Olivet Discourse revisited

[Zao is life]

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

Yes, the subject of [Matthew 23:37 - Matthew 24:2] is the only reason why they asked Jesus the question. That's obvious - but they did not know that there would be at least 1,953 years between 70 A.D and His return, so they did not realize that they asked Him a loaded question, because they included the question of what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the Age.

The question they asked Jesus just before His ascension (Acts 1:6-9) shows that they probably had the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem connected with the end of the Age and His coming in glory, especially because He had not even died and risen from the dead yet when Jesus gave the OD.

And as in Acts 1:7-9 (and typically, as He did most of the time) Jesus did not correct their question. He simply gave the answer. (Notice how Matthew 24:14 is connected to Acts 1:8).

But this does not mean that Jesus did not speak of the sign of His coming at the end of the Age.

What is that sign that Jesus gave in the Olivet Discourse, which all believers are told to keep in mind as we watch for His return?

As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? verse 3

This gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And at this time (The time of: Greek: tote) the end shall come. verse 14

At the time of the end (Greek: tote) they will deliver you up to tribulation (Greek: thlipsis) and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake. verse 9

Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand). Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains. For then shall be great tribulation (Greek: megas thlipsis), such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened. verses 15, 21-22.

Now regarding the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to be with him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.
He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God's temple, displaying himself as God.
Surely you recall that I used to tell you these things while I was still with you. And so you know what holds him back, so that he will be revealed in his own time. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-6

At the time of the end (tote) they will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name. At the time of the end (tote) many will be led into sin, and they will betray one another and hate one another.
And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love of many will grow cold.

But the person who endures to the end will be saved. Matthew 24:9-13.

As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? verse 3

Note: The time of the end of the age that Jesus was talking about, and the time of His return, was either 70 A.D when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, or it has not yet happened.

But just because the disciples did not know, when they asked the question, that there would be 1,953+ years between the destruction of the temple and the return of Christ, we cannot legitimately rip the sign of an abomination in the holy place out of its contextual place to say that it's suddenly talking once again about the temple in Jerusalem when the subject had changed to the sign of His coming and the end of the age + the tribulation His disciples would face at the time of the end of the age, and the audience was His disciples (no longer the scribes and Pharisees),

and the location that this was being said was the Mount of Olives (no longer was Jesus in the temple telling the scribes and Pharisees about the coming destruction of their temple - He was seated on the Mount of Olives telling His disciples about the tribulation that they would experience at the time of the end of the age, which would lead to his return).

 

[Truth7t7]

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

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

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


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


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


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

Is Mark Chapter 13 or Luke Chapter 21 the Olivet discourse, Big Smiles!

Of course Jesus stood with the pharisees observing the literal temple in Jerusalem, of course Jesus stated "Destroy This Temple" and of course it wasn't the literal temple in Jerusalem, it was the temple of his body

Your suggestion this represent two different events in destruction is "Laughable"

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.

 

[Truth7t7]

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

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

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


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


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


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

Jesus was speaking of a "Future" generation that would be eyewitnesses of the great tribulation and his second coming in the heavens

Luke 21:25-28KJV
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

 

[Davy]

I don't suffer any illusions about being able to change many minds, but I still think it's worth the effort. I've been studying this many years, and it really seems to be a headache in the study of biblical prophecy. Way back in the early 70s I read Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," and really enjoyed it. He saw amazing coincidences between the news of our time and biblical prophecies that seem to be coming to precise fulfillment.

Unfortunately, Lindsey did something that I believe has been disastrous to the understanding of biblical prophecy. And I'm sure he's not the only one. He had a tremendous desire to convert biblical prophecies that had already been fulfilled into future prophecies. Why waste time reading prophecies that had already been fulfilled, such as prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon? Why not focus on prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled so that we can show people how God's word is still relevant in our own day?

And so, Lindsey converted what Jesus said in his Olivet Discourse from being about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans to being an endtime prophecy of the generation in which Israel would be reborn as a nation. The passage reads, "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." This prophecy was actually being spoken about Jesus' own generation--"this generation" referred to the generation in which Jesus lived.

