Response

Anett Acker:

DagoodS,

That’s a bit of a puzzler. The “reasonable person” standard (f/k/a “reasonable man”) is a legal fiction to determine what a person would do in a situation; not what one would be persuaded.

I was in a rush this morning and I realized I got it wrong as soon as I remembered that he also goes by The Reasonably Prudent Person. But that "publish" button is always just so unforgiving.

Perhaps I read too much into this, but the word “conceded” made me laugh out loud. I have consistently and constantly claimed genea (and dowr and “generation”) have multiple meanings. As words commonly do. I have been consistent and constant when genea means those presently alive, and when it does not.

I went back and reread our conversation in "What the Large Print Giveth, the Small Print Taketh Away," and if that was your position then, you did not make it clear.

My recollection is that you started saying that genea has multiple meanings some time during this discussion. And if I'm wrong about that, then you still haven't explained what you meant by:

I strongly suspect, upon review of the verses listed, you realized no such methodology could consistently separate your one (1) instance as compared to the others.

Your implication was that there is no consistent methodology that allows me to determine that Jesus uses genea to mean those presently alive in Matthew 12:39-42, but uses it in a different sense elsewhere. But now that's exactly what you're saying.

Please don't think that I would hold it against you if you ever conceded points or modified your position, though. Rather, I would be quite impressed! It might even make it possible for us to have an actual dialogue(!) instead of just speaking past each other.

But . . . since such a ludicrous thought makes you laugh out loud, there's probably not much hope of that. *sigh*

When you and Vinny co-author your on-line memoirs, you'll probably ask him, "Remember that crazy woman who accused me of conceding a point? That's going in the book for sure!"

Good times indeed! :)

The Bible, I have found, becomes so much more interesting when we lose the doctrinal dependency, worrying, “Oh, Noes! We can’t have Jesus be perceived as wrong about anything!” and instead look to author’s intention.

Of course that makes it more interesting because then you can decide what you want it to mean. But you've never explained why, if Mark was written right after the fall of Jerusalem and the author expected Jesus' immediate return, he has Jesus say that He is not coming right away (Mark 13:5-8)?

Obviously I do not think these arguments prevail, but that’s what makes horse races.

But even horse races can get boring after watching them for six months, so I think we should call it quits here.

[emphasis in original}

We started this mess regarding which alternate meaning is appropriate amongst the many instances of ”genea” in the New Testament with my statement on my blog:

You [Anette Acker] have argued Jesus was referring to Old Testament passages (written in Hebrew, by the by) in other speeches. Yet equally, in other discussions, Jesus is recorded as utilizing genea to mean those immediately present. See Mt. 11:16, 12:39-42, 23:34-36, Mark 8:12, and Luke 17:25. [Synoptic parallels not cited.]

At best, Jesus utilized it both ways. Therefore, to realize what he meant in these particular passages, we need the context.

[emphasis added]

I (erroneously) assumed by stating Jesus utilized genea “both ways” you would understand I meant Jesus used genea with more than one meaning. Throughout your and my discussion, the focus has been exclusively regarding these verses where I claim Jesus meant genea to be “those presently alive” and you claim those verses mean “the whole human race” or “men of a certain characteristic.”

Your response:

Why are you so sure that these passages refer to those immediately present? It seems at least as likely that Jesus is using the following definition of “generation,” from the Greek lexicon: 2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character, 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation.

I was stunned you were not willing to even admit those passages referred to those presently alive:

But this wasn’t even the end (as amazing as that may be.) It was your response to the second argument (Jesus uses genea elsewhere, within context, to mean those present) where you implied those OTHER uses did not necessarily mean those present.

It was at that precise moment I realized you had abandoned any objectivity within biblical study. Even the most conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical (when not practicing apologetics) recognize Matt. 11:16 was discussing those present. Not every human has heard John the Baptist. That Matt 12:38-42 was a direct response to those present, indicating an event interpreted to take place within their lifetime. That Matt 23:33-36 was within their lifetimes (are Christians still being “flogged” in synagogue?).

Again in Mark 8:12—a direct response to a question. Luke 17:25 discussing Jesus’ crucifixion occurring in ‘this generation.’

Yet, in order to respond to the second argument you toss out the implication it was NOT referring to those immediately present. Or—excuse me—when the authors remembered what Jesus said and translated the Aramaic into the Greek, they utilized the Greek word genea to not necessarily mean those present.

