Olivet Discourse revisited

[Truth7t7]

Of course. Any other questions with obvious answers that you'd like to ask?


Of course you are completely wrong and ignoring what is indicated in the text. Here are the 3 parallel accounts of Jesus prophesying that the temple buildings would be destroyed.

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.”

Mark 13:1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Luke 21:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

A toddler can discern what this is saying since it's as straightforward as it gets, but you can't.

The first thing to notice here is that the disciples were undeniably marveling at the physical temple buildings standing at that time. You ludicrously think that Jesus changed the subject on them, but He very specifically said "Do you see all these great buildings? Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.". In your view "these great buildings" that Jesus referenced are His body. LOL. No, Jesus would not refer to His body as "these great buildings".

At a different time He did refer to His body as a temple, but that is different than referring to "these great buildings". He was clearly referring to very same temple buildings that the disciples were marveling at and He told them that they would be destroyed. Very simple. It's a wonder that you can interpret anything correctly when you miss something as obvious as this.


You have many beliefs that I find laughable. Nothing is more laughable than claiming that Jesus referring to "these great buildings" is a case of Jesus referring to His body. LOL! It means NOTHING to me what you, a person mostly lacking in discernment, find to be laughable. It's very clear that Jesus talked about an event that would be centered in Jerusalem and Judea and another event that would involve the entire earth. In the local event, He only said for those in Judea to flee to the mountains. If that was the same as the global event He referenced later involving the entire earth, then only saying that those in Judea have to flee would be ridiculous. So, He clearly spoke of two different events. You finding that laughable is laughable to me.


Not in the Olivet Discourse He didn't! You are trying to relate two completely different things here. The passage from John was an entirely different occasion with an entirely different context from the Olivet Discourse.

Your in denial of the Lord's very clear words below

Jesus Christ spoke of a symbolic destruction of the Temple seen, and the Temple destroyed was his literal body as scripture clearly teaches below

"Destroy This Temple" as Jesus and the Pharisees viewed the temple that took 46 years to build

Interpretation: But he spake of the temple of his body

"Yes" Reformed Preterist Eschatology in 67-70AD fulfillment, would be found in the court of the Pharisees literal interpretation

Once Again, 67-70AD Jerusalems destruction had absolutely "Nothing" to do with fulfillment of Matthew Chapter 24, Mark Chapter 13, or Luke Chapter 21

John 2:18-22KJV
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

 

[Zao is life]

Why does that matter? It seems like you may have missed my point. It would not have made sense for Luke to say "let the reader understand" what Daniel's prophecy regarding the abomination of desolation was about to his Gentile audience since they would not have been familiar with that. So, he had to spell it out to them what would indicate that the desolation of Jerusalem was at hand rather than just telling them to look out for the abomination of desolation that Daniel prophesied about.

Why did he have to specifically mention the temple? He indicated that when armies were seen surrounding Jerusalem then they would know that its desolation was at hand. That would obviously include the desolation of the temple. It didn't need to be said.

I still disagree. IMO Luke would definitely have mentioned the temple if his eyewitnesses had mentioned the temple, when he wrote down what they related to him.

There's no problem anyway with the disciples being told to flee Judea when they see armies gathering against Jerusalem, because that clearly points to 70 A.D, which we both agree on. But whether or not, as per Matthew's gospel, the disciples being told to flee Judea when they see the AoD in the holy place relates to the end of the age and return of Christ, or to 70 A.D, is what we disagree on. So I will get to it in my answer to the other parts of your post that relate to it.

Daniel only prophesied about one AoD that related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Daniel 9:26-27) and I believe it should be obvious that is the one that Jesus talked about because He had shortly before that talked about the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time.

In all English translations of Daniel 9:27 that I have compared, Daniel mentions abominations (plural). The KJV translates it as "the overspreading of abominations", but there is only one AoD mentioned in Matthew 24:15.

First of all, you don't have to be a preterist to believe that Matthew 24:15-22 is related to what happened in 70 AD.

I know that, but where your (anybody's) theology and eschatology overlaps with Preterist and PP's, it's Preterist or Partial Preterist theology. The historic view is Preterist. I'm Preterist where what I believe about when Daniel 9:26-27 was fulfilled (1st century A.D) overlaps with Preterist theology. So we are both partial partial preterists (partially partial preterists, and partial preterists are partially preterist).

