Olivet Discourse revisited

[Keraz]

We've had this discussion before.

Yes, and you remain intransigent in your belief of a Jewish redemption. From a remnant.
Which shows how wrong you are, as God's holy people are as many as the sands of the sea.

The Lord's faithful 'sheep', will occupy all of the holy Land during the end times and when Jesus Returns- all of the world.
It has to be that way, or else Jesus failed in His mission. Remember; the Kingdom was taken from the Jews, Matthew 21:43, who actually cursed themselves, Matthew 27:25, and nowhere it is said they get it back.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, and you remain intransigent in your belief of a Jewish redemption. From a remnant.
Which shows how wrong you are, as God's holy people are as many as the sands of the sea.

I'm not being intransigent in sticking by a conviction. You have not disproved it. God can bless a saved "remnant" by multiplying them and by expanding their borders.

 

[ewq1938]

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.

lol...you are the one making assumptions not me. You assume wrath is God's wrath just like you assumed people was Jewish people. The text does not say those things specifically.

When he talks about Christians being afflicted and killed, then a short number of verses later talks about wrath against this people, the same people he warned to leave Jerusalem when the AoD is first seen....it's the same people he has been talking about. There was no change from Christians to other people.

I frankly can't see how it could be viewed any differently without the kind of presumption you're making in advance.

Ditto, but moreso.

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-

It was never directed at the Jewish people. (those rejecting Christ)

-that had to do primarily with Israel--not the nations. And Jesus' followers among the Jews were Christians--they were still *Jews!*

But not as the other Jews. Jesus was not talking to them nor about them.

It then only stands to reason that when the Discourse takes place on the Mount of Olives the same things are being addressed.

Another assumption on your part, one that is not correct.

 

[Randy Kluth]

lol...you are the one making assumptions not me. You assume wrath is God's wrath just like you assumed people was Jewish people. The text does not say those things specifically.

When he talks about Christians being afflicted and killed, then a short number of verses later talks about wrath against this people, the same people he warned to leave Jerusalem when the AoD is first seen....it's the same people he has been talking about. There was no change from Christians to other people.

It was never directed at the Jewish people. (those rejecting Christ)

I've addressed this before. Speaking to believing Jews does not mean Jesus is speaking only to the suffering of believing Jews. He could just as well speak to believing Jews about their country as a whole, about the fact the majority of their countrymen, who do not believe, are going to be judged severely in their own time, and throughout the NT age. That is precisely what is said, in my opinion.

But not as the other Jews. Jesus was not talking to them nor about them.

As I showed you, Jesus was speaking not just to believing Jews, but he was also speaking about the majority of Jews who did not believe. He was speaking about the termination of temple worship, which was a very big deal. I don't know how you can deny this. You seem to admit this about what Jesus said in the temple area. And I showed you that what he said in the temple area were the same things he said in the Olivet Discourse. But you didn't address that?

 

[ewq1938]

I've addressed this before. Speaking to believing Jews does not mean Jesus is speaking only to the suffering of believing Jews. He could just as well speak to believing Jews about their country as a whole,

Be he doesn't. He spoke using "ye" and "you" not "them".

about the fact the majority of their countrymen, who do not believe, are going to be judged severely in their own time, and throughout the NT age. That is precisely what is said, in my opinion.

Not a word about anything like that was said. The OD is not about the NT age! It's about the GT, 42 months before the second coming. The second coming is not surprisingly mentioned in the OD also, "immediately after that tribulation"... Obviously it isn't about the first century or any other past century or time but the future.

As I showed you, Jesus was speaking not just to believing Jews, but he was also speaking about the majority of Jews who did not believe. He was speaking about the termination of temple worship, which was a very big deal.

Which was not mentioned a single time. You are always adding in things to the OD that aren't even there.

I don't know how you can deny this. You seem to admit this about what Jesus said in the temple area.

A separate prophecy which I have said multiple times.

And I showed you that what he said in the temple area were the same things he said in the Olivet Discourse. But you didn't address that?

I did address it. I said it was not mentioned in the OD a single time and I have said that many times.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Be he doesn't. He spoke using "ye" and "you" not "them".

