Olivet Discourse revisited

[Randy Kluth]

Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; Daniel 9:26

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and all of you would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him in order to show him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them, See all of you 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." (Daniel 9:26-27; Matthew 23:37-24: 2).

The chapter divisions and verse numbers in the Bible were only inserted into the text in 1227 A.D.

In Matthew's gospel, the subject of the destruction of the city and temple and the woe to come upon the scribes and Pharisees, begins in Matthew 23:13, and continues until Matthew 24:2. Jesus was standing in the temple courtyard when He said these things, speaking to the scribes and Pharisees about the coming destruction of the city and the temple.

Then He came out of the temple, and once outside, His disciples famously pointed out the magnificence of the temple buildings (that Jesus had just told the scribes and Pharisees was going to be destroyed). Matthew 24:1-2 records the fact that when Jesus came out of the temple, He repeated to His disciples what He had just told the Pharisees - and this agrees with what Daniel 9:26-27 said about the destruction of both the city and sanctuary after the coming of the Messiah.

NEW LOCATION, NEW AUDIENCE, NEW CONTEXT

Then Jesus walked down the mountain, and crossed through the Kidron Valley to the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple Mount, walked to the top, and sat down on the Mount of Olives. His audience was now lo longer the scribes and Pharisees, but His disciples.

Once having reached the top of the Mount of Olives on the same day, the disciples asked Him:

1. When the destruction of the temple would come; and
2. What would be the sign of His return and of the end of the Age.

First thing Jesus mentions after birth-pains is the saints being delivered up to tribulation and killed and being hated of all nations for His name's sake, and the gospel being preached in all the world as a witness to all nations.

Then, in Matthew 24:15, He mentions a different abomination to the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27.

The type of this other abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Mat 24:15) was the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place written about in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11, which was placed in the holy place by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but did not result in the destruction either of the city or of the sanctuary. The antitype of will likewise not result in the destruction of the city (New Jerusalem or the bride of Christ) or the sanctuary (God's New Testament Temple).

2 Thessalonians 2:4 tells us more because the first is the type of the last.

What is written in Matthew 24:15-51 relates to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus that Jesus began to speak about in Matthew 24:9. The location where Jesus gave this sermon, His audience, and the context, as well as the words "and, but, because, therefore, for" etc which join the whole passage together from verse Matthew 24:9 should make this obvious (unfortunately many saints choose to ignore the grammar and the context and the audience).

What is written in Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2 relates to what Jesus told the Pharisees about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Matthew 23. It's the same as what is written in Luke 21:20-24, where Luke 21:23 specifically mentions that event as a time of great distress and wrath - not tribulation - coming upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

But the persecution of the saints and their deliverance at the end of the age mentioned in Luke 21:12-19 & 27-28 is also mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31.

In Matthew 24:3 Jesus is in a different location and speaking to a different audience than He was in Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2. There are no chapter divisions or verse numbers in the original text so we need to look at location, audience, and context. In Matthew 24:15 the context is tribulation - the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus. Mat 24:15 has nothing to do with the Jerusalem temple. The holy place is the New Testament temple, i.e the church.

Occam's Razor is my approach. No need to cut everything up into bits and arrange them to fit a preconceived notion. It makes sense in the most simple way simply by reading it. But I'll address your points of distinction, and you decide?

Yes, Jesus addressed the Pharisees in the temple area. Yes, Jesus told them Jerusalem would be savaged. And as Jesus was leaving the temple, the Disciples remarked about the beauty of the temple, to which Jesus responded by saying it would soon be destroyed. The Mt. of Olives is just a short distance away--I've walked it. It's nothing like a day's journey!

So the question immediately arises in the minds of the Disciples: how can this beautiful temple of God be destroyed when it had been both destroyed and restored many years earlier, in the restoration from Babylon? The Disciples surely knew of the Abrahamic Covenant, that Israel would be God's people forever, and that in the time of Messiah they would be saved evermore?

But Jesus, drawing upon Dan 9, knew the message that had been given to Daniel. 70 Weeks (of years) following the restoration from Babylon the city of Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed again. It would be destroyed by an army, the people of the prince to come, who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary." The Messiah himself would be cut off before this happens.

And so, Jesus was telling his Disciples he had not come to immediately save Israel, nor to spare the temple. The corruption in Israel was so rampant that the covenant of Law was broken, and as a result the people would be exiled.

This punishment to come upon the Jews for their intransigence and sin was the direct cause of this destruction of the city and the sanctuary. Jesus informed the Pharisees that they were responsible, along with the people who followed their hypocrisy. The believers who followed Jesus were not the object of this judgment, but they too would suffer tribulation. Their tribulation would consist of persecution by their unbelieving Jewish brethren, as well as dislocation with the Roman judgment comes.

In all, we can call the entire affair "God's Wrath against the Jewish People." And it is Great Tribulation they would all suffer, both believers and unbelievers. This is a prophecy directed towards Israel specifically, and not meant to address all Christians in all nations. But all Christians everywhere can learn from the episode in the life of Israel.