But, the last thing He had talked to them about before that was the destruction of the temple buildings. You don't think they would have wanted to ask any questions about that? Their first question was "when will this happen?". Without any context being specifically given, why would anyone conclude that they were asking Him about anything except what He had last said to them? Please answer that question.

Did Jesus answer their question as to when the temple would be destroyed? Please answer that question. Did He answer the other question?

Also, if Matthew 24:15-22 is meant to be understood as talking about a spiritual entity rather than a physical one then what do you make of Him saying that those in Judea should flee to the mountains at that time? What does that mean in a figurative or spiritual sense? And what did He mean when He said "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!"? What does that mean in a non-literal, non-physical sense? And what did He mean when He said "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath" if that isn't meant to be taken literally in a physical sense?

There are Christian Jews living in Israel today, and there are Christian Arabs living in the West Bank/Palestine. Most of biblical Judea lies in the West Bank today.

The one who exalts himself above ALL that is called God or is worshipped so that he seats himself as God in the temple of God showing himself forth to be God, will no doubt want to destroy all 3 Abrahamic faiths in order to attain his goal. Judea is both a type of Babylon the Great and it may very well be literally fulfilled a second time.

That is the only answer I can give, and it does not completely suffice even to me (it's speculation) - but that does not mean, given the surrounding context and grammar of Matthew 24:9-31, and given that a single abomination is being mentioned, rather than abominations in the plural sense (as in Daniel 9:27), that I believe for one minute that the holy place mentioned in Matthew 24:15 was the temple in Jerusalem.

So what? Determining what exactly qualifies as the abomination of desolation is not what is most important. What is more important is that it would result in the destruction of "the city and the sanctuary", according to Daniel 9:26-27.

According to Daniel 9:26-27 it's abominations (plural) that would result in the destruction of city and sanctuary - but one abomination is mentioned in Matthew 24:15, and one abomination placed in the holy place by A iv E is the type of the man of sin seating himself up in God's temple, which is the New Testament temple, i.e the body of Christ, i.e the church.

And Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple buildings just prior to that. So, putting two and two together leads to concluding that Jesus had to be talking about the prophecy from Daniel 9:26-27.

And Jesus never answered their question regarding when it would happen, but in verse 9 He began speaking about the end of the age and His return, and the tribulation of the disciples, and one abomination only in the holy place is being mentioned in Matthew 24:15, not abominations (plural), as in Daniel 9:27.

So you are putting two and two together and coming up with five, because you are making the assumption that the abomination of desolation in the holy place is talking about the temple in Jerusalem, ignoring the surrounding context (subject, grammar etc from verse 9 onward), and ignoring the fact that Daniel spoke of abominations (plural) that would result in the destruction of the city and temple, and ignoring the fact that Jesus did not answer their question as to when the temple would be destroyed. And you are assuming, despite the context and grammar from from verse 9 onward, that He gave an abomination set up in the holy place as the sign.

 

[ewq1938]

There's no problem anyway with the disciples being told to flee Judea when they see armies gathering against Jerusalem, because that clearly points to 70 A.D, which we both agree on.

I don't believe that has anything to do with 70 AD because it matches Rev 11 which speaks of events that happen just 42 months before the second coming.

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Could the desolation of Jerusalem be spiritual not physical?

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


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.

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


The city is trodden by Gentiles but is not physically destroyed by them. There is only a spiritual desolation. In Rev 11:2 the city is called Holy, then after nearly 42 months of occupation it is referred to as Sodom and Egypt in a spiritual sense. The timeframe of Luke 21 (the Olivet discourse) is the same timeframe of Rev 11.

 

[Zao is life]

It hadn't yet.

DECEIVERS

Matthew: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you, For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (24:4, 5).
Mark: “And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you; For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (13:5,6).
Luke: “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and the time draweth near; go ye not therefore after them” (2 1:8).

We notice that all three accounts warn about deceivers. But Luke’s account explains WHEN these things would happen. Jesus Said: “And the time DRAWETH NEAR: go ye not therefore after them.” Jesus was not talking about something that would take place hundreds or thousands of years later. Jesus was warning his disciples about something that was drawing near in their time. This is plain.

Did such deceivers or false Christs arise and deceive many in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem? Yes.

According to Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, twelve years after our Saviour’s death, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded a great multitude to follow him to the river Jordan which he claimed would divide for their passage. At the time of Felix (who is mentioned in the book of Acts), the country of the Jews was filled with impostors who Felix had put to death EVERY DAY — a statement which indicates that there were many of such in those days.

