Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Nov. 5, 2007
Update	: Jul. 8, 2025
Parts	: 07

Synopsis:



Continuing our discussion from part three, as I just stated, and as we discussed earlier in this series, as a result of their foolish rejection of God's Son, the Israelites -- and in particular, the Jews in Jerusalem -- would not feel the full weight of Jesus' words, and the terrible wrath of Rome, until almost forty years later, when General Titus, the son of Vespasian, would march into Jerusalem with his Roman army comprised of 60,000+ men including their allies, and proceed to utterly destroy it, along with Herod's magnificent temple, which even the Apostles admired. You may recall that in part three, I shared the following verse with you that is found in Matthew chapter twenty-four, where Jesus clearly foretold of the fall of that awe-inspiring edifice:

". . . See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."


As I have pointed out before, according to my research, the Romans were not content with just burning down the temple. Precisely as Jesus prophesied in Matthew chapter twenty-four, they also tore the temple remains apart, block by block, in order to recover all of the gold which had melted down into the cracks. There was apparently plenty of it too, based on the descriptions which are found in the Old Testament. Even Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the tremendous wealth which was stored in the temple complex. As we know, despite a few efforts to do so over the centuries, up until this current time, the temple has never been rebuilt. It is also my understanding that those blocks remain untouched by the Jews, due to their fear of offending God.

But imagine how shocked the Apostles must have been to learn that the beautiful building which they so admired, would be destroyed. So their first inquiry to Jesus in Matthew 24 was answered by Titus in 70 AD. However, once again, the Orthodox Jews are making a very serious effort to build a new temple on the Temple Mount. But what will it lead to if they should happen to succeed? Will this third temple -- should it really ever come to fruition -- also be destroyed by the enemies of Israel? Will it result in an expanded Middle East war? To be honest, with the way that Israel has been subduing Iran, and Hamas, and Hezbollah as of late, I really have to wonder.

Another point of interest is that at the time of our Lord's Crucifixion, God gave the Jewish religious leadership a very clear sign that He was displeased with them. You may recall that on one occasion, while Jesus was teaching in the temple in Jerusalem, the Jewish chief priests and elders came and challenged Him. In response, the Lord shared a Parable with them, and then He concluded by saying the following to them:

". . . Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."


In the previous verses, the word "taken" is derived from the Koine Greek word "airo", one meaning of which is to take by force or violence. You may recall that after John the Baptist had been imprisoned, he sent two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus whether or not He was the Messiah. In His response to them, one of the things that the Lord said was this:

"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."


So, as I have shared before in a number of my articles which touch on the topic of spiritual warfare, there is in fact a very real, violent spiritual war that is being fought for the Kingdom of Heaven. This invisible war is being fought between the forces of Light and the forces of Darkness. If you study the Book of Daniel, for example, you will find clear examples of this behind-the-scenes warfare. But that is not all. Our very souls are in fact a part of the prize. In the previous verse, let me point out that in the original Koine Greek, the word that is translated as "the violent" likewise means "the strong". So, we could translate that phrase as "the strong take it by force".

It is interesting to note that the phrase "take it by force" is derived from the Koine Greek word "harpazo". Some of you who are sharp students and more knowledgeable of God's Word may already realize that this is exactly the same word that is used in some other verses which are very familiar to and much loved by many modern Christians. I am referring to the following verses which are found in Paul's first Epistle to the Thessalonian brethren:

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."


In the previous verses, the verb "caught up" is likewise translated from "harpazo". Thayer's Greek English Lexicon defines this Koine Greek word in the following manner:

----- Begin Quote -----

1) to seize, carry off by force

2) to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly

3) to snatch out or away

----- End Quote -----

As I amply explain in other BBB articles such as the in-depth series entitled "The Great Tribulation and the Rapture", the Lord informed His followers that the situation would be very bad, and would look very dark, just prior to His return to the Earth. It is for this reason that while He was explaining the signs to His Disciples in Matthew chapter twenty-four, He pointedly told them the following:

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened."


Putting all of the previous verses together, it appears that Jesus was saying that from the outward appearance, it might even look as if the forces of darkness had won. But then, at a moment when it was least expected, when their cause seemed to be lost, Jesus would suddenly and majestically appear in the clouds of heaven, and He would send His Angels to rip His followers right out of that very dark situation. He would just forcefully snatch them up in order to save them out of the grips of their enemies. In addition to studying "The Great Tribulation and the Rapture", I also encourage you to read the article called "He That Shall Endure Unto the End".