But Lindsey converted this into a prophecy of the last generation. "This generation" was, for Lindsey, the generation that saw the rebirth of the Israeli nation. The generation that sees the rebirth of Israel would not pass away until the Rapture of the Church takes place first.

Well sadly, when many like myself who like to point out this error do so we are called "Preterists" as a name of insult. Preterists was a particular school of thought that arose in history to declare not just that "this generation" was fulfilled in the Roman conquest, but also that the *entirety of the book of Revelation* was fulfilled in the Early Church.

.....

At that point right there... you drifted off into the world of men's false doctrines of PRETERISM.

You can TRY to deny that's the doctrine you intend to push, but that's what you're actually doing, I've read enough of your posts to know that's your ploy.

YOUR PROBLEM, that many like yourself have, is that you err in TRYING to make God's written Word fit a specific platform designed by... men! That is NOT how to study and interpret God's Word, not rightly dividing like Apostle Paul said at all.

God's Word MUST be allowed to interpret itself for us. How's that done, some might ask? By keeping to 2 or more Scripture witnesses for a matter. That means you do NOT just pull a single verse out of Scripture and preach around it until it seems to fit what you want. It means we are to allow God to speak in His Own Word to us, and not man. And that is done by staying in His Word line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, chapter by chapter, book by book, all the way through. God's example for study is written in Isaiah 28.

So what do we discover about Christ's Olivet discourse of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21?

We discover (that is, those who discipline theirselves in God's written Word), that the SIGNS Jesus was giving in His Olivet discourse PARALLEL THE SEALS OF REVELATION 6! What does that mean? It means the Olivet discourse IS... about the time of the very end leading up to Christ's future return! That is why Christ's SIGNS in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 parallel the SEALS of Rev.6. Both are about SIGNS of the very end of this world leading up to Christ's future return.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, the subject of [Matthew 23:37 - Matthew 24:2] is the only reason why they asked Jesus the question. That's obvious - but they did not know that there would be at least 1,953 years between 70 A.D and His return, so they did not realize that they asked Him a loaded question, because they included the question of what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the Age.

The question they asked Jesus just before His ascension (Acts 1:6-9) shows that they probably had the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem connected with the end of the Age and His coming in glory, especially because He had not even died and risen from the dead yet when Jesus gave the OD.

And as in Acts 1:7-9 (and typically, as He did most of the time) Jesus did not correct their question. He simply gave the answer. (Notice how Matthew 24:14 is connected to Acts 1:8).

But this does not mean that Jesus did not speak of the sign of His coming at the end of the Age.

What is that sign that Jesus gave in the Olivet Discourse, which all believers are told to keep in mind as we watch for His return?

...............

But just because the disciples did not know, when they asked the question, that there would be 1,953+ years between the destruction of the temple and the return of Christ, we cannot legitimately rip the sign of an abomination in the holy place out of its contextual place to say that it's suddenly talking once again about the temple in Jerusalem when the subject had changed to the sign of His coming and the end of the age + the tribulation His disciples would face at the time of the end of the age, and the audience was His disciples (no longer the scribes and Pharisees),

and the location that this was being said was the Mount of Olives (no longer was Jesus in the temple telling the scribes and Pharisees about the coming destruction of their temple - He was seated on the Mount of Olives telling His disciples about the tribulation that they would experience at the time of the end of the age, which would lead to his return).

There's a lot here I agree with, but I'll tell you the one place I do not agree with. It is that the "Abomination of Desolation" is a sign of Jesus' Coming. I don't agree with that, because that was part of "the things" that were to take place in Jesus' generation in connection with the destruction of the temple. The AoD was, in my opinion, the Roman Army, the "people of the prince to come" who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary" after Messiah is "cut off," all contained in Dan 9.

