Since this is an internet forum where opinions are a dime a dozen, anything goes. From space aliens to computer chip implants.
They can be neither proved nor disproved. (I guess you could prove space aliens exist with some effort.)
If folks want to have fun with speculating about red cows, go right ahead. The problem is when this speculation is offered as fact and used to "prove" the truth and accuracy of some particular form of eschatology. That's when it becomes dangerous to the folks in the pew.
Plus it's a little disconcerting for those of us who are not "true believers" in the eschatology du jour when we are made out to be the odd balls for not following the party line.
That is something that the "88 Reasons" book could NEVER have done because there is no biblical model that permits the setting of a date.
But all those guys back in the '70s and '80s were so sure. Even some big wigs like Hal Lindsey and Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel. They wrote books and preached sermons about how they expected to be raptured any moment based on all the signs.
But what you seem to be confirming is that, in reality, the "signs" are not really signs of anything. Otherwise folks like Whisenant and Lindsey would be correct to predict and rapture and return of Jesus with some accuracy. These guys had the time texts in Matthew 24 as backup. Their model was certainly biblically based, as they interpreted the Bible.
Jesus gave a whole bunch on definite signs in Matthew 24 that futurists take as being in our future about things what would fall on "this generation". Now, you can either spiritualize "this generation" into nothingness, or you can take it to mean the actual generation alive when the events occur. I believe it was an actual generation, that that generation lived in the 1st century. I believe they witnessed the signs, including the destruction of the temple, within their lifetime.
But if the signs are still in the future, and Jesus will return within the lifetime of that generation, then there must be a generation that will be able to witness the signs and make a definite prediction about Jesus' actual return. After all, Jesus said to watch for the signs and make some real decisions (like flee to the mountains). If the signs don't mean anything, then what good are they.
Where did Lindsey and Co. go wrong? Did they misunderstand the Bible, or misread the signs?
At the time, I read Hal Linday and listened to Chuck Smith....they are of different orders, but I don't expect to convince you of that.
Hal Lindsay engaged in speculation without clearly indicating that that was what he was doing. Chuck Smith, on the other hand, was very careful to distinguish between "interesting tidbits" and scripture. Listen to Smith and you WILL hear "coulds, mights, may be's, and possible's."
You do realize, don't you, that partial+ preterism, too, is outside the camp. The notion that nearly all biblical prophecy has been fulfilled is not one of the historic models. Full preterism -- the kind that says the return of Christ has already taken place -- is as whacky as the Jehovah's Witnesses on their worst days.
Amillennialism is the major model contending with premillennialism.
That doesn't work for a variety of reasons--the main being that nothing like what Yeshua predicted in the Olivet Discourse took place in the 1st Century. Luke's Discourse, yes, but even there some elements remain unfulfilled, but that's a separate issue (I really need to find the time to finish formatting my section on the Olivet Discourse).
Regarding the whole "this generation" issue:
This passage has often been used by preterists and historicists to prove that the Olivet Discourse must have been referring to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., no matter how much of a stretch it may seem. In an error similar to those who placed the Rapture in 1988 by counting forty years forward from Israel’s rebirth in 1948, they count one forty-year generation from the time Messiah gave the Olivet Discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem. DeMar argues this case: “Every time ‘this generation’ is used in the New Testament, it means, without exception, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking.”[1] Thus, he argues, if Yeshua said that “this generation” would not pass away until His Coming, then He must have come in some way (i.e. in judgment against Jerusalem) by 70 A.D.In regards to the preterist claims of the Olivet Discourse, I wrote this essay years ago which I appended to my book. Please excuse it's roughness; I've not yet had time to redraft it and affix all the proper documentation.However, there are at least five possible interpretations of the Greek word for “generations”:
1)“This generation” refers to the generation then receiving Messiah's words, meaning that all would have to be fulfilled during their lifetimes, as preterism understands it.Due to the reference to the fig tree, I prefer the interpretation that here “generation” refers to the genealogy of the Jewish race, though it may also refer to one or more of the other definitions as well. DeMar insists, “This is impossible since the Greek word for ‘race’ [genos] is not used.”[6] Yet Vine states that genea “primarily signifies a begetting, or birth; then that which has been begotten, a family; or successive members of a genealogy.”[7] Mounce agrees that this is a possible interpretation, though he leans towards simply recognizing the fall of Jerusalem as one of multiple fulfillments of this prophecy,[8] similar to how this work views the Abomination of Desolation being fulfilled by Antiochus and yet being future to us as well (see interlude 1 and chapter 6). It would seem that since conservative Biblical scholars agree that there are several possible interpretations of this one verse, it falls to those that hold that the only possible interpretation is that this passage was fulfilled in 70 A.D. must find more than this one verse on which to hang their position.2)“This generation” means “this race and/or nation,” and refers to the Jews. In other words, the Jews would certainly not pass away until all is fulfilled. This premise is supported both by history and the statements of God through His prophets: ““If those ordinances depart from before Me,” saith Adonai, “Then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever. . . If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done,” saith Adonai,”[2] “and so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written . . . for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”[3] It is also supported by Messiah’s use of the parable of the fig tree.
