Date Setting Theories Are Popping Up Again

Sunday, 11 May 2008 10:47 |

Date Setting Theories

Are

Popping Up Again

R.A. Coombes

Publisher of The A-O Report

Here we go again. A new round of date-setting theories are popping up again on the Internet. Date-setting theories just keep popping up periodically like bad pennies and once again, with at least one of these theories, some media outlets have picked up on it.

For long-time readers of The Alpha-Omega Report, it shouldn’t be necessary to mention that the editorial position of The Alpha-Omega Report has been to reject “date-setting.” Now by “date-setting” – I am referring to folks who develop a date for some prophetic event – usually the Rapture of The Second Coming and then make a dogmatic assertion about a particular date.

It is one thing to look at a particular date and state something to the effect of “this is an interesting date that might mean …. …. (fill in the blank with some sort of hypothesis). It is quite another to say that – “on (such and such date) X-Y- or Z will happen.” i.e. the Rapture or the Second Coming to name but two examples.

What is particularly irksome to myself are those who make such dogmatic dating claims and then rail against any one who doubts them. They wonder why no one would believe them. Hmm. Maybe it might possibly have something to do with a huge list of failed ‘predictions’ of date-setting, particularly in regards to The Rapture or The Second Coming. History is replete with them.

The bad thing about date-setting is that when those predictions prove false, it only harms the testimony of genuine believers to unbelievers and prophecy in general. It also can harm those who are immature believers.

One would think that eventually Christians, (especially church pastors) would wise up and avoid such issues. Well, that’s what we get for “thinking” I guess. Sometimes I wonder if or how many church pastors ever even bother to think about anything, but alas, I digress.

So with those comments in mind, let me share with you the latest two examples of “date-setting” now circulating on the Internet.

Case Number 1

This case seems somewhat impressive. Why? Because it involves a pastor who claims to have examined astronomical data from NASA and compared it to the Jewish calendar and Jewish Feasts and noted a concurrence with solar and lunar eclipses in conjunction with certain key Jewish feasts between now and the year 2015. The researcher concludes that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur on one of two days on Rosh Hashanah in the year 2015 thanks in part to astronomical data he found by consulting NASA calculations.

Now what may seem appealing to some for authoritativeness is the use of NASA as an authoritative source. Of course, NASA in such a case as this does have credibility in terms of solar and lunar orbits as also Earth’s orbit. The use of NASA though really has little bearing on the validity of the assertions made by the researcher/pastor.

What I do have a problem with is the assertion that the Second Coming “MUST” occur on any certain or specific date of any given year and then making that assertion dogmatic and absolute.

I am quite familiar with the “THEORY” that The Lord Jesus Christ – MIGHT return on that particular Jewish holiday. I think the idea has merit for strong consideration; however, I refuse to give it “Absolute” and “Dogmatic” status. Instead I file it in the category of a legitimate ‘theory’ that is certainly plausible and perhaps quite likely if not most likely. Yet, I believe it is absolutely wrong to be DOGMATIC and absolute in presenting it as an absolute fact waiting to happen.

Yes, the Second Coming will happen in the future – BUT – I don’t see absolute, dogmatic proof that it must happen on this date or that date. It is important that we recognize that God can do what He chooses, on whatever date He chooses. Nowhere in scripture is it explicitly stated outright, without a shadow of doubt that the Second Coming is going to happen on any given day of a 365 or 366 day year.

Don’t send me an email objecting to my comments on this in an attempt to “straighten me out.” You’re wasting your time. I’m already quite familiar with ALL of the arguments pro and con for any given date in the Jewish festivals and of their potentially prophetic significance and or meaning. I’ve heard them all, repeatedly. I’ve studied them all and I might add, quite carefully.

My problem with such theories is that they are just that – ‘theories.’ Why do I classify them as “theories?” Because nowhere in scripture is anything stated categorically and absolutely without any potential room for negation that the Second Coming or the Rapture must occur on this feast day or that feast day. Instead, scripture and The Lord’s own words indicate that any day is possible by virtue of the fact that no day is specifically singled out categorically and without any reservation. Thus, there is not one single reason for any day or date to be thought of dogmatically and categorically without any possible doubt to be THE DAY when Jesus Christ either returns to rapture away the Church or as The Second Coming.