Some of the previous verses paint a side of God which some people don't like to see; particularly those Christians who like to promote an image of a "lovey-dovey" Jesus, and a God who would never resort to force or violence, or even punish us. The truth is, as I have pointed out before, God can, and has, presented Himself as a gentle lamb; but He can also be a roaring lion as well. It depends on the situation and with whom He is dealing. I mentioned earlier that at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion, God gave the Jewish elders a very clear sign that He was very displeased with them. In fact, it was an omen that their power would soon be ripped right out of their hands, precisely as Jesus had prophesied. That sign can be found in the following verses:

"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,"


Imagine that! When Jesus was resurrected, God split the veil of the temple -- which divided the inner Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple -- right in half from top to bottom. What a clear indication of His anger. However, at the same time, while this event may have been a clear demonstration of God's anger, I believe that it had more importance than just that. Allow me to remind you of the following verse I shared with you in part three of this series:

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."


So, you see, in my view, the renting of the veil was also a sign of the vanishing away of the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant coming into effect from that point and forward. I'm also of the opinion that this change was further symbolized by Jesus' own flesh being very severely torn, both from the lash of the Roman whip, as well as from then being hung on a Roman cross. Through this act of profound love, Christ tore down the veil which had existed between God and man, which separated God from man due to sin, and He opened the way to Salvation. And so, we now have direct access to the Father through the Son. This truth is clearly evident in verses such as the following:

"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man [Jesus Christ], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, BOLDNESS TO ENTER INTO THE HOLIEST BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, THROUGH THE VEIL, THAT IS TO SAY, HIS FLESH;"


Now isn't that truly amazing? Through Jesus' loving Sacrifice on the Cross, we once again have full access to our Heavenly Father through the veil. Our peaceful relationship with Him can now be restored through faith in Jesus Christ. Thank the Lord! Now, I honestly don't know if there is really any truth to this theory, but some Bible researchers have stated that another reason why God may have split the temple veil as He did, was not just to demonstrate His anger with the Jewish religious leaders. It was also to expose the fact that the Ark of the Covenant -- which was a gold-plated chest which contained the holy items, such as the tablets on which were written the Commandments, Aaron's rod which budded, and a sample of the manna -- was long gone.

In fact, the general belief is that the Ark of the Covenant had either been spirited away for its own protection by the Jews sometime prior to the Babylonian invasions -- possibly by the Prophet Jeremiah -- or carried off by the Babylonians. Personally, I find this latter idea highly unlikely, being as anyone who even dared to touch the Ark, or who accidentally touched the Ark, immediately died. Either that, or else they were plagued, as in the case of the Philistines. Whatever the case may be, the Ark simply disappeared from Jewish history, and from the pages of the Bible.

Some people are also convinced that the Ark remains hidden in a secret chamber within the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem. Supposedly, at the right time, once the new temple has been built, as many people believe it will be, the Orthodox Jews will present the Ark to the world once again. This belief is based to some degree on the story -- whether it is true or false -- that Biblical archeologist, Ron Wyatt, discovered the Ark beneath the alleged crucifixion site many decades ago. Wyatt claimed that Jesus' blood had seeped down through a crack in the ground, and had landed on the Ark. However, some people claim that Wyatt was a fraud, so who knows. If I recall correctly, there have also been claims that the Ark of the Covenant is currently hidden somewhere in Jordan, around Mount Nebo, or possibly even in Ethiopia. Well, there is an Ark in Heaven, so that is really all we should be concerned about.

Whatever happened to the Ark, if it truly no longer resided in the temple at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion, the temple veil being torn from top to bottom certainly exposed what a dead, hollow religion the Jewish hierarchy was forcing upon their people. You see, in addition to the fact that the Ark contained the holy items, it was upon the Mercy Seat, which was located on the hood of the Ark between the wings, where the Lord would appear in order to speak with Moses, or to instruct the High Priest -- such as Aaron -- each year. Here are two verses for your consideration. Once again, I have added a few words in brackets for the sake of clarification:

"And when Moses was gone into the tabernacle of the congregation to speak with him [meaning the Lord], then he [Moses] heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy seat that was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubims: and he spake unto him."


"And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat."


So if the Ark of the Covenant was truly gone, then this was indeed a clear indication that God had abandoned their false religion centuries before, but the common people just didn't know it yet, because the Scribes and the Pharisees purposely kept them in the dark concerning it. Is it any wonder then, that in Luke chapter four, Jesus stated that He had come to give sight to the blind? That is to say, to the spiritually blind? Let us also not forget that in speaking of the Jewish religious elders -- the Pharisees in this case -- on one occasion the Lord said the following concerning them:

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."