An Egyptian who “pretended to be a prophet” gathered 30,000 men, claiming that he would show “how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.”

Another deceiver was Simon, a sorcerer, who led people to believe he was the great power of God (See Acts 8). According to Irenaeus, Simon claimed to be the Son of God and creator of angels. Jerome says that he claimed to be the Word of God, the Almighty. Justin relates that he went to Rome and was acclaimed as a god by his magical powers.

Origen mentions a certain wonder-worker, Dositheus, who claimed he was the Christ foretold by Moses. Another deceiver in those days was Barchochebas who, according to Jerome, claimed to vomit flames. Bar-jesus is mentioned in Acts 13:6 as a sorcerer and false prophet.

These are examples of the deceivers of whom history says there were a great number, and of whom Jesus had prophesied that there would be “many.”

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow​

There were deceivers in those days and there will be deceivers again in the last days of the age. So it's true for both periods and for all disciples.

The disciples asked Jesus when the destruction of for the temple would take place. He never answered their question. They asked Him what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the age. He answered their question.

 

[covenantee]

Your in denial of the Lord's very clear words below

Jesus Christ spoke of a symbolic destruction of the Temple seen, and the Temple destroyed was his literal body as scripture clearly teaches below

"Destroy This Temple" as Jesus and the Pharisees viewed the temple that took 46 years to build

Interpretation: But he spake of the temple of his body

"Yes" Reformed Preterist Eschatology in 67-70AD fulfillment, would be found in the court of the Pharisees literal interpretation

Once Again, 67-70AD Jerusalems destruction had absolutely "Nothing" to do with fulfillment of Matthew Chapter 24, Mark Chapter 13, or Luke Chapter 21

John 2:18-22KJV
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

The temple of Matthew 24:1 is a "hierou" temple.
The temple of John 2:19 is a "naon" temple.
If the temple of Matthew 24:1 is the same as the temple of John 2:19, as you claim, then the temple of Matthew 24:1 should be a "naon" temple.
But it's not. Instead it's a "hierou" temple.
They are two different temples.
Another claim debunked.

 

[covenantee]

There were deceivers in those days and there will be deceivers again in the last days of the age. So it's true for both periods and for all disciples.

The disciples asked Jesus when the destruction of for the temple would take place. He never answered their question. They asked Him what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the age. He answered their question.

Jesus described signs presaging the destruction of the temple. Deceivers were one such sign. The disciples first question was "When shall these things be", referring to Jesus' declaration regarding "these things" in Matthew 24:2. Jesus didn't ignore them. He answered their question relating to "these things", as Scripture and history confirm, beginning with the sign of deceivers.

 

[Zao is life]

I don't believe that has anything to do with 70 AD because it matches Rev 11 which speaks of events that happen just 42 months before the second coming.

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Could the desolation of Jerusalem be spiritual not physical?

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


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.

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.


The city is trodden by Gentiles but is not physically destroyed by them. There is only a spiritual desolation. In Rev 11:2 the city is called Holy, then after nearly 42 months of occupation it is referred to as Sodom and Egypt in a spiritual sense. The timeframe of Luke 21 (the Olivet discourse) is the same timeframe of Rev 11.

That's a very good observation. I never thought about it that way. Only New Jerusalem is called holy in the Revelation. The other cities mentioned (Babylon the Great, the city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, and the cities of the nations that fell when the 7th vial was opened) are never called holy.

But there are a few things Jesus mentioned the day He said these things:

(i) The coming destruction of Jerusalem/s temple;

(ii) Also the end of the age and the return of Christ, the gospel being preached to all nations, the tribulation that the disciples would experience (being hated by all nations for His name's sake), false prophets and false Christs abounding at the time of the end, lawlessness (which is an accusation against many believers in the New Testament, not against unbelievers), apostasy (they will be offended in Matthew 24:10 is a translation of skandalizo, which means to stumble, normally as a result of tribulation) and fall away (see Matthew 13:21 - same word used as in Matthew 24:10).

Luke 21:20-24, if it is speaking about Jerusalem of 70 A.D, seems out of context of the rest of what Luke 21:12-19 and 25-28 is saying, because Luke 21:12-19 and 25-28 is about (a) the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus and (b) their redemption from it at the time of the end.

