Olivet Discourse revisited

[RandyPNW]

I don't suffer any illusions about being able to change many minds, but I still think it's worth the effort. I've been studying this many years, and it really seems to be a headache in the study of biblical prophecy. Way back in the early 70s I read Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and really enjoyed it. He saw amazing coincidences between the news of our time and biblical prophecies that seem to be coming to precise fulfillment.

Unfortunately, Lindsey did something that I believe has been disastrous to the understanding of biblical prophecy. And I'm sure he's not the only one. He had a tremendous desire to convert biblical prophecies that had already been fulfilled into future prophecies. Why waste time reading prophecies that had already been fulfilled, such as prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon? Why not focus on prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled so that we can show people how God's word is still relevant in our own day?

And so, Lindsey converted what Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse from being about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to being an endtime prophecy of the generation in which Israel would be reborn as a nation. The passage reads, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." This prophecy was actually being spoken about Jesus' own generation--"this generation" referred to the generation in which Jesus lived.

But Lindsey converted this into a prophecy of the last generation. "This generation" was, for Lindsey, the generation that saw the rebirth of the Israeli nation. The generation that sees the rebirth of Israel would not pass away until the Rapture of the Church takes place first.

Well sadly, when many like myself who like to point out this error do so we are called "Preterists" as a name of insult. Preterists was a particular school of thought that arose in history to declare not just that "this generation" was fulfilled in the Roman conquest, but also that the *entirety of the book of Revelation* was fulfilled in the Early Church.

I don't believe that--I'm not a Preterist. But I do believe that Preterists were at least partly right, in particular the part about "this generation" referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome. I believe that the book of Revelation does refer to the endtimes, when the Antichrist will arise and reign for 3.5 years.

So we have this battle between the choice between an historial fulfillment or a future fulfillment. Can we know the difference? Of course we can, but often a person is taught a particular position when he is moldable, and is not likely to change his or her position without a firm conviction that the person they trusted was not entirely trustworthy. Since Lindsey has been a faithful Christian throughout his life, and has done a lot of good, it is difficult to break trust in him in areas where he has been wrong.

My purpose here is not to disparage teachers like Lindsey, but only to point out that good people can at times be wrong. Once you begin with a wrong point of view, a lot of the picture gets muddied, and a lot of rationalization takes place. In the end, the Olivet Discourse can become nearly incomprehensible. Even trying to look at it correctly finds obstacles because so many of the points have been corrupted along with the main point. What is the "great tribulation?" What are "all these things?"

All of these questions can be quite easily answered, but not if one has been indoctrinated in a false position, and has therefore corrupted his view on all of the points necessary to make his picture consistent. "All these things" becomes "the Rapture." The "great tribulation" becomes "the reign of Antichrist."

In reality, "all these things" in context was only ever meant to refer not to Christ's return but to the main point, referring to all the things connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the destruction of the temple, and the initial signs that presaged that event. The "great tribulation" explicitly described the fall out from the destruction of Jerusalem in an age-long exile of the Jewish People.

But I'm not going to convince many people, although I would wish to. Understanding historical prophecies have great value in teaching moral lessons, quite apart from proving prophecies are still coming true today. The fall of Babylon teaches us how we need to remain faithful to God's moral laws, unlike Israel who committed gross idolatry in the days before their capture and exile.

We do not need to make the Olivet Discourse entirely about the future, including the rebirth of Israel and the rise of Antichrist. There is plenty in that discourse that describes both historically-fulfilled prophecy and future prophecy. We do not need the Abomination of Desolation to be about the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation to be about the Reign of Antichrist. The exile of the Jews described in that Discourse is still taking place today, until the nation of Israel is restored to faith at Christ's return.

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948). We're way overdue to look at this errant interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And we need to get past the name-calling and false association with Preterism. The Early Church Fathers held to the historical interpretation of this Discourse, and I think we should too, even if certain terms continue to represent some headaches. Thanks for listening.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

People need to read Ecclesiastes. What has been will be again! We are devolving back to the days of Noah, just as Lord Jesus said.

 

[Douggg]

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948).

The only thing that Lindsey was wrong about it seems is that fig tree represents Jerusalem and not Israel as he had thought.

