There is only one Individual identified as a prince in the passage.
He is Messiah the Prince. Daniel 9:25
He was the prince who did come. Daniel 9:26
Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?
- Thread starter Davidpt
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
He is Messiah the Prince. Daniel 9:25
He was the prince who did come. Daniel 9:26
The only preposterous ones are those who refuse to recognize that the Holy Spirit inspired Luke 21:20 to be the synoptic interpretation identifying the AOD.
Which was the abominable Roman armies bringing desolation upon Jerusalem and Judaea.
Last edited:
I never said it did. All I'm doing is pointing out what I have heard some in the past insist was meaning the AOD in the first century. Some take it to mean the continuing of animal sacrificing once Jesus died and rose. Except I just debunked that interpretation since it isn't agreeing with the text if one is supposed to be taking those things in the literal sense, meaning the fleeing to the mountains. No one did that not even one single time while animal sacrificing continued for another 40 years. Yet the text indicates that one is to flee right then and there, no time to pack, the very second see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place. Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
What we should be doing here is comparing with what is recorded in Luke 17, for one. For example.
Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
It is ridiculous to take that in the literal sense, meaning verse 31, which is also meaning verse 17 and 18 in Matthew 24, when anyone that is familiar with the 4 gospels, they would easily be thinking the following per what is recorded in Luke 17:33.
Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
If anyone thinks that pertains to 70 AD rather than discipleship in general, then I don't know what to tell you except that that person has poor reading comprehension pertaining to verses 24-26 above. I doubt that anyone has poor reading comprehension like that, so that means they should be taking Luke 17:33 to be involving what Matthew 16:24-26 is involving, then applying that to Matthew 24:17-18 if they claim they interpret Scripture with Scripture. It is not reasonable to take Luke 17:31 in the literal sense, in light of Luke 17:33 and how that is connected with discipleship in general.
It's equally not reasonable, thus a perfect example of not remaining consistent about things, to interpret Luke 17:31 one way and Matthew 24:17-18 an entirely different way. To be consistent, if one passage is meaning in the literal sense, both passages are. If one passage is not meaning in the literal sense, neither passages are.
In light of Luke 17, I beg to differ. Nothing recorded in Luke 17 gives the impression fleeing is meaning in the literal sense involving fleeing from one location to another. Therefore, how can the same things recorded in Luke 17 that are also recorded in Matthew 24, not mean in the literal sense in Luke 17 but mean in the literal sense in Matthew 24? Clearly, Luke 17 is key here, thus proving that what Luke 21:20 is involving, is not what Matthew 24:15 is involving.
The Judaean Christians had no problems being literal.
They understood Jesus' warnings literally, heeded them literally, fled literally, and survived literally.
They were literally correct.
Luke's accounts affirm their literal understandings and literal actions.
Last edited:
I have no dispute with taking Luke 21:20-21 in the literal sense, and it pertaining to the 1st century and what would ultimately happen in 70 AD.
My dispute is with taking Matthew 24:17-18 in the literal sense in light of Luke 17:31-33 and what I argued in regards to Luke 17:33.
Here is Luke 17:31-33 again. What is your interpretation of these verses? Do you interpret them spiritually or in the literal sense the way you interpret Matthew 24:15-18?
Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
"'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."
(Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia)
The Judean Christians literally understood the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel to be referring to Antiochus' defiling of the temple - which was not destroyed - and so because of the context of what Jesus was saying to them about the tribulation of the saints at the end of the Age leading to His return, they would have literally interpreted what Jesus said as an abomination that will appear in the New Testament Temple, since the Old Testament temple was no longer the holy place (regardless of your non-Christian interpretation of the scriptures - your calling that temple the holy place even after the death and resurrection of Christ).
They were literally correct. You are literally incorrect. You ignore the biblical (real) context of the Olivet Discourse and invent your own.
Holy Places
THE HOLY PLACE OF THE OLD COVENANT / TESTAMENT (Holy Place and Most Holy Place of the Old Covenant / Testament) THE HOLY PLACE OF THE NEW CO...
zaoislife.blogspot.com
Anyway I'll stay away from this eschatology part of the forums for a while because the stubbornness of the false teachers in it is disturbing.