I would add to this that language mentioning the "Abomination of Desolation" is given in two separate passages, one focused on Antiochus 4 and the other here in Dan 9, where the Roman Army comes against Jerusalem and the temple to destroy them. They are the same idea given in two very different contexts.

We may ask why is the same language used for both Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army? I can only speculate that this whole period has to do with bringing Israel's sin to its full, along with the accompanying judgments. The "desolation" was the beginning of the end for Judaism in the OT era. Antiochus 4 threatened to destroy the Jewish religion by requiring Hellenistic practices of paganism and idolatry. The Romans aimed to remove the temple entirely, to replace it with Roman paganism.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus didn't say "God's wrath"

But he did! It really depends on your translation, but the synonym for "wrath" is there!
Luke 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

and most of what he said was to happen to Christians:

The sins of unbelieving Jews committed against believing Jews is part of the sin that was bringing down upon the nation God's wrath! Speaking of the sins that cause the wrath and speaking of the wrath itself are complementary expressions of the same time period. Speaking of the persecution of Christian Jews, and speaking of God's wrath poured out upon Israel for persecuting Christians are complementary issues.

This particular discourse was spoken to Israel while the Law was still in effect, as it was in the process of being irrevocably broken, but prior to inception of the New Covenant. And so, Israel was front and center in this prophecy.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Here it clearly states that God's wrath has come (arrives) after the 7th trump sounds. Clearly God's wrath hadn't been coming for a long time before this or else the statement would be meaningless.

Well yes, of course. God's wrath is poured out on corrupt nations in history, when God's patience is at an end. But it also takes place at the end of the age, when all nations are gathered together in opposition to the Christian Gospel. These are not contradictory concepts. God's wrath took place against Israel in 70 AD and continues as a punishment upon the Jewish People until they repent. Meanwhile, a remnant of Jews do repent and take their place in the Christian Church.

Ultimately, I believe the wicked will be purged from Israel, at Armageddon. And Israel will be restored as a godly people, turning to Jesus, their Messiah. Can nations turn to Christianity? Of course. If many European and other nations have done this in the past, and they have, Israel can certainly be the last to do this!

 

[ewq1938]

But he did! It really depends on your translation, but the synonym for "wrath" is there!
Luke 21.22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

Still don't see "God's wrath".

This particular discourse was spoken to Israel while the Law was still in effect

It was not spoken to Israel. It was spoken to Christians, the ones who were there and who would read it later.

And Israel will be restored as a godly people, turning to Jesus, their Messiah.

Israel has already been restored anew in every saved Christian. The unsaved, rejectors of Christ will not be "restored".

Can nations turn to Christianity? Of course. If many European and other nations have done this in the past, and they have, Israel can certainly be the last to do this!

There is nothing in prophecy about that happening. Individuals come to and go away from Christ but this is not true of whole nations.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Still don't see "God's wrath".

I don't know how you can avoid it? That's what it says. "Wrath against God's people, the Jews" is how I would paraphrase it. It was a "punishment." How can anybody say this was not directed at the Israeli nation?

It was not spoken to Israel. It was spoken to Christians, the ones who were there and who would read it later.

Yes, it was spoken to believing Jews, but it was spoken about the nation Israel. In the OT one can see God direct certain prophecies at certain nations, and not just to all nations at once. In this case, the prophecy is directed primarily at the nation Israel.

Israel has already been restored anew in every saved Christian. The unsaved, rejectors of Christ will not be "restored".

I agree that the unsaved who reject Christ permanently will never be restored. That's a truism--if they reject Christ, Christ will reject them. But sinners can be restored, and have been restored. God's mercy extends to both pagans and backslidden Christians. The only requirement is repentance and application to Christ's mercy. Choosing his righteousness is what saves us. Our flawed record will only condemn us.

Israel has *not* been restored yet. In Acts 1 that question was asked, When will Israel be restored. There was an association of that event with Christ's return.

Acts 1.6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

There is nothing in prophecy about that happening. Individuals come to and go away from Christ but this is not true of whole nations.

God began His program of world redemption by choosing a nation, Israel. God has not changed His ways. He wants to save not just individuals but societies, so that people are treated fairly. He has promised Abraham nations of faith. My opinion.

 

[ewq1938]

I don't know how you can avoid it? That's what it says. "Wrath against God's people, the Jews" is how I would paraphrase it. It was a "punishment." How can anybody say this was not directed at the Israeli nation?

God's wrath comes after the GT is over. That is when the faithless in Israel shall have God's wrath, Rev 11.

Yes, it was spoken to believing Jews, but it was spoken about the nation Israel. In the OT one can see God direct certain prophecies at certain nations, and not just to all nations at once. In this case, the prophecy is directed primarily at the nation Israel.

Only one verse is and it doesn't happen during the GT. 99 percent of the text is speaking about the persecution Christians will face.

Israel has *not* been restored yet.

It has been through faith in Christ. Isreal is the olive tree with natural branches and grafted olive branches. The faithless of natural Israel were removed. Israel is thus fully intact and thriving in Christ. There is no plan to "restore" the faithless branches. They can on an individual basis accept Christ and be grafted back but there is nothing in the bible about them all accepting Christ. That is not going to happen. For many many generations the majority have died rejecting Christ. The majority will still be rejecting him when he returns.