That Jerusalem is the fig tree is because Jesus cursed a fig tree beside the road as He and the disciples were about to enter Jerusalem that last Passover week that He was to be rejected and crucified. Matthew 21:18-22.

So 1967 (when the Jews regained Jerusalem) + 70 years (80 years if by strength) Psalms 90:10 will give a number. We are still within the range. (I can't get specific because it is against forum rules).

 

[DavidPT]

I don't suffer any illusions about being able to change many minds, but I still think it's worth the effort. I've been studying this many years, and it really seems to be a headache in the study of biblical prophecy. Way back in the early 70s I read Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and really enjoyed it. He saw amazing coincidences between the news of our time and biblical prophecies that seem to be coming to precise fulfillment.

Unfortunately, Lindsey did something that I believe has been disastrous to the understanding of biblical prophecy. And I'm sure he's not the only one. He had a tremendous desire to convert biblical prophecies that had already been fulfilled into future prophecies. Why waste time reading prophecies that had already been fulfilled, such as prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon? Why not focus on prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled so that we can show people how God's word is still relevant in our own day?

And so, Lindsey converted what Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse from being about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to being an endtime prophecy of the generation in which Israel would be reborn as a nation. The passage reads, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." This prophecy was actually being spoken about Jesus' own generation--"this generation" referred to the generation in which Jesus lived.

But Lindsey converted this into a prophecy of the last generation. "This generation" was, for Lindsey, the generation that saw the rebirth of the Israeli nation. The generation that sees the rebirth of Israel would not pass away until the Rapture of the Church takes place first.

Well sadly, when many like myself who like to point out this error do so we are called "Preterists" as a name of insult. Preterists was a particular school of thought that arose in history to declare not just that "this generation" was fulfilled in the Roman conquest, but also that the *entirety of the book of Revelation* was fulfilled in the Early Church.

I don't believe that--I'm not a Preterist. But I do believe that Preterists were at least partly right, in particular the part about "this generation" referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome. I believe that the book of Revelation does refer to the endtimes, when the Antichrist will arise and reign for 3.5 years.

So we have this battle between the choice between an historial fulfillment or a future fulfillment. Can we know the difference? Of course we can, but often a person is taught a particular position when he is moldable, and is not likely to change his or her position without a firm conviction that the person they trusted was not entirely trustworthy. Since Lindsey has been a faithful Christian throughout his life, and has done a lot of good, it is difficult to break trust in him in areas where he has been wrong.

My purpose here is not to disparage teachers like Lindsey, but only to point out that good people can at times be wrong. Once you begin with a wrong point of view, a lot of the picture gets muddied, and a lot of rationalization takes place. In the end, the Olivet Discourse can become nearly incomprehensible. Even trying to look at it correctly finds obstacles because so many of the points have been corrupted along with the main point. What is the "great tribulation?" What are "all these things?"

All of these questions can be quite easily answered, but not if one has been indoctrinated in a false position, and has therefore corrupted his view on all of the points necessary to make his picture consistent. "All these things" becomes "the Rapture." The "great tribulation" becomes "the reign of Antichrist."

In reality, "all these things" in context was only ever meant to refer not to Christ's return but to the main point, referring to all the things connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the destruction of the temple, and the initial signs that presaged that event. The "great tribulation" explicitly described the fall out from the destruction of Jerusalem in an age-long exile of the Jewish People.

But I'm not going to convince many people, although I would wish to. Understanding historical prophecies have great value in teaching moral lessons, quite apart from proving prophecies are still coming true today. The fall of Babylon teaches us how we need to remain faithful to God's moral laws, unlike Israel who committed gross idolatry in the days before their capture and exile.

We do not need to make the Olivet Discourse entirely about the future, including the rebirth of Israel and the rise of Antichrist. There is plenty in that discourse that describes both historically-fulfilled prophecy and future prophecy. We do not need the Abomination of Desolation to be about the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation to be about the Reign of Antichrist. The exile of the Jews described in that Discourse is still taking place today, until the nation of Israel is restored to faith at Christ's return.

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948). We're way overdue to look at this errant interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And we need to get past the name-calling and false association with Preterism. The Early Church Fathers held to the historical interpretation of this Discourse, and I think we should too, even if certain terms continue to represent some headaches. Thanks for listening.

