Parable of Fig Tree: Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place

[KyivAndrew]

“Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things [the Tribulation at the End of the World] have taken place.” Luke 21:29 Similar language is used in Matthew 24:34 in the parable of the Fig Tree.

Some have argued against Jesus, using this as an example of Jesus being wrong in prophecy as those first-century witnesses in front of Christ have died out hundreds of years ago.

Other scholars, like E.P. Sanders, point to verses like these in emphasizing the Apocalyptic Christ and that He truly believed the End would soon come after His Death. Sanders postulates that in taking human form, God in Jesus willingly assumed some self-limitations, which would explain this apocalyptic prediction.

Haydock comments on the parable in Matthew in such manner:

"Verse. 34. This generation; i.e. the nation of the Jews shall not cease to exist, until all these things shall be accomplished: thus we see the nation of the Jews still continue, and will certainly continue to the end of the world. (Tirinus) — Then the cross, which has been a scandal to the Jew, and a stumbling-block to the Gentile, shall appear in the heavens, for the consolation of the good Christian. Hoc signum crucis erit in cœlo, cum Dominus ad judicandum venerit. — If it be to be understood of the destruction of Jerusalem, the sense may be, this race of men now living; if of the last day of judgment, this generation of the faithful, saith Theophylactus,[4] shall be continued: i.e. the Church of Christ, to the end of the world. (Witham) — This race, I tell you in very truth, shall not pass away till all this be finally accomplished in the ruin of Jerusalem, the most express figure of the destruction and end of the world. (Bible de Vence) — By generation, our Saviour does not mean the people that were in existence at that time, but the faithful of his Church; thus says the psalmist: this is the generation of them that seek the Lord. (Psalm xxiii, ver. 6.) (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxvii.)

Verse. 35. Shall pass away: because they shall be changed at the end of the world into a new heaven and new earth. (Challoner)"

So what is the best method to explain what looks on the face of it to be an unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus. Do we argue that Jesus was pointing to the Destruction of the Temple in these verses which some there present would live to see? But how could we, if Jesus is saying “all [these apocalyptic tribulations] will happen before the people now living have all died”.

Any answers from anyone welcome. I will not debate and am seeking thoughtful views from people better-versed in Scripture than I so please take a shot.

 

[Benadam]

Of all men born to women none is greater than John. Jesus is saying He usn’t of this generation born to women. John is. 'This generation is born of Eve. Generation of Adam born of woman. This generation will not pass away before…

 

[NotWorthy]

“Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things [the Tribulation at the End of the World] have taken place.” Luke 21:29 Similar language is used in Matthew 24:34 in the parable of the Fig Tree.

Some have argued against Jesus, using this as an example of Jesus being wrong in prophecy as those first-century witnesses in front of Christ have died out hundreds of years ago.

Other scholars, like E.P. Sanders, point to verses like these in emphasizing the Apocalyptic Christ and that He truly believed the End would soon come after His Death. Sanders postulates that in taking human form, God in Jesus willingly assumed some self-limitations, which would explain this apocalyptic prediction.

Haydock comments on the parable in Matthew in such manner:

"Verse. 34. This generation; i.e. the nation of the Jews shall not cease to exist, until all these things shall be accomplished: thus we see the nation of the Jews still continue, and will certainly continue to the end of the world. (Tirinus) — Then the cross, which has been a scandal to the Jew, and a stumbling-block to the Gentile, shall appear in the heavens, for the consolation of the good Christian. Hoc signum crucis erit in cœlo, cum Dominus ad judicandum venerit. — If it be to be understood of the destruction of Jerusalem, the sense may be, this race of men now living; if of the last day of judgment, this generation of the faithful, saith Theophylactus,[4] shall be continued: i.e. the Church of Christ, to the end of the world. (Witham) — This race, I tell you in very truth, shall not pass away till all this be finally accomplished in the ruin of Jerusalem, the most express figure of the destruction and end of the world. (Bible de Vence) — By generation, our Saviour does not mean the people that were in existence at that time, but the faithful of his Church; thus says the psalmist: this is the generation of them that seek the Lord. (Psalm xxiii, ver. 6.) (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxvii.)

Verse. 35. Shall pass away: because they shall be changed at the end of the world into a new heaven and new earth. (Challoner)"

So what is the best method to explain what looks on the face of it to be an unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus. Do we argue that Jesus was pointing to the Destruction of the Temple in these verses which some there present would live to see? But how could we, if Jesus is saying “all [these apocalyptic tribulations] will happen before the people now living have all died”.

Any answers from anyone welcome. I will not debate and am seeking thoughtful views from people better-versed in Scripture than I so please take a shot.

St. John Chrysostom explains that the destruction of Jerusalem is a symbol of the destruction at the end of the world. And the fulfillment of her destruction (in 70AD) is proof that Jesus’ words are true regarding the destruction at the end of the world.