You backtrack (somewhat) from claiming those other verses cited did not necessarily mean “those present” by the amorphous statement:

This is false. I said: ‘I did not say that Jesus never used the word “generation” to mean those who were presently alive. I just see no reason why we should lean toward that definition in the examples you gave.’

Pawing through the double negatives, It is not very clear whether you would list any of the previous verses mentioned as genea meaning “those presently alive.” One thing is certain—at this point you have yet to identify a single verse where genea means “those presently alive; let alone one where Jesus is speaking.

We then switch the discussion over to your blog.

We were discussing methodology, and I used this genea issue as an example:

For example, a person neutral to the proposition whether Jesus intended genea to mean all humans, or just the persons he was talking to in Mark 13, after reviewing the context, Jesus’ use of genea elsewhere, the dating of Mark, the history of the Jewish war, would determine it is more likely than not, Jesus intended genea to mean within the lifetime of the persons he was talking to.

Your Reply:

There is plenty of examples of Jesus seeming to use the word ‘generation’ to simply mean the human race. For example Mark 9:19 says: ‘O unbelieving generation,’ Jesus replied, ‘how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.’ Was it just the people alive at the time of Jesus (in this case, He was addressing His own disciples) who were ‘unbelieving’? And Mark 8:38 says: ‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.’ Again, it seems like Jesus uses ‘generation’ to mean the human race in that context.’

(Although I would highly recommend anyone reading this click on the link and read the Anette Acker’s entire response.)

I responded utilizing only Mark 8:38. A verse I remain, as of today, still uncertain whether you are now claiming it was referring to those presently alive, or the entire human race.

Vinny astutely noted the problem occurring: (because it is key, I will copy the entire statement)

Dagoods wrote: ‘Annette could not even agree with me that at times Jesus did use genea to mean those present.’

Anette responded: ‘I did not say that Jesus never used the word “generation” to mean those who were presently alive. I just see no reason why we should lean toward that definition in the examples you gave.’

Does Anette’s response actually correct Dagoods’ claim? Does Anette’s response indicate that she does agree with Dagoods that Jesus did at times use the word genea to mean those present? No it doesn’t. It does not preclude the possibility that Dagoods might yet identify such a case, but if he tries to do so, neither does it preclude the possibility that Anette would still fail to see any reason to think that Jesus meant the word that way. Therefore, Anette's response neither corrects nor contradicts Dagoods' statement.

If in fact Anette believes that Jesus ever used genea that way, she could expressly agree that he had and identify that situation. Then Dagoods’ statement would stand corrected. However, Anette doesn’t want to do that because that would allow Dagoods to compare the cases in which she agrees that he used the word that way to the cases she disputes. That would make it difficult for her to claim that she doesn’t see the reasons one might lean towards the definition that she wishes to avoid.

[emphasis added. Very important] Vinny accurately was indicating we would then compare:

1) Situations where we both agree genea is defined as “those presently alive”; and
2) Situation where I claim genea means “those presently alive” and you claim it means another alternative definition.

Your rely:

Vinny,

Does Anette’s response actually correct Dagoods’ claim? Does Anette’s response indicate that she does agree with Dagoods that Jesus did at times use the word genea to mean those present? No it doesn’t.

You're right about that. I stand corrected.

However, Anette doesn’t want to do that because that would allow Dagoods to compare the cases in which she agrees that he used the word that way to the cases she disputes. That would make it difficult for her to claim that she doesn’t see the reasons one might lean towards the definition that she wishes to avoid.

No, that's incorrect. I was going to mention that the passage about the Queen of the South referred to the generation of those present but did not find it relevant because I have already conceded that the definition of genea includes the more narrow modern definition.

But although I looked up DagoodS's Bible references before I didn't notice that he included that one (Matthew 12:39-42), so I apologize for that, DagoodS. I think that one clearly talks about the people presently alive, while the others are ambiguous. However, Luke 16:8 clearly uses genea to mean ‘kind.’

Now…for the players keeping track at home. For the first time I have one (1) instance where I can be definitively certain Anette Acker agrees genea means “those presently alive”—Matt. 12:39-42.
Immediately I ask:

So what method did you utilize to determine Matt. 12:39-42 referred to the generation of those present but Matt. 11:16, Mark 8:12. Luke 17:25 and (of course) Mark 13:30 did not?

Again, I am ONLY focusing on those passages I claim genea mean those presently alive. I didn’t ask about Luke 16:8, because I agree genea in that verse does not mean those presently alive. I didn’t care about instances where genea meant an alternative meaning—I have always focused on and referred to situations where genea mean “those presently alive."

