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 Babylonian Judgment 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.
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 Babylonian Judgment 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.
Last edited:
