When Will Christ Return?

[eclipsenow]

Pretty good treatment, Eclipse. Do I see an avoidance of reading 2 Thess 2 about Paul's current times? "Setting up in the temple, proclaiming himself..." are reasonable recycled statements of Mt 24 & //s about the person who should not be there, calling himself Messiah (as we know from Jesus' ordeal, to say you were Messiah was to claim to be God). The "power of lawlessness" was "already at work" (holy revolts tend to cheat to their advantage!). Once again, the direct hand of God/Christ was expected to destroy them at his coming. Well, the un-messiah was destroyed, but the 2nd coming was not how that happened, because that would have meant the end of the world, which the Father put off.

All this seems to be directed towards the same group as Paul's pursuers and spoilers in 1 Th 2; but maybe not. It's just that like Mt 23's already desolate house, the "wrath of God has come on them fully."

I mention that as an example of the imprecision of how the apostles thought. The house was not desolated yet, and I don't know of an act of wrath on Israel already by the time of this letter (unless he means the famine during Claudius, Acts 11, which is over the whole Roman world...). Either way, it's not the exact literalism of fine detail by BW, is it?

--Inter

Yeah, I guess I have trouble with a literal reading of 'temple' here because the 'lawless one' or 'antichrist' seems to be a common metaphor for the godlessness of this age, and how there is the constant challenge of 'wolves in sheep's clothing' trying to usurp the church. If this passage is to be read the way the Sydney Anglican scholars I read say, then the 'man of lawlessness' is a metaphorical figure basically arguing that we'd KNOW Jesus had returned because the constant battle with sin and the evil in the church and the world would be over. Satan and his influence in the church would be gone. It would all be cleaned up.

As my good mate Dr Greg Clarke says:

“But is there going to be one mega-evil ruler who will deceive the world and lead millions astray and do things like brand ‘666’ on their foreheads?
Probably not. There are passages in the Bible, which talk about a particular being that is Christ's foe (e.g., “the man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the dragon of Revelation 12-13 who is identified as the Devil). But this kind of symbolic language is used to describe an attitude or spirit of evil rather than a single evil person. The fact that some parts of Scripture bring ultimate evil to a head by using an individual character to identify it probably says more about how dramatic literature operates than it does about predicting history.”

The devil you know | The Briefing

Or try Luke Woodhouse:
To explain this present spiritual reality in 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul draws a picture of the last days, when the man known as ‘lawlessness’ will be exposed. On that day, rebellion at its highest magnitude will be revealed for all to see. Comparisons with ‘lawless’ figures over history have often been distractions for Christians, in that they miss the picture Paul sketches. But comparisons should not be totally dismissed. The global outrage at figures like Adolf Hitler is a rare opportunity to see the secret power of lawlessness brought out into the open and examined. It is a moment where the whole world stops and notices anarchy with its disguise removed. It's a glimpse of hell.
Getting refocused on the return of Jesus | The Briefing

Or Try this 5 minute video by the Dean of St Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney, Phillip Jensen.
Video | Antichrist: Who Is He? | Phillip Jensen


COMPARE AND CONTRAST
The passage also runs a 'compare and contrast' exercise. The beginning reminds us that Jesus has not returned because evil is still in the world, and sometimes in the church (temple), but that one day Jesus will return and fix all that. Then the passage shifts to discuss the work Jesus is already doing within the church to banish evil.

It's theological, not an end times table. It's devotional, not prescriptive of some future dates (or even past dates). The 'Abomination that causes desolation' from Daniel is picked up by Jesus to refer to the real horror that will desolate the entire sacrificial system just a week before he dies. In Matt 24, while looking down at the temple, Matt says "Let the reader understand". He's saying REFLECT on what happened when the temple was laid desolate under Antiochus Epiphanes. Remember how it was laid waste! Well, this is going to be permanent.

Jesus was then murdered, taking our sin, laying waste the entire sacrificial system by fufiling it. Any further sacrifices performed after Jesus death and resurrection were themselves abominations. But then of course the events the disciples were actually asking about, the destruction of the temple itself, occurred in AD70. So I think we are looking at multiple fulfilments: Jesus death lays waste to the system, Titus lays waste to the temple and Jerusalem, and eventually Jesus saving works will lay waste to this entire civilisation and created order, only to lift it up into heavenly dimensions.

But it all starts with Jesus death and resurrection. Let the reader understand: It's like an earthquake that then sends out wave upon wave of tsunami.

 

[Achilles6129]

You've raised some EXCELLENT questions but I think they all go away fairly easy when we see something about the way 'antichrist' is uses in the verses above. Wow, but I have to laugh, because your questions about the 'signs and wonders' had me scratching my head and seriously wondering if I was going to abandon my Amillennialism and become a futurist after all! (Maybe I haven't had enough sleep. )

Hello eclipse. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond - I have been a little busy of late. Thanks for the compliment - nice talking with you about this issue.