The way I reason the OD is like such. It is meaning from the time of His ascension through the time of His return. And that unbelieving Jews and their fate in 70 AD is just a small fraction of the OD, not the main focus of the OD. Yet, you, like Preterists and Pretribbers, though you are neither of these, appear to have the OD focusing on the fate of Jews, mainly unbelieving Jews in this case, throughout the OD, though the main focus is Jews and Gentiles combined, IOW, the church. When Jesus was talking to His disciples in private, there wasn't also unbelieving Jews sitting among them. And since His disciples would be connected with the church, He was preparing them for what to expect while He is away. What happened in 70 AD was a part of that, but no way did Jesus make that the main focus of the OD.

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Some interpreters take this to be meaning a gathering involving Jews. Of course it is a gathering involving Jews, but not Jews alone, but also Gentiles. IOW, it's a gathering involving the church. It is involving gathering the dead in Christ who rise first, and is involving those that are still alive and remain when the coming in verse 30 takes place, a coming clearly after great tribulation, not before nor during it.

Before the coming in verse 30 can even take place, all of the following have to precede it---the tribulation of those days(meaning Matthew 24:15-26)---the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken(meaning the 6th seal Revelation 6:12-17)

Great tribulation has to be involving the end of this age in order to make sense out of verses 29-31. If one applies great tribulation to 70 AD, well, immediately after that none of the events involving the 6th seal followed that nor did the coming and gathering involving verses 30-31 follow after 70 AD in the first century.

Unfortunately, you in particular tend to make the OD rather complex instead of trying to keep it somewhat simple.

Some of the following might apply to you, some of it might not.

Anyone that agrees that verse 30 is involving His 2nd coming in the end of this age, but then thinks verse 31 is a gathering solely of the Jews, that interpreter fails to understand who the NT is defining as the elect.

Any interpreter who agrees that verse 30 is involving His 2nd coming in the end of this age, but then is applying verse 34 to the 70 AD and the first century, are ignoring the fact, that the verses surrounding verse 34 are pertaining to the coming involving verse 30, therefore, it would be out of context for verse 34 to be involving 70 AD and the first century while the verses surrounding it are involving the end of this age and the coming in verse 30.

IOW, Jesus would not be all over the place, where one minute He is talking about events involving the end of this age, the next minute He is talking about events involving 70 AD and the first century, then the next minute He is once again talking about events involving the end of this age.

Even though I disagree with Preterists, Preterists at least interpret things in a consistent manner for the most part. Which means whatever they have verse 34 involving, the verses surrounding it are involving what verse 34 is involving. I do the same myself, but instead of applying the surrounding verses to what verse 34 is involving, I apply verse 34 to what the surrounding verses are involving. IOW, I allow the surrounding verses to determine what verse 34 is involving. That way one can't misinterpret verse 34.

 

[keras]

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948).

There will be no 'rapture to heaven' for the Church. We must endure until the end.

I am of the generation that saw the Jewish State of Israel proclaimed. I assure you that I am alive and I expect to live for at least as long as my father did; 90 years. So; for my generation, there is still about 10- 20 years left for us to see it all.
All, that is: the Prophesies about the end times, leading up to the glorious Return of Jesus.

The only thing that Lindsey was wrong about it seems is that fig tree represents Jerusalem and not Israel as he had thought.

Lindsay was wrong about that, as you are too.
The fig tree represents the House of Judah and the vine represents the House of Israel. Two peoples and two destinies.

 

[Marilyn C]

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948). We're way overdue to look at this errant interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And we need to get past the name-calling and false association with Preterism. The Early Church Fathers held to the historical interpretation of this Discourse, and I think we should too, even if certain terms continue to represent some headaches. Thanks for listening.

Hi Randy,

I was born in 1947 and still going strong. Israel, in 1948 and still going strong. Add 7 years and we get to 2030 plus and that generation (1947) would still not have ALL passed away. So, some time yet still.

And `Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.` (Luke 21: 24)

The Gentiles are still ruling the world and `trampling Jerusalem.`

Marilyn.

 

[Douggg]

I was born in 1947 and still going strong. Israel, in 1948 and still going strong.

Hi Marilyn, guess when I was born ? 1948.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Marilyn, guess when I was born ? 1948.

