I've been reading articles from Ronald E. Frye's, The Christian Respondent. He puts forward this understanding of Mark 13, Mathew 24 and Luke 21:
(1) The destruction of Jerusalem is set forth in graphic detail. The disciples are plainly told what events would accompany this and what they should do to protect themselves and avoid getting caught in that destruction.
(2) The matter of the Lord's coming or parousia is uncertain as to time and would overtake the world and the disciples at a time they would not expect.
Frye concludes that we were not intended to identify the last days but rather we were to simply be watchful that we not let our Godly devotion slip. Okay, that all makes sense. But my question arises in verses 15-28. Where do we draw the line between Jesus discussing the destruction of Jerusalem and his second coming? Do you think the prophesy about Jerusalem’s destruction is supposed to have a “greater fulfillment” in the last days – as put forward by the WT? I really don’t think there were false Messiah’s running around producing great signs and omens right before the destruction of Jerusalem. But, maybe there were.
If Christ's answer to his disciples was referring to two separate events at two periods in time, then where do we draw that line in his response?
If Christ’s answer is to be understood as having related signs and fulfillments in both time periods (and events) then His answer is very specific in a couple of areas – for example the “desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place.”
What are your thoughts?