So with that in mind, this first case that I am mentioning is one that I object to being proposed in a dogmatic assertion.

Now allow me to provide further details here on this first case. The proponent of this case is a church pastor by the name of Mark Biltz, pastor of El Shaddai Ministries in Bonney Lake, Wash. He makes a categorical and dogmatic assertion that Jesus Christ MUST come on Rosh Hashanah of the year 2015 because it lines up with key eclipse elements which he cites in the book of Revelation and elsewhere too. He keys heavily on the idea of a “blood-red” moon lunar eclipse.

Now I have no problem with the notion that the prophetic reference to a blood-red moon is in reality a reference to a lunar eclipse. I can see that as a potential possibility. However, that does NOT mean that the text is actually referring to a lunar eclipse. It is instead an assumption based upon a given interpretation. Ah, now here we have a weak element in the theory – at least in regards to being dogmatic and absolute.

By what authority does Mr. Biltz have to make a dogmatic claim to his interpretation? By what right does he have to make a dogmatic claim based upon ‘his interpretation’ of the text? I personally think – he might be right in such an interpretation, but just because I think so, doesn’t make it an absolute fact either. I too, could be wrong, just like Mr. Biltz. The difference between my views and Biltz though, is that I’m not running around making categorically dogmatic and absolute assertions about my “interpretation” of the scriptural terms, but Biltz is making such dogmatic assertions – and this is where I draw the line.

Another aspect of this first case is that a noted prophecy ‘expert’ is propounding Mr. Biltz’s theory. This expert is none other than J.R. Church.

Now, I’ve always had great respect for J.R. Church and his ministry. I also have respect for his co-researcher and associate, Gary Stearman. I believe both men have great integrity. So it was somewhat a surprise to learn that Church and Stearman have both assisted Mr. Biltz in promoting Biltz’s theory.

It was further disconcerting to find that WorldNetDaily was also giving Biltz’s theory promotional coverage because again it was reported as if this theory was a fact instead of a theory.

Again, let me repeat that I think Mr. Biltz has a theory which seems credible for consideration, but only as a theory, not as an absolute fact waiting to happen on the date he has claimed.

What is also equally bothersome to me is the way in which Church and Stearman are apparently supporting Biltz’s claims – as if indeed it were a dogmatic fact. I base this on a quote written in the WND article which is as follows:

"If you think that this is a coincidence, I want you to know that it's time!" exclaimed Prophecy in the News host J.R. Church. "There are no more of these for the rest of the century."

Now, I don’t know about you, but if that quote is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it seems to me like J.R. Church is dogmatically asserting this theory as a fact not as a theory. Am I wrong in drawing such a conclusion about Church’s statement? Is Church not being dogmatic with those words? If not, then maybe I’m over-reacting, but if I am, I’ll bet I’m not the only one drawing such a conclusion as being dogmatic. That then is my reason for being very disappointed with J.R. Church.
Fortunately, WND did consult with Hal Lindsey who was quoted as expressing skepticism about the idea. WND states:

But Hal Lindsey, a well-known biblical analyst and author of "The Late Great Planet Earth," says while he hasn't heard of Biltz's theory, he called it "pure speculation."

I must also concur with Hal on this one, to Hal’s credit. I suspect that Hal also recognizes the danger in making such a theory, dogmatic or absolute. I do not always agree with Hal Lindsey, but I will say that Hal is very sensitive about making dogmatic assertions regarding fulfillment timing of prophetic events written in the prophetic scriptures.

WND went on to further quote Lindsey …

"In my 50-something years of studying prophecy, to me the greatest indication of the time of Christ's return is based around the general things of prophecies coming together in the same time frame."

He mentioned not only Israel's birth as a political state in 1948, but the increase in tensions with Muslims, the rise of Russia, China and the European Union, which he says is even "calling itself the revived Roman Empire."

"I see the whole sweep and panorama spinning together in a precise scenario," he said.

Again, I agree completely with Hal’s statement.