Hi Douggg,

No wonder we agree on so much.

 

[Douggg]

Hi Douggg,

No wonder we agree on so much.

I hear you...

 

[keras]

I hear you...

Got hearing aids, have you?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I don't suffer any illusions about being able to change many minds, but I still think it's worth the effort. I've been studying this many years, and it really seems to be a headache in the study of biblical prophecy. Way back in the early 70s I read Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and really enjoyed it. He saw amazing coincidences between the news of our time and biblical prophecies that seem to be coming to precise fulfillment.

Unlike many, I don't place Church tradition upon a pedestal, because I have God's word already up there, and it doesn't share rule (Matthew 15:3). You see, since God is not speaking to us today verbally from the smoke on the mountain, or out of the burning Bush, or out of the mouth of a donkey, the Scriptures alone (Sola Scriptura) are our direct authoritative word for interpretation from God. In other words, God's very own word is the only voice than can be the supreme interpreter of God's own word. Because who better to get the interpretation from, than "the Author!" Sadly, that is a principle that most of the Church of our day seem oblivious to.

Genesis 40:8

• "And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you."

Yes, Interpretations belong to God. It's not, "let me get my book of interpretations by Hal Lindsey," and it's not, "let me inquire of the stars what something means," and it's not, "let me see how the great Church men of renowned interpret this verse," and it's not, "Let check with a history book of Josephus." but Interpretations belong to God. And the immutable law is, "if it didn't come from God's word, then it's not God's interpretation."

And so, Lindsey converted what Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse from being about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to being an endtime prophecy of the generation in which Israel would be reborn as a nation. The passage reads, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." This prophecy was actually being spoken about Jesus' own generation--"this generation" referred to the generation in which Jesus lived.

But Lindsey converted this into a prophecy of the last generation. "This generation" was, for Lindsey, the generation that saw the rebirth of the Israeli nation. The generation that sees the rebirth of Israel would not pass away until the Rapture of the Church takes place first.

No. What seems obvious to one is not always apparent to others, and quite often easily refutable--like the idea of a pretribulation rapture, a reestablished kingdom of middle eastern Israel or the nation of middle eastern Jews bearing fruit again. It may seem obvious in theory, but Scripture is a lot more complicated in practice, especially when one is determined to read into it rather than from it. For example, it seemed "quite obvious" to the Jews that Christ spoke to and said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," that He was referring to the literal Temple. After all, He had just thrown the buyers and sellers out of it and they were asking Him for a sign that he had the "authority" to do this. It's in that context that He said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Which is why they "responded" saying that this Temple took forty six years to build, and how would Christ build it again in just 3 days? Clearly, the seemingly obvious to them that Christ was speaking about that very literal/physical Temple, was not what Christ was actually speaking about at all. so look beyond what "seems" obvious, or what "appears" right in your own eyes, to what Christ is actually saying. Look to what is actually being addressed, what is correct, consistent, sound, Spiritual and in harmony with the rest of the Bible.

Psalms 12:7

• "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

What single group or contemporary people to what time or generation of man are we preserved forever? None! Only the generation of the wicked, and "NOT" a one-off contemporary evil group of people at one time of about 40 or 70 years. The generation of the wicked will exist right up until the end, when all things will have been fulfilled. We (the election, or family of faithful Christians) are all preserved from this evil generation forever. It is clear that the word generation did not mean all of those people were a so-called 40 or 70 year span generation of evil, nor did Christ use the word that way. Likewise, the people over 2000 years ago in Israel were not all a generation that would not be given a sign, nor were all a generation that the blood of Abel and the prophets that followed would be required of. Only the generation or family of evil would be given no sign. They are the only generation Christ that Christ prophesied could not escape the damnation of Hell. It didn't mean a group living in a 40 year span or has anything to do with modern nation of Israel. Rather it meant that family who are children of the Devil.

Well sadly, when many like myself who like to point out this error do so we are called "Preterists" as a name of insult. Preterists was a particular school of thought that arose in history to declare not just that "this generation" was fulfilled in the Roman conquest, but also that the *entirety of the book of Revelation* was fulfilled in the Early Church.

Which is still an error!

I don't believe that--I'm not a Preterist. But I do believe that Preterists were at least partly right, in particular the part about "this generation" referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome. I believe that the book of Revelation does refer to the endtimes, when the Antichrist will arise and reign for 3.5 years.