I definitely believe that fleeing Judea to the mountains is at least a type of coming out of Babylon the Great, which will likewise be destroyed, and the AoD in the holy place is not speaking about the temple in Jerusalem.

But I also believe that biblical prophecies often are repeated in some way or another. For example, in its context, the following prophecy was talking about the destruction of Babylon and "the nations" of the Babylonian Empire, and it uses the same metaphor and hyperbole that is typical of prophetic language:

Isaiah 34:8-10:
For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, the year to repay for the fighting against Zion. And its streams shall be turned into pitch, and its dust to brimstone, and its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be put out night or day; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none passes through it forever and forever.​

Isaiah 34:4:
And all the host of the heavens shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled like a scroll; and all their host shall droop, as a leaf falls off from the vine, and as the falling from the fig tree.

IMO the prophecy is speaking both about the destruction of the Babylonian Empire that had enslaved the Jews, and about the destruction of the nations at the end of this age. There are many prophecies in the Bible like it, which speak of more than one series of events at more than one time in history, where the first becomes the type of the last (just as the AoD of A iv E is a type of the AoD of the man of sin).

So from that perspective, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple is a type of the holy city coming under attack and the temple being profaned, as your post mentions.​

 

[Truth7t7]

The temple of Matthew 24:1 is a "hierou" temple.
The temple of John 2:19 is a "naon" temple.
If the temple of Matthew 24:1 is the same as the temple of John 2:19, as you claim, then the temple of Matthew 24:1 should be a "naon" temple.
But it's not. Instead it's a "hierou" temple.
They are two different temples.
Another claim debunked.

There is one temple, as your buddies the parishes described, the one that took 46 years to build, your reformed fake news has failed

Jesus Christ spoke of a symbolic destruction of the Temple seen, and the Temple destroyed was his literal body as scripture clearly teaches below

"Destroy This Temple" as Jesus and the Pharisees viewed the temple that took 46 years to build

Interpretation: But he spake of the temple of his body

"Yes" Reformed Preterist Eschatology in 67-70AD fulfillment, would be found in the court of the Pharisees literal interpretation

Once Again, 67-70AD Jerusalems destruction had absolutely "Nothing" to do with fulfillment of Matthew Chapter 24, Mark Chapter 13, or Luke Chapter 21

John 2:18-22KJV
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

 

[covenantee]

There is one temple, as your buddies the parishes described, the one that took 46 years to build, your reformed fake news has failed

Jesus Christ spoke of a symbolic destruction of the Temple seen, and the Temple destroyed was his literal body as scripture clearly teaches below

"Destroy This Temple" as Jesus and the Pharisees viewed the temple that took 46 years to build

Interpretation: But he spake of the temple of his body

"Yes" Reformed Preterist Eschatology in 67-70AD fulfillment, would be found in the court of the Pharisees literal interpretation

Once Again, 67-70AD Jerusalems destruction had absolutely "Nothing" to do with fulfillment of Matthew Chapter 24, Mark Chapter 13, or Luke Chapter 21

John 2:18-22KJV
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Two different Greek words.
Two different temples.
Get used to it.
Whether you like it or not.

 

[covenantee]

There is one temple, as your buddies the parishes described, the one that took 46 years to build, your reformed fake news has failed

Jesus Christ spoke of a symbolic destruction of the Temple seen, and the Temple destroyed was his literal body as scripture clearly teaches below

"Destroy This Temple" as Jesus and the Pharisees viewed the temple that took 46 years to build

Interpretation: But he spake of the temple of his body

"Yes" Reformed Preterist Eschatology in 67-70AD fulfillment, would be found in the court of the Pharisees literal interpretation

Once Again, 67-70AD Jerusalems destruction had absolutely "Nothing" to do with fulfillment of Matthew Chapter 24, Mark Chapter 13, or Luke Chapter 21

John 2:18-22KJV
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

The Pharisees couldn't distinguish between "hierou" and "naon".
Neither can you.
What does that make you?

 

[ewq1938]

That's a very good observation. I never thought about it that way. Only New Jerusalem is called holy in the Revelation.​

As well as Old Jerusalem being called holy in Rev 11.

The other cities mentioned (Babylon the Great, the city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, and the cities of the nations that fell when the 7th vial was opened) are never called holy.

But there are a few things Jesus mentioned the day He said these things:

(i) The coming destruction of Jerusalem/s temple;​

I believe he only spoke of the temple buildings not the entire city.