But let us backtrack a moment now, lest we lose sight of why I am sharing these things with you. Earlier in this series, I shared two clear examples with you where Jesus used things from nature in order to emphasize a point. In one case, the Lord used a budding fig tree, and in another, the weather. I pointed out that in both cases, in my view, there wasn't any secret meaning hidden in His words. Jesus was more than clear regarding what He meant. The Lord was merely using something which was quite familiar to every single listener, to ensure that they would make the proper connection to the lesson He was trying to share. He was making simple comparisons, as He often did. This is in fact exactly what Parables were meant for. According to Thayer's Greek English Lexicon, the word "parable" finds its origin in the Greek word "parabole". In a Biblical sense, its principle definition is "A comparing, comparison of one thing with another, likeness, similitude; an example by which a doctrine or precept is illustrated".

So, in my view, the practice of making a statement such as "Jesus said that the generation that is alive at the time that Israel becomes a nation will live to see His Return", is not only misleading, it is in fact false. It is putting words in Jesus' mouth, and it is twisting the meaning of the Scriptures. So what I am saying is that Jesus never clearly said that the budding fig tree represents Israel becoming a nation in 1948, and it is wrong for anyone to say that He did.

To reiterate what I said earlier, the 1948 theory is merely one interpretation of what the fig tree may have symbolized. But, as I have made more than clear, I don't believe that it was meant to symbolize anything. It was simply a comparison that Jesus used so that His followers would know that what He had prophesied was indeed going to happen. It was a warning that they were to remain alert, and watch for the signs of His Return, just as the Jews also watched and realized that summer was approaching, when they saw the fig tree sprout its leaves. Period.

As we discussed in parts one and two, part of the confusion concerning this 1948 doctrine, and the year 2,000 fiasco, is a result of trying to apply a specific length of time to the Biblical word "generation". To refresh your memory, the man who wrote to me stated "if we use the biblical definition of a generation as 52 years". That is his mistake right there. He obviously picked up this idea from one of those preachers. To my knowledge, nowhere does the Bible specifically say that a generation is equal to fifty-two years. Fifty-two is simply an average that those American preachers dreamed up, because it helped to supposedly prove their year 2,000 theory, which as we have seen, proved to be utterly and totally false.

In fact, it would really be impossible to assign a specific number of years to a generation, because throughout Biblical history, human beings have lived different lengths of time. Adam lived to the ripe old age of nine hundred and thirty. Abraham died rather young, comparatively speaking, at the age of one hundred and seventy-five years. Moses fulfilled his days at the age of one hundred and twenty. King David died even earlier at the age of seventy. On the other end of the spectrum, some people die at birth, or at a young age. In short, in my view, it is foolhardy to try to assign a specific number of years to a Biblical generation.

So exactly what is a generation in the Bible? The best way to answer this question is by examining the original Koine Greek word that is used in said verses. According to Thayer's Greek English Lexicon, the word "generation" is translated from the Koine Greek word "genea", which it defines as follows:

----- Begin Quote -----

1) fathered, birth, nativity

2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

  2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy

  2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character

    2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation

3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time

4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

----- End Quote -----

Allow me to point out that aside from the transliteration of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words into English, it's important for you to understand that the definitions that are provided in Bible dictionaries and lexicons are subject to the views, opinions, beliefs and prejudices of the author of the work. Thus, the creator of the above entry states that a Biblical generation was about thirty to thirty-three years in length. This obviously conflicts with what these modern preachers are saying.

If we set aside these doctrinal prejudices, and take all of the previous definitions at face value, then we can arrive at the conclusion that a Biblical generation was variable in length, and consisted of the time that passed from the birth of one man, to the birth of his son, and anyone else who was born in that man's family while that man was alive. In other words, anyone who is born in that family while that man is alive, is a part of his generation. In similar fashion, we can say that anyone who is born in that family while the son is alive, is a part of the son's generation. A generation is simply all of the people who are living in that family at any given moment of time. On a larger scale, anyone living in the world during any specific time period, is likewise a part of that historical, global generation.

Based upon the previous definitions and explanations, it's my belief that when Jesus used the word "generation" in Matthew chapter twenty-four, He was not offering us a subtle hint of a specific number of years. He was simply saying that some of the people who would be alive on the Earth at the time that all of those events begin to occur -- in other words, wars, earthquakes, famine, pestilence, invasion of Jerusalem, great tribulation, etc. -- would still be alive, and would see His Return in the clouds of Heaven. Again, it has nothing to do with 1948, or adding a magical number to 1948. That is all manmade doctrinal baloney. Are you convinced of this yet?