Christ is not weeping over a few thousand people being killed in Jersualem. Thousands of people are killed every day of the week. No, you do err. Christ was weeping at foreseeing the fall of Old Testament congregation of Israel that they are blinded and that the kingdom will be taken from them and given to another, not that some Romans would conquer their temporal city. He wept for their souls, not because they wouldn't run and hide in the mountains from Romans. That's not the important thing to weep over, their souls were what Christ wept over. That they were branches now broken off of the Covenanted Olive tree, and that their children now would have no root. That is what He wept over. People have got to stop looking at the world, the physical, carnal, fleshly, earthly symbols--but unto spiritual.

Luke 23:28-31

• "But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
• For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
• Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
• For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?"

Do we define this prophecy by the ramblings of Josephus (who wasn't even a Christian, keep that in mind!!), or do we define it by the "light" of the Word of God? It is clearly "NOT ONLY" a prophecy of the fall of Israel at the cross when Christ would be removed, but also a prophecy of the New Testament Church (the barren having more children). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the AD 70 theory. Read and compare the parallel accounts about the barren having more children. It couldn't be any clearer. The green tree is when the Life of Christ is the root of Israel, and the dry is when Christ is no longer their Root and there is no longer that life in Israel. She becomes baren, and her children are dead in trespass and sin, blinded, and in bondage to Satan. While the barren (the nations) become of Christ. That was Israel after the cross, it didn't happen in AD 70.

Galatians 4:25-28

• "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
• But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
• For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
• Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."

To attempt to assign this fulfillment of prophecy of Christ to the year AD 70 is TORTUOUS of Matthew 23.

Clearly, and despite your objections based on the tradition of those holding to Josephus, the prophecy was ALREADY fulfilled when Galatians was written, and Jerusalem in bondage was already judged of God and in bondage with her children. That was the fall of Old Testament COngregation when her kingdom representation was taken from them and given to the New Testament Congregation of Israel, the CHURCH! Nothing to do 70AD! That is why Christ said to Jerusalem, "weep for yourselves, and for your children." Because they were not the children of promise, not the children of Jerusalem from above. This has nothing to do with Romans knocking down some physical Jersualem stones, it has to do with the wrath of God being on THIS PEOPLE, His Congregation, and they being left desolate by their rejection. They are the very people Christ warned that will come and destroy the temple, his body. People need to stop attempting to define scripture by secular history books, and define it by itself. The Bible is the only History book that can interpret prophesy. Period!

We do not need to make the Olivet Discourse entirely about the future, including the rebirth of Israel and the rise of Antichrist.

Because that is not what prophecy is about.

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948). We're way overdue to look at this errant interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

Because it is the failure of Dispensationalism's predictions. It all coming down on false doctrine.

And we need to get past the name-calling and false association with Preterism. The Early Church Fathers held to the historical interpretation of this Discourse, and I think we should too, even if certain terms continue to represent some headaches. Thanks for listening.

Rest assured, Preterism is as wrong as Premillennialism. They both used physical nation, city, Roman soldiers, the army of Russia, to build a doctrine upon which where Bible does NOT say.

 

[Douggg]

Got hearing aids, have you?

No, hearing is good.

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, hearing is good.

No need for hearing aids. What we need are spiritual ears to hear what Scripture actually says.

 

[Marilyn C]

No need for hearing aids. What we need are spiritual ears to hear what Scripture actually says.

Hi TS,

`Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.` (Luke 21: 24)

What is that?

 

[Timtofly]

I don't suffer any illusions about being able to change many minds, but I still think it's worth the effort. I've been studying this many years, and it really seems to be a headache in the study of biblical prophecy. Way back in the early 70s I read Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and really enjoyed it. He saw amazing coincidences between the news of our time and biblical prophecies that seem to be coming to precise fulfillment.

Unfortunately, Lindsey did something that I believe has been disastrous to the understanding of biblical prophecy. And I'm sure he's not the only one. He had a tremendous desire to convert biblical prophecies that had already been fulfilled into future prophecies. Why waste time reading prophecies that had already been fulfilled, such as prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon? Why not focus on prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled so that we can show people how God's word is still relevant in our own day?