I'll rather go watch The Chosen and then read the Bible without reading false teachers implying Matthew 24:15 was fulfilled when the 2nd temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
Last edited:
Did the Judaean Christians literally flee?"'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."
(Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia)
The Judean Christians literally understood the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel to be referring to Antiochus' defiling of the temple - which was not destroyed - and so because of the context of what Jesus was saying to them about the tribulation of the saints at the end of the Age leading to His return, they would have literally interpreted what Jesus said as an abomination that will appear in the New Testament Temple, since the Old Testament temple was no longer the holy place (regardless of your non-Christian interpretation of the scriptures - your calling that temple the holy place even after the death and resurrection of Christ).
They were literally correct. You are literally incorrect. You ignore the biblical (real) context of the Olivet Discourse and invent your own.
Holy Places
THE HOLY PLACE OF THE OLD COVENANT / TESTAMENT (Holy Place and Most Holy Place of the Old Covenant / Testament) THE HOLY PLACE OF THE NEW CO...
Anyway I'll stay away from this eschatology part of the forums for a while because the stubbornness of the false teachers in it is disturbing.
I'll rather go watch The Chosen and then read the Bible without reading false teachers implying Matthew 24:15 was fulfilled when the 2nd temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
What impelled them to literally flee?
And no, it had nothing to do with Antiochus. Luke identifies the AoD as the Roman armies. Antiochus was not a Roman, nor did he have Roman armies. Rome was his enemy.
And learn to read. Nowhere have I claimed that the temple was the holy place. That's a figment of dispensational delusionism.
Last edited:
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place , (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
Yet a temple is meant by the holy place and the following for one undeniably proves it. Yet it doesn't mean it's meaning the same temple though, but it is meaning a temple, nonetheless. And IMO it is meaning the temple meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and not the 2nd temple before it was destroyed.
Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple , and hath polluted this holy place .
Jesus was speaking of Jerusalem, known since OT times as the "holy city" (Nehemiah 11:1; Isaiah 52:1), and to the Roman armies advancing on it.
Jesus did not mean the temple, for if the Jerusalem Christians had waited until the Roman armies reached the temple, any opportunity for their escape would have vanished.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
If one event is local and involves complete destruction on a local scale and another event is global and involves global destruction on a global scale, then is it not allowed for similar terminology to be used in relation to each event? I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't find it to be strange for some similar terminology to be used to describe each event. So, I don't find your arguments here to be convincing at all.
Even you acknowledge that Jesus talked both about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple buildings and destruction on a global scale in relation to second coming of Christ within the Olivet Discourse. But, you strangely claim that the local destruction of Jerusalem is only recorded in Luke 21. But, would you not expect similar terminology to be used when describing each event since both involve complete destruction, but just on different scales? It seems like you don't even take that into consideration for whatever reason.
I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that Jesus's answer to the question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings would only be recorded in Luke 21 and not in Matthew 24 or Mark 13. So far, I have never seen you or anyone else give any kind of reasonable explanation for that.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I agree. It would be too late to start fleeing if the enemy has already taken over the temple, so Jesus had to be talking about Jerusalem as "the holy place" and not the temple. Once the city starts being surrounded then they would know its desolation is near. If the armies have already reached the temple within the city, then its desolation would not be near at that point, but would already be taking place.
In the KJV first I did a search for all of the following words in the same verse---holy---place---Jerusalem. Not one single match. Then I did an exact phrase search for 'holy place'. Numerous matches, too many to list. Then casually browsing some of them, thus not thoroughly, I'm not noticing anywhere that the holy place is meaning Jerusalem in any of those matches. But I do know why you need it to mean that, though. I get it. Too bad you can't prove with Scripture that the holy place typically means Jerusalem.
I don't see the holy city and the holy place meaning the same thing. The holy place would be within the holy city, yet not be the city itself.
Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
What about these passages? Do you think the city of Jerusalem is meant here as well?
Luke's account interprets it in the parallel verse.
Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
We've already explained why Jesus meant Jerusalem. Luke's account confirms Him.