But yes, the Disciples were confused about Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple. Instead of coming as Messiah to save the nation Israel he had come to announce the destruction of the temple once again--this time permanently. But that's exactly as Daniel had foretold it in Dan 9!

So the Disciples thought Jesus's coming would mean Israel's restoration, and thus asked Jesus about his Coming, allegedly to save Israel, in light of his prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed. What then was the "sign" of Jesus' Coming? Was it the restoration of Israel or the destruction of the temple?

Jesus' indicated that his 2nd Coming was always destined to be a coming in judgment upon the world, just as his Coming was to mean the salvation of national Israel. However, Israel thought Messiah's Coming would mean a deliverance from their enemies. Instead, Jesus said his Coming would mean judgment upon Israel, as well.

He would come down from heaven like lightning to bring judgment upon all who resist his Kingdom, including false religion in Israel. His sign would be as Dan 7 indicated, a descent from God's throne in heaven to destroy the kingdoms of the world that resist him. Only after this would Israel be saved. The "sign," therefore, was a *sign of judgment,* and not just Israel's national salvation.

 

[Truth7t7]

The AoD was, in my opinion, the Roman Army, the "people of the prince to come" who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary" after Messiah is "cut off," all contained in Dan 9.

Daniel's AOD is future, and the bad guy causing the Abomination and Desolation will be present on earth to the "Consummation" Ultimate End

"Future" Events Unfulfilled

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future"!

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: 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.

 

[covenantee]

Daniel's AOD is future, and the bad guy causing the Abomination and Desolation will be present on earth to the "Consummation" Ultimate End

"Future" Events Unfulfilled

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future"!

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: 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.

Debunked by Scripture, history, and Daniel's grammar.

 

[Randy Kluth]

At that point right there... you drifted off into the world of men's false doctrines of PRETERISM.

I'm not and have never considered myself a Preterist. Preterists believe, by definition, that both the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation are, for the most part, about the generation or time of Christ, the Early Church. I don't agree with that.

Belief that the Olivet Discourse was mostly about the time or generation of Christ is something believed in by the Church Fathers and many Christian leaders. This was long before Preterism came into existence as a school of interpretation.

People have tried to saddle me with the name "Preterist" for a long time. I'm not hateful towards Preterists--some of them are friends of mine. But I'm not interested in name-calling, if that's what you're trying to do?

If you think I'm a Preterist, legitimately, then I can understand that. It is often thought that belief that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the generation of Jesus is Preterism. But it isn't so necessarily.

For me, my beliefs about the Olivet Discourse may be called a "Preterist-like belief," if you must. But it is certainly not, in my case, Preterism.

If you wish to discuss details about the Olivet Discourse, you need to steer clear of this issue of "name-calling." It's a distraction. If you wish to persist with this, the conversation is dead to me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Daniel's AOD is future, and the bad guy causing the Abomination and Desolation will be present on earth to the "Consummation" Ultimate End

"Future" Events Unfulfilled

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future"!

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: 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.

The phrase you're high-lighting is a legitimate question. Scholars, including language experts, have had a problem with it. It can be taken in several ways. Some think it refers to Antichrist's destruction at Christ's Coming. Some think it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

I don't really know? And so I revert to what appears to be the most obvious perspective, or the Big Picture. We are told that Messiah is cut off, the People (Army) of the Prince to Come (Roman General) will destroy the City and the Sanctuary (destruction of the temple in 70 AD by the Romans).

So my view is that the phrase you're referring to must relate to some aspect of this, whether to the complete destruction of Jerusalem or to the completion of Israel's Diaspora and Judgment. It has nothing to do with the destruction of Antichrist at Christ's Coming since Antichrist is not even in the passage (in my view).

 

[covenantee]

It has nothing to do with the destruction of Antichrist at Christ's Coming since Antichrist is not even in the passage (in my view).

Your view reflects Scripture. The word "antichrist" does not exist in ancient Hebrew, so it can't be in the passage, except by imagination.

 

[ewq1938]

Belief that the Olivet Discourse was mostly about the time or generation of Christ is something believed in by the Church Fathers and many Christian leaders. This was long before Preterism came into existence as a school of interpretation.