 

[Zao is life]

It makes sense in the most simple way simply by reading it.

Which is the way I showed above - not ignoring:

1. Not ignoring the change of subject on the part of Jesus from the destruction of the temple to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus.
2. Not ignoring the change of location from where He spoke about the destruction of the temple to where He spoke about the tribulation of the disciples.
3. Not ignoring the change in His audience from the scribes and Pharisees whom He told in the temple about the destruction of the temple, to His disciples on the Mount of Olives to whom He was telling of their coming tribulation at the hands of all nations for His name's sake.
4. Not ignoring the fact that the words "and, therefore, but, for, and therefore" join the passage into one discourse about one and the same thing from Mat 24:9 onward.

You ignore all of the above, then claim you are offering "the most simple way of reading it".

So the question immediately arises in the minds of the Disciples: how can this beautiful temple of God be destroyed when it had been both destroyed and restored many years earlier, in the restoration from Babylon?

So you're a mind-reader, and your claim above implies that they did not believe Him, yet their question shows that they did.

They may have been (and probably were) shocked that their interpretation of the prophecies about the temple being exalted above the hills so that all nations would stream to it, was wrong, just as they were probably shocked that the Messiah was not to be this triumphant king they had been expecting who would destroy the Jews' enemies but would instead be betrayed by the Jews and killed, and rise again on the third day.

But you have told yourself that they did not believe Him, questioning how these things could be in their minds. Yet their question shows that they did believe Him, and wanted to know when these things would be, what would be the sign that they were about to happen, and what would be the sign of His coming in glory at the end of the age.

The Disciples surely knew of the Abrahamic Covenant, that Israel would be God's people forever, and that in the time of Messiah they would be saved evermore?

Probably, almost certainly, but you're doing a lot of mind-reading about what might have been turning around in their minds - mind-reading which you cannot back up with scripture, because the text does not say what they were thinking.

The text only says what they asked Jesus on the Mount of Olives and what His reply was, and by their question it is obvious that no matter whether or not they were confused, they believed what He said.

What they were thinking is besides the point. There is no doubt they believed what He started telling them on the Mount of Olives about their coming tribulation at the hand of the nations also. They asked Him two questions, but you ignore the other question as though they never even asked it, and as though He never even replied to it.

The simple reading of the text is the best and only proper reading, but this involves not ignoring all the things you ignore (which you ignore because of your need for your own desired outcomes-based interpretation).

But Jesus, drawing upon Dan 9, knew the message that had been given to Daniel. 70 Weeks (of years) following the restoration from Babylon the city of Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed again.

It would be destroyed by an army, the people of the prince to come, who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary." The Messiah himself would be cut off before this happens.

And so, Jesus was telling his Disciples he had not come to immediately save Israel, nor to spare the temple .. etc etc etc

None of which should cause you or anyone else to ignore the fact that Jesus was telling the Pharisees about the destruction of the temple while He was in the temple, repeated to His disciples what He had just told the scribes and Pharisees when He came out the temple, and then told them about their coming tribulation at the hand of the nations and their redemption from it when He was seated on the Mount of Olives.

You're mixing facts and ignoring other facts which are pertinent to what Jesus foretold.

In all, we can call the entire affair "God's Wrath against the Jewish People." And it is Great Tribulation they would all suffer, both believers and unbelievers.

You have just shown how completely you conflate Jesus talking to the disciples about their tribulation at the hand of the (Gentile) nations and their redemption from it, with the great distress (anangke) Jesus said that the inhabitants of Jerusalem would suffer when the wrath (orge) of God comes upon the city at the hand of the Roman armies,

and then you call the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus - that Jesus told them they would suffer at the hand of all nations when the gospel has been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations - "God's wrath against the Jewish people".

And once having ignored the context, locations, subjects and audience for your desired outcomes-based interpretation of the OD, then you say:

This is a prophecy directed towards Israel specifically, and not meant to address all Christians in all nations. But all Christians everywhere can learn from the episode in the life of Israel.

It's patently obvious that until you start acknowledging that there is a difference between Jesus talking to the scribes and Pharisees - in the temple - about the coming destruction of their temple, and Jesus talking to His disciples about their coming tribulation at the hands of all nations - while He was seated with them on the Mount of Olives -

and until you stop ignoring all the facts that you are ignoring,

you will never be offering an exegesis of the OD, but will continue with your eisegesis.

I would add to this that

Yes, you do a lot of adding to the scriptures when it comes to Jesus' OD. It's noticeable.

The destruction of the temple was prophesied by Daniel in Daniel 9:26-27, and Jesus was merely confirming what Daniel prophesied to the scribes and Pharisees in the temple, beginning with pronouncing woe upon them from Mat 23:13 onward, and repeating what He had just told the scribes and Pharisees in the temple, to His disciples in Mat 24:1-2, the moment He came out of the temple.

Matthew 24:3 onward is a completely new and different location, audience, and subject. It's written like that. In your mind you have completely rearranged everything in the passage to fit your belief that it's only referring to the Jerusalem temple, and no other, and to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and nothing else.