Not a word about anything like that was said. The OD is not about the NT age! It's about the GT, 42 months before the second coming. The second coming is not surprisingly mentioned in the OD also, "immediately after that tribulation"... Obviously it isn't about the first century or any other past century or time but the future.
Which was not mentioned a single time. You are always adding in things to the OD that aren't even there.
A separate prophecy which I have said multiple times.
I did address it. I said it was not mentioned in the OD a single time and I have said that many times.

Yes you have. I do have a hard time comprehending your argument that these are 2 conversations. You say I'm "adding" things, but I see no division in this conversation between a conversation at the temple and a conversation a short distance away on the Mount of Olives that seemingly deals with the *very same issues."

You agree that the temple conversation spoke of the destruction of the temple, and you do admit that what was described was "God's wrath." But then you declare that somehow this becomes "Satan's wrath" on the Mount of Olives a short time later?

I suppose I'm just having difficulty understanding how you can separate things like this when the various versions of these events put them together seamlessly--there is no explicit division between the questions and answers in the temple area and the conversation about those questions and answers on the Mount of Olives.

The Gospels place these events together, and they clearly are dealing with the same concerns. There is nothing that turns "God's wrath" in the temple area into "Satan's wrath" on the Mount of Olives.

You say I add things, but I see nothing turning "God's wrath" into "Satan's wrath?" God allows evil men to persecute Christians, and He allows evil men to destroy ungodly men through the use of other ungodly men. All take place under God's control, but nothing in this series of events, from temple mount to mount of Olives separates these topics into separate issues.

God allowed ungodly Jews and pagan Romans to abuse Jewish believers, but for that very reason God brought pagan Rome against the ungodly Jewish nation. Jesus' Disciples did not initially understand that, and that's the reason for the questions.

We do not need to find the words "God's wrath" to know Jesus is speaking of that on the Mount of Olives. Luke 21.20-24 is developing that thought, as brought initially in the temple area, and does not need to repeat that theme, which had already been established.

As I showed you, Luke 19 already explained that the experience of destruction, brought against Jerusalem and the temple, would take place as a form of divine 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.”

In particular look at these words, "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."

These are the same words Jesus used on the Mount of Olives, and which I have been quoting to you. You say this is a different conversation, but this connects what Jesus said in the temple are with what he said on the Mount of Olives...

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.

I'm having real problems understanding you because you say that Jesus' reference to the temple destruction and to Jerusalem's destruction takes place in the temple area and not on the Mount of Olives. And yet here, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus is clearly saying the *same words* in connection with what he said about the destruction of Jerusalem in the temple area. The subjects and the themes have to be the same! God's wrath mentioned in the temple area has to be the same "wrath" mentioned as "punishment" upon the Jews on the Mount of Olives. Do you understand the argument?

You are just saying that when Jesus talks about the destruction of Jerusalem in the temple area, it is indeed about God's wrath. But suddenly, a short time later, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus is using the same words, about Jerusalem being encircled and "hemmed in," but suddenly for you this is not "Gods wrath" but "Satan's wrath" being vented upon Christians! This makes no sense to me. It is purely your arbitrary wish to apply the Mount of Olives conversation in distinction from how the entire theme had been introduced in the temple area!

 

[Zao is life]

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

So here's how I see it:

This:

Matthew 23
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate.

Relates to this:

Matthew 24
1 And Jesus went out and departed from the temple. And His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone on another that shall not be thrown down.

And to this:

Luke 21
20 And when all of you shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
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 therein.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
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.

It also relates to this:

Daniel 9
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The location in Matthew 24:13-39 is inside the temple complex, and the audience is the scribes and Pharisees.

The location for Matthew 24:1-2 is just outside the temple complex, and the new audience is the disciples.

But this below has both a new location, and a new subject:

3 And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?

Note: The Greek word tote ("then") in Matthew 24:9 means "the time of" and in this context, it's talking about the time of the end (see Matthew 24:9-14).

The location is now the Mount of Olives and the audience the disciples, and the first thing Jesus mentions after the birth-pains, is the tribulation they would face when they become hated by all nations for His name's sake when the gospel has been preached to all nations.

The very next verse after verse 14 uses the word "therefore":

Matthew 24
15 When all of you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso reads, let him understand)
16 Then (tote) let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
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.
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.

Compare this with Luke:

Luke 21
20 And when all of you shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
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 therein.