Once you realise that the 'man of lawlessness' and 'antiChrist' are interchangeable pictures of a certain spirit at work, then we can see that antiChrists can have been both back at AD70 when Jerusalem fell, and finally exposed at the Return of the Lord on Judgement Day.

It works like this.

There are many "the antichrist" figures. That is, many instances of the metaphor of a singular figure.

John seems to use the term AntiChrist more than anyone. I see no reference here to a global supreme ruler who will deceive all the nations, then become the Abomination that causes Desolation, or any particular instruction about what to do about such a singular figure in history.

Indeed, John's language plays down the expectation of a singular figure, especially as he uses the metaphor of a singular figure many times!

Watch it transform from one singular figure they've 'heard' about to the many singular figures in the verses below. 'The antiChrist" becomes a metaphor of general badness, which is how my scholarly friends think 2 Thess 2 is talking!


1 John 2:18
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22
22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John 1:7
7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

John does not say 'any such person is an antiChrist' but is THE antichrist. But that First Century Greek grandma down the road who denied Jesus came in the flesh, surely she cannot be THE antiChrist? But that's the way it reads! Because it's a metaphor. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

If John speaks about many individuals as THE antiChrist, it is clearly a metaphor, a nasty label, describing people in a very dangerous state.

Yes, John does describe different individuals as "the antichrist." However, what we are really talking about here is the 'man of lawlessness' in 2 Thess. 2. The 'antichrist' is just a term I use to describe this individual. More on this later as I see you have addressed this further down in your post.

This makes sense of Jesus warning about all the false Messiah's that would rise around AD70. "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time."

They would lead vast armies out into the desert to fight the Romans, surely a sign in and of itself. But they were wrong about who Jesus Christ really was, and they were defeated.

Yes, there have always been messianic pretenders. And yes, there were a few around prior to and after 70 AD (Simon Bar Kochba is an example). So those would be covered by Christ's warning against false christs/false prophets.

But notice that Christ says that they shall perform great signs/wonders to deceive the elect. Just where were these signs/wonders in these false christs you're referring to?

The fact of the matter is also that, as I pointed out previously, the description of false christs given by Christ in Mt. 24:24-25 corresponds exactly to Paul's description in 2 Thessalonians 2. There is no other conclusion but that Paul and Christ are talking about the same individual.

This also makes sense of the 'man of lawlessness' in 2 Thess 2. For surely, just as certain false faith healers steal the limelight in the church (the modern temple of God), and just as John warned against all manner of antiChrists in the singular metaphor of THE ANTICHRIST, so too 2 Thess 2 is using the metaphor of a singular figure to explain that evil will be revealed. But the good news is that the evil one cannot use his many instances of singular antichrist to permanently maim the church because "the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way." This is a common theme in Revelation, that amidst all the persecution of these last days (2000 years and counting since Acts 2), the Lord will give his church rest on occasions. We will not be snuffed out. We are to trust in him, avoid the antichrist's and warn others about antichrists, for they are everywhere.

But where are we given the indication in 2 Thess. 2 that Paul is using the man of lawlessness figuratively?

" 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie," 2 Thess. 2:2-9 (NIV)

Notice that Paul puts the advent of the man of lawlessness in context with the 'day of the Lord' - that would be the day of Christ's return. So Paul is speaking about something that will happen at the end of the age.

So 2 Thess. 2 corresponds exactly with the warnings of 'false christs' in Mt. 24. 2 Thess. 2 is in the context of the end of the age, and, if we read Mt. 24 closely, it is in the context of the end of the age as well (as I pointed out in my previous post).

Lastly: the fact that Matthew 24 talks on the one hand about not being deceived by the signs and wonders of lying antiChrist's, and on the other hand about the end of the world, is to be expected in a passage that jumps from answering questions about when that temple* to then talking about the end of this world, and how they would not be deceived by false Christs if they just remembered that when Jesus does return, it's the end of the entire created order!

Look at what Christ says in 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.
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:
21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
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.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" Mt. 24:15-29

Mt. 24:29 is without a doubt referring to the events of the sixth seal in Revelation 6, which is clearly the advent of Christ. The problem is that Mt. 24:29 is connected to the rest of the entire discourse that I quoted by means of the phrase "immediately after the tribulation of those days." This connects the entire discourse of at least Matthew 24:15 onward to the last days. Obviously, then, the warning of false christs would be a warning for the last days - which makes perfect sense since Paul connects the advent of the 'man of lawlessness' with the return of Christ (as has already been shown).

I think part of the misunderstanding of Christ's eschatological discourse stems from the fact that each of the Synoptics preserves only a part of the full discourse. What I'm trying to say is that in Matthew Christ doesn't answer the question of when the temple will be destroyed. Matthew simply did not preserve that part of the discourse - however, it is preserved in Luke 21.