I definitely believe that fleeing Judea to the mountains is at least a type of coming out of Babylon the Great, which will likewise be destroyed, and the AoD in the holy place is not speaking about the temple in Jerusalem.​

Agreed. The holy place/temple is Christians and being there would cause the Apostasy.

 

[Zao is life]

I do agree the AoD was applied to Antiochus 4 in Daniel (11.31; 12.11). In my view, Antiochus 4 is indeed meant to be a foreshadowing of the Antichrist, though not of the Roman AoD.

At least we agree on that :)

"Time of the end" is not, as I see it, synonymous with the "last days," or "endtimes" as we call them today.

IMO "the time of the end" could very well be synonymous with the time of the end of the kingdom of Judea in 70 A.D, were it not for the fact that the gathering of the elect in Matthew 24:29-31 is connected to the time of the end which is mentioned in Matthew 24:14, and in the disciples' question in Matthew 24:3, because the plain reading of the passage in accordance with the grammar it uses ("and", "therefore", "for" etc) doesn't allow me the liberty of slicing Matthew 24:9-31 up into different time periods.

I haven't looked at whether any of these references to "abomination" were plural or not. At this point it isn't relevant enough to my position.

"Let the reader understand" is obviously an insertion by the author who would put Jesus' words into print. Matthew was informing his readers that they should apply their own learning in order to understand that Jesus was drawing upon a passage in Daniel, which was Dan 9.26-27. The AoD would destroy the "city and the sanctuary" by the people/Army of a prince/general to come. In Dan 9.27 this Army is called an "abomination of desolation." Jesus was referring to that.

Well, Daniel 9:27 certainly does not call the army that Daniel 9:26 is referring to an "abomination (singular) of desolation".

That's not the wording. The wording tells us that the temple will be made desolate because of abominations, and I think that it should be relevant to what we believe was the cause of the temple being made desolate:

Isaiah 1:11-15
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? says the LORD; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.

When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?

Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me; I am weary to bear them.

And when you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood."

Hebrews 10:8-10
"Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

"..and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. " Daniel 9:27

So continued sacrifices for sins could very well be the abominations (plural) that Daniel 9:27 mentions. The only thing it has to do with the Roman armies is the fact that it was at their hands that the temple was destroyed. But they are not the reason the temple was destroyed, i.e they are not the abominations that preceded its destruction.

 

[Zao is life]

Two different Greek words.
Two different temples.
Get used to it.
Whether you like it or not.

It's not two different temples. Hieron refers to the physical structure - the entire temple complex - of the temple in Jerusalem.

Naos refers to the holy place in the temple (the actual sanctuary in the temple), and it's also used in Jesus' references to His body being the temple of God.

The last time the New Testament uses the word naos in reference to the sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem, is in the verses in each of the 3 synptoptic gospels where the tearing of the veil is mentioned, and that was the moment Jesus died.

After this, we are told in Acts that God does not dwell in temples (naos) made with (human) hands, and after Acts, the word naos is only used in reference to the bodies of individual believers being a temple (naos), and in reference to the church being the temple (naos) and in every reference in the Revelation to the temple (naos) in heaven.

Revelation 11:1-2 uses the word naos for temple, as does 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Neither are referring to a temple in Jerusalem.

As well as Old Jerusalem being called holy in Rev 11.






I believe he only spoke of the temple buildings not the entire city.



Agreed. The holy place/temple is Christians and being there would cause the Apostasy.

I agree with almost all of what you said. Only I don't see why Jerusalem of old would be called the holy city in Revelation 11:2. New Jerusalem is called the holy city three times: Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

Revelation 11:2 is talking about the holy city. The temple that Revelation 11:1 is referring to is the naós - it uses the word naós for "temple", which is another way of saying the holy place in the New Testament, and the last time the word is used in reference to the sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple, is in the verses in the 3 synoptic gospels which tell about the tearing of the veil in that holy place.

The other city referred to in Revelation chapter 11, is referred to as a city that is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

THE HOLY CITY

But you have come to Mount Zion
and to the city of the living God,
the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable company of angels,
to the general assembly and church of the first-born
who are written in Heaven,
and to God the judge of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
(Hebrews 12:22-24)

"For Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem from above is free, who is the mother of us all." (Galatians 4:25-26).