Now compare it again with Matthew 24:

9 Then (tote: the time of the end being mentioned) shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and all of you shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love (o. agape) of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
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.
15 When all of you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso reads, let him understand)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

NOTE: In Matthew 24:15-22 they are not being told to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem (as in Luke 21:20-24). They are being told to flee Judea when they see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

The Jerusalem temple ceased being the holy place when the veil of the temple was torn.

So: Either Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said, or Luke was wrong, or both are right.

QUESTION 1: What's the difference between the subject of [Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2], and Luke 21:20-23, and Daniel 9:26-27?
ANSWER: Nothing. There is no difference.

QUESTION 2: What's the difference between the subject of the above and the subject of the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the time of the end (Matthew 24:9-14)?

QUESTION 3: Why does Matthew 24:15 use the word "therefore"? Is it referring to the subject of [Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2], or is it referring to the subject of Matthew 24:9-14? (check the use of the words "and, therefore" etc, in Matthew 24:9-15).

Preterists and Partial-Preterists will tell you it's all referring to 70 A.D, so anyone who asserts that Matthew 24:15 relates to Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2 (rather than to Matthew 24:9-14) is agreeing with them.

But is it good exegesis to ignore the fact that the elect keep being mentioned throughout Matthew 24:9-31, as do false prophets and false Christs?

And if Matthew 24:15 is not referring to tote (the time of the end) of this age and the return of Christ, then it's referring to 70 A.D. But then so is Matthew 24:9-14 and everything else.

Make your choice, because the temple in Jerusalem ceased being the holy place when the veil of the temple was torn - 40 years before 70 A.D - and both Matthew 24:9-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 mention falling away, lawlessness, and an abomination in the temple of God, and the return of Christ to gather His elect .

The Preterists and Partial Preterists have a good point, but they fail to understand which temple is being spoken about in Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Who else joins them?

So are there two different points in time when the Messiah comes, or not? Because Matthew 24:9-31 is talking about the time of the end and the coming of Christ. The grammar used in the passage and the repeated mention of the elect, false prophets and false Christs in the passage does not grant the liberty of slicing it up between 70 A.D + the time of the end and the return of Christ.

Preterists and Partial Preterists know this, and so they have Matthew 24:9-31 relating to [Matthew 23:37 - Matthew 24:2] and Luke 21:20-23.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So here's how I see it:

This:

Matthew 23
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!
38 Behold, your house is left to you desolate.

Relates to this:

Matthew 24
1 And Jesus went out and departed from the temple. And His disciples came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said to them, Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone on another that shall not be thrown down.

And to this:

Luke 21
20 And when all of you shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
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 therein.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
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.

It also relates to this:

Daniel 9
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The location in Matthew 24:13-39 is inside the temple complex, and the audience is the scribes and Pharisees.

The location for Matthew 24:1-2 is just outside the temple complex, and the new audience is the disciples.

But this below has both a new location, and a new subject:

3 And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?

Note: The Greek word tote ("then") in Matthew 24:9 means "the time of" and in this context, it's talking about the time of the end (see Matthew 24:9-14).

The location is now the Mount of Olives and the audience the disciples, and the first thing Jesus mentions after the birth-pains, is the tribulation they would face when they become hated by all nations for His name's sake when the gospel has been preached to all nations.

I have to stop you right here. It seems that you are overlooking the first question they asked, which was "when shall these things be?". What were "these things" that they were talking about if not the temple buildings standing at that time? How does it make any sense to conclude that they were talking about anything besides the last thing that they had talked about, which was recorded in Matthew 24:1-2?

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, 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.

When the disciples asked "when shall these things be" they were asking when would these things, which were the temple buildings, be destroyed. I believe this is obvious. Your interpretation is one that I've never seen before. What you're not doing in your explanation is indicating what exactly you think prompted their questions. To me, it's very obvious that it was the last thing they talked to Jesus about which prompted their questions. It makes a lot of sense to me that they would be shocked at Him saying their beloved temple would be destroyed and would want more details about that. So, what do you believe prompted their questions?

The very next verse after verse 14 uses the word "therefore":

Matthew 24
15 When all of you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso reads, let him understand)
16 Then (tote) let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
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.
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.

Compare this with Luke:

Luke 21
20 And when all of you shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
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 therein.

Now compare it again with Matthew 24:

9 Then (tote: the time of the end being mentioned) shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and all of you shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love (o. agape) of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
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.
15 When all of you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso reads, let him understand)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

NOTE: In Matthew 24:15-22 they are not being told to flee Judea when they see armies gathering around Jerusalem (as in Luke 21:20-24). They are being told to flee Judea when they see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.