3)In like vein, some hold that the generation being referred to here is the generation that saw the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948, or else the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967. The lines of evidence for this view are similar to those of view #2. Though this view may yet be seen to have something to it, it has spawned an unfortunate number of dating schemes attempting to predict the time of the return of Messiah, all of which have been proven false by history.
4)On a completely different track, “this generation” may refer to the generation that sees “all these things, [so that you will] know that it is near, even at the doors.” This view runs into some trouble when used in Lk. 21, which is a completely separate speech which does speak of the destruction (or desolation) of Jerusalem and then dovetails with the Olivet Discourse when it comes to the Second Coming. Furthermore, since nearly all of the events of the Olivet Discourse would seem to take place within Daniel’s Seventieth Week, such an interpretation makes this phrase seem almost redundant and unnecessary.
5)Finally, it has been observed by many that every other time Yeshua spoke of “this generation,” He was condemning “this evil and adulterous generation.”[4] In this view, the kind of evil and adulterous people who saw Messiah’s miracles and heard His teaching directly and yet didn’t believe in Him will not pass away until after His Coming. In other words, it refers to an age of the world, like aion. This interpretation is supported by Vine.[5]
References:
[1] DeMar, Gary, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Thomas Nelson, 2001), p. 68
[2] Jer. 31:36-37
[3] Rom. 11:26, 29
[4] e.g. Mt. 16:4, 17:17, etc
[5] Vine, W.E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Thomas Nelxon, 1997), p. 34
[6] DeMar, p. 70
[7] Vine, ibid.
[8] Mounce, Robert H., Matthew (New International Biblical Commentary Series, Vol. I) (Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 227-228
The SignsSorry, topcat. It just doesn't fit. As a remez, sure. But as a plain-meaning final and complete fulfillment, no.It is important to note that the signs reported by Josephus (and echoed in the writings of Tacitus) were all reported as taking place before the siege reached its climax, not during or after it. This stands in sharp contrast to Mt. 24:29, which says that the signs in the heavens that it prophesies will occur “immediately after the distress of those days.”
Nor do the signs reported by Josephus bear any relation to those predicted by Yeshua. The first sign that Josephus reports is a star resembling a sword that stood directly over the city. Next he reports a comet in the sky that stood over the city for an entire year. It is not entirely clear from his writings whether he meant these as descriptions of the same event or separate signs, but most translators favor the latter. Tacitus reports the same event as “hosts joining battle in the skies.” While this event bears some superficial resemblance to Messiah's predictions, it occurred at entirely the wrong time to be identified with the sign of the Second Coming.
Josephus also reports a light glowing around the altar and the Temple, a sacrificial heifer giving birth to a lamb, the East Gate swinging open of its own accord, and a voice announcing a departure from the Temple. Tacitus echoes all but the heifer in his works. Lastly, Josephus tells of a seemingly mad prophet who declared lamentations for Jerusalem for nearly seven years (four before the wars started) before he was slain by a chance missile in the final stages of the siege.
Again, note the distinct differences between these signs and those given by Yeshua as accompanying His Second Coming. Most notable is the report of strange voices announcing a departure, when Messiah specifically says that at that time they will see Him coming instead. If the signs reported by the ancient historians were so different in kind and timing than those given in the Scripture, by what authority can we declare the Scripture to be fulfilled in this matter?