The abomination of desolation that does not cause the destruction of either city or temple is also prophesied about by Daniel in Daniel Chapter 12, where Antiochus IV's actions are ascribed to another such 'Antichrist' personality at the time of the end - the time of the end of our age.

We may ask why is the same language used for both Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army? I can only speculate that this ..

Speculation does not suffice when you are offering an interpretation of the OD. Not ignoring facts is the start of a correct exegesis about any passage.

 

[Randy Kluth]

God's wrath comes after the GT is over. That is when the faithless in Israel shall have God's wrath, Rev 11.

Yesterday you said, "Jesus didn't say "God's wrath" and most of what he said was to happen to Christians." Then I quoted the verse for you where it does say "wrath," which obviously is coming from God. Then you said you still don't see it. Now you admit it is there. Why is it you couldn't see it when I spelled it out in this passage?...

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

My point is not to insult you, because we can all make mistakes. And I commend you for now admitting you missed it, although how apologetic you are remains to be seen. But my concern is that you've doubled down on something without taking any notice that I presented, clearly, a legitimate challenge to your claim that this hardly has a thing to do with Jewish punishment, and indicates the "Great Tribulation" is primarily about the persecution of Christians.

You've used the argument that this must be about the persecution of Christians because Jesus was talking to his Disciples, who were Christians. What makes you think Jesus can't talk to his Disciples about unbelieving Jews, about the fact the majority of the nation have apostasized against the truth and are about to be judged?

And if you skip over words like "punishment" and "wrath" so easily, in order to maintain your positions, perhaps you are willfully ignoring the theme of this entire Discourse? Though some here deny it, this is a single motif, from the temple in Jerusalem, to the Mount of Olives outside of the city--the temple will be completely demolished. This Jesus said was *Jewish punishment,* which would result in an age-long Jewish Diaspora. How then can anybody escape the idea that this "Great Tribulation," though impacting Christians, is designed as a punishment for the Jewish People?

Only one verse is and it doesn't happen during the GT. 99 percent of the text is speaking about the persecution Christians will face.

It has been through faith in Christ. Isreal is the olive tree with natural branches and grafted olive branches. The faithless of natural Israel were removed. Israel is thus fully intact and thriving in Christ. There is no plan to "restore" the faithless branches. They can on an individual basis accept Christ and be grafted back but there is nothing in the bible about them all accepting Christ. That is not going to happen. For many many generations the majority have died rejecting Christ. The majority will still be rejecting him when he returns.

Jesus' Disciples certainly thought Israel would be restored when they asked Jesus this....
Acts 1.6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

I recognize that for most of the past two millennia there has been a deemphasis in the Christian Church on the idea that Israel will be restored as a godly nation. This has been the time of outreach to the nations while the Jewish People have largely chosen to remain "in the OT era."

I don't fault Christians for wanting to focus on where there mission can be successful, and not on where it will not be successful. But in these days I think it would do us well to rethink our position on this and recognize that nations do fall and they do rise again.

I'm not talking about the Christian regeneration of every individual Jew--I'm just talking about the idea that ignorant Jews can be brought back to reconsider the claims of Jesus, and that at Jesus' Coming the rebellious deceivers among them will be wiped out, allowing the ignorant majority to come to their senses and recognize the revelation they've missed for so many generations.

 

[ewq1938]

Yesterday you said, "Jesus didn't say "God's wrath" and most of what he said was to happen to Christians." Then I quoted the verse for you where it does say "wrath," which obviously is coming from God.

Rev 12 speaks of satan's wrath, and the 5th trump speaks of people without the seal of god being harmed. So before and during the GT it's satan;'s wrath. God's wrath comes after the GT.

Then you said you still don't see it. Now you admit it is there.

None of that ever took place.

My point is not to insult you, because we can all make mistakes. And I commend you for now admitting you missed it, although how apologetic you are remains to be seen.

I didn't miss anything. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else.

But my concern is that you've doubled down on something without taking any notice that I presented, clearly, a legitimate challenge to your claim that this hardly has a thing to do with Jewish punishment, and indicates the "Great Tribulation" is primarily about the persecution of Christians.

That's what the text presents in the OD, as well as corresponding chapters of Rev. The GT is about Christians being persecuted.

You've used the argument that this must be about the persecution of Christians because Jesus was talking to his Disciples, who were Christians. What makes you think Jesus can't talk to his Disciples about unbelieving Jews, about the fact the majority of the nation have apostasized against the truth and are about to be judged?

Because he speaks about Christians being persecuted! I never based my belief on the one fact of who his present audience was. Who he spoke about being persecuted is the main and strongest evidence.

Though some here deny it, this is a single motif, from the temple in Jerusalem, to the Mount of Olives outside of the city--the temple will be completely demolished. This Jesus said was *Jewish punishment,* which would result in an age-long Jewish Diaspora. How then can anybody escape the idea that this "Great Tribulation," though impacting Christians, is designed as a punishment for the Jewish People?

Because the destruction of the temple was spoken before the OD was and is a separate prophecy that is unrelated to the OD events.