And so, Lindsey converted what Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse from being about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to being an endtime prophecy of the generation in which Israel would be reborn as a nation. The passage reads, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." This prophecy was actually being spoken about Jesus' own generation--"this generation" referred to the generation in which Jesus lived.

But Lindsey converted this into a prophecy of the last generation. "This generation" was, for Lindsey, the generation that saw the rebirth of the Israeli nation. The generation that sees the rebirth of Israel would not pass away until the Rapture of the Church takes place first.

Well sadly, when many like myself who like to point out this error do so we are called "Preterists" as a name of insult. Preterists was a particular school of thought that arose in history to declare not just that "this generation" was fulfilled in the Roman conquest, but also that the *entirety of the book of Revelation* was fulfilled in the Early Church.

I don't believe that--I'm not a Preterist. But I do believe that Preterists were at least partly right, in particular the part about "this generation" referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome. I believe that the book of Revelation does refer to the endtimes, when the Antichrist will arise and reign for 3.5 years.

So we have this battle between the choice between an historial fulfillment or a future fulfillment. Can we know the difference? Of course we can, but often a person is taught a particular position when he is moldable, and is not likely to change his or her position without a firm conviction that the person they trusted was not entirely trustworthy. Since Lindsey has been a faithful Christian throughout his life, and has done a lot of good, it is difficult to break trust in him in areas where he has been wrong.

My purpose here is not to disparage teachers like Lindsey, but only to point out that good people can at times be wrong. Once you begin with a wrong point of view, a lot of the picture gets muddied, and a lot of rationalization takes place. In the end, the Olivet Discourse can become nearly incomprehensible. Even trying to look at it correctly finds obstacles because so many of the points have been corrupted along with the main point. What is the "great tribulation?" What are "all these things?"

All of these questions can be quite easily answered, but not if one has been indoctrinated in a false position, and has therefore corrupted his view on all of the points necessary to make his picture consistent. "All these things" becomes "the Rapture." The "great tribulation" becomes "the reign of Antichrist."

In reality, "all these things" in context was only ever meant to refer not to Christ's return but to the main point, referring to all the things connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the destruction of the temple, and the initial signs that presaged that event. The "great tribulation" explicitly described the fall out from the destruction of Jerusalem in an age-long exile of the Jewish People.

But I'm not going to convince many people, although I would wish to. Understanding historical prophecies have great value in teaching moral lessons, quite apart from proving prophecies are still coming true today. The fall of Babylon teaches us how we need to remain faithful to God's moral laws, unlike Israel who committed gross idolatry in the days before their capture and exile.

We do not need to make the Olivet Discourse entirely about the future, including the rebirth of Israel and the rise of Antichrist. There is plenty in that discourse that describes both historically-fulfilled prophecy and future prophecy. We do not need the Abomination of Desolation to be about the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation to be about the Reign of Antichrist. The exile of the Jews described in that Discourse is still taking place today, until the nation of Israel is restored to faith at Christ's return.

It's sad but it's now 2023, and well past the failure of Lindsey's prediction that the Rapture of the Church would take place in the generation of Israel's rebirth (1948). We're way overdue to look at this errant interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And we need to get past the name-calling and false association with Preterism. The Early Church Fathers held to the historical interpretation of this Discourse, and I think we should too, even if certain terms continue to represent some headaches. Thanks for listening.

The generation of 1948 has not all passed away. It does not say a specific amount of time. It says that generation will not pass away.

Matthew and Luke are talking about two different generations. Matthew is today. Luke was the first century.

 

[Marilyn C]

The generation of 1948 has not all passed away. It does not say a specific amount of time. It says that generation will not pass away.

Matthew and Luke are talking about two different generations. Matthew is today. Luke was the first century.

Luke 21: 24a is past however 21: 24b is future, ` And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.`

 

[Timtofly]

Luke 21: 24a is past however 21: 24b is future, ` And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.`

It has been trampled under foot since 70AD.

Not the same as the Revelation 11:2

"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."

That is not the same as this:

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

 

[Marilyn C]

It has been trampled under foot since 70AD.

Not the same as the Revelation 11:2

"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."

That is not the same as this:

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

I agree.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Hi TS,

`Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.` (Luke 21: 24)

What is that?