A city is a place. If Jerusalem was a holy city, then Jerusalem was a holy place.
Last edited:
Maybe your idea of reasonable is not the same as someone else's idea of reasonable, thus you reject anything and everything someone else submits because it doesn't live up to your standards as to what qualifies as reasonable? IMO, the following qualifies as reasonable, yet mark my words, you will try and find an unreasonable way around it instead, then insist it had to be rejected since it is not reasonable. IOW, it must be rejected since it causes a conflict with your doctrinal bias concerning some of these things. Unfortunately though, the following ended up lengthier than I was wanting it to be.
Yet there is Luke 17 to consider and factor in here.
Take note that not one thing recorded in Luke 17 below can also be found recorded in Luke 21 but can be found recorded in Matthew 24.
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.
Granted, the following can also be found recorded in Luke 21 but none of the above can.
Luke 17:23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
I can see that pertaining to the following.
Luke 21:8 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.
I want to mainly focus on the following part in order for you to explain how that can fit a literal event such as 70 AD?
Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
Compared with...
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
You're not going to propose something unreasonable, are you? Thus cherry pick. That Luke 17:31 is not referring to the same era of time, the same events, as Matthew 24:17-18 is referring to, but in regards to Luke 17:26-27 though, it OTOH is referring to the same era of time, the same events as something in Matthew 24 is, meaning this---Matthew 24:37-39?
Let's break it down like such.
-----------------------
A) Luke 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
A1) Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
-----------------------------------
Per your view, is A) and A1) referring to the same thing?
-----------------------------------------------------
B) Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
B1) Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Per your view, is B) and B1) referring to the same thing?
---------------------------------------------------
C) Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
C1) Matthew 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Per your view, is C) and C1) referring to the same thing?
-----------------------------------------------
D) Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
D1) Matthew 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left
Per your view, is D) and D1) referring to the same thing?
-------------------------------------------------
E) Luke 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.
E1) Matthew 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
Per your view, is E) and E1) referring to the same thing?
-----------------------------------------------------
Obviously, unless you are purposely being dishonest, you can't have, say 4 of these things referring to the same events but one of them not. Therefore, if you are being honest, thus resisting doctrinal bias, you are not going to conclude 4 of these things are referring to the same events but one of them is not. You're going to conclude all 5 of them are referring to the same events, meaning A) and A1) are referring to the same events in both accounts, etc.
Which then presents a major problem with your position since you would be applying Luke 17:30-33 to that of a literal event involving 70 AD. When anyone that has any discernment at all knows that Luke 17:33 couldn't possibly fit 70 AD, a literal event involving literally fleeing from one location to another. Is that how you interpret Luke 17:30-33, in the literal sense, that it is involving literally fleeing from one location to another, such as fleeing to literal mountains? If no, there you go then. Your literal 70 AD interpretation has been debunked and you helped debunk it by agreeing that Luke 17:30-33 is not to be understood in that sense.
There's only one way around this if you don't want to come across as dishonest by insisting that those 5 things recorded in both Luke 17 and Matthew 24, A) A1), B) B1), etc, that only 4 of them are referring to the same thing in both accounts, 1 of them isn't. You have to admit you are wrong about what Matthew 24:15-21 is involving since Luke 17:30-33 can't possibly fit literal events such as 70 AD.
Last edited:
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
They are not "parallel verses". Your hermeneutics is faulty and lacks credibility. Below is a comparison of Luke's gospel with Matthew's:
"Now when the days drew near for him to be taken up, Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem." (Luke 9:51).
Luke 17
- on the way to Jerusalem -
"And He said to the disciples, The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you shall not see it. And they shall say to you, Lo, here! or, behold, there! Do not go away, nor follow. For as the lightning which lights up, flashing from the one part under heaven, and shines to the other part under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day. But first He must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.
And as it was in the days of Noah, so it also shall be in the days of the Son of man. Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day he who shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise, he who is in the field, let him not return to the things behind. Two shall be in the field, one will be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them, Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together." (Luke 17:22-26 & 31, 36-37).