But that is partial preterism. The church fathers were wrong on that the Olivet Discourse was mostly about the time or generation of Christ.

For me, my beliefs about the Olivet Discourse may be called a "Preterist-like belief," if you must. But it is certainly not, in my case, Preterism.

lol...you are just dancing around it rather than accept the correct name for your beliefs. "Preterist-like" is accurate though so let's go with that.

 

[covenantee]

The church fathers were wrong on that the Olivet Discourse was mostly about the time or generation of Christ.

Whom to believe?

1. You
2. Church fathers

Do you need a hint?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your view reflects Scripture. The word "antichrist" does not exist in ancient Hebrew, so it can't be in the passage, except by imagination.

I get these kinds of arguments all the time, and don't believe they're sensible. Sorry!

It is unavoidable that we use different words or descriptions from one language to another, from one culture to another, when reading the same Hebrew or Aramaic passage.

The Apostle John uses the word "Antichrist" as a kind of transliteration or interpretation from pre-Christian language to Christian language. Conceptually, John sees the account of the "Little Horn" as being anti-Son of Man, or anti-Messiah.

That is, John sees the "Son of Man" as being Messiah, because that he how Jesus identified himself, as the "Son of Man." So the one who is depicted as being anti-Son of Man would be viewed and interpreted by John as the Antichrist.

So for John, Daniel's account witnesses the rise of a Little Horn who at the end of the ages wishes to disturb progress towards the realization of God's Kingdom, or the Messianic Kingdom. He is, in effect, anti-Kingdom, anti-God, and anti-Messiah, or Antichrist.

In speaking of "Antichrist" John is referring to the Little Horn who like Antiochus 4 tries to get the People of God to give up doctrinal orthodoxy and true worship of God in favor of idolatry and apostasy.

So no, "Antichrist" is not absent from the book of Daniel. He is clearly in Daniel chapter 7. But he is not, in my opinion, in Daniel chapter 9!

 

[covenantee]

I get these kinds of arguments all the time, and don't believe they're sensible. Sorry!

It is unavoidable that we use different words or descriptions from one language to another, from one culture to another, when reading the same Hebrew or Aramaic passage.

The Apostle John uses the word "Antichrist" as a kind of transliteration or interpretation from pre-Christian language to Christian language. Conceptually, John sees the account of the "Little Horn" as being anti-Son of Man, or anti-Messiah.

That is, John sees the "Son of Man" as being Messiah, because that he how Jesus identified himself, as the "Son of Man." So the one who is depicted as being anti-Son of Man would be viewed and interpreted by John as the Antichrist.

So for John, Daniel's account witnesses the rise of a Little Horn who at the end of the ages wishes to disturb progress towards the realization of God's Kingdom, or the Messianic Kingdom. He is, in effect, anti-Kingdom, anti-God, and anti-Messiah, or Antichrist.

In speaking of "Antichrist" John is referring to the Little Horn who like Antiochus 4 tries to get the People of God to give up doctrinal orthodoxy and true worship of God in favor of idolatry and apostasy.

So no, "Antichrist" is not absent from the book of Daniel. He is clearly in Daniel chapter 7. But he is not, in my opinion, in Daniel chapter 9!

You don't have to apologize for your opinion. You are correct. Antichrist is not in Daniel 9.

 

[Randy Kluth]

But that is partial preterism. The church fathers were wrong on that the Olivet Discourse was mostly about the time or generation of Christ.

My whole point was that belief in the focus of the AoD on 70 AD was not necessarily Partial Preterism. If you define PP that way, it is understandable but not correct, in my view.

Preterism is a system of interpretation in which most prophecy is complete within the time of the Early Church. For PPs, the only thing left to be fulfilled in prophecy is Christ's 2nd Coming.