Luk 21:20-24
(20) And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
(21) Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
(22) For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
(23) But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
(24) And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

God is talking about His New Testament congregation, the church, prior to Second Coming. Not some physical city of Jersualem in 70AD or even today where they either believe the Jews need to flee from the city to literal mountain. No, Jersualem in context is talking about God's New Testament congregation with Elect (spiritual Jews) who can see the army of unsaved people (Gentiles) ready to attack church.

Complicated is as complicated does? Listen, we have to compare Scripture with Scripture, that's the only way to discern truth. Look this woman who gives SUCK is clearly Spiritually Jerusalem! She is the representation of God's congregation on this side of the Cross! That's a Biblical fact! I've already given you the scriptures proving that the other day. She is Jerusalem! The only reason a Christian would want to leave that part out as "too complicated" when it is obviously an integral part of the interpretation, is "IF" they don't really want to receive what God says about the woman who gives suck. Or to deny she is Jerusalem. Which is it?

Oh mine... how it gets complicated when interpretations are witnessed by God's word that cannot be gainsaid nor resisted, and man doesn't like them. Then it's suddenly too complicated. Aren't they the ones who said "cast off pride" and humbly receive what is written? When the shoe is on the other foot it's suddenly being overly complicated. Let's allow the scriptures to interpret the scriptures, shall we. That's the ONLY way to find out who God declares is the woman who gives suck. Not who I think she is, or who you think she is, but what does the Bible have to say about this woman. Observe:

Isaiah 66:10-13

• "Rejoice ye with JERUSALEM, and be glad with her, all ye that Love her: Rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
• That YE may Suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; and ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.
• For thus saith the Lord, behold, I will extend PEACE to her like a River, and the Glory of the gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall Ye Suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dangled upon her knees.
• As one whom His mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem."

So, isn't Jerusalem pictured as this woman? Well, pretty clear to me that God (not Tony) speaks of Jerusalem (YES, Jerusalem) as this woman who gives suck. So that's not complicating it, that's rightly dividing and "exegeting" it. So why would you ever want to leave that out? The woman whom God extended peace to, and whom we (the children) suck the breasts of, is the corporate representation of the body of Christ! The Holy City in whom we live and breathe and have our being. And it is represented by none other than the CHURCH! Now, this may be too complicated for some, but to the circumspect and faithful, it is the unadulterated word of God concerning the woman who gives suck.

...wanna more?

Joel 2:15-016

• "Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly:
• Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet."

It is SPIRITUAL LANGUAGE signifying the Lord's congregation, the representation of the body of Christ on Earth. Zion on earth is the representation of the "TRUE" spiritual Zion in heaven. It's no sin to be wrong, the sin comes with the pride of refusing to receive God's word of truth. Not my word alleging it's true, but God's word of the woman being Jerusalem. My word means nothing. God's word concerning the woman who gives suck, is authoritative. She is the church. Not a physical city in the Middle East!

So when the ELECT see abominations stand IN THE CHURCH. You see, this is the Holy Place on this side of the Cross - the New Testament dispensation! The ONLY Holy Place where abomination can STAND that the elect can see and flee from. In the New Testament, there are three Holy Places:

1.) Christ
2.) The Elect
3.) The Church

Which one can abomination stand in, that we are told to flee from? You figure out which one qualifies!

Or are you going to tell me church is not the wording there, so I should not exegete that way? The BIBLICAL FACT is, you could NEVER even begin to understand what is the Holy Place God was talking about without doing a thorough search of the whole Bible, exegeting carefully to come to the correct conclusion. The wording doesn't have to be there anymore than the wording "harlot" has to be there when it talked about the unfaithfulness of Israel. For God makes sure we know, through a careful study of the whole Bible, that her spiritual fornication makes her such that it applies. So, to find out what the Holy Place is "REQUIRES" a sound system of interpretation. Not just sticking with the isolated wording there, but searching the WHOLE BIBLE to find out what the wording actually means. Selah! Just like finding out that the woman who gives suck is actually the congregaiton of God, not physical Jersualem. There is no difference.