What you need to take into account here is that Matthew was writing primarily to Jews and Luke was writing primarily to Gentiles. Would Gentiles have understood what "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet" was about? No. But, the Jews who were familiar with the Old Testament would have known what that was about. So, Luke had to spell things out for the Gentiles who had no knowledge of Daniel's prophecy. So, I believe it's clear that those passages are parallel and are about the same event.

The Jerusalem temple ceased being the holy place when the veil of the temple was torn.

It was still the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking. He was not implying that it would still be considered the holy place at the time the abominaton of desolation would occur.

So: Either Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said, or Luke was wrong, or both are right.

QUESTION 1: What's the difference between the subject of [Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2], and Luke 21:20-23, and Daniel 9:26-27?
ANSWER: Nothing. There is no difference.

QUESTION 2: What's the difference between the subject of the above and the subject of the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus at the time of the end (Matthew 24:9-14)?

QUESTION 3: Why does Matthew 24:15 use the word "therefore"? Is it referring to the subject of [Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2], or is it referring to the subject of Matthew 24:9-14? (check the use of the words "and, therefore" etc, in Matthew 24:9-15).

Preterists and Partial-Preterists will tell you it's all referring to 70 A.D, so anyone who asserts that Matthew 24:15 relates to Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:2 (rather than to Matthew 24:9-14) is agreeing with them.

But is it good exegesis to ignore the fact that the elect keep being mentioned throughout Matthew 24:9-31, as do false prophets and false Christs?

And if Matthew 24:15 is not referring to tote (the time of the end) of this age and the return of Christ, then it's referring to 70 A.D. But then so is Matthew 24:9-14 and everything else.

Make your choice, because the temple in Jerusalem ceased being the holy place when the veil of the temple was torn - 40 years before 70 A.D - and both Matthew 24:9-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 mention falling away, lawlessness, and an abomination in the temple of God, and the return of Christ to gather His elect .

The Preterists and Partial Preterists have a good point, but they fail to understand which temple is being spoken about in Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Who else joins them?

So are there two different points in time when the Messiah comes, or not? Because Matthew 24:9-31 is talking about the time of the end and the coming of Christ. The grammar used in the passage and the repeated mention of the elect, false prophets and false Christs in the passage does not grant the liberty of slicing it up between 70 A.D + the time of the end and the return of Christ.

Preterists and Partial Preterists know this, and so they have Matthew 24:9-31 relating to [Matthew 23:37 - Matthew 24:2] and Luke 21:20-23.

I believe both futurists and preterists have it wrong. Jesus talked both about an event that (from our perspective) happened in the past as well as one that would happen in the future (still future to us). I don't know why people insist that everything He talked about in the Olivet Discourse has to either all be fulfilled or is all yet to be fulfilled. I just don't get that at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Revelation 12:17 is not parallel to Luke 21:20-24. Satan's wrath against Christians would not ever be described as "the time of punishment" like we see here:

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.

The time of punishment strongly implies God's wrath. It is only God's wrath that could be described as punishment, not Satan's wrath. Satan cannot punish believers. He has no authority to do so since he is not the Judge. He can kill believers, but that is not punishment. That's doing us a favor since we then go to be with the Lord in heaven immediately afterwards. But God can punish unbelievers and that is clearly what Luke 21:20-24 is talking about. It's talking about God's wrath against the unbelieving Jews who rejected His Son.

 

[Timtofly]

I don't think we can argue this point anymore. I quoted the basis for my belief that the "Great Tribulation" is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. You admit that Luke says something to that effect.

But then you deny that the Great Tribulation applies to Jews and exists today. I can't give you anymore than Luke 21's claim that the "Great Tribulation" is the punishment God inflicted upon the Jews beginning in Jesus' generation and continuing until the end of the age.

I have nothing more to add to this. If we can't agree on what Jesus said in Luke 21, there is no reason to continue discussing it.

Great tribulation has been on the church for this time called the fulness of the Gentiles.

Luke does not call what happened in the first century to the Jews, tribulation. He calls it vengeance. Why would the church suffer God's vengeance? The time of Jacob's trouble or Jacob's tribulation is after the Second Coming. That is because their King, Jesus Christ is cleaning house. Most of Jacob will be the goats tossed into the LOF. Only a remnant will be redeemed as sheep. That is why it is the Greatest Trouble or Tribulation. God did not toss any in the LOF in the first century. Those Jews were experiencing God's vengeance, not God's tribulation.