Another problem I have with Biltz’s research comes later in the WND article where he responds to criticism about knowing the day or the hour of His Return … and Biltz misinterprets the understanding and application of the “foolish virgins” parable. Biltz tries to prop up his interpretation by claiming his interpretation is based upon context, when in reality his conclusion is based outside of the written, grammatical context. Jesus comments are rather directed to those listening to Him and not to the virgins. I can only shake my head negatively in mild disgust at such an interpretive error.

Now, at the end of the WND article, J.R. Church is quoted again about this matter and this time, Church is quoted as being non-dogmatic on Biltz’s theory. WND quotes Church as saying:

Church stressed despite the information suggesting 2015 could be a pivotal time, "We don't know that that will be the concluding year of the tribulation period ... so we're not setting a date and saying this is a warning. We're introducing the possibility of a watch."

My response to that is – “if J.R. you don’t KNOW … and you’re not setting a date ... why did your earlier statement sound like date-setting?”

Perhaps, WND carelessly misquoted J.R. Church? Perhaps, J.R. was careless in his choice of words? Either way, many people could be harmed by what appears to be Church’s endorsement of someone who is making categorical, dogmatic and date-setting assertions.

I cannot bring myself to promote a theory presented by someone who makes the theory dogmatic and absolute such as Pastor Biltz.

Now, having stated this and brought this to your attention, I will say that as a theory, the data seems to be legitimate as a theory. It may well be that the year 2015 is the year of Christ’s Second Coming. There is merit for that argument, but there is NO merit in making it dogmatic and absolute.

Here is a link to the WND article. LINK.

Next Case – Case 2.

The Five Doves website has posted an article written by yet another pastor by the name of: F. M. Riley.

Pastor Riley submitted an article to the website in which he dogmatically asserts that the Rapture of the Church MUST be on the Feast of Pentecost this year. Yes, the Feast of Pentecost – of June 7/8 (depending on your time zone) will be the day that Jesus Christ will come to Rapture away the Church.

Oh yes again we have another dogmatic, absolute assertion. I have no doubt that Mr. Riley is well-meaning. Riley’s argument is based upon yet again on his interpretation of the meaning of the Jewish feasts and holidays. I find his statements about Pentecost as interesting and with some merit, but again, it is based upon his interpretation of the terms and applying the “Theory” that God must abide by these “feasts.” My point is that God doesn’t have to abide by any of these feasts unless He, God categorically and clearly enunciates it as such in the written texts. God has not done this. The feast day theories are indeed just that, theories. They may well be valid. Jesus may well come on the Feast of Pentecost and indeed He may come on this next Pentecost of 2008 – BUT – my point is that HE does NOT HAVE TO – based upon any clear, expressly written texts stating so, because there is no text clearly stating so, anywhere in scripture. There can be ‘insinuations’ but those then are subject to ‘interpretation.’

Bottom line? Again, the man’s statements contain theoretically-based merit, but not absolute, dogmatic facts for which we can absolutely rely upon.

Riley thinks this year is the year, based upon two things.

#1. This year is the 40th year since Israel re-took Jerusalem.

He apparently overlooks the fact that we’re also moving into the 60th year of Israel’s re-birth. Why he overlooks this is beyond me, because he is careful to note that the 41st year begins on June 8 so technically Jesus’ return on June 7 is still in the 40th year. One would think he’d also have noted the 60 year aspect’s equal significance.

#2. Riley’s claim that he supernaturally arrived at this understanding by being especially led by the Holy Spirit – and then notes some numerology aspects for his date of understanding.

The number 2 basis is totally spurious to the claim. Yes, maybe he was led by the Holy Spirit, but we have no proof of that based upon any particular evidence aside from the numerology aspects which to me seems to be a grasping at straws. Yet again, Pastor Riley has chosen to get exceedingly dogmatic and absolute.

The sad thing is that he may actually be right, but then again, he may also be wrong. He is only presenting a theory, and indeed it seems to be a plausible theory and one that merits consideration – IF ONLY he were not such a MORON in trying to make it out to be a dogmatic assertion when in reality it is based upon some theoretical assumptions that may or may not be valid.

You can read Pastor Riley’s article by linking here.

Some further thoughts on 2008.