Let check with Matthew 24.
Mat 24:15-19
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
(16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
(17) Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
(18) Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
(19) And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

Whoso readeth, let him understand applies to those who have the Spirit of Christ to understand what Holy Place Christ talked about here! What housetops? Is it my barn? Is it a building in the Middle East? Any house that we might live in? The ONLY way to really know what it's talking about is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. As complicated as you may think it is, it is the only way!
Mat 10:27
(27) What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

Luk 12:3
(3) Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

What do you think Christ talked about here? The housetops signify the pulpit! The place on high where one preaches. A podium or Dais, which is a raised platform from which to speak. In the House of God.

What about the field? It is the WORLD (please see the interpretation of the parable of the sower yourself). And what do clothes have to do with anything? Did God talk about the clothes of righteous that he in the world should not come to take it because there are none! He is in the world, and is not return back... where? ...to the CONGREGATION, the assembly from which he has fled because there is no clothing of righteous there anymore. The days of salvation has ended because of congregation's unfaithfulness. No, we are not making it complicated. It "IS" complicated. And the worst thing in the world to do is to take something complicated as the unadulterated word of God and handle it as if it were a children's book to be understood by anyone. The Bible is the most intricate, consistent and knowledgable book ever given to man.
That's what God has been addressing in all the verses you quoted. Selah!

15. You are going to see the abomination spoken of by Daniel standing in God's holy Place.
16. And seeing it stand there, you need to flee from Judaea into the mountains.
17. Do not return to this abominable house to take anything out
18. And if you are in the field and think you should go back there for "clothing," don't!
19. Because it's woe unto Jerusalem (them that give suck) in those days!

The "Whole" context would indeed lead us to EXPECT God is addressing the abominations of the church. How those who give suck are neglecting their children (ala Old Testament abominations), they, dying of thirst, etc. The WHOLE context. If you can't see that, there is nothing I can do to make you see it. Nevertheless, it is there!

The context is to warn the saints to flee "because" there is abomination and woe on them that remain. Because the wrath of God is upon them. God say, "And woe unto you who are with child, and to you that give suck in those days!" Why is that? Well, because it's obviously two separate entities. The children (professed Christians), and this Woman (Church) who was supposed to nurse them. Not the Election! To make it about one is ludicrous! Look at this from another passage.

Luke 21:23-34

• "But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
• And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Again, there is wrath upon this people, and again God (not TribulatonSigns) illustrates this is Jerusalem being trodden down. it's a judgment of God upon her for her abominations. They will be deceived by the false doctrine (sword) and shall be led away captive (spiritual bondage) along with the unsaved world. So the church (Jersulaem) shall be trodden down of the Gentiles (unsaved false prophets and christs) until their power to rule for a season is fulfilled. After this, Christ will return with His Elect AND the Elect who are still alive and remain on Earth.

My point is, Christ will not return because nation Israel will be attacked by Russia or leader from Europe. He will not return to Israel where children are thirty of their mother's milk on their way to the mountain in Jordan. Instead, Christ will return after the judgment of the unfaithful congregatgions all over the world is fulfilled where the professed believers (children) of the church cannot suck the milk of gospel in the church where false propehts and christ rules.

Spiritual discerned!

 

[TribulationSigns]

It has been trampled under foot since 70AD.

You got the wrong Jersualem! The old testament congregation of Israel has already fallen along with the death of Christ. And in three days, Christ has rebuilt it, this time with the New Testament congregation as a kingdom representation where the Gentiles can come in.

Nothing to do with the physical city and building in 70AD.

Not the same as the Revelation 11:2

"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."

Rev 11:1-2
(1) And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
(2) But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Does the people who are earthly bound be able to understand this? Do you know the purpose of the rod? The measuring of the temple, altar and worshippers therein?

The temple in Revelation 11:1-2 is talks about New Testament congregation, made up of two groups of people. One are the measured people, Elect. Another is not measured people, the professed Christians. They are people who professed Christ but are not saved, yet they are working in the church along with the Elect. Remember the stones of the temple building. Some are Elect. Some are unsaved? Many are called, and few are chosen! The Gentiles are the unsaved false prophets and christs that God allowed to come in to deceive/judge those in the court because of their unfaithfulness. They will be allowed to rule the church for one hour along with the Beast.

That is not the same as this:

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Yes it does. It speaks of the same event. This is when the Gentiles comes into the court which is without temple where all people are deceived that they will not find salvation. So they are led away into spiritual bondage. It will last until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled.