(Luke 21:32 HCSB)
How do we interpret what we read. Yes, the question is a valid one. All written material has to be interpreted. Some is more straight forward, and less open to varying interpretations, and some is more obtuse, and thereby open to multiple interpretations. There are several things to consider. Who was the intended audience? What was the writer trying to convey? Was there literary devices used? What would the intended audience understand the writing to mean? I think it is safe to assume that the writings that comprise the New Testament were written to the first century audience unless it is expressly explained to be more universal. Am I saying that the messages cannot have a timeless universal meaning, absolutely not. However, I most definitely am saying that they WERE NOT specifically written to us or any generations before us or after us except for the first century church.
Yet, that is precisely how so much theology is determined. It is as though the scripture was written to us here in the 21st century. However, Jesus said these words, to his disciples, as he was leaving the temple. I have shown so far that the questions asked by his disciples tied his "this generation" directly to the destruction of the temple which took place in 70AD, and that his use of "this generation" / haute genea was most likely, the forty-year generation alive at the time he said it, similar to the forty-year generation that died in the wilderness in Moses Day.
Here is a chart I made a few years ago that illustrates how I think that Jesus indeed could have meant this generation as the forty-year generation alive at this speaking:
The above timeline is the record of redemptive history that coincides with the biblical narrative. It shows a little over six thousand years of history recorded in the bible. I realize that some of you may believe the world is much older than six thousand years, and quite frankly so do I, yet this makes a coherent illustration no matter the time from creation to Abraham.
There are however, several salient points to be made. First and foremost let's look at the Mosaic Covenant. It makes up a rather small piece of the timeline given all of the emphasis that is attached to the Law. I find that surprising in view of current evangelical and orthodox doctrine about the importance of law righteousness. What should be even more glaring on this timeline is the small, almost bullseye nature of the two top most periods. I am referring to the orange time of all the prophets, and the red span of the Christ event from Antiochus Ephiphanes to the destruction of the temple. The prophets make their prophecies in the orange period, and they come to fruition in the red period. That is almost like a bulls eye and if the timeline was stretched out proportionally, they would indeed be mere bulls eyes on an enormously long line.
This is especially interesting in light of Jesus words in the little apocalypse: "So when you see the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place" (let the reader understand)," (Matthew 24:15 HCSB) Especially when you read the Apocrypha Book, (1 Maccabees 1:54 KJV-1611) "Now the fifteenth day of the moneth Casleu, in the hundreth fourtie and fift yeere, they set vp the abomination of desolation vpon the Altar, and builded idole altars throughout the cities of Iuda, on euery side:" So, since First Maccabees was known in Jesus time, he was aware of the passage in 1Maccabees 1:54, He was aware that the scribes and Pharisees believed that Aniochus was the abominator, and I think that is exactly why he said "let the reader understand." It was abominated by Antiochus Ephiphanes in 167BC but it would not be desolated until 70AD, still forty-years (one-generation... this generation) in the future. So, it is very likely that the abomination of desolation was not one event but a series on that bulls eye of the timeline.
There are other things to be gleaned from the above chart but we'll let this settle in for this time.