I'm not talking about the Christian regeneration of every individual Jew--I'm just talking about the idea that ignorant Jews can be brought back to reconsider the claims of Jesus, and that at Jesus' Coming the rebellious deceivers among them will be wiped out, allowing the ignorant majority to come to their senses and recognize the revelation they've missed for so many generations.

If that is something that is going to happen, there would be prophecy about it. Scripture is silent on such a thing happening. There is nothing at all about a majority of the practitioners of Judaism suddenly abandoning their beliefs and accepting Jesus as Messiah.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Rev 12 speaks of satan's wrath, and the 5th trump speaks of people without the seal of god being harmed. So before and during the GT it's satan;'s wrath. God's wrath comes after the GT.

I understand your argument. I agree there is a difference between "Satan's wrath" in the time of Antichrist and "God's Wrath" at the end of the age. But this wasn't the point I was making. I was referring to Jesus' use of the word "wrath" in the Olivet Discourse, specifically in Luke 21.20-24, which you said wasn't there.

None of that ever took place.

I said the word "wrath" was in Luke 21.20-24, and it was indeed there. You even seemed to admit it, but am now trying to change the argument over to something else.

I was arguing that the word "wrath" is in these verses because Jesus clearly identified this "wrath" with a "punishment" of the Jewish People. It is clearly "there" and did take place. That "punishment" began, as Jesus said, with a complete destruction of the temple, which you even admitted was predicted by Jesus in the temple area, though you call that a different conversation.

But my point is that this is *not* a different conversation, but the same one. The Gospel authors present all this information as a single Discourse, regardless of where it began and where it ended. Saying the temple would be destroyed, and then later calling it "God's wrath" and a "Jewish Punishment" mark the conversation as a single coherent whole.

I didn't miss anything. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else.

Perhaps you're forgetful or mistaken. You're not only trying to circumnavigate your admission that "wrath" is mentioned in this discourse, but now you're trying to be sly, apparently.

That's what the text presents in the OD, as well as corresponding chapters of Rev. The GT is about Christians being persecuted.

Because he speaks about Christians being persecuted! I never based my belief on the one fact of who his present audience was. Who he spoke about being persecuted is the main and strongest evidence.

You said this in post #143:
"It was not spoken to Israel. It was spoken to Christians, the ones who were there and who would read it later."

So, you did indeed speak about who Jesus' present audience was.

If that is something that is going to happen, there would be prophecy about it. Scripture is silent on such a thing happening. There is nothing at all about a majority of the practitioners of Judaism suddenly abandoning their beliefs and accepting Jesus as Messiah.

The Old Prophets are chalk full of prophecies of Israel's "final restoration." Acts 1.6-7 indicates this perspective did not change among Jesus' Disciples in the NT era.

 

[Keraz]

The Old Prophets are chalk full of prophecies of Israel's "final restoration."

Which Israel?
The House of Israel, sent into exile by the Assyrians and still scattered around the world, or the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel ?

Jesus came to save the House of Israel, Matthew 15:24 If it is believed that The Jews represent all of Israel, then Jesus failed in His mission and other peoples grabbed the Salvation on offer. Namely the Christians from every tribe, race nation and language, the Church today.
Note; Rev 7:9 mentions 'from every tribe', that is: every tribe of Israel, as the Jews just represent only Judah and Benjamin. Some from other tribes did join Judah and were assimilated. But the majority remain in exile, soon to be over. Ezekiel 36:16-38

As for Jewish Israel, there are over 20 Prophesies that clearly state, they will be virtually destroyed and only a remnant will survive.
Jesus said this about the Jews: The Kingdom is taken from you and those born into kingdom, will be thrown out into the dark.

It is believers in the unbiblical and pretentious idea of a 'rapture to heaven', who have to hold to a Jewish redemption, so they can sit on the clouds and watch the Jews get tribulation. Why do you believe such nonsense?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Which Israel?
The House of Israel, sent into exile by the Assyrians and still scattered around the world, or the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel ?

The Jewish People, descended from ancient times.

Jesus came to save the House of Israel, Matthew 15:24 If it is believed that The Jews represent all of Israel, then Jesus failed in His mission and other peoples grabbed the Salvation on offer. Namely the Christians from every tribe, race nation and language, the Church today.
Note; Rev 7:9 mentions 'from every tribe', that is: every tribe of Israel, as the Jews just represent only Judah and Benjamin. Some from other tribes did join Judah and were assimilated. But the majority remain in exile, soon to be over. Ezekiel 36:16-38

We've had this discussion before. When the Kingdom of Israel divided from the Kingdom of Judah, they split up the prophesied and promised single nation of Israel. God promised Abraham one nation of Israel--not two.

So when this division took place, true worship required worship by all 12 tribes at Jerusalem in the region of Judah. Those who apostacized worshiped in two major places in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. But this was idolatry and rebellion against the Lord.

True worshippers in the Northern Kingdom of Israel went south 3 times a year to worship God, as required. Or, they ultimately moved there.