Alas, our agreement on the one (1) instance did not last the day.

Your reaction:

Jesus is distinguishing between this age and the age to come when Jesus will come in glory with His angels, indicating that everyone will want to be on His side when that happens. But if we call ourselves Christians and yet live as if we're ashamed of the Gospel in this world, we will find ourselves on the wrong side.

In retrospect, I think Jesus always used the word genea to distinguish between the people of this world and those who will inherit the kingdom of God. I came to that conclusion after looking more carefully at Matthew 12:39-42 and Luke 16:8.

My original thought was that the Queen of the South and the men of Nineveh (who lived at a different time) were compared to the contemporaries of Jesus. But that doesn't make sense because many of the contemporaries of Jesus received Him and launched the early church. I think Jesus is comparing them to people who reject Him--however, those who rejected Him after personally hearing His teachings and observing what He did were particularly culpable.

Also, when Jesus says that this generation will not pass away until all these things are accomplished, He cannot mean the entire human race because some will be saved. He is saying that this "generation"--meaning this age and its people--will not pass away until everything has been accomplished. And that is also when heaven and earth will pass away.

You drove the point home:

I explained my methodology in my comment to Vinny, and as you may have noticed I am now saying that Jesus never used the word genea to mean those presently alive.

[emphasis in the original]

I responded:

Vinny astutely predicted the difficulty: if you admit even one (1) instance of Jesus utilizing genea to mean those presently living, we would ask what method is used to differentiate between that one (1) instance and the others you declared as meaning the entire human race. I strongly suspect, upon review of the verses listed, you realized no such methodology could consistently separate your one (1) instance as compared to the others. Therefore, rather than come up with a methodology, you retreated back to claiming there are no instances whatsoever.

Here I will confess confusion was created. You had been talking to Vinny about Luke 16:8. Since I never talked about Luke 16:8 (I was never even considering Luke 16:8), I wasn’t thinking about Luke 16:8 in framing my reply. Remember what I bolded in Vinny’s comment above? I will reiterate this paragraph, inserting what my thoughts were at the time.

“Vinny astutely predicted the difficulty: if you admit even one (1) instance of Jesus utilizing genea to mean those presently living [in the verses I have listed,] we would ask what method is used to differentiate between that one (1) instance and the others [I listed as genea meaning “those presently alive and] you declared as meaning the entire human race. I strongly suspect, upon review of the verses [I] listed, you realized no such methodology could consistently separate your one (1) instance as compared to the others [verses I listed.] Therefore, rather than come up with a methodology, you retreated back to claiming there are no instances whatsoever.”

I saw this as a dispute where I was listing certain verses where genea meant “those presently alive” and you claimed in those verses genea did not. I was not concerned about, nor discussing verses where we both agreed genea meant another alternative meaning from Thayer’s. If you look way, way back to the first comment I cited here, I already agreed Jesus used it both ways.

We then began the discussion surrounding Thayers. (Too many links, if anyone wants to follow it, go back and re-read the blog entry.)

I will point out my statement:

How can I demonstrate to you (and readers) ’genea’--as recorded in the gospels—at times meant ‘those presently living or ‘this generation’? The readers already agree and I cannot convince you as your methodology does provide for it.

First, readers agree Jesus occasionally utilizes genea to mean ‘within your lifetime.’ Every person commenting on the issue (including Commentaries, Lexicons and Greek New Testaments) indicate such. I haven’t found any who agree with your position. Why must I demonstrate what is already explained by those more qualified to make the argument?

[emphasis added.]

I would have thought “at times” and “occasionally” would indicate at other times and on other occasions genea did not mean “within your lifetime.”

When this discussion began again recently, I stated:

Same way we review Greek genea and notice times (in context) it means a single descendant (Matt. 1:17), all humans (Luke 1:48) or those alive at a certain time. (Acts. 13:36, Luke 11:30). The translators realize this is the same multiple definitions we use for the English word ‘generation’ and therefore translate genea to ‘generation’--anticipating the reader to understand which meaning to use, dependant on context.

Again, pointing out my position there are alternative definitions for genea the same way there are alternative definitions for dowr and the English word “set.”

I state:

You should also review the meaning Thayer categorized genea in Luke 16—it was not “those presently living.”

and

My claim: ‘Thayer’s indicates Jesus utilizes genea, at least on occasion, to mean those presently living.’

…

My Claim: ‘Piper indicates Jesus utilizes genea, at least on occasion, to mean those presently living.’