In the confusion over what Preterism is, some Preterists allow all kinds of extravagances in their view of fulfilled and future prophecy, sometimes even allowing for belief in a future Antichrist. But they neglect to recognize that Preterism is not just about belief in the Olivet Discourse's fulfillment in the Early Church. More, it is a system that sees most prophecy as being already fulfilled.

lol...you are just dancing around it rather than accept the correct name for your beliefs. "Preterist-like" is accurate though so let's go with that.

You can go with that if you like. But beliefs that include future prophetic fulfillment is *not* Preterism (with the exception of Christ's 2nd Coming). Preterism, therefore, is *not* just belief that much of the Olives Discourse has already been fulfilled.

I actually go much farther in my belief about what the Olives Discourse included. In my belief that the AoD was the 70 AD event I also believe that it included a prophecy that the nation Israel would go through an entire age of Jewish Diaspora. That is hardly Preterism. That is hardly belief that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the Early Church!

I do believe that the Olives Discourse was focused on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, just as Jesus explicitly said. However, he was asked to relate this to promise of the eschatological Kingdom, implying that Israel would be saved. His answer was that the coming of the Son of Man was always depicted as a judgment against the sins of Man, whether in the nations oppressing Israel or in lawless Israel herself.

And so, Jesus depicted a judgment on Israel that merely began in his generation, but which would continue until the end of the age, when indeed Israel would be delivered through judgment. The "sign of the Son of Man" was therefore judgment, and not just salvation!

 

[Zao is life]

There's a lot here I agree with, but I'll tell you the one place I do not agree with. It is that the "Abomination of Desolation" is a sign of Jesus' Coming.

Yeah I accept that we obviously have a different interpretation of what Matthew 24:15 relates to, as well as what the abomination was, or will be.

I don't see the Roman armies as that abomination because I don't see that temple as being holy after the veil in it was torn in two, and Daniel 9:27 mentions abominations in the plural in all English translations I have looked at, whereas the abomination (singular) in the holy place (I believe) is foreshadowed by the abomination that A iv E placed in the holy place of the 2nd temple, and in the case of the time of the end and the return of Christ it's referring to the 3rd temple, i.e the New Testament temple, and the man of sin.

I also see the word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 as relating to verses 9-14, and the great tribulation of verses 21-22 as relating to verses 9-14 also (because aside from the change in location and audience, and the introduction of the subject of tribulation, the English words are all correct translations of the Greek words - and the words "and, therefore", "for", "because" etc join the passage together from Matthew 24:9 onward into one subject which involves the end of the age, the tribulation of the disciples, and an abomination appearing in the holy place).

It's almost as though we are told, by the brackets (let the reader understand) appended to the words "the holy place", not to assume this holy place is referring to the temple that was going to be destroyed.

Preterists and Partial Preterists have good points about this, but also points which just ignore other facts (for example there would need to have been a general resurrection of the dead if Christ had come in glory and ushered in His Kingdom in 70 A.D; and His Kingdom came in a spiritual sense in 30 A.D, some say 33 A.D, beginning on the Day of Pentecost, not 40 years later).

I really do believe that far too much emphasis is placed by some on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple was not the beginning of a new era for Christ and His Kingdom or for Christians. The Day of Pentecost was.

IMO the significance of the destruction of the temple was that God was not going to allow the abominations in the form of continued daily sacrifices for sins, offered in a temple complex in Jerusalem, to continue forever. The people had already had 40 years of the gospel being preached, and so those Jews who had not crossed over into the heavenly promised land (the Kingdom of Christ) "perished in the wilderness" in 70 A.D (Hebrews 3:17-19). It marked the end of the Jewish leaders' rebellion against the Messiah, and signified the destruction of their law. Moses died in the Wilderness - but in the first century the law, with its sacrificial system, had already been abolished in the blood and the body of our Passover Lamb, 40 years earlier. So I don't understand how the temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D could be so significant to the end of the age and the tribulation of the disciples.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

I can't see how the argument that Luke was writing primarily to Gentiles but Matthew to Jews suffices, because Luke was not an eye-witness, whereas Matthew was an eyewitness of what Jesus said.​

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.