 

[Zao is life]

Jesus described signs presaging the destruction of the temple. Deceivers were one such sign. The disciples first question was "When shall these things be", referring to Jesus' declaration regarding "these things" in Matthew 24:2. Jesus didn't ignore them. He answered their question relating to "these things", as Scripture and history confirm, beginning with the sign of deceivers.

Yes, that was a sign, and there would be signs of the end of the age and of His coming, the second question they asked Him. But He did not tell them when the destruction of the temple would come. And deceivers have always come. The only sign of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D that we know of is the armies gathering against Jerusalem, mentioned in Luke 21:20-23, though Luke does not even mention the temple in those verses.

They had no way of knowing how many years would pass between the OD and the destruction of the temple, because Jesus did not tell them when it would come. He did not answer the question.

 

[covenantee]

It's not two different temples. Hieron refers to the physical structure - the entire temple complex - of the temple in Jerusalem.

Matthew and John captured the two different words that Jesus used to distinguish between the physical temple, and His own bodily temple.

He used "heirou" to identify the former, and "naon" to identify the latter,

Two different words.

Two different kinds of temples, in the way that Jesus used the words.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, that was a sign, and there would be signs of the end of the age and of His coming, the second question they asked Him. But He did not tell them when the destruction of the temple would come. And deceivers have always come. The only sign of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D that we know of is the armies gathering against Jerusalem, mentioned in Luke 21:20-23, though Luke does not even mention the temple in those verses.

They had no way of knowing how many years would pass between the OD and the destruction of the temple, because Jesus did not tell them when it would come. He did not answer the question.

There's lots more. Jesus answered the question.

WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS

Matthew: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom” (24:6, 7).
Mark: “And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled; for such things must needs be, but the end is not yet, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (13:7, 8).
Luke: “But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by [immediately]. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (21:9, 10).

We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. But Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes, within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero “drove a dagger into his throat.” Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and “thrusting his thumb into the mouth”, carried the horrid trophy about. Otho “stabbed himself” in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then “dragged by a hook into the Tiber.” We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.

In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these “Disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa”, “commotions in Thrace”, “insurrections in Gaul”, “intrigues among the Parthians”, “the war in Britain”, “war in Armenia.”

Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.

But though there would be wars, rumours of wars, and commotions, Jesus told his disciples: “See that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the END is not yet.” The word “end” that is used here is not the same Greek word as in the expression “end of the world.” (See footnote on page 59). As Barnes says, the end here referred to is “the end of the Jewish economy; the destruction of Jerusalem.”

Wars, rumors of wars, and commotions were of a general nature. These things were not signs of the end; to the contrary, they were given to show that the end was NOT yet. None of these things would be the sign which would cause the disciples to flee into the mountains.
​

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

 

[Randy Kluth]

At least we agree on that :)

We're probably agreed on a lot of the most important things. :)

IMO "the time of the end" could very well be synonymous with the time of the end of the kingdom of Judea in 70 A.D, were it not for the fact that the gathering of the elect in Matthew 24:29-31 is connected to the time of the end which is mentioned in Matthew 24:14

I have a problem with this because the term "time of the end" is not connected, contextually, to Matt 24.24.

Matt 24.14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

In this context we are talking about the *end of the age* but not the "time of the end" as used in Daniel. The context of the use of any word really matters. Connecting Matthew 24 with Daniel 9 is there, but the term "time of the end," as applied to the end of the age, is not, in my opinion.

The "time of the end" is a term sometimes used in Daniel in connection with events at the end of the age. In Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image we do hear of a "time of the end" connected to the end of the age....

Dan 2.It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

But the term was also used in Daniel in application to the end of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Dan 9.27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

There are a number of different translations of this verse, so we must be careful to not build a theology strictly on one difficult verse. But in light of what Jesus said, he was predicting the coming of an AoD, an army of the "prince to come," who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary." That is the "end" being applied here--the events of 70 AD.

In Matt 24, both the destruction of the the temple and the end of the age are mentioned, because Jesus' Disciples had a basic confusion between them. Jesus distinguished between the two, as well as compared the two. Both of his comings would spell judgment for people, but at his 1st coming Israel would suffer, and at his 2nd coming the whole world would suffer. Two completely different "ends."

In Dan 8 we see "time of the end" connected to the end of the period of the restored Jewish temple. That's because in Dan 8 we see Persia, Greece, and Antiochus 4, the Syrian, expose Israel's compromise with paganism and sin until Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed again, as presented in Dan 9.

