Translating languages is difficult, because words are symbols for mental pictures or ideas. And since we cannot get into the minds of other people, for us to convey exactly what another person means in another language can be challenging. Ancient languages are particularly difficult in this respect. Since no one today was alive in the ancient world, it is almost impossible for us to know what kind of images they wanted to represent when they wrote or spoke a word. Koine (Greek) is certainly no exception, which is probably why biblical scholars are constantly squabbling over the meaning of particular passages.
When footnotes of particular versions of the Bible state that the word translated "generation" in Matthew 24:34 could mean "race," it seems as though they are trying to be a bit misleading. This verse is in a context where Jesus had described to his disciples various heavenly and earthly signs that would accompany his return, and then said, "Truly, I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." All of my research concerning the word genea and its definition has indicated that the word defined a period of time rather than something like "race" or "ethnicity." In all of the thirty times that genea is used in the New Testament, it is used in the context of time. Yes, the word genea can mean race, but it is a reference to a race (or group of people) at a particular point in time, i. e., contemporary to the events of the passage. It is unfair, and I think irresponsible, to say that the word genea means "race" by itself.
For instance, when Jesus calls the Jews a "wicked and adulterous genea" unless someone wants to sound anti-Semitic, the word genea had better be translated in the context of that time period, or Jesus will in essence be implying that the Jews are generally a wicked and adulterous people. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (not exactly the hotbed of liberal scholarship) has this to say about the word genea:
Genea: connected with ginomai, to become, primarily signifies a begetting, a birth; then that which has been begotten, a family; or successive members of a genealogy, Matt 1:17, or of a race of people possessed of similar characteristics, pursuits, etc., (of a bad character) Matt. 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; 16:8, Acts 2:40 or of the whole multitude of men living at the same time, Matt. 24:34 Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48; 21:32; Phil. 2:15, and especially those of the Jewish race living at the same period, Matt.11:16, etc. Translated from people to the time in which they lived, the word came to mean an age, i. e., a period occupied by each successive generation of say thirty or forty years (emphasis added).
It should be noted that the word genea is listed as definition number two of "age" in Vine's Dictionary. Even a conservative Greek dictionary puts the word genea in the context of time. A particularly good example of this is Luke 16:8: "And the master applauded the dishonest steward for acting so astutely. For the worldly are more astute than the others in dealing with their own kind." In almost all Bibles, the word translated "kind" is in fact the word genea; however, it is clear from the context that the word implies a setting contemporary to the subject (in this case "the worldly" or the "people of this age").
There is very little doubt in my mind, and apparently in the Greek scholars' minds, that genea refers to a group of people (perhaps a race, perhaps a nation, perhaps an ethnic group) contemporary to the events of the passage. This is probably why all translations of the Bible that I am aware of--from the King James Version to the Revised Standard Version, to the New International Version--translate the word genea as "generation" and not "race."
Going back now to the statement about the word-pictures and ideas, although we cannot know exactly what the writer of Matthew meant, we do know that the picture has something to do with contemporaries, and a certain group of people. We may not have all of the details, but we have a rough idea of what Matthew meant. And the idea that Matthew wanted to convey was that Jesus said that the end was supposed to take place during the time of his disciples, and it just didn't happen.
I always wonder why fundamentalists resort to these kinds of exegetical tactics when they come across a passage that makes the Bible look bad. These tactics wouldn't be so nauseating if fundamentalists didn't rail against other Christian denominations for doing the same thing. I was visiting the homepage of the Metropolitan Community Church, a pro-gay Christian denomination (which is surprisingly semi-fundamentalist). The Metropolitan Community Church claims that the passages in the Bible that "appear" to condemn homosexuality don't really condemn it. Their most vehement claim is the area of I Corinthians 6:9-10, in which Paul says that "homosexuals" (arsenokoite) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Fundamentalists bitterly denounce this church for suggesting that arsenokoite could mean anything else besides "homosexual." Fundamentalists argue (quite rightly) that although arsenokoite is a somewhat ambiguous term and we don't know exactly what it means, the implication is homosexual activity, which is why in most cases (with the exception of the King James version which translates arsenokoite as "sodomites"), Bibles have translated the word arsenokoite as "homosexual."
In essence, fundamentalists can't have it both ways. Either they must completely renounce passage equivocation (saying what a passage "could have meant" and other "how-it-could-have-been" scenarios, as Mr. Till calls them), or be tolerant towards churches that use the same methods of equivocation on passages that are crucial to their theology. When the Metropolitan Community Church or the Universalists challenge them on interpretations of the Bible, it is out-and-out hypocrisy for fundamentalists to go into tirades and start lecturing them about what the Bible "clearly says." The Bible also "clearly says" that Jesus was going to return before all of his contemporaries died, but because their theology is at stake, for some reason that they justify in their heads, they're allowed to resort to equivocation.
(Brian Rainey, 313 Tudor Place, Chesapeake, VA 23325;
e-mail, BRAINEY @norfacad.pvt.k12.va.us)