[emphasis added] “On occasion” implying other times it does not.

And I finish up with:

We are not saying genea ALWAYS means ‘those alive at the time.’ You and I both agree with Thayer’s expertise in determining the varying ways genea is being used—I have no disagreement with Thayer on any of these three questions (assuming I got the first one correct.)

Bringing us (finally) to this latest comment.

The reason I listed all these quotes, and the exact citations, is that I have been consistent and constant throughout these discussions. From the very first quote to the last. I agree there could be confusion over the one parsed quote, due to the timing of your conversation with Vinny, but frankly think any charitable reading of this conversation in the entirety would clearly demonstrate my position.

Your position, on the other hand, has been anything BUT clear. As I write this today, months from the start of the conversation, I am unclear whether you are stating Jesus meant genea to mean “those presently living” on one (1) occasion, two (2) occasions, three (3) occasions, or if we are back to no (0) occasions at all! Since you did not answer my question: “Are you now agreeing Mark 8:12 (as modified by Matt. 12:39-42 and Luke 11:29-32) utilizes genea to mean those presently alive?”

Anette Acker: Of course that makes it [the Bible] more interesting because then you can decide what you want it [the Bible] to mean. [emphasis in original]

Perhaps it mere coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with Thayer. Probably Thayer was simply choosing whatever he wanted it to mean too.

I am sure it equally coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with ever single Greek authority. Probably all those Greek authorities are simply choosing whatever they wanted it to mean too.

And another coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with the person you claimed was gifted at hermeneutics—John Piper. Certainly he was simply choosing whatever he wanted it to mean too.

We are all shocked at the coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with every commentary I reviewed. No commentaries were provided stating otherwise. Obviously all those commentators were simply choosing whatever they wanted it to mean too.

Stunned at the coincidence what I decided the Bible meant by genea in certain verses—“those presently living”—aligned precisely with every person who has commented in this blog entries on the issue. Certainly we all are choosing whatever we wanted it to mean too.

Indeed, it must either be a coincidence to boggle the mind (or a grand conspiracy) that every single person, expert or laymen, Greek expert or novice, Christian or non, “decided” that on occasion when Jesus used genea it meant “those presently alive” and you are SOLE holder of Ultimate Truth that he NEVER meant it to mean “those presently alive”!

I am continuously baffled at the sheer arrogance Christians have believing they can disagree with every person alive—and that all those other people are missing out on “truth” because those people have some desire to “believe” different. It could NEVER be that the Christian might be wrong—oh, no! Everyone else is wrong; the Christian, after all, holds truth.

Anette Acker: But you've never explained why, if Mark was written right after the fall of Jerusalem and the author expected Jesus' immediate return, he has Jesus say that He is not coming right away (Mark 13:5-8) [emphasis in original]

Because that is not what is said.

Jesus begins to list the events to occur, starting off with false messiahs (vs. 6) and wars (vs. 7). Jesus then says, “but don’t think this is the end.” He goes on in vs 8, “this is just the beginning.” He then lists more war (vs. 8) and earthquakes (vs. 8), persecution of Disciples (vs. 9), gospel preached to all nations (vs. 10), betrayal amongst family (vs. 12), abomination of desolation (vs. 14), fleeing Judea (vs. 14), false christs and false signs (vs. 22), sun and moon darkened (vs. 24), stars fall (vs. 25), and Son of Man comes. (vs. 26)

The only items on the list that hadn’t happened by 70 CE is the sun darkening, etc. But those occur immediately prior to the Son of Man coming. Basically we have every event happening in the First Century up to vs. 22 and then there has been a long pause of over 2000 years before vs. 24. “The end is not yet” is referring way back to the initial situations before vs. 7. Not verse 22.

Anette Acker: I was in a rush this morning and I realized I got it wrong as soon as I remembered that he also goes by The Reasonably Prudent Person.

Uh…”Reasonably Prudent Person” is synonymous with “Reasonable Person.” It means the same thing. Leaving us with the same problem—“reasonable person” is discussing an action, not a determination of fact. The “reasonable person” doesn’t make determinations amongst arguments—that is the neutral determinate’s job. The “reasonable person” either acts (or does not) in a manner avoiding legal liability.

Frankly, it makes no sense to answer the question “in determining natural vs. supernatural claims, it is plausible to whom?” with “the Reasonable Man.” Why do we care how a person should/should not act to avoid liability when weighing claims? How is that relevant to competing arguments?