In reality, Christ probably said a lot more than is preserved in the gospels. All we have is what each evangelist chose to transmit to us.

If we combine Luke 21 and Matthew 24, the full question about the end of the age and the end of the temple gets answered. We see that Christ's discourse from Matthew 24:15 onward is actually referring to the end of the age.

* they were asking about THAT temple because they were looking at it with their own eyes, drawing Jesus attention to it, and then Jesus answered about THAT temple, not some still hypothetical 3rd temple. You'd have to do all kinds of damage to the text to insist Jesus was actually talking about a 3rd temple 2000 years removed from what the disciples were asking.

Right, Christ answered their question in Luke 21. Matthew 24 is not even the full discourse, nor is Mark 13, nor is Luke 21. Only a portion has been preserved. In Matthew 24 Christ does not answer the question about the end of the temple. Matthew simply chooses to omit that portion from his writing and skip directly to the end of the age.

No, it simply means the time will be cut short, it won't go on forever. The trials and tribulation which the People of God have faced won't go on forever, but Christ will come again, and will set all things right.

Ok, so how is the time cut short if it has been directly prophesied as lasting a certain length? Are you sure there is no way this could connect with the plague in Revelation where 'the day shone not for the third part of it, and the night likewise?'

The midnight cry is "The Bridegroom comes!". The faithful virgins were not caught off guard at his coming. Midnight, the middle of the night, as in "thief in the night" when we do not expect. Our Lord will come according to His own timing, and while we cannot predict or anticipate when; we can stand vigilant, faithful, and be found counted among those who were faithful and not wasteful--as the Parable of the Talents shows us.

Right, but what exactly is the midnight cry? What event is it? The parable indicates that there is some event which triggers a massive realization that Christ is about to return very quickly - evidently so quickly that the foolish bridesmaids don't have time to get the oil (Holy Spirit?) for their lamps.

Also, notice that even the bridesmaids who had oil in their lamps were sleeping. Sleeping is usually a negative image in the NT. So there is something wrong with the entire church near the time of the end.

 

[eclipsenow]

If we are going to get specific about the man of sin, then it may shift our focus to a more partial preterist perspective. Because getting specific like that means that we're actually talking about their temple, not some still hypothetical temple 2000 years later!

That then requires the 'coming of the Lord' in that passage to be one of the 'days of our Lord' (Luke 17) where any specific prophesied judgement in scripture is a day of the Lord that can be spoken of with such language. If this is Matt 24 and Luke 21, then it is about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and the coming of the Lord is a phrase about the Lord's judgement on the old covenant.

Otherwise it is merely personifying the metaphor of an AntiChrist, and telling us that all such pretenders and deceivers in the 'temple' of God (the church) will be destroyed when the Lord ACTUALLY returns on Judgement Day.

So which is it? I'm currently leaning towards AD70 as a major 'day of the Lord' prophesied in the gospels and 2 Thess 2. If that's the case, the trumpet is the gospel from Isaiah's trumpet calling the world to worship in Jerusalem, and the angels are simply us: messengers, carrying the 'trumpet' (or gospel message) out to the corners of the earth.

In this sense, Jesus is not 'coming back to earth' but coming before the Ancient of Days after rising from death triumphantly returning to the Father. (Daniel 7).

There remains the spectacular return of our Lord on judgement day, but these gospel passages may not be discussing that but referring to how the gospel of Jesus death and resurrection clears the way for the thorough end of the old covenant and beginning of the new.

 

[Achilles6129]

So you believe that everything is symbolic, then? Paul's discourse in 2 Thess. 2 about the 'man of lawlessness' is symbolic?

Obviously, in order for these things to be fulfilled there would have to be another Jewish Temple. You are seeming to be saying that you believe all these things were fulfilled with the second Jewish Temple. Can you show me a place where 2 Thess. 2 was indeed fulfilled with the second Jewish Temple?

Daniel 9:27 also still must be fulfilled, though the passage is somewhat convoluted:

"27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place[f] shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.”" Dan. 9:27 (NRSV)

"27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of [ae]abominations will come one who [af]makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who [ag]makes desolate.”" Dan. 9:27 (NASB)

"27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." Dan. 9:27 (NIV)

So we have three different renderings from three pretty good translations. I think that this passage is what Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 about the abomination of desolation in the temple. In this case, there would need to be a 3rd Jewish Temple. Explain to me how this was fulfilled back in 70 AD by the Romans?

"15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand" Mt. 24:15 (NIV)

Now if you think the Romans did this in 70 AD, where is the proof? It has never been shown that any such thing as this happened in 70 AD. When we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place we are to flee the city. This is totally against what happened in 70 AD - the temple was not even destroyed until the city was taken (there was no chance to flee) and there was never any 'abomination of desolation' set up.