If you cannot acknowledge the difference between vengeance and tribulation we will never agree.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Great tribulation has been on the church for this time called the fulness of the Gentiles.

Luke does not call what happened in the first century to the Jews, tribulation. He calls it vengeance. Why would the church suffer God's vengeance? The time of Jacob's trouble or Jacob's tribulation is after the Second Coming. That is because their King, Jesus Christ is cleaning house. Most of Jacob will be the goats tossed into the LOF. Only a remnant will be redeemed as sheep. That is why it is the Greatest Trouble or Tribulation. God did not toss any in the LOF in the first century. Those Jews were experiencing God's vengeance, not God's tribulation.

If you cannot acknowledge the difference between vengeance and tribulation we will never agree.

We may never agree regardless. I don't see words used so technically as you apply them. I don't see God as taking vengeance on the church, obviously. He takes vengeance on His enemies, which in Jesus' time were the people of Israel. Believing Jews were only a small part of Israel in the end. Jesus, in his Olivet Discourse addressed both believers and unbelievers in his prophecy about the nation Israel.

"Tribulation" is part of what God threw Israel into because of their rejection of Messiah. It was a "punishment" according to Luke 21. We can see this also explained in Luke 19. Israel missed the time of God visiting them, and so they were rejecting the Messiah God had sent to them for Salvation. As a result Messiah became for them a prophecy of vengeance.

Vengeance, for me, can be an age-long punishment, an isolated historical punishment, or final punishment. It depends on context. In the context of the Olivet Discourse, the vengeance is God's age-long punishment of the Jewish People until the time of their restoration.

I'm sorry if we can't agree. Maybe in the future?

 

[covenantee]

Great tribulation has been on the church for this time called the fulness of the Gentiles.

The Judean Church escaped the great tribulation upon unbelieving Israel (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21). Nothing to do with the fulness of the Gentiles.

Why would the church suffer God's vengeance?

It would not and did not.

Those Jews were experiencing God's vengeance, not God's tribulation.

Mark calls it affliction.
God meted out all three upon unbelieving Israel.

If you cannot acknowledge the difference between vengeance and tribulation we will never agree.

Mark calls it affliction.
God meted out all three upon unbelieving Israel.

 

[Zao is life]

What you need to take into account here is that Matthew was writing primarily to Jews and Luke was writing primarily to Gentiles. Would Gentiles have understood what "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet" was about? No. But, the Jews who were familiar with the Old Testament would have known what that was about. So, Luke had to spell things out for the Gentiles who had no knowledge of Daniel's prophecy. So, I believe it's clear that those passages are parallel and are about the same event.

It was still the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking. He was not implying that it would still be considered the holy place at the time the abominaton of desolation would occur.

The Jews were familiar with both the fact that Daniel 9:26-27 prophesied the destruction of the city and the temple, and the fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes placed an abomination in the holy place of the second temple which did not result in the destruction of city and sanctuary.

I can't see how the argument that Luke was writing primarily to Gentiles but Matthew to Jews suffices, because Luke was not an eye-witness, whereas Matthew was an eyewitness of what Jesus said. Luke was recording the testimony he gleaned from eyewitnesses, and he was hardly likely to even know about the difference between the AoD placed by A iv E in the holy place which did not result in the destruction of city and sanctuary, and the prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27. As it stands Luke spoke only of the destruction of Jerusalem when he linked that to the disciples being told to flee Judea. In fact, Luke said nothing about the temple in Luke 21:20-24.

If Daniel's prophecies spoke only of one AoD you would be correct. But there are two mentions in Daniel of abominations. The abominations (plural) that preceded the destruction of both city and sanctuary, and the one abomination of a vile leader that resulted in the destruction of neither city nor sanctuary. I believe he is the type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
​

If Old Testament Jerusalem is an example to us and was often called a harlot, then we need to bear in mind that the Revelation makes a thesis-antithesis comparison between New Jerusalem, the holy city, and the harlot, Babylon the Great - and while Jesus told the disciples who heard Him that they should flee Judea when they see "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand")", in the Revelation the saints are told to come out of Babylon the Great, whose destruction is likewise prophesied. Preterists again have this linked to 70 A.D and the Jerusalem that was destroyed then.