St. John writes, “the Lord was speaking not only of the generation then living, but also of the generation of the believers, for he knows that a generation is distinguished not only by time but also by its mode of religious worship and practice: this is what the Psalmist means when he says that ‘such is the generation of those who seek him’, (Psalm 24:6).” Commentary on Matthew, 76

 

[KyivAndrew]

St. John Chrysostom explains that the destruction of Jerusalem is a symbol of the destruction at the end of the world. And the fulfillment of her destruction (in 70AD) is proof that Jesus’ words are true regarding the destruction at the end of the world.

O.K. Thanks so much for that NotWorthy. I did not look before at how St. John Chrysostom commented on this passage.

So do you believe that when the Son of God came to earth that His omniscience was not altered in assuming human nature in the hypostatic union? Was Christ’s foreknowledge the same on Earth as it was perfect in Heaven? Some point to Christ’s apocalyptic statements as pointing to Christ imposing self-limitations on Himself and His omniscience on Earth. I don’t agree but wonder if Christ’s omniscience was the same on Earth as it is in Heaven. I’m not sure of the answer to be honest. I know that we as Catholics are not monophysites but I’m curious to know how we interpret Christ’s omniscience and foreknowledge on Earth as recorded in the New Testament. I hope I am making sense.

God Bless!

 

[NotWorthy]

O.K. Thanks so much for that NotWorthy. I did not look before at how St. John Chrysostom commented on this passage.

So do you believe that when the Son of God came to earth that His omniscience was not altered in assuming human nature in the hypostatic union? Was Christ’s foreknowledge the same on Earth as it was perfect in Heaven? Some point to Christ’s apocalyptic statements as pointing to Christ imposing self-limitations on Himself and His omniscience on Earth. I don’t agree but wonder if Christ’s omniscience was the same on Earth as it is in Heaven. I’m not sure of the answer to be honest. I know that we as Catholics are not monophysites but I’m curious to know how we interpret Christ’s omniscience and foreknowledge on Earth as recorded in the New Testament. I hope I am making sense.

God Bless!

Christ had two natures, right? One nature, the divine, knew everything. The human nature, however, had to experience things to learn them, like you and I do.

You know, the more I think about it, the more mysterious it becomes.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Christ had two natures, right? One nature, the divine, knew everything. The human nature, however, had to experience things to learn them, like you and I do.

You know, the more I think about it, the more mysterious it becomes.

Yep, two natures Human and Divine in one Hypostatic Union. (Oh, the arguments in history over this Nestorianism, Monophysitism, that have irrupted, etc).

I only mention comparing Christ’s foreknowledge in Heaven to his foreknowledge on Earth because even such esteemed Catholic teachers like the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen have argued that Christ “would will a withdrawal of His Father’s face and all Divine Consolation” in instances such as when Christ yelled “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” on the Cross. Bishop Sheen argues Christ believed for that moment that He had been abandoned by the Father, as He had to undergo all manner of temptation for us (the temptation of complete abandonment here).

So while Christ’s Human Nature was never separated from his Divine Nature, Christ could in certain instances self-limit his omniscience in certain places it would appear as here when He felt abandoned by God. Now that is Fulton Sheen’s take. Others might more matter-of-factly state that Christ was just fulfilling the prophecy of a Psalm which Sheen agrees with, but Sheen also feels Christ felt Total Abandonment for that moment.

So again I am unclear as to how Christ’s omniscience and foreknowledge were “effected” if at all by Him also assuming Human Nature in the Incarnation. That’s where this whole concept of God self-limiting Himself in certain powers and knowledge is put forth by some to explain certain statements, and I really don’t know the answer to that. I’ll profess my lack of knowledge of How Perfect Was Christ’s Omniscience on Earth, the exact same as in Heaven, or was it changed in the Incarnation and the acceptance of Human Nature?

 

[NotWorthy]

Yep, two natures Human and Divine in one Hypostatic Union. (Oh, the arguments in history over this Nestorianism, Monophysitism, that have irrupted, etc).

I only mention comparing Christ’s foreknowledge in Heaven to his foreknowledge on Earth because even such esteemed Catholic teachers like the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen have argued that Christ “would will a withdrawal of His Father’s face and all Divine Consolation” in instances such as when Christ yelled “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” on the Cross. Bishop Sheen argues Christ believed for that moment that He had been abandoned by the Father, as He had to undergo all manner of temptation for us (the temptation of complete abandonment here).

Although I respect and admire him, I COMPLETELY disagree with Bishop Sheen’s statement that, even for a moment, God would have abandoned Jesus, especially at the moment of His Greatest Glory!

So while Christ’s Human Nature was never separated from his Divine Nature, Christ could in certain instances self-limit his omniscience in certain places it would appear as here when He felt abandoned by God. Now that is Fulton Sheen’s take. Others might more matter-of-factly state that Christ was just fulfilling the prophecy of a Psalm which Sheen agrees with, but Sheen also feels Christ felt Total Abandonment for that moment.

So again I am unclear as to how Christ’s omniscience and foreknowledge were “effected” if at all by Him also assuming Human Nature in the Incarnation. That’s where this whole concept of God self-limiting Himself in certain powers and knowledge is put forth by some to explain certain statements, and I really don’t know the answer to that. I’ll profess my lack of knowledge of How Perfect Was Christ’s Omniscience on Earth, the exact same as in Heaven, or was it changed in the Incarnation and the acceptance of Human Nature?