Paul says that the 'man of lawlessness' shall go into the temple and sit down, shewing himself that he is God:

" 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." 2 Thess. 2:3-4

This could mean an image (the image of the beast?) or statue or whatever. But it is clearly in the temple of God.

So do you take everything to be symbolic? If not, how do you explain these fulfilments back in 70 AD?

Note added after re-reading your post: If you believe that the 'temple' of God is the church, then when and where was the 'abomination of desolation' set up in it? And when did the man of lawlessness set himself up the the church, proclaiming himself to be God?

 

[eclipsenow]

So you believe that everything is symbolic, then? Paul's discourse in 2 Thess. 2 about the 'man of lawlessness' is symbolic?

What I am saying is that there are 2 popular options that do not involve a futurist scheme here requiring us to keep checking what is happening in the Middle East and confusing us all about the theological importance of the actions of a largely secular, selfish state, Israel.

1. SYDNEY ANGLICAN VIEW OF THE METAPHOR
John certainly used the term 'antiChrist' in a symbolic way. (Such a man is THE AntiChrist, with many THE AntiChrist's). It would not be inconsistent of the manner of speaking about a lawless individual. It's what many Sydney Anglican scholars I admire think about the passage, that either Paul was drawing on imagery of a known figure of the time (who may have already been usurping temple functions: there are a number of historical options!) or using the general metaphor of an impostor. Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled all those Daniel prophecies (but then again, maybe some of those prophecies were about Jesus fulfilling the sacrificial system and laying it waste for all time. Yet more options to consider!) So with a well-known "abomination that causes desolation" already in Israel's history (167BC), it became a metaphor that was easy to draw on. Some Sydney Anglicans say the "abomination that causes desolation — let the reader understand", is Jesus saying (in Mark) that yes, Titus will be worshipped in the temple courtyard as the temple burns and the Romans sack Jerusalem, but the whole sacrificial system will have already been laid waste by Jesus death and resurrection. It's an option!

In this view,
'coming of the Son of man' = Jesus coming before the ancient of days and returning to heaven to be with the Father, as we see in Daniel,
trumpet = Isaiah's trumpet announcing the gospel and calling all men across the planet to repent
'signs in the heavens' = language of OT prophets of great calamities and great changes in the Kingdom of God, metaphorical language used to describe the change of status of God's people, a fulfilling of the great Covenant promises of God
'angels gathering' = messengers in the Greek, = Christian witnesses across the 4 corners of the earth calling people to repent from the furthest regions (Egypt to Assyria and Persia), again a focus of Acts that this had in fact occurred in that generation of disciples!
The Preterist view says that Jesus always used "This generation" to mean the people alive then.

2. PRETERIST VIEW OF MULTIPLE DAY'S OF THE LORD

22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

In other words the Olivet discourse and 2 Thess 2 might use the language of the Last Day but are refering us to it: that it is an image of the judgement occurring against the Old Covenant Temple, which is what the disciples were asking about anyway. "End of the age" could refer to end of the OT Covenant.

Obviously, in order for these things to be fulfilled there would have to be another Jewish Temple. You are seeming to be saying that you believe all these things were fulfilled with the second Jewish Temple. Can you show me a place where 2 Thess. 2 was indeed fulfilled with the second Jewish Temple?

Preteristarchive lists too many historical figures for me to get my head around. What futurists need to disprove is that Luke ever has Jesus saying "This generation" to mean anything other than the generation Jesus was speaking to at that time!

Daniel 9:27 also still must be fulfilled, though the passage is somewhat convoluted:

"27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place[f] shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.”" Dan. 9:27 (NRSV)

Antiochus Epiphanes, but some say it is Jesus death and resurrection.

"27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of [ae]abominations will come one who [af]makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who [ag]makes desolate.”" Dan. 9:27 (NASB)

Terrible version you're reading there, but again: Antiochus Epiphanes, or even Jesus.

"27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." Dan. 9:27 (NIV)

Same.

So we have three different renderings from three pretty good translations. I think that this passage is what Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 about the abomination of desolation in the temple. In this case, there would need to be a 3rd Jewish Temple. Explain to me how this was fulfilled back in 70 AD by the Romans?

Jesus has to be discussing the end of the 2nd temple in 70AD because:
* "this generation" ALWAYS means the people Jesus is speaking to then and there,
* the disciples asked about THAT temple, not some silly hypothetical 3rd temple they weren't even talking about! As if Jesus suddenly shifts the conversation from their obvious, concrete question about the temple before them to some imaginary temple over 2000 years away! That's Scripture twisting on an epic scale.