Luke was recording the testimony he gleaned from eyewitnesses, and he was hardly likely to even know about the difference between the AoD placed by A iv E in the holy place which did not result in the destruction of city and sanctuary, and the prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27. As it stands Luke spoke only of the destruction of Jerusalem when he linked that to the disciples being told to flee Judea. In fact, Luke said nothing about the temple in Luke 21:20-24.​

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.

If Daniel's prophecies spoke only of one AoD you would be correct.​

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.

But there are two mentions in Daniel of abominations. The abominations (plural) that preceded the destruction of both city and sanctuary, and the one abomination of a vile leader that resulted in the destruction of neither city nor sanctuary. I believe he is the type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
​

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

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'm not a preterist. 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?

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

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.

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

By fleeing to the mountains? Why would it matter if someone was nursing a baby or pregnant in order to do that? Why would it matter if it was winter or the Sabbath in order to do that?

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

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. 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.

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

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

I disagree. I don't see any basis for this conclusion. Why, after the last thing that Jesus said to them was that the temple buildings would be destroyed, would the disciples only ask Him about the end of the age and His return? I don't believe that makes any sense. It's very clear to me that they would have been shocked about what He said about their beloved temple and would have discussed it amongst themselves and they would have wanted to ask about it to get more details.

​

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

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

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

So, again, if it's not talking about the destruction of a physical temple there, then you need to explain what Jesus meant by saying that people would need to flee into the mountains and why He would indicate that it would be particularly difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women at that time. And why it would be particularly difficult to flee in the winter or on the Sabbath.

 

[covenantee]

But the subject in Jesus' reply to the disciples' question in Matthew 24:3 changed to the end of the age and the return of Christ

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” (21:8).

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​

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is Mark Chapter 13 or Luke Chapter 21 the Olivet discourse, Big Smiles!

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

Of course Jesus stood with the pharisees observing the literal temple in Jerusalem, of course Jesus stated "Destroy This Temple" and of course it wasn't the literal temple in Jerusalem, it was the temple of his body

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.

Your suggestion this represent two different events in destruction is "Laughable"

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.

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

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.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yeah I accept that we obviously have a different interpretation of what Matthew 24:15 relates to, as well as what the abomination was, or will be.

Yep, and that's okay. I personally have held to a number of different positions through the years, and have had to think through them to consider new information as it came along. You're welcome to hold to any position that you think works best.

I don't see the Roman armies as that abomination because I don't see that temple as being holy after the veil in it was torn in two

The Romans were abominable pagans to the Jews, whether the Jews were hypocrites or not. When Daniel wrote of these "abominations" he was under the Law. When Jesus spoke of the Abomination of Desolation he was still under the Law. When the Romans approached Jerusalem, to desolate it, they were abominable pagans, despite the fact the Law had passed.

and Daniel 9:27 mentions abominations in the plural in all English translations I have looked at, whereas the abomination (singular) in the holy place (I believe) is foreshadowed by the abomination that A iv E placed in the holy place of the 2nd temple, and in the case of the time of the end and the return of Christ it's referring to the 3rd temple, i.e the New Testament temple, and the man of sin.

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.

But in Dan 9.27 I think "AoD" is applied to the Roman Army. Again, the term "time of the end," in my view, refers to the end of God's covenant with the Jewish People under the Law and to their NT period of dispersion. "Time of the end" is not, as I see it, synonymous with the "last days," or "endtimes" as we call them today.

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.

I also see the word "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 as relating to verses 9-14, and the great tribulation of verses 21-22 as relating to verses 9-14 also (because aside from the change in location and audience, and the introduction of the subject of tribulation, the English words are all correct translations of the Greek words - and the words "and, therefore", "for", "because" etc join the passage together from Matthew 24:9 onward into one subject which involves the end of the age, the tribulation of the disciples, and an abomination appearing in the holy place).