But you really have to wonder, why it is, and how it is, that this 1948 idea has become so deeply rooted with some American Christians. Well, as I've already stated, I believe that part of the problem is that too many of them allow themselves to be spoon-fed by their popular radio and television preachers, instead of studying and researching the Bible for themselves. They adopt this attitude that the preacher must know what he is talking about. After all, he went to seminary school, and he is supposed to be the authority on these subjects. Sadly, as I have said before, that isn't always true. These men are not any more infallible than the Pope is. Let me also remind you that when these fellows graduate from seminary school, they have already been indoctrinated with some very specific theological beliefs from that school; and that is what they begin to preach to their flocks, whether those doctrines are Scripturally-sound or not.

As in other parts of the world, American Christendom consists of a lot of different branches, flavors and colors insofar as doctrines are concerned. Some churches and denominations are very pro-Israel while others are not. The 1948 interpretation of the Parable of the Fig Tree is clearly from the pro-Israel camp, which just so happens to hold a lot of political power and sway within the United States. It is precisely for this reason that president after president has been such a strong advocate and supporter of Israel. The American Conservative Right is to a large degree comprised of older, conservative Christians, and high-profile evangelical preachers in large part control them, influence how they vote, and instruct them doctrinally as well.

So the question is this: Where did this 1948 doctrine first originate? As I first mentioned many years ago, and as far back as 1998, there is in fact a verse which is found in the Bible which has been used by pro-Israel preachers to support their 1948 view. That verse is the following, which is found in the Book of Isaiah:

"Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children."


According to those preachers, the previous verse describes, or prophesies, the birth of the nation of Israel in 1948, following the "Diaspora". The Diaspora, or Dispersion, as it is also known, refers to the historical fact that the tribes of Israel were scattered around the world as a result of the various invasions of ancient Israel by foreign armies, such as the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans. Of course, as I explain in such series as "The Fruits of Disobedience", the invasions were in fact a part of God's chastisements against them, due to their continuous disobedience to His Will. This included deep apostasy, idolatry, child sacrifices and more.

At any rate, the Diaspora is believed by some people -- such as certain Jews, as well as the aforementioned preachers and their followers -- to have come to an end when the Jews from around the world began migrating back to the land of Israel during the twentieth century. Furthermore, this migration is believed to mark the end of "Jacob's Trouble". Jacob was the original name of Israel, before God changed his name in the Book of Genesis. Jacob was the father of the twelve sons who became the first leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel. I discuss the return to Israel, and Israel becoming a nation, in much more detail in the two series I mentioned earlier in this same series. That is to say, "Modern Deception: Shall a Nation Be Born at Once?" and "Modern Deceptions: Return to Israel, the Fig Tree and This Generation". If you're prepared to accept the truth, I encourage you to read both of them.

Regarding this modern-day return of thousands of Jews to the land of Israel, following is a set of Scriptures which these same people insist is a description and prophecy regarding the Diaspora, or scattering, and the Jews' return to Israel:

"For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel. I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment."


So the question we need to ask ourselves is whether or not the previous verses are really describing the modern return of the Jews to Israel. Personally, I have some very serious doubts. To understand why I have these reservations, and don't just hop on the 1948 bandwagon, one must understand the history and context of these verses. Similar to Daniel, Ezekiel was a Jewish Prophet, and captive, in Babylon. His mission wasn't just to help his brethren to understand why they found themselves in such a predicament, and why God had allowed their enemies to invade and capture Jerusalem. It was also to give them comfort and hope, by letting them know that their captivity would not last forever, and that someday, they would be allowed to return to Israel as free people again.

In my mind, it makes absolutely no sense that Ezekiel would then proceed to tell them things which would not occur for about another 2,500 years, until the twentieth century. What kind of comfort would that give to them? They would be long gone and dead. On the other hand, if Ezekiel was speaking of a more immediate return -- that is to say, within decades, and not in centuries -- that would certainly offer a lot more hope to the captives in Babylon. Perhaps they might not live long enough to see it, but some of their children would. As I explain in other articles, such as the in-depth series called "Seventy Years Prophecy: What It Means", it turns out that the Jews of Jerusalem were in fact held captive by the Babylonians in Babylon and the surrounding provinces, for an exact period of seventy years, precisely as the Prophet Jeremiah had told them would occur, as we see by the following group verses:

"And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations . . . For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place . . . For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it."


Please go to part five for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the BBB Bible website. There are many treasures for you to discover.