I feel its like this:
Christ’s divine nature knew first-hand all things. He didn’t need to taste the fig, for instance, in order to know how it tastes.
Christ’s divine nature, however, didn’t know these things until he experienced it. So, while His Divine Nature can describe the taste of the fig, the Human Nature couldn’t fully grasp it until He tasted it.

 

[Benadam]

I think the transfiguration is a good example to draw on. Jesus’ let His divinity become visible. It became good for that to happen so the ‘how’ to to that was delivered spontaneously . I doubt Jesus felt like He had to hold back the flood gates of divinity at every moment. I think His omnipotence relates to it’s earthly life the same way. He wasn’t encumbered with knowledge that didn’t pertain to His earthly life just because omnipotence is natural to Him too.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Although I respect and admire him, I COMPLETELY disagree with Bishop Sheen’s statement that, even for a moment, God would have abandoned Jesus, especially at the moment of His Greatest Glory!
.

No, what Bishop Sheen was actually saying was not that God the Father actually abandoned Jesus; he was averring that for a moment Jesus Christ self-limited Himself and willed a kind of withdrawal from the consolation of His Father’s face. God never abandoned Jesus but on earth I believe Jesus had to be tested in all, as is said, and that included the test of feeling entirely abandoned by God. Sheen argues Christ had to experience this, and the way this was experienced was not by God the Father actually abandoning Jesus but by Jesus willfully withdrawing all consolation from God so as to feel complete abandonment so that it could be said of Christ that He underwent all the tribulations we feel. Christ’s yell of Being Forsaken was surely a cry of the Heart.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I think the transfiguration is a good example to draw on. Jesus’ let His divinity become visible. It became good for that to happen so the ‘how’ to to that was delivered spontaneously . I doubt Jesus felt like He had to hold back the flood gates of divinity at every moment. I think His omnipotence relates to it’s earthly life the same way. He wasn’t encumbered with knowledge that didn’t pertain to His earthly life just because omnipotence is natural to Him too.

Yes, thank you Benadam, that helps. God Bless!

 

[Benadam]

No, what Bishop Sheen was actually saying was not that God the Father actually abandoned Jesus; he was averring that for a moment Jesus Christ self-limited Himself and willed a kind of withdrawal from the consolation of His Father’s face. God never abandoned Jesus but on earth I believe Jesus had to be tested in all, as is said, and that included the test of feeling entirely abandoned by God. Sheen argues Christ had to experience this, and the way this was experienced was not by God the Father actually abandoning Jesus but by Jesus willfully withdrawing all consolation from God so as to feel complete abandonment so that it could be said of Christ that He underwent all the tribulations we feel. Christ’s yell of Being Forsaken was surely a cry of the Heart.

For abandonement to be experienced Jesus also had to be able to withdraw decisevely in a manner to also not be consciously aware that He chose the seperation. If He experienced the seperation has His will He wouldn’t experience abandonement.

 

[KyivAndrew]

There is also not just the issue of two natures in One Person in the Hypostatic Union. There is also the complex argmument of two wills. From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Catholic doctrine is simple, at all events in its main lines. The faculty of willing is an integral part of human nature: therefore, our Lord had a human will, since He took a perfect human nature. His Divine will on the other hand is numerically one with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. It is therefore necessary to acknowledge two wills in Christ.

But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed.

St. Sophronius, and after him St. Maximus and St. John Damascene, showed that the two energeia [produce three classes of actions, since actions are complex, and some are therefore mingled of the human and the divine.

* (1) There are Divine actions exercised by God the Son in common with the Father and the Holy Ghost (e.g. the creation of souls or the conservation of the universe) in which His human nature bears no part whatever, and these cannot be called divino-human, for they are purely Divine. It is true that it is correct to say that a child ruled the universe (by the communicatio idiomatum), but this is a matter of words, and is an accidental, not a formal predication — He who became a child ruled the universe as God, not as a child, and by an activity that is wholly Divine, not divino-human.
* (2) There are other Divine actions which the Word Incarnate exercised in and through His human nature, as to raise the dead by a word, to heal the sick by a touch. Here the Divine action is distinguished from the human actions of touching or speaking, though it uses them, but through this close connexion the word theandric is not out of place for the whole complex act, while the Divine action as exercised through the human may be called formally theandric, or divino-human.
* (3) Again, there are purely human actions of Christ, such as walking or eating, but these are due to the free human will, acting in response to a motion of the Divine will. These are elicited from a human potentia, but under the direction of the Divine. Therefore they are also called theandric, but in a different sense — they are materially theandric, humano-divine. We have seen therefore that to some of ourLord's actions the word theandric cannot be applied at all; to some it can be applied in one sense, to others in a different sense. [/COLOR]

Not sure if this helps but maybe it puts to the right direction of Christology, and it shows the learning needed to understand the workings of Christ’s divinity and omniscience as applied in the Incarnation, I assume.