In the Olivet discourses Jesus is answering their questions about the 2nd Temple which WAS destroyed in 70AD. There is no other option. So he's speaking of the Romans, and Titus, but is doing so referring back to the horrible events of Titus Epiphanes. There's even room for Jesus smuggling in multiple discussions here, where "let the reader understand" refers back to the complete desolation of the temple under Antiochus Epiphanes that then has the gospel readers thinking about how Jesus had claimed his body was the temple, and was going to destroy and rebuild it in 3 days. "Let the reader understand". Titus can only be allowed to destroy the temple because Jesus already did! He rendered the whole sacrificial system obsolete.

"15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand" Mt. 24:15 (NIV)

Now if you think the Romans did this in 70 AD, where is the proof? It has never been shown that any such thing as this happened in 70 AD. When we see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place we are to flee the city. This is totally against what happened in 70 AD - the temple was not even destroyed until the city was taken (there was no chance to flee) and there was never any 'abomination of desolation' set up.

Are you kidding?
If Jesus is referring to Daniel events that were already historically fulfilled, he is reminding them of the general vibe of what happened under Antiochus Epiphanes. You're probably reading this too literalistic-ally. He's reminding them of how horrible it was. Read this wiki for a few paragraphs explaining how Preterists see it.

The Roman soldiers sacrificed to the Eagle standard in the Temple Courtyard. They worshipped Titus in the Temple Courtyard while the temple burned, and then the entire temple structure was demolished, one stone not left on another. All of this occurred within the 40 year generation of Jesus prophecy. Now if this doesn't fulfil your requirements, you're being overly pedantic about the 2 words 'holy place'. You're ignoring the fundamental historical FACT that the temple they were discussing and that Jesus predicted would fall in THAT GENERATION actually DID fall.

Paul says that the 'man of lawlessness' shall go into the temple and sit down, shewing himself that he is God:

Eagle standard. Do some research about what that actually meant to the Roman soldiers.
Otherwise, there is the metaphorical approach of the Sydney Anglicans that it refers to usurpers in God's temple now, the church, or the Preterist idea that there were a few historical figures that pretended to be military Messiah's.

" 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." 2 Thess. 2:3-4

The standards also played key roles at religious festivals. On these occasions they would be anointed with precious oils and decorated with garlands. So revered were the standards during such ceremonies, that it might be argued the standards themselves were worshipped by the troops.

Army Standards

This could mean an image (the image of the beast?) or statue or whatever. But it is clearly in the temple of God.

Not so clear if Jesus is referring to the general vibe of Antiochus Epiphanes to let the disciples have an inlking of how terrible it will be. Jesus often used hyperbole: "if you do not hate your mother and father", "Cut off your hand, poke out your eye", "let the dead bury their own dead", etc. A hyper-literalistic reading of the details in this passage is just wrong, especially if you're using the details to try and hide the overall shape. That's ignoring the forest for the trees. The 'forest' in this case being that Jesus REALLY DID say it was going to happen within THAT generation, and there's simply no getting around that.

Note added after re-reading your post: If you believe that the 'temple' of God is the church, then when and where was the 'abomination of desolation' set up in it? And when did the man of lawlessness set himself up the the church, proclaiming himself to be God?

IF it's metaphorical, it's a metaphor drawing on the history of the Jews having already experienced this under Antiochus Epiphanes. It's saying "there will be fakes like this in the church". It's saying, "Don't worry that the Lord might have returned already, because we still see a world of sin and suffering and fakes in the church".

IF it's actually predicting a specific individual it could be fulfilled literally by the historical references at the Preterist archives and that the 'day of the Lord' here may actually be one of the days of judgement of the Lord. (Luke 17).

 

[Interplanner]

re Lk 17
thanks for the reminder about Lk 17. Notice that some of the days of the Son of Man are present tense to the reader (past for Christ). Maybe the lighting is the resurrection news after all! (Cp 24:4)

--Inter

 

[Achilles6129]

It's what many Sydney Anglican scholars I admire think about the passage, that either Paul was drawing on imagery of a known figure of the time (who may have already been usurping temple functions: there are a number of historical options!) or using the general metaphor of an impostor.

But this is not what Paul says in 2 Thess. 2. You are making things out to be symbolic when we have no indication that they are symbolic - actually, quite the contrary.

Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled all those Daniel prophecies (but then again, maybe some of those prophecies were about Jesus fulfilling the sacrificial system and laying it waste for all time. Yet more options to consider!) So with a well-known "abomination that causes desolation" already in Israel's history (167BC), it became a metaphor that was easy to draw on. Some Sydney Anglicans say the "abomination that causes desolation — let the reader understand", is Jesus saying (in Mark) that yes, Titus will be worshipped in the temple courtyard as the temple burns and the Romans sack Jerusalem, but the whole sacrificial system will have already been laid waste by Jesus death and resurrection. It's an option!