Jesus had finished talking about the destruction of the temple by the time He sat down on the Mount of Olives. So when the disciples asked Him a question which obviously must have shown Him that they had two different periods in time conflated (who could blame them?), He answered both questions, and told them to flee - both when they saw armies gather around Jerusalem, as well as when they see the AoD in the holy place, 1,953+ years later.

He was basically telling them to come out of Babylon the Great.

No one who believes that Matthew 24:15 is referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D has ever given a sufficient answer as to exactly what that AoD spoken of by Daniel was. They seem to each one have a different idea of what it was.​

I believe both futurists and preterists have it wrong. Jesus talked both about an event that (from our perspective) happened in the past as well as one that would happen in the future (still future to us). I don't know why people insist that everything He talked about in the Olivet Discourse has to either all be fulfilled or is all yet to be fulfilled. I just don't get that at all.

I agree with the above statement. If you delete the chapter divisions and verse numbers in your mind you will realize that the subject of what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 23:37 to Matthew 24:1-2 was preceded by Matthew 23:13-36, and has already taken place in 70 A.D.

But the subject in Jesus' reply to the disciples' question in Matthew 24:3 changed to the end of the age and the return of Christ (Matthew 24:4-31), and Matthew 24:15 is slap bang in the middle of it.
​

So IMO Matthew 24:15 is not talking about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. No physical temple will be destroyed when Jesus returns. But it will be profaned by the man of sin. It's what Daniel was talking about in Daniel 12:11, where Daniel 12:11 is both closing Daniel's prophecy of what A iv E was going to, and projecting it forward to the time of the return of Christ.

In the first instance the disciples were told to flee Judea when they see armies gather around Jerusalem. For the second instance Judea becomes figurative for Babylon the Great - the harlot who we are told to flee out of and whose destruction is likewise prophesied. Only the first harlot was a Jewish harlot - the harlot of Judah/Judea/the Jews. That's why the disciples were told to flee Judea. But the second and final harlot "are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues" (Revelation 17:15). That's why the disciples are told to come out of Babylon the Great.

The first harlot was destroyed by a Roman prince who later became Caesar. The final harlot will be destroyed by 10 kings.

 

[Timtofly]

The Judean Church escaped the great tribulation upon unbelieving Israel (Matthew 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21). Nothing to do with the fulness of the Gentiles.

It would not and did not.

Mark calls it affliction.
God meted out all three upon unbelieving Israel.

Mark calls it affliction.
God meted out all three upon unbelieving Israel.

Vengeance was Luke in the first century.

Tribulation will be Matthew at the Second Coming.

 

[Waiting on him]

until the nation of Israel is restored to faith at Christ's return.

Need to be careful not to separate Jesus from the body.

 

[covenantee]

Vengeance was Luke in the first century.

Tribulation will be Matthew at the Second Coming.

Tribulation, affliction, and vengeance.

All poured out upon unbelieving Israel in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Tribulation and affliction were the direct result of Messiah taking vengeance upon unbelieving Israel.

All in the first century.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Vengeance was Luke in the first century.

Tribulation will be Matthew at the Second Coming.

I already know what your position is. It is the *Scriptural basis* for your belief that I have a problem with, Timothy!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Need to be careful not to separate Jesus from the body.

That would be murder! ;) Nobody's accused me of that before!

If you want a more detailed answer you'll have to take the time to frame a more detailed question. Thanks.

 

[Waiting on him]

That would be murder! ;) Nobody's accused me of that before!

If you want a more detailed answer you'll have to take the time to frame a more detailed question. Thanks.

Jesus returned in the flesh at Pentecost my friend.
The first time he was ever in them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus returned in the flesh at Pentecost my friend.
The first time he was ever in them.

Your short quips make my head spin and hurts my brain. What do you mean, that when Jesus sent the Spirit of God to his Church that he then was "in them?" But was it the 1st time?

If you're strictly looking at Jesus as a man, I suppose that's right. Before Jesus existed as a man he could not have lived in anybody. But before Jesus existed as a man he existed as God. And God said that His word was with Israel and in their mouth while they were in covenant with Him.

Deut 30.14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

God dwelled with Israel by letting His presence be with them while they had a temple and observed its ordinances. This was the equivalent of having God "in them" spiritually so that they were able to carry out God's word.