In Dan 9 the "end" is clearly spelled out to be a judgment against Israel to end her sin, which culminated in the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary" in 70 AD.

Dan 9.24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness"

I think it pretty clear that Daniel was writing about the destruction of Jerusalem in Jesus' day, when he made atonement for the sins of Israel." Sin "ended" when Israel's position in their covenant with God was cancelled. This was not an end to all sin on earth, but an end to counting sin against a people no longer qualified to present righteousness before God.

And Dan 11-12 just reiterates the same.

What is clear to me is that "time of the end" is used in Daniel largely to depict the breaking apart of Israel's covenant relationship with God under the Law, culminating in the end of temple worship.

Can the "end" refer to the end of the age? Of course! But mixing together various uses of the word "end" does not really prove anything. Words mean what they mean *in context!*

 

[Zao is life]

Matthew and John captured the two different words that Jesus used to distinguish between the physical temple, and His own bodily temple.

He used "heirou" to identify the former, and "naon" to identify the latter,

Two different words.

Two different kinds of temples, in the way that Jesus used the words.

No. You are wrong. Naos is used a number of times in reference to the sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem, not only to the body of Christ.

Temple complex - the physical structure (word used: hierón):-

Matthew 4:5; Matthew 12:5-6; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:14-15; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 24:1; Matthew 26:55; Mark 11:11 & 15-16; Mark 11:27; Mark 12:35; Mark 13:1 & 3; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:27, 37 & 46; Luke 4:9; Luke 18:10; Luke 19:45 & 47; Luke 20:1 & 5; Luke 21:37-38; Luke 22:52-53; John 2:14-15; John 5:14; John 7:14 & 28; John 8:2, 20 & 59; John 10:23; John 11:56; John 18:20; Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1-3, 8 & 10; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:20-21 & 24-25; Acts 5:42; Acts 21:26-30; Acts 22:17; Acts 24:6, 12 & 18; Acts 25:8; Acts 26:21; 1 Corinthians 9:13.

The actual sanctuary of God (word used: naós):-

-- in the temple complex --

Luke 1:9 & 21-22; Matthew 23:16-17 & 21; Matthew 23:35; Matthew 27:5.

-- Body of Christ --

(John 2:19 & 21; Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29)

After the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the temple, the first time the word naos is used again, is in Acts:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

-- the church & the temple in heaven -- (word used: naós)

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22.

So what Jesus and His apostles were showing us, is that Christ's body, i.e the place that the Spirit of God inhabits, is the holy place, the sanctuary of God. The Old Testament sanctuary ceased being the holy place when the veil was torn inside that physical structure (and that occurred at the moment of the Lord's death).

 

[Zao is life]

There's lots more. Jesus answered the question.

WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS

Matthew: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom” (24:6, 7).
Mark: “And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled; for such things must needs be, but the end is not yet, For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (13:7, 8).
Luke: “But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by [immediately]. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (21:9, 10).

We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. But Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes, within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.

Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero “drove a dagger into his throat.” Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and “thrusting his thumb into the mouth”, carried the horrid trophy about. Otho “stabbed himself” in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then “dragged by a hook into the Tiber.” We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.

In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these “Disturbances in Germany”, “commotions in Africa”, “commotions in Thrace”, “insurrections in Gaul”, “intrigues among the Parthians”, “the war in Britain”, “war in Armenia.”

Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor’s armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.

But though there would be wars, rumours of wars, and commotions, Jesus told his disciples: “See that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the END is not yet.” The word “end” that is used here is not the same Greek word as in the expression “end of the world.” (See footnote on page 59). As Barnes says, the end here referred to is “the end of the Jewish economy; the destruction of Jerusalem.”

Wars, rumors of wars, and commotions were of a general nature. These things were not signs of the end; to the contrary, they were given to show that the end was NOT yet. None of these things would be the sign which would cause the disciples to flee into the mountains.
​

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

You make it sound as though such circumstances could never occur in the world again, not too long before the return of Christ. The above is not enough to convince me and many others that Jesus was not speaking primarily about the end of the current age which began on the Day of Pentecost. Maybe also to the conditions in the known world leading up to 70 A.D, but not primarily.

 

[Zao is life]

We're probably agreed on a lot of the most important things. :)

I have a problem with this because the term "time of the end" is not connected, contextually, to Matt 24.24.

Matt 24.14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

In this context we are talking about the *end of the age* but not the "time of the end" as used in Daniel. The context of the use of any word really matters. Connecting Matthew 24 with Daniel 9 is there, but the term "time of the end," as applied to the end of the age, is not, in my opinion.