Luke 11 (before arriving in Jerusalem)
Big tithes and no mercy
42 But woe to you, Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and pass over judgment and the love of God. You ought to have done these, and not to leave the other undone.
43 Woe to you, Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets.
44 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like unseen tombs and the men walking above are not aware of them.
45 And one of the lawyers answered and said to Him, Master, you reproach us also when you say this.
46 And He said, Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens grievous to be carried, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
Tombs of the prophets
47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48 Truly you bear witness that you consent to the deeds of your fathers. For they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs.
49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute,
50 so that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the temple. Truly I say to you, It shall be required of this generation.
52 Woe to you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and you have hindered those who were entering in.
The passages in Luke are talking about AD 70 as well as about the end of the Age and the return of Christ. So is the passage in Matthew 23:13 - Matthew 24:15-31, but according to Luke's record, Jesus said all the above things while journeying to Jerusalem, whereas according to Matthew's record, Jesus said all the above things while in the temple, and while seated on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
It's logical to say that "As in the days of Noah" and "As in the days of Lot" pertains to the suddenness of the calamities coming upon unbelievers.
"Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes." pertains to the urgency of the disciples of Jesus getting themselves as far away from the trouble as they can, as fast as they can.
"Remember Lot's wife." pertains to the disciples of Jesus not looking back or longing for what has been left behind.
"Woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! But pray that YOUR flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day." pertains to the intensity of the tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples (since Jesus was speaking to His disciples).
"Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives." --- Luke 21:37
In the record contained in all three of the synoptic gospels, instead of speaking to them about the temple in Jerusalem again, the first thing Jesus began to speak and warn about after sitting down on the Mount of Olives (and in response to the disciples' question), was:-
(i) Birth-pain signs of the end of the Age; and
(ii) The tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament Temple would experience at the end of the Age:-
Matthew 24
14 "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and at that time the end will come. 9 At that time they will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name. 10 At that time many will stumble and fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, 12 and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love of many will grow cold.
13 But the person who endures to the end will be saved.
THEREFORE.. "
"Therefore" is a correct translation of the Greek oun.
" THEREFORE.. when you see the abomination of desolation - spoken about by Daniel the prophet - standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), at that time those in Judea must flee to the mountains .."
FAULTY HERMENEUTICS IS NOT SOUND HERMENEUTICS
This is what Luke records about the armies gathering against Jerusalem:
Luke: 21:23
"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress [anánkē] in the land and wrath [orgḗ] on this people." (Luke 21:23).
Whereas Luke's gospel pertains to the distress experienced by all who would be in the land at the time that God's wrath was to come upon Jerusalem,
Matthew's gospel pertains to the intensity of a period of tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples, at a time when there would be:
"great tribulation such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be" (to such an extent that)
"unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened." (Matthew 24:21-22)."Now when the days drew near for him to be taken up, Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem." (Luke 9:51).
Luke 17
- on the way to Jerusalem -
"And He said to the disciples, The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you shall not see it. And they shall say to you, Lo, here! or, behold, there! Do not go away, nor follow. For as the lightning which lights up, flashing from the one part under heaven, and shines to the other part under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day. But first He must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.
And as it was in the days of Noah, so it also shall be in the days of the Son of man. Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day he who shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise, he who is in the field, let him not return to the things behind. Two shall be in the field, one will be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them, Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together." (Luke 17:22-26 & 31, 36-37).
Luke 11 (before arriving in Jerusalem)
Big tithes and no mercy
42 But woe to you, Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and pass over judgment and the love of God. You ought to have done these, and not to leave the other undone.
43 Woe to you, Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets.
44 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like unseen tombs and the men walking above are not aware of them.
45 And one of the lawyers answered and said to Him, Master, you reproach us also when you say this.
46 And He said, Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens grievous to be carried, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
Tombs of the prophets
47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48 Truly you bear witness that you consent to the deeds of your fathers. For they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs.
49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute,
50 so that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the temple. Truly I say to you, It shall be required of this generation.
52 Woe to you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and you have hindered those who were entering in.
The passages in Luke are talking about AD 70 as well as about the end of the Age and the return of Christ. So is the passage in Matthew 23:13 - Matthew 24:15-31, but according to Luke's record, Jesus said all the above things while journeying to Jerusalem, whereas according to Matthew's record, Jesus said all the above things while in the temple, and while seated on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.