I have felt for many months now that 2008 might well be a very significant year for prophetic fulfillment, perhaps even including the Rapture. I’ve also remembered however that I’ve felt similarly in 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and even 2002 as well as in the year 2000. Oddly enough, not in 2001 – until after 9-11 though, but even then, I wasn’t very inclined, but of course always ‘hopeful.’

I’ve had a long string of hopeful years to look back upon and realize that dogmatically asserting that “this is the year” is improper from a testimonial standpoint. It is one thing to be hopeful and expectant, but it’s entirely different to go running around trying to convince everyone that dogmatically – THIS IS the year for His return and removal of the Church.

2008 might well be THE YEAR – but then again – it might NOT be the year. It ALL DEPENDS ON GOD’s Timetable. God is never late on His timeline, but our calendars and clocks might well be wrong. Thank goodness His time keeping is accurate and that He is always on time.

Further Observations

I want to share with you some special thoughts concerning these two theories.

These two theories may well be correct. HOWEVER – NEITHER FELLOW IS THE FIRST TO COME TO SUCH CONCLUSIONS. They’re LATE COMERS.

I know of at least one person who had already discovered these theories as possibilities and theories but this person did not assert them dogmatically or absolutely.

This person is someone who was a contributing author to The Alpha-Omega Report and a strong supporter of the website. This person had a strong background in Biblical Chronology studies and was something of an expert on not only Biblical Chronology – but also extremely well-versed on the Jewish calendar and its feast/festival, holy days.

I am speaking of the late Deborah Fenech who went to be with the Lord just 3 days ago, on May 8, 2008. .

Deborah and I had consulted on these theories for the past couple of years. She had noted that either 2007 and or 2008 had some very critical factors in Biblical Chronology and their interaction with both the 60 year and the 40 year relationships to both 1948 and 1967. After last year’s Rosh Hashanah passed, she and I discussed the upcoming aspects of 2008 and she was especially excited about the solar and lunar eclipses she’d researched that stretched into the year 2015. She had planned to write an article on this for The A-O Report and her own website. Her deteriorating health however prevented that from occurring.

Unlike Pastors Biltz and Riley, Deborah would not be dogmatic. She did however express confidence that the interpretations had merit. I did too. We discussed this at length in several phone calls back in October, November and December of 2007 as she continued to double check her research.

My next to last phone conversation with her in March involved a looking forward to what might happen in either May (Israel’s Independence Day) or Pentecost, because she already suspected her battle with cancer was near an end, but she’d hoped her body could hold out until His Return for the church so that she could go home – “THE FUN WAY” as she liked to think of the Rapture. It’s not that she was afraid of death, but she really would have liked to remain until His Return so that her family would not have to sorrow (particularly her very young grandchildren) at her early departure.

I mention this primarily to underscore how much of a role Deborah held with The Alpha-Omega Report website.

Some A-O readers have emailed me expressing condolences to me at the news of Deborah’s departure as if it were simply a loss for myself. They failed to realize that the loss is really extended to the website and to them and to you also.

My reason for setting aside and noting Deborah’s passing is because she was a contributing author to A-O. Her articles should have value for every A-O reader who reads her writings here or on her website:

www.promiseofhiscoming.com

You as an A-O reader will no longer have available to you, the fresh insights from her extensive research. Had her health been good, there would have been many more articles by her posted to the A-O website that would have no doubt been of benefit to you. She also served A-O readers by being a special research resource to me for different aspects to articles that I’ve written. Let me also give you another example of her role with A-O.

In the above cited dating-theory cases, had she been able and not burdened by her illness, she would have written this critique-article and she would probably have done a better job than myself in pointing out the merits and demerits of these two date-setting theories. She too, would have pointed out the error in dogmatism regarding timing issues in prophecy, especially on His Return.

Even if Deborah had not being able to write, had her mental faculties held on for another few weeks, I would have at least had her insights shared by phone to pass along to A-O readers for this article. This chronology business, especially as it pertains to prophecy was, after all, her forte, a gift given to her by the Lord. I only hope that now having explained more about Deborah, you who are long-time readers of this website will also appreciate all that she did in serving you, her fellow believers both here at A-O and on her own website and elsewhere in person.