Antiochus IV did not fulfill all those Daniel prophecies - he could not have, since the Dan. 9:27 abomination of desolation comes after the cutting off of the Messiah (Dan. 9:26). So that means that Antiochus IV was a type of antichrist.

In this view,
'coming of the Son of man' = Jesus coming before the ancient of days and returning to heaven to be with the Father, as we see in Daniel,
trumpet = Isaiah's trumpet announcing the gospel and calling all men across the planet to repent
'signs in the heavens' = language of OT prophets of great calamities and great changes in the Kingdom of God, metaphorical language used to describe the change of status of God's people, a fulfilling of the great Covenant promises of God

If you are referring to the sun being turned black, the moon as blood, and stars falling to the earth then that is clear language about the return of Christ (see Rev. 6 and the sixth seal).

The Preterist view says that Jesus always used "This generation" to mean the people alive then.

The 'this generation' refers to the generation of people who will witness the signs in Matthew 24 be fulfilled. No generation has witnessed those signs of yet.

Preteristarchive lists too many historical figures for me to get my head around. What futurists need to disprove is that Luke ever has Jesus saying "This generation" to mean anything other than the generation Jesus was speaking to at that time!

Very easy:

"29 Then he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees; 30 as soon as they sprout leaves you can see for yourselves and know that summer is already near. 31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place." Lu. 21:29-32 (NRSV)

The 'generation' Christ is talking about is the generation that will see the eschatological signs in Luke 21 take place. The eschatological signs in Luke 21 have not happened yet. The generation that sees those signs will not pass away until Christ's return.

Antiochus Epiphanes, but some say it is Jesus death and resurrection.

It cannot possibly be Antiochus IV, because it is referring to an event after the Messiah's death. Antiochus IV placed the abomination of desolation back around 168 BC, as you noted.

" 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[f] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week,[g] and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”" Dan. 9:26-27 (ESV)

The 'anointed one' being referred to is the Messiah, that is, Christ. The 'people of the prince who shall come' are clearly Titus and the Romans. Notice it says that they destroy the city and the sanctuary, which is exactly what happened in 70 AD. Now notice: After the destruction of the city/sanctuary, an unnamed individual places the abomination of desolation. This proves that the abomination of desolation was not placed in 70 AD and must be placed after 70 AD - in other words, since the temple has never been rebuilt, it has not been placed yet.

So the sequence is as follows:

Messiah cut off (33 AD)----->city/sanctuary destroyed (70 AD)---------------->abomination of desolation (some unknown point in the future)

So Daniel 9 actually refutes the notion that the abomination of desolation was placed in 70 AD.

Terrible version you're reading there,

Really? You don't like the NASB? It's supposed to be one of the best.

Jesus has to be discussing the end of the 2nd temple in 70AD because:
* "this generation" ALWAYS means the people Jesus is speaking to then and there,

Not in context with the fig tree it doesn't.

* the disciples asked about THAT temple, not some silly hypothetical 3rd temple they weren't even talking about! As if Jesus suddenly shifts the conversation from their obvious, concrete question about the temple before them to some imaginary temple over 2000 years away! That's Scripture twisting on an epic scale.

Yes, and Christ told them the answer in Luke 21. Again, as I said previously, Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not preserve the entire Olivet discourse. You should really take this into account in your exegesis.

Are you kidding?

If Jesus is referring to Daniel events that were already historically fulfilled, he is reminding them of the general vibe of what happened under Antiochus Epiphanes. You're probably reading this too literalistic-ally. He's reminding them of how horrible it was. Read this wiki for a few paragraphs explaining how Preterists see it.

I'm sorry, but Christ clearly warns his disciples of an 'abomination of desolation.' He is not referring back to events that happened hundreds of years ago, because that would make no sense at all. He is specifically warning his disciples, who are a corporate representation of all of Christianity. So this is something that is going to happen in the future.

The Roman soldiers sacrificed to the Eagle standard in the Temple Courtyard. They worshipped Titus in the Temple Courtyard while the temple burned, and then the entire temple structure was demolished, one stone not left on another. All of this occurred within the 40 year generation of Jesus prophecy. Now if this doesn't fulfil your requirements, you're being overly pedantic about the 2 words 'holy place'. You're ignoring the fundamental historical FACT that the temple they were discussing and that Jesus predicted would fall in THAT GENERATION actually DID fall.

Suppose this is all true. This would still make Christ's prediction false, because he clearly says that the placing of the abomination of desolation is the sign to flee the city. If what you are saying is true, the city was already sacked and the temple burning while this was going on, so what is the point of the warning? There is none. By the time the Romans surrounded the city it was too late to flee and there was no abomination of desolation in the Jewish temple.

 

[eclipsenow]

But this is not what Paul says in 2 Thess. 2. You are making things out to be symbolic when we have no indication that they are symbolic - actually, quite the contrary.

