is where I want to spend my time. He says, “It’s quite simple (in response to my argument) why the guilt of righteous blood shed on earth would be accounted to this tiny group of religious leaders at the time of Jesus.” How does he propose to explain the text? He does so by appealing to 23:32 “Note what Jesus said in 23:32: “Fill up the measure [of the guilt] of your fathers.” They weren’t guilty of all these murders, but they were “descendants of those who murdered the prophets” (23:31), but their murder would be of a higher magnitude because they turned over God’s Son to be crucified. There was no greater crime in history. They would be judged because they rejected Jesus and colluded with the Roman government to murder Him.” Yet, this very argument undercuts everything DeMar stands for, why?
1.) DeMar claims they weren’t guilty of all of these murders, yet the second person plural “you” states that THEY [the contemporaries of Jesus] ARE in fact responsible for the death of these two men and all righteous blood (Matthew 23:35 – And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered [ἐφονεύσατε] between the temple and the altar.) DeMar needs to explain how Zechariah son of Berekiah was killed by the contemporaries of Jesus? DeMar claims that the second personal plurals MUST be applied to the contemporaries, so how did they kill Zechariah? If DeMar concedes that the contemporaries didn’t murder Zechariah, it follows that a different evil and wicked generation killed Zechariah, and they are lumped together with the contemporaries, proving my point.
[Side note: I believe all the evidence points to Zechariah the prophet-priest who wrote Zechariah as being the one killed here in the OT (for an extensive demonstration of this position, please see: https://bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/zechariah-son-of-berechiah-mt-2335/).]
So, again, how were they, the contemporaries, responsible for the sin of Cain, the sin of the ones who murdered Zechariah, and ALL righteous blood shed on the earth? DeMar, how do you reconcile sin falling on them since Ezekiel 18:20 claims this is impossible (The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son)? How were the contemporaries present for these murders (the murders of all righteousness)? It cannot possibly be describing a singular generation, but a type of evil and wicked people that have existed since the days of Abel. The only one responsible for the sin of Abel was Cain, not the contemporaries of Jesus. God had simply restrained pouring out his wrath on this type of people [the evil and wicked ones]. The sin of the wicked and evil generation (spoken of since the beginning) were the objects of God’s wrath, but the generation was not limited to them alone, which is where the argument doesn’t work from a preteristic perspective.
Dewaay hits the nail on the head: “In Matthew 23 Jesus rebukes the Jewish leadership pronouncing woe after woe upon them (showing Jesus’ solidarity with the true prophets of the Old Testament). Notice how Jesus’ statement transcends chronological limitations. Not only does He refer to future messengers He would send and whom they would reject, but He includes the Jewish leadership in the guilt of all those who before them persecuted God’s chosen ones. The issue was not chronological (though Jesus’ contemporary “judges” epitomize the wickedness of rejecting God’s prophets) but moral and spiritual. All those who reject God’s ordained messengers, past, present, and future are included in the condemnation of “this generation.” It is becoming clear that “this generation” is a phrase that Jesus used qualitatively rather than chronologically. At issue was not when certain Jewish people were born and how many years they might live, but their response to divine revelation: including that which comes through the Old Testament prophets, the person of Jesus, and future preachers of the Gospel.” [Citation: https://cicministry.org/commentary/issue77.htm]
DeMar and all preterists must account for the “you” in the text, that claims the generation present at the time of Jesus actually killed Zechariah and all bloodshed on earth including Abel. I agree that God’s wrath was stored up [vs. 32] and would be poured out on the contemporaries, but DeMar does not account for Abel’s inclusion, or the second person plural that says that they (the contemporaries) killed Zechariah the son of Berekiah. It must be that the Fathers (according to vs.31) killed them, and the contemporaries are lumped in with the Fathers because they are just like [qualitative type/class] them.
2.) Matthew 23:31 states strongly that they (the contemporaries) are the sons of those who murdered the prophets (So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.) meaning that this type of evil and wickedness existed in prior generations and was committed by other generations.
Nelson points this out: “In 23:13-36 Jesus delivers a scathing rebuke against the scribes and Pharisees who comprise a corporate kind of evil generation (23:36) with their fathers who killed the prophets (23:31, 35) and with those who would murder Jesus’ messengers until the time of the parousia (23:32, 34, 38-39). Those who comprise “this generation” are hypocritical (23:3-7, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29), self-exalting (23:5-12), spiritually blind (23:16-17, 19, 24, 26), lawless (23:28) and foolish (23:17). They will kill and crucify disciples (23:34), they lead many astray and shut them out of the kingdom (23:13-15), and they are sentenced to hell (23:13-15, 33, 35-36)… in Matt 23:36 his reference to hë genea haute expands beyond his own contemporaries to include persecutors and murderers of the righteous from Abel to Zechariah to heralds of the gospel in the indefinite future (23:32-35).” Citation pg. 375-376, 383 [https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/38/38-3/JETS_38-3_Nelson_369-386.pdf]
God tolerated sin for only so long and Israel (as a wicked and evil people) had committed many sins by killing the prophets (not limited to a singular generation), and the cup of wrath was full and would be poured out. The cup of wrath being poured out on a singular generation is not the issue and not the focus per se, but the argument that the inclusion of Abel up until Zechariah, demonstrates that this wicked and evil type of people (this generation) had existed from the beginning of the fall. They were present even before Israel was in fact a nation and well before the contemporaries existed. It makes no sense to include Abel if this was only speaking of Israel’s sins as a nation, and it makes no sense to make the contemporaries suffer for the iniquities of their fathers, unless a type of people is in view that likewise partook in the same evil and wicked deeds. The contrast is between righteousness and unrighteousness (the battle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent).
Alford states it well “The murder of Abel was the first in the strife between unrighteousness and holiness, and as these Jews represent, in their conduct both in former times and now, the murderer of the first, they must bear the vengeance of the whole in God’s day of wrath. Citation: (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hac/matthew-23.html#verses-29-33)”
It is my argument, that the first in the strife between unrighteousness and holiness (or righteousness) appears as a pattern down from Abel to Zechariah and down until the separation of sheep and goats. That is why there is an eschatological element (regardless of what one thinks re: Matthew 24) in Matthew 25 because the question is what God will do with “this generation” in the future. They will continue to exist alongside the seed of the woman until all these things are fulfilled (Matthew 24:34). This generation existed well before the contemporaries, as I demonstrate in the article.
More to come…
3 thoughts on “Responding to Gary DeMar’s Critique of My Article (Pt. 1)”