The "time of the end" is a term sometimes used in Daniel in connection with events at the end of the age. In Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image we do hear of a "time of the end" connected to the end of the age....

Dan 2.It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

But the term was also used in Daniel in application to the end of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Dan 9.27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

There are a number of different translations of this verse, so we must be careful to not build a theology strictly on one difficult verse. But in light of what Jesus said, he was predicting the coming of an AoD, an army of the "prince to come," who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary." That is the "end" being applied here--the events of 70 AD.

In Matt 24, both the destruction of the the temple and the end of the age are mentioned, because Jesus' Disciples had a basic confusion between them. Jesus distinguished between the two, as well as compared the two. Both of his comings would spell judgment for people, but at his 1st coming Israel would suffer, and at his 2nd coming the whole world would suffer. Two completely different "ends."

In Dan 8 we see "time of the end" connected to the end of the period of the restored Jewish temple. That's because in Dan 8 we see Persia, Greece, and Antiochus 4, the Syrian, expose Israel's compromise with paganism and sin until Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed again, as presented in Dan 9.

In Dan 9 the "end" is clearly spelled out to be a judgment against Israel to end her sin, which culminated in the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary" in 70 AD.

I think it pretty clear that Daniel was writing about the destruction of Jerusalem in Jesus' day, when he made atonement for the sins of Israel." Sin "ended" when Israel's position in their covenant with God was cancelled. This was not an end to all sin on earth, but an end to counting sin against a people no longer qualified to present righteousness before God.

And Dan 11-12 just reiterates the same.

What is clear to me is that "time of the end" is used in Daniel largely to depict the breaking apart of Israel's covenant relationship with God under the Law, culminating in the end of temple worship.

Can the "end" refer to the end of the age? Of course! But mixing together various uses of the word "end" does not really prove anything. Words mean what they mean *in context!*

I agree that "the end" can mean the end of any prophesied period (not sure why you mentioned Daniel 11, because Daniel 11 is speaking about a prophesied period which ended over a hundred years before the events of Daniel 9:24-27).

Daniel 12 is likewise talking both about the period that ended over a hundred years before the coming of the Messiah, but projecting it forward in time so that A iv E becomes a type of the Antichrist (unless of course you mention Daniel 11-12 to show that that period which ended A iv E's profaning of the temple, was also "the time of the end"? (which I would agree with).

But bearing in mind that the chapter division between Jesus telling the pharisees in the temple about its coming destruction and Jesus repeating this news to His disciples just outside the temple, is man-made. IMO verse 1 and 2 of Matthew 24 belong at the close of Matthew chapter 23:

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!

Behold, your house is left to 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 to show Him the buildings of the temple. 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.

The next section begins with:

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 age?

So whatever follows that, and especially following the birth-pain signs, is in the context of whatever follows the birth-pain signs, because for the first time, it introduces the subject of the tribulation of the disciples, which has nothing to do with the fact that the temple was going to be destroyed.

Were it not for the grammar used from Matthew 24:9 onwards, I would say that it's impossible to know whether Jesus was relating verse 15 either to verses 9-14, or to [Matthew 23:37 through Matthew 24:1-2], but the grammar binds Matthew 24:9-31 together.

The only possible way we can break the passage up is to flatly ignore the grammar - and Matthew 24:29-31 explains how the period of tribulation which is being spoken of in the passage (that is bound together by the normal usage and rules of grammar from verse 9 onwards), is going to end.

So I fail to understand how, or even why the coming of Jesus (the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age) can be related to the time of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

I don't believe that Jesus is pointing back to the time of the destruction of the temple in anything He says from Matthew 24:9 onwards. The grammar does not permit such an interpretation, unless we ignore basic English grammar. Jesus did not tell them in the body of the passage (Matthew 24:9-31) when the destruction of the temple would come. They had no way of knowing how many years would pass between Jesus' prophetic statement regarding the destruction of the temple, and the actual fulfilment of it.

Nor has anyone ever had any way of knowing how many years will have passed before He comes. I really do not buy the Preterist and PP view that He came in a spiritual sense, or any sense in 70 A.D. That coming happened on the day of Pentecost. The next time will be in a literal sense when He appears in the clouds and sends out His angels to gather His elect, as per Matthew 24:29-31 and other passages.