It's logical to say that "As in the days of Noah" and "As in the days of Lot" pertains to the suddenness of the calamities coming upon unbelievers.
"Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes." pertains to the urgency of the disciples of Jesus getting themselves as far away from the trouble as they can, as fast as they can.
"Remember Lot's wife." pertains to the disciples of Jesus not looking back or longing for what has been left behind.
"Woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! But pray that YOUR flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day." pertains to the intensity of the tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples (since Jesus was speaking to His disciples).
"Every day Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, but at night he went and stayed on the Mount of Olives." --- Luke 21:37
In the record contained in all three of the synoptic gospels, instead of speaking to them about the temple in Jerusalem again, the first thing Jesus began to speak and warn about after sitting down on the Mount of Olives (and in response to the disciples' question), was:-
(i) Birth-pain signs of the end of the Age; and
(ii) The tribulation and persecution that the living stones of the New Testament Temple would experience at the end of the Age:-
Matthew 24
14 "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and at that time the end will come. 9 At that time they will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name. 10 At that time many will stumble and fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, 12 and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love of many will grow cold.
13 But the person who endures to the end will be saved.
THEREFORE.. "
"Therefore" is a correct translation of the Greek oun.
" THEREFORE.. when you see the abomination of desolation - spoken about by Daniel the prophet - standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), at that time those in Judea must flee to the mountains .."
FAULTY HERMENEUTICS IS NOT SOUND HERMENEUTICS
This is what Luke records about the armies gathering against Jerusalem:
Luke: 21:23
"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress [anánkē] in the land and wrath [orgḗ] on this people." (Luke 21:23).
Whereas Luke's gospel pertains to the distress experienced by all who would be in the land at the time that God's wrath was to come upon Jerusalem,
Matthew's gospel pertains to the intensity of a period of tribulation as it would be experienced by the disciples, at a time when there would be:
"great tribulation such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be" (to such an extent that)
So Matthew recorded Jesus saying:
"Woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! But pray that YOUR (the disciples') flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day." (Matthew 24:19-20).
Linking what Luke records Jesus saying about the the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem (Luke 21:23) to what Matthew records Jesus saying about the abomination of desolation - spoken about by Daniel the prophet - standing in the holy place is not sound hermeneutics, but willfully interpreting scripture to align it with a personally chosen interpretation.
When Jesus spoke of the days of Noah and of Lot etc, He was using historic events as biblical types of things to come.
As we saw in the above comparison between Luke's and Matthew's records about Jesus' location when He spoke about the end of the Age and the time of His return using the above types, the two gospels frequently do not agree either on when Jesus said the above things, or on where He was located when He said them.
Therefore sound biblical hermeneutics requires that we keep in mind that Matthew's gospel was written by Matthew (not by Luke).
Matthew chose the word --".. therefore .."-- to link Matthew's record about what Jesus had just said about the tribulation of the disciples at the end of the aeon | age (Matthew 24:9-14) to what follows the word "therefore" in the same text and context.
Therefore there's no logical reason why we should interpret Matthew's record of what Jesus said on the Mount of Olives about tribulation, great tribulation and the abomination of desolation in the holy place in accordance with what Luke recorded Jesus saying on the Mount of Olives about the wrath of God that was to come upon Jerusalem.
Last edited:
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
The only time that the words "the holy place" are used after the tearing of the veil is when the Jewish priests accused Paul of defiling what THEY called, "the holy place" - and the Greek uses the words hagios topos in both the records.
The holy place and holy of holies of the temple in Jerusalem is called naos until the time of the tearing of the veil - but not after that (ever). From then on naos is referring to the New Testament Temple.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Look in the mirror. I can say the same to you. You immediately dismiss the idea that Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 could be referring to tribulation on different scales (global vs. local) because it doesn't live up to your standards as to what qualifies as reasonable. Don't try to act like you are the only reasonable one here. Who are you trying to fool here with this holier than thou act?
