This is so critical to understand that I wish to post my own thread on 2 distinct answers to 2 distinct questions in Jesus' Olivet Discourse. First, I wish to say that I was raised in Reform Theology, and never even heard of Dispensationalism. But then, I adopted my new Christian friends' Dispensationalist views back in the early 70s, and became a Pretribber by default. All the teachings I heard were Pretrib and Dispensationalist.
I became acquainted with Hal Lindsey, and began to read the Olivet Discourse from his pov. The generation to see the rebirth of the state of Israel would see the Return of Christ.
Well obviously that didn't work out. But I turned against Pretrib well before that. My brother convinced me to memorize Scripture back in 1972, I think. I memorized, among other passages, 2 Thessalonians. In doing so, I was compelled to shift my belief to Postrib, since that is precisely what it seemed Paul was teaching there!
Yet I had trouble for many years understanding the Olivet Discourse. I continued to believe that Jesus was talking about his Coming, and about signs of the last generation, or signs of the endtimes.
Somewhere along the way I came to understand that even many schools of thoughts that I disagreed with had elements of truth in them that were important to lay hold of, including Dispensationalist thought. I found in Preterism, which I disagree with, one of the answers to this puzzle.
Preterism teaches that the Olivet Discourse is all about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Although Preterism goes much farther than this, this important point drove me to consider what the Church Fathers believed, which was very much in line with what Preterism was teaching, absent other points of disagreement.
So I came to believe that even though I believe in a future Antichrist and in a future restoration of Israel, I think that the Olivet Discourse is largely about the fall of Jerusalem. After all, that was the main point Jesus raised at the temple, at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse. And as Jesus dismissed the importance of the temple, walking up the Mt. of Olives, he continued to assert that the temple would be destroyed, along with the city of Jerusalem.
With that in mind, the Olivet Discourse provided an answer to 2 separates questions.
1) When would the fall of Jerusalem and the temple happen?
2) When would his Coming with the Kingdom take place?
Finally, I put the confusion behind me and came to understand that Jesus was giving 2 distinct answers to 2 distinct questions.
1) Jesus said that "birth pang" signs would happen that would lead up to the fall of Jerusalem. These signs would indicate Israel's backslidden state, the Jewish people hiding evil with religious works, and persecuting true Christian saints.
This would result in natural disasters, indicating God's displeasure with the Jews. The Jewish People would hear rumblings of war from the Roman armies, that would eventually overtake the Jews in their rebellion against God.
All this would take place, according to Jesus, in "this generation." And so, Jesus answered the 1st question: when would the fall of Jerusalem take place? It would be in "this generation." Jesus said "all these things," ie the birth pang signs, would take place, along with the fall of Jerusalem itself, in "this generation," ie in the generation of Jesus' disciples.
2) Jesus said that his Coming with his Kingdom would take place long after the events of his generation. At least, this was the obvious implication, since Jesus said that the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) would lead to an age-long Jewish dispersion among the nations until he would return only at the end of the age. Clearly, Jesus separated the 2 questions about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and his Coming at the end of the age into 2 distinct answers.
This means that Jesus did *not* mean to include his own Coming as one of the events to take place in his own generation. He said his Coming would *end* this age, and that all of the birth pains would alone take place in his own generation, leading up to an age-long dispersion of the Jewish People.
I truly hope this helps somebody! It sure did me!
Try reading it this way and see if it doesn't make sense? Let me know.
I became acquainted with Hal Lindsey, and began to read the Olivet Discourse from his pov. The generation to see the rebirth of the state of Israel would see the Return of Christ.
Well obviously that didn't work out. But I turned against Pretrib well before that. My brother convinced me to memorize Scripture back in 1972, I think. I memorized, among other passages, 2 Thessalonians. In doing so, I was compelled to shift my belief to Postrib, since that is precisely what it seemed Paul was teaching there!
Yet I had trouble for many years understanding the Olivet Discourse. I continued to believe that Jesus was talking about his Coming, and about signs of the last generation, or signs of the endtimes.
Somewhere along the way I came to understand that even many schools of thoughts that I disagreed with had elements of truth in them that were important to lay hold of, including Dispensationalist thought. I found in Preterism, which I disagree with, one of the answers to this puzzle.
Preterism teaches that the Olivet Discourse is all about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Although Preterism goes much farther than this, this important point drove me to consider what the Church Fathers believed, which was very much in line with what Preterism was teaching, absent other points of disagreement.
So I came to believe that even though I believe in a future Antichrist and in a future restoration of Israel, I think that the Olivet Discourse is largely about the fall of Jerusalem. After all, that was the main point Jesus raised at the temple, at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse. And as Jesus dismissed the importance of the temple, walking up the Mt. of Olives, he continued to assert that the temple would be destroyed, along with the city of Jerusalem.
With that in mind, the Olivet Discourse provided an answer to 2 separates questions.
1) When would the fall of Jerusalem and the temple happen?
2) When would his Coming with the Kingdom take place?
Finally, I put the confusion behind me and came to understand that Jesus was giving 2 distinct answers to 2 distinct questions.
1) Jesus said that "birth pang" signs would happen that would lead up to the fall of Jerusalem. These signs would indicate Israel's backslidden state, the Jewish people hiding evil with religious works, and persecuting true Christian saints.
This would result in natural disasters, indicating God's displeasure with the Jews. The Jewish People would hear rumblings of war from the Roman armies, that would eventually overtake the Jews in their rebellion against God.
All this would take place, according to Jesus, in "this generation." And so, Jesus answered the 1st question: when would the fall of Jerusalem take place? It would be in "this generation." Jesus said "all these things," ie the birth pang signs, would take place, along with the fall of Jerusalem itself, in "this generation," ie in the generation of Jesus' disciples.
2) Jesus said that his Coming with his Kingdom would take place long after the events of his generation. At least, this was the obvious implication, since Jesus said that the fall of Jerusalem (70 AD) would lead to an age-long Jewish dispersion among the nations until he would return only at the end of the age. Clearly, Jesus separated the 2 questions about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and his Coming at the end of the age into 2 distinct answers.
This means that Jesus did *not* mean to include his own Coming as one of the events to take place in his own generation. He said his Coming would *end* this age, and that all of the birth pains would alone take place in his own generation, leading up to an age-long dispersion of the Jewish People.
I truly hope this helps somebody! It sure did me!
Try reading it this way and see if it doesn't make sense? Let me know.