And so, the Kingdom of Judah eventually encompassed all 12 tribes, including worshippers from all 12 tribes who properly wanted to worship God 3 times a year in Jerusalem. When Israel and Judah went into captivity, the restoration was a restoration of the region of Judah, because that's where true worshippers went to worship God in Jerusalem. The people came to be called "Jews" after the tribe of Judah, but they encompassed people from all 12 tribes--not just from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

Since the Northern Kingdom of Israel consisted of idolators and rebels, God sent them into captivity, with most of them disappearing from history. Those who remained in exile and returned, did so as part of the Jewish People living there after the Restoration. Those lost in exile are lost forever because they had permanently given upon their commitment to God's Covenant.

As for Jewish Israel, there are over 20 Prophesies that clearly state, they will be virtually destroyed and only a remnant will survive.
Jesus said this about the Jews: The Kingdom is taken from you and those born into kingdom, will be thrown out into the dark.

There are prophesies of only a remnant returning after captivity because that is exactly what happened. But the remnant that survived and returned ultimately became a full nation again. That has always been the promise, that even though a small remnant survives a judgment, the nation will be rebuilt.

It is believers in the unbiblical and pretentious idea of a 'rapture to heaven', who have to hold to a Jewish redemption, so they can sit on the clouds and watch the Jews get tribulation. Why do you believe such nonsense?

I'm not a Dispensationalist. Although I believe in a restoration of the nation Israel to Christianity, I do not believe Israel is any more "special" than any other Christian nation restored in the Millennium. The Jewish Restoration does *not* take place in the Tribulation Period! ;)

 

[ewq1938]

I understand your argument. I agree there is a difference between "Satan's wrath" in the time of Antichrist and "God's Wrath" at the end of the age. But this wasn't the point I was making. I was referring to Jesus' use of the word "wrath" in the Olivet Discourse, specifically in Luke 21.20-24, which you said wasn't there.

I said no such thing.

I said the word "wrath" was in Luke 21.20-24, and it was indeed there. You even seemed to admit it, but am now trying to change the argument over to something else.

I said it doesn't say "God's wrath" not that "wrath" isn't there.

I was arguing that the word "wrath" is in these verses because Jesus clearly identified this "wrath" with a "punishment" of the Jewish People. It is clearly "there" and did take place. That "punishment" began, as Jesus said, with a complete destruction of the temple, which you even admitted was predicted by Jesus in the temple area, though you call that a different conversation.

It was a different conversation.

But my point is that this is *not* a different conversation, but the same one. The Gospel authors present all this information as a single Discourse, regardless of where it began and where it ended. Saying the temple would be destroyed, and then later calling it "God's wrath" and a "Jewish Punishment" mark the conversation as a single coherent whole.

Jesus did not mention the temple a single time in the OD. Why? Because what he did say about the temple was not spoken on the mount, and was done and complete and did not need to be revisited. There are prophecies of the near future and some of the distant future.

The Old Prophets are chalk full of prophecies of Israel's "final restoration." Acts 1.6-7 indicates this perspective did not change among Jesus' Disciples in the NT era.

This has been done in Christ through being born again. That is the NT Israel. Any natural branches that reject being born again are no longer a part of Israel and no, they won't be restored as a whole group. They will join other unbelievers in the wrath of God and final judgment and punishment.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Scripture below teaches (The Beast) and (The False Prophet) will be (Alive) and cast into the lake of fire (Living)

Revelation 1920KJV
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Daniel 7:10-11 below is in perfect agreement with John's interpretation, (The Beast) will have a living body that is destroyed at the future second coming and final judgment

Daniel 7:10-11KJV
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

Conclusion: Your reformed preterist claims that (The Beast) is a (Spirit) that has been present for the past 2,000 years is "False"!

Revelation 17:8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

As of the time John wrote the book of Revelation he said the beast "once was". So, tell me what the beast "was" before John wrote the book. If it's a man, how old is he at this point? He'd have to be at least 2,000 years old or so by now. You think that makes more sense than what you are arguing against? Hardly.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Contextually the great trib Christ spoke of was a time of persecution of Christians during the same time the Beast would reign (usually called the AC). It was never a Jewish tribulation (Judaism).


The Olivet Discourse (Matthew):

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

False Christ's are warned about.

Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

These are Christians being delivered up not Jews. Hated because of Christ's name! This proves that Christ is talking about Christians when he says "you". He was also speaking to his Christian disciples.


Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.


The gospel of the kingdom is about Christ and is delivered by Christians.


Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, ( whoso readeth, let him understand: )

"Ye" are Christians.

So, the AoD is going to affect "all the world" and Christians are the targets! Christians are persecuted and murdered for the testimony of Christ and because they carry his name.

If it was supposed to affect "all the world" then why did Jesus only say that people in Judea needed to flee to the mountains when seeing that it was at hand? Why didn't He say that people everywhere would need to flee at that point if would affect the entire world?

Jesus very specifically told the disciples that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and they asked Him two questions in response, according to Matthew 24. The first question they asked was in regards to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings and the second one was in regards to the timing of His coming and the end of the age. So, where do you think He answered the question regarding the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; Daniel 9:26

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and all of you would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him in order to show him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them, See all of you 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." (Daniel 9:26-27; Matthew 23:37-24: 2).