You mean like you do with my view of Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21? You have no idea how hypocritical you're being here.
You are being ridiculous. I interpret any given verse or passage based on what I see taught in scripture as a whole. If I interpreted Matthew 24:21 as global tribulation it would contradict my understanding of hundreds of other verses. Should I change my understanding of the rest of scripture in favor of seeing that as talking about global tribulation? Jesus only mentions Judea there (and He mentions Jerusalem in the parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24), so there is no indication that He is talking about global tribulation in Matthew 24:15-21. I think it's quite reasonable for me to come to that conclusion. And that conclusion agrees with my interpretations of many other passages as well.
And I'm sure you probably just repeated things that you've already said several times before. What is the point? Your mind is made up on this and so is mine. Should we just repeat the same argument we've already had several times before? I think it's questionable at best that it's worth the time to do that.
Did you ever consider that Luke didn't see any reason to record that in Luke 21 since he had already recorded Jesus saying similar things in Luke 17? I don't see that this proves anything one way or another.
So what?
LOL. You are hilarious. Are you not cherry picking by relating Luke 17:31-33 to Matthew 24:15-18, but not relating Luke 21:20-24 to the same passage? You are being incredibly hypocritical in your post. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing. How can I take you seriously in that case?
In Luke 17:31-33, the context is very clearly in relation to Christ's second coming. That is not the case for Matthew 24:15-21, especially when you look at the parallel passage in Luke 21:20-24a. There is a time period Luke calls "the times of the Gentiles" that occurs between Matthew the end of the event described in 24:15-22 and the event described in Matthew 24:29-31 (between Luke 21:20-24a and Luke 21:24b-36). That is what you miss and is the reason why you are missing the context of Matthew 24:15-21.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Yes.
No. There's no reason to think that Jesus couldn't say something similar about what would happen in 70 AD as what would happen at His second coming because each event involves God's wrath coming in the form of complete destruction. In the case of what happened in 70 AD, it was the complete destruction of Jerusalem. In the case of Christ's second coming, it's the complete destruction of the whole earth.
But, let me ask you something now.
Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Luke 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.
Per your view, are the two above passages referring to the same thing?
Matthew 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 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.
Luke 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.
Per your view, are the two above passages referring to the same thing?
Yep.
Yep.
So, using this logic, I can conclude that you are being dishonest by not acknowledging that Luke 21:20-24a is referring to the same thing as Matthew 24:15-21. Which would then mean we're both being dishonest and are both wrong. Is that something you're willing to agree on if you want to insist on using this kind of logic?
Not really since I recognize that Jesus could say something similar about similar events. But, if that's a major problem for me, then, using the same kind of logic you're using, you denying that Luke 21:20-24a is the same event as Matthew 24:15-21 is a major problem for you as well.
No, of course not. Is there some rule that Jesus could not use similar words in a literal way in one sense and in a figurative way in another sense? You are trying to create man made rules that we have to go by to interpret scripture, but I do not go by your man made rules. I go by what scripture teaches, overall, and I am careful to not interpret one passage in such a way that contradicts other passages.
If Jesus said the exact words "Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains" and "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" twice in the Olivet Discourse, don't you think He would have wanted His disciples to know that He was talking about two different events? Wouldn't He have clarified that with them to avoid confusion? But, we see no indication of such anywhere in the 3 accounts (Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21). What is your explanation for that?
LOL. If you have debunked that by merely showing one verses that Luke 17 has in common with Matthew 24, then using the exact same kind of logic, I can say that I debunked your view that Matthew 24:15-21 has a future fulfillment by showing the similarities between Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-21. So, are you willing to agree to that?
LOL. I will do no such thing. If you can say that, then I can say you have to admit to being wrong about Matthew 24:15-21 since the parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24a is about a literal event in 70 AD.
The reality is, neither of us can say that and we both have to figure out how Luke 17:30-33 and Luke 21:20-24a fit with the overall narrative of what Jesus taught. You can't act like you proved something by pointing out a similarity to Luke 17:30-33 while ignoring the similarities to Luke 21:20-24. Talk about coming across as dishonest...
Similar threads