Antiochus IV did not fulfill all those Daniel prophecies - he could not have, since the Dan. 9:27 abomination of desolation comes after the cutting off of the Messiah (Dan. 9:26). So that means that Antiochus IV was a type of antichrist.

In Daniel, aren't there a number of abominations coming? I said there were a few. Maybe I got which one you were talking about mixed up. Anyway, Daniel 9 could refer to both Jesus and Titus. Read it again.

If you are referring to the sun being turned black, the moon as blood, and stars falling to the earth then that is clear language about the return of Christ (see Rev. 6 and the sixth seal).

No it's not, as there are OT prophecies that use these images to refer to big changes in the kingdom of Israel.

The 'this generation' refers to the generation of people who will witness the signs in Matthew 24 be fulfilled. No generation has witnessed those signs of yet.

I'm afraid that is UTTERLY inconsistent with:-
1. what the disciples are asking about the temple they are looking at, then and there
2. The way Jesus uses 'this generation' in the rest of the same gospel. In Luke, 'this generation' always always ALWAYS means the people alive then. Show me one instance of when it doesn't.

What you have to PROVE is:
1. That the disciples were not asking about THAT temple then and there that they were staring at
2. That Jesus did not mean THIS GENERATION in the same way he has used it in the rest of Luke. THIS GENERATION is usually associated with the gospel events of Jesus, and the unbelief of the Jews alive then. Their Messiah stands before them, and 'this generation' ignores him!

Until you can PROVE these 2 obvious points above, I cannot do anything other than read the text before me as OBVIOUSLY discussing THAT temple and AD70. Only futurists stretch it beyond credibility. I'm reading it consistently with the disciples question AND the usage of 'this generation' in the rest of the book. You're not. It's that simple.

Very easy:

"29 Then he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees; 30 as soon as they sprout leaves you can see for yourselves and know that summer is already near. 31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place." Lu. 21:29-32 (NRSV)

The 'generation' Christ is talking about is the generation that will see the eschatological signs in Luke 21 take place. The eschatological signs in Luke 21 have not happened yet. The generation that sees those signs will not pass away until Christ's return.

They ARE eschatological signs: the end of the temple is eschatological. Everything that fulfils the gospel is eschatological. Pentecost is eschatological. Peter declared we were living in the 'last days' in Acts 2.

Remember Luke 21 could be discussing a day of our Lord's judgement, that highlights language of the end day to refer to the end of Jerusalem and the temple.

Matthew 24 seems to contrast the actual return of Christ with the false Messiah's that would be around before the fall of Jerusalem. The actual return of the Lord occurs WITHOUT warning, WITHOUT signs. So explain to me how the 'sign of the fig tree' actually doesn't conflict with the end of Matthew 24?

The Day and Hour Unknown24:37-39pp — Lk 17:26, 27 24:45-51pp — Lk 12:42-46 36 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. 45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Yes, and Christ told them the answer in Luke 21. Again, as I said previously, Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not preserve the entire Olivet discourse. You should really take this into account in your exegesis.

You haven't accounted for the fact that there will be NO warning of the actual return of Jesus on Judgement Day.

I'm sorry, but Christ clearly warns his disciples of an 'abomination of desolation.' He is not referring back to events that happened hundreds of years ago, because that would make no sense at all. He is specifically warning his disciples, who are a corporate representation of all of Christianity. So this is something that is going to happen in the future.

You do not seem to understand how referencing works. I can refer to some future catastrophe I fear by glancing back at Hitler. "If we don't do something now, he'll probably run a night of the long knives! Evil prospers when good men do nothing..." I might not actually mean that all his political opponents would be stabbed as Hitler's were, but that 'he' (whoever I'm hypothetically talking about) was preparing to bump off the opposition.

"Let the reader understand". It's saying that the sacrificial system will be ended. That's the main point. But there was an abomination, a number of them! Or do you think God liked Roman soldiers sacrificing to Titus via the Eagle standard?

Suppose this is all true. This would still make Christ's prediction false, because he clearly says that the placing of the abomination of desolation is the sign to flee the city. If what you are saying is true, the city was already sacked and the temple burning while this was going on, so what is the point of the warning? There is none. By the time the Romans surrounded the city it was too late to flee and there was no abomination of desolation in the Jewish temple.

Honestly, I just cannot believe how nitpicking futurists will become over some tiny details, just to protect their end-times tables and schemes and plans, when ignoring the ELEPHANT/S in the room! See 1 and 2 above! You have to PROVE these or the obvious reading is the correct reading! Any of your minor pedantic queries fall by the wayside over the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking to the disciples about Herod's temple and that generation. Nitpicking over Titus's AOD not quite meeting your expectations is just pedantry on an epic scale, while you conveniently overlook what the disciples and Jesus were actually discussing, and what actually happened WITHIN THAT GENERATION in 70AD.