The chapter divisions and verse numbers in the Bible were only inserted into the text in 1227 A.D.

In Matthew's gospel, the subject of the destruction of the city and temple and the woe to come upon the scribes and Pharisees, begins in Matthew 23:13, and continues until Matthew 24:2. Jesus was standing in the temple courtyard when He said these things, speaking to the scribes and Pharisees about the coming destruction of the city and the temple.

Then He came out of the temple, and once outside, His disciples famously pointed out the magnificence of the temple buildings (that Jesus had just told the scribes and Pharisees was going to be destroyed). Matthew 24:1-2 records the fact that when Jesus came out of the temple, He repeated to His disciples what He had just told the Pharisees - and this agrees with what Daniel 9:26-27 said about the destruction of both the city and sanctuary after the coming of the Messiah.

NEW LOCATION, NEW AUDIENCE, NEW CONTEXT

Then Jesus walked down the mountain, and crossed through the Kidron Valley to the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple Mount, walked to the top, and sat down on the Mount of Olives. His audience was now lo longer the scribes and Pharisees, but His disciples.

Once having reached the top of the Mount of Olives on the same day, the disciples asked Him:

1. When the destruction of the temple would come; and
2. What would be the sign of His return and of the end of the Age.

First thing Jesus mentions after birth-pains is the saints being delivered up to tribulation and killed and being hated of all nations for His name's sake, and the gospel being preached in all the world as a witness to all nations.

Then, in Matthew 24:15, He mentions a different abomination to the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27.

The type of this other abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Mat 24:15) was the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place written about in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11, which was placed in the holy place by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but did not result in the destruction either of the city or of the sanctuary. The antitype of will likewise not result in the destruction of the city (New Jerusalem or the bride of Christ) or the sanctuary (God's New Testament Temple).

2 Thessalonians 2:4 tells us more because the first is the type of the last.

What is written in Matthew 24:15-51 relates to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus that Jesus began to speak about in Matthew 24:9. The location where Jesus gave this sermon, His audience, and the context, as well as the words "and, but, because, therefore, for" etc which join the whole passage together from verse Matthew 24:9 should make this obvious (unfortunately many saints choose to ignore the grammar and the context and the audience).

What is written in Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2 relates to what Jesus told the Pharisees about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Matthew 23. It's the same as what is written in Luke 21:20-24, where Luke 21:23 specifically mentions that event as a time of great distress and wrath - not tribulation - coming upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

But the persecution of the saints and their deliverance at the end of the age mentioned in Luke 21:12-19 & 27-28 is also mentioned in Matthew 24:9-31.

In Matthew 24:3 Jesus is in a different location and speaking to a different audience than He was in Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2. There are no chapter divisions or verse numbers in the original text so we need to look at location, audience, and context. In Matthew 24:15 the context is tribulation - the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus. Mat 24:15 has nothing to do with the Jerusalem temple. The holy place is the New Testament temple, i.e the church.

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of what you said here. Let's look at Matthew 24:1-3.

Matthew 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” 3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

You seem (emphasis on the word "seem" here since what you said was hard to follow) to be trying to claim that the disciples in verse 3 are entirely different disciples than those referenced in verses 1-2? If so, I completely disagree and don't know what the basis is for that reasoning.

You seem to be saying that the question the disciples asked in verse 3 has nothing to do with what had been talked about in Matthew 24:1-2? If so, I again completely disagree and have no idea of how you come to that conclusion. The disciples were clearly referring to something that had previously been talked about when they came up to Jesus and asked "When will this happen?". What else could they have been referring to except what they had last talked to Him about, which was the destruction of the temple buildings? You think they were referring to something else that was discussed before that? I don't understand your reasoning here at all. It's clear to me that they were asking Him when the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed. And He did answer that question. But, it wasn't the only question they asked.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Still don't see "God's wrath".

You don't see God's wrath in the following passage?

Luke 21:20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Notice that it's "the time of punishment". That's a clear reference to unbelievers being punished. Who punishes unbelievers except for God? And then it talks about "wrath against this people". God's wrath.

The following passage is talking about the same thing as Luke 21:20-24. Do you not see the following as referring to God's wrath?

Luke 19:41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

I said no such thing.

I said it doesn't say "God's wrath" not that "wrath" isn't there.

It was a different conversation.

Jesus did not mention the temple a single time in the OD. Why? Because what he did say about the temple was not spoken on the mount, and was done and complete and did not need to be revisited. There are prophecies of the near future and some of the distant future.

This has been done in Christ through being born again. That is the NT Israel. Any natural branches that reject being born again are no longer a part of Israel and no, they won't be restored as a whole group. They will join other unbelievers in the wrath of God and final judgment and punishment.

I thought you were trying to say the word "wrath" isn't in Luke 21.20-24, and so what you're trying to say is that the words "God's wrath" isn't there? Got you--didn't see that coming. But I would argue that it is God's wrath being spoken of. Why else would Luke frame it as a "punishment" for the Jewish People?