The Battle
It is not necessary for the purposes of this essay to describe the whole of the siege of Jerusalem. Suffice to say that it was a long, bitter, bloody affair long before the destruction of the Temple. In fact, the Temple was the last fortress to fall, which causes those who believe Mt. 24:15-34 to refer to that event no small amount of trouble. In the Olivet Discourse, the Abomination of Desolation occurs first and then the flight into the mountains and the Great Tribulation occurs. In history, the flight into the mountains occurred some two years before the siege of Jerusalem came to its conclusion and the destruction of the Temple was one of the last stages that put an end to the fighting.[1]
In any case, it was on the 10th of Ab that the Temple fell—the anniversary of its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar over six centuries previous, as Josephus notes (with about a thirty year error in his calculations, it would seem). The sequence of events was as follows:
Titus retired to the fortress of Antonia after a long day of battle. That fortress, which sits adjacent to the Temple, had previously been connected to the Temple by a wall, but the Jews inside had destroyed it. The Temple was the last remaining fortress in Jerusalem, and according to Tacitus, contained a spring or well within its walls that had enabled those within to withstand the siege for some time.
Those sheltering in the Temple had come out to attack the besieging Romans that night, but where quickly driven back to its safety. At that point, a Roman soldier set fire to one of the golden windows in an outer room of the Temple without orders. The flames quickly spread, and the Jews came running out to quench them and save their beloved Temple, only to be slaughtered by the Romans.
At that point, Titus was informed as to the events occurring and came out to the Temple. He ordered his men to cease attacking and to put out the flames, but in the noise and confusion his commands went unheard. The Romans gained entry to the Temple at this point, though many of them were killed crossing the burning ruins of the outer rooms, and proceeded to slaughter the weakened Jews inside.
Titus then entered the burning Temple with his commanders and saw that its wealth had not been exaggerated. If he actually made it into the Holy of Holies, Josephus does not record it. In any case, Titus had no time to desecrate the Temple with an idol, as Antiochus had, as a soldier threw fire on the gates, causing the rest of the Temple to immolate even more quickly and forcing everyone inside to escape for their lives.
The Aftermath
Only after the Temple had burned down did the Romans bring their ensigns (images of Caesar) to the Temple grounds and set them up at the East Gate, which had apparently been spared of the fire. There they offered sacrifices to the ensigns and proclaimed Titus to be imperator.
At this point, an important point needs to be made. The East Gate, which entered the Temple grounds, entered into the Court of the Gentiles. Acts 21:28 indicates that the Jews did not consider the Holy Place to include that court, and therefore not that gate. That being the case, it would seem that not only was the timing of this event completely out of sync with the timing of the events mentioned in Mt. 24 and Mark 13, but that the “abomination” here did not actually “stand” in the Holy Place. In addition, Titus did not fulfill 2 Th. 2:4, because he did not set himself up in the Temple proclaiming to be God. In fact, Caesar at that time was Titus's father, Vespasian, and it was therefore he, not Titus, who was worshiped as a god and whose image appeared on the ensigns.[2]
For these reasons, it is impossible to regard Matthew 24 and Mark 13 as allegorical depictions of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple, and which therefore must be future events that cannot be fulfilled until there is once again a Temple for the Abomination of Desolation to stand in. We should therefore lay the historicist/preterist view of the Olivet Discourse to rest, and proceed with studying it in a futurist light.
Footnotes:
[1] Note however that the sequence of events fits perfectly with Luke 21:20-24, in which the sign to flee is not the Abomination of Desolation in the Temple, but the surrounding of Jerusalem by an opposing army. As we saw in interlude 3, there are several reasons to believe that the discourse contained in Luke and the Olivet Discourse were separate sermons, so let us not confuse the issue.
[2] Furthermore, let me add that idols in the outer court of the Temple were not unique in Israel's history. Solomon himself sinned this way. None of these desecrations were called the Abomination of Desolation: Only the erection of a false god in the Holy of Holies by Antiochus is given this title in history, and according to Sha'ul, only the Man of Sin himself claiming to be God in God's Temple will fit this title in the future.
PRAISE GOD for the signs
and
for those with horse sense enough to draw close enough to Jesus and His Spirit to HEAR, LISTEN TO AND OBEY
HIS VOICE.
They shouldn't have any trouble knowing when to flee to the mountains, or wherever His Spirit directs them individually or collectively.