Well, reference to the "end of the age" was not the specific focus of Matt 24. 9-22. Neither was the "shortening of tribulation" the major focus--these elements were simply the bookend demarcating all of the things that would precede it.

In other words, Jesus was informing his Disciples what would happen to them during this critical time of Jewish sin and apostasy, leading up to the AoD disaster in 70 AD. Israel's judgment would be consummated in a terrible destruction of the nation in 70 AD, followed by an age-long period of Jewish exile. This tribulation would ultimately be cut short to keep Jewish hopes alive for a final restoration.

Some here want to bifurcate the "Tribulation" into incompatible camps, either Jewish Punishment or believers' persecution. But in my view, Jesus is addressing *all* of the nation Israel's citizens, both believers and unbelievers. Their nation would be crushed out of judgment. And those who are unjustly persecuted would suffer along with the nation as it is destroyed and exiled throughout the NT age.

It's almost as though we are told, by the brackets (let the reader understand) appended to the words "the holy place", not to assume this holy place is referring to the temple that was going to be destroyed.

"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.

Preterists and Partial Preterists have good points about this, but also points which just ignore other facts (for example there would need to have been a general resurrection of the dead if Christ had come in glory and ushered in His Kingdom in 70 A.D; and His Kingdom came in a spiritual sense in 30 A.D, some say 33 A.D, beginning on the Day of Pentecost, not 40 years later).

I don't believe Jesus came in any eschatological sense in 70 AD, but his "coming" is viewed in terms of historical acts of judgment and salvation. For example...
Rev 2.5 Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
Rev 2.16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

A most significant passage, in this regard, is found in one version of the Olivet Discourse...
Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything."

Here Jesus seems to view his 2 Comings as if one. He had already come, but will reveal himself in the 70 AD judgment. But as he had already said, these things will not be "the end." It will be but the beginning of a long period of judgment for the Jewish people, culminating in his return to deliver Israel.

I know this passage is commonly viewed as "2nd Coming." But in my view, Jesus is applying his "coming" in a very OT way, as a coming of God in wrath in the historic sense of judging peoples. It is not the antithesis to the actual 2nd Coming, but is very much complementary to it in that regard.

I really do believe that far too much emphasis is placed by some on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple was not the beginning of a new era for Christ and His Kingdom or for Christians. The Day of Pentecost was.

I personally think that too much emphasis on the destruction of Jerusalem cannot be given! This was a major upheaval in the way God had been doing things on earth, with respect to any specific covenant with a body of people. The Law had indeed given way to the New Covenant at the cross. However, Israel had to actually be scattered in order to put the punctuation point on this reality.

IMO the significance of the destruction of the temple was that God was not going to allow the abominations in the form of continued daily sacrifices for sins, offered in a temple complex in Jerusalem, to continue forever.

Yes, we are agreed on that. The termination of the temple ended not just the OT era for the Jewish People, but also the offering of unacceptable sacrifices under the OT system. It had become a blatant display of Jewish rejection of Jesus' own sacrifice for sin. They thought their own priestly sacrifices for sin did not need Jesus' unblemished sacrifice for sin to cover their own flawed Jewish worship.

The people had already had 40 years of the gospel being preached, and so those Jews who had not crossed over into the heavenly promised land (the Kingdom of Christ) "perished in the wilderness" in 70 A.D (Hebrews 3:17-19). It marked the end of the Jewish leaders' rebellion against the Messiah, and signified the destruction of their law. Moses died in the Wilderness - but in the first century the law, with its sacrificial system, had already been abolished in the blood and the body of our Passover Lamb, 40 years earlier. So I don't understand how the temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D could be so significant to the end of the age and the tribulation of the disciples.

What was important, in my opinion, was that the Kingdom of God be taken from the Israeli state and given to another state. Although the Roman state was pagan and corrupt, the Gospel of Christ converted Rome to a Christian State, thus representing a union between Man's political system and God's political system, the Kingdom of God. Israel had to be destroyed as a result of their failure under the covenant of Law in order to obtain hope in a New Covenant of Grace.