What I was initially trying to argue is that the word "wrath" is there, and I just assumed everybody would recognize that it is God's wrath being spoken of. Amazing! So you think this was Satan's wrath afflicting not the Jewish People, but Christians everywhere, or perhaps in the endtimes?

 

[Truth7t7]

Revelation 17:8 The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come.

As of the time John wrote the book of Revelation he said the beast "once was". So, tell me what the beast "was" before John wrote the book. If it's a man, how old is he at this point? He'd have to be at least 2,000 years old or so by now. You think that makes more sense than what you are arguing against? Hardly.

The scripture below clearly teaches the kings below were/are humans, five have died, one was living at the time of John's writing, the 7th hasn't come , and the 8th human king will be the "Future" (The Beast) who will be destroyed at the Lord's return and be cast into perdition-lake of fire

(Five Are Fallen) = Human Kings That Died

The Beast Is Of The (7) Human Kings Described, A Human "Man"

Revelation 17:8KJV
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

 

[ewq1938]

I thought you were trying to say the word "wrath" isn't in Luke 21.20-24, and so what you're trying to say is that the words "God's wrath" isn't there? Got you--didn't see that coming.

Ok, but I did write "God's wrath" more than once...

But I would argue that it is God's wrath being spoken of. Why else would Luke frame it as a "punishment" for the Jewish People?

Like I said, any wrath during the GT is not from God since his wrath comes after the GT has ended. Luke also didn't say "Jewish people" in the text. You are seeing things in the text that aren't actually there. You see "Wrath" and think you see "God's wrath" and there is "people" and you think you see "Jewish people".


Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Luk 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Luk 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


Who is this people? Matthew makes it clearer:

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Mat 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Who is he talking to before him? His Christian disciples. No non-Christians are there.
The writer even makes mention of the readers, and that is US!

The wrath during the GT is from satan against the Christian elect.

Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 13 is the GT, and satan will make war against "the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" who are Christians, the same ones being killed in Matthew 24:9.

What I was initially trying to argue is that the word "wrath" is there, and I just assumed everybody would recognize that it is God's wrath being spoken of. Amazing! So you think this was Satan's wrath afflicting not the Jewish People, but Christians everywhere, or perhaps in the endtimes?

Read Rev 12:17. It is the war against Christians during the GT.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ok, but I did write "God's wrath" more than once...

Yea, sorry. I know you argued the difference between Satan's wrath and God's wrath, and I didn't have a problem with that. I just didn't know you were saying that it was *Satan's wrath" in this particular Discourse, as opposed to where Satan vents his wrath on the believers in the book of Revelation. I agree Satan's wrath takes place during the reign of Antichrist. But I thought it was obvious that it was *God's wrath" mentioned in the Olivet Discourse. I understand you now.

Like I said, any wrath during the GT is not from God since his wrath comes after the GT has ended. Luke also didn't say "Jewish people" in the text. You are seeing things in the text that aren't actually there. You see "Wrath" and think you see "God's wrath" and there is "people" and you think you see "Jewish people".

Well, it is *your assumption* that I'm reading things into the text. I personally think it goes without saying that the "punishment" and the "wrath" are from God and directed at the Jewish People. I frankly can't see how it could be viewed any differently without the kind of presumption you're making in advance.

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Luk 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Luk 21:23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


Who is this people? Matthew makes it clearer:

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Mat 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Who is he talking to before him? His Christian disciples. No non-Christians are there.
The writer even makes mention of the readers, and that is US!

The wrath during the GT is from satan against the Christian elect.

Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 13 is the GT, and satan will make war against "the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" who are Christians, the same ones being killed in Matthew 24:9.

Actually no, what you're saying is the opposite of clear to me! I would agree that Christians are persecuted, and that Jesus is addressing Christians, his elect. But as I stated before, this was addressed to Jewish People because Jesus was still speaking while under the era of Law--that had to do primarily with Israel--not the nations. And Jesus' followers among the Jews were Christians--they were still *Jews!*

But Jesus can speak of the fate of Jews as a nation while at the same time addressing the Jews who followed him, the Christians. I would argue that both groups are being addressed in the Olivet Discourse.

The destruction of the temple referenced God's judgment against the Jewish People, which you admit takes place while Jesus and his Disciples were still in the temple area. This is clearly God's judgment against the unbelieving nation as a whole, while excepting those who chose to follow Jesus.

It then only stands to reason that when the Discourse takes place on the Mount of Olives the same things are being addressed. The persecution of Jewish believers is cited and surely stood as an explanation as to why the entire nation would be judged, destroyed, and exiled? This addressed both Christian persecution and national judgment simultaneously, and makes perfect sense in light of how Jesus began to speak about the imminent destruction of the temple.

In the following notice that the same words spoken on the Mt. of Olives were spoken earlier when Jesus was in the temple area. Not only did Jesus describe the destruction of Jerusalem as judgment against the nation by hostile enemies, which you might call "Satan's wrath," but it simultaneously describes this as "God's Wrath," ie a "punishment" for failing to recognize their Messiah as the source of their peace.

Luke 19.41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”
45 When Jesus entered the temple courts, he began to drive out those who were selling. 46 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
47 Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him. 48 Yet they could not find any way to do it, because all the people hung on his words.