 

[Achilles6129]

In Daniel, aren't there a number of abominations coming? I said there were a few. Maybe I got which one you were talking about mixed up. Anyway, Daniel 9 could refer to both Jesus and Titus. Read it again.

The only one that appears after the Messiah is the one in Daniel 9:27. The other one spoken of in Daniel occurred with Antiochus IV.

No it's not, as there are OT prophecies that use these images to refer to big changes in the kingdom of Israel.

Read it again:

"12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”" Rev. 6:12-17 (NRSV)

This is not referring to changes within Israel but is clearly global. And Christ is talking about the same thing right here:

"29 “Immediately after the suffering of those days
the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of heaven will be shaken. " Mt. 24:29 (NRSV)

I'm afraid that is UTTERLY inconsistent with:-
1. what the disciples are asking about the temple they are looking at, then and there
2. The way Jesus uses 'this generation' in the rest of the same gospel. In Luke, 'this generation' always always ALWAYS means the people alive then. Show me one instance of when it doesn't.

What you have to PROVE is:
1. That the disciples were not asking about THAT temple then and there that they were staring at
2. That Jesus did not mean THIS GENERATION in the same way he has used it in the rest of Luke. THIS GENERATION is usually associated with the gospel events of Jesus, and the unbelief of the Jews alive then. Their Messiah stands before them, and 'this generation' ignores him!

I have already shown that Christ could not be referring to the generation standing right in front of him. He clearly says he is referring to the generation of the signs of the end:

"25 “There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves. 26 People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in a cloud’ with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
29 Then he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees; 30 as soon as they sprout leaves you can see for yourselves and know that summer is already near. 31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." Lu. 21:25-33 (NRSV)

The entire pericope, from v. 25 - 33, is connected. Christ is speaking of the generation that sees the signs he previously referred to.

Remember Luke 21 could be discussing a day of our Lord's judgement, that highlights language of the end day to refer to the end of Jerusalem and the temple.

This is inconsistent with the Olivet Discourse. The discourse is about the end of the age, which is why Mt. 24:29 correlates with Revelation 6 and the 6th seal.

Matthew 24 seems to contrast the actual return of Christ with the false Messiah's that would be around before the fall of Jerusalem. The actual return of the Lord occurs WITHOUT warning, WITHOUT signs. So explain to me how the 'sign of the fig tree' actually doesn't conflict with the end of Matthew 24?

Because there are two comings. The coming without any sign whatsoever is Christ's rapture of the church. The coming after all of the plagues is the physical return to earth. This is really the only way to resolve the apparent contradiction.

Honestly, I just cannot believe how nitpicking futurists will become over some tiny details, just to protect their end-times tables and schemes and plans, when ignoring the ELEPHANT/S in the room! See 1 and 2 above! You have to PROVE these or the obvious reading is the correct reading! Any of your minor pedantic queries fall by the wayside over the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking to the disciples about Herod's temple and that generation. Nitpicking over Titus's AOD not quite meeting your expectations is just pedantry on an epic scale, while you conveniently overlook what the disciples and Jesus were actually discussing, and what actually happened WITHIN THAT GENERATION in 70AD.

Titus' "AOD" does not fulfill Jesus Christ's prophecy in Matthew 24. It is that simple. It also does not fulfill the prophecy in Daniel, which I quoted in my previous post, which specifically says the AOD will come after the city/sanctuary have already been destroyed (Dan. 9:26-27).

Christ tells his disciples when they see the AOD that is their sign to flee because distress in those days will be unequaled from the beginning of the world until that point. If the AOD is what you are describing, then that does not fit Christ's description since the city was already sacked. This is not nitpicking - it is just a fact.

Christ also says the tribulation in those days shall be unequaled - it has never been before and never will be again since. Are we to believe that the troubles of AD 70 were unequaled? Terrible as those times were, surely WWII (the Holocaust) would have surpassed them?

 

[eclipsenow]

"12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”" Rev. 6:12-17 (NRSV)

I'm NOT taking my guide on how to read the plainer parts of scripture from the most metaphorical. Revelation is NOT a guide on how to read Luke, that's absurd. Revelation is a metaphorical description of the Last Days since Acts 2, not a 'timeline of the end'. In Rev 1 John clearly wants his generation to obey it.

"29 “Immediately after the suffering of those days
the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from heaven,
and the powers of heaven will be shaken. " Mt. 24:29 (NRSV)

I have already shown that Christ could not be referring to the generation standing right in front of him. He clearly says he is referring to the generation of the signs of the end:

"25 “There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves. 26 People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in a cloud’ with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
29 Then he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees; 30 as soon as they sprout leaves you can see for yourselves and know that summer is already near. 31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." Lu. 21:25-33 (NRSV)

The entire pericope, from v. 25 - 33, is connected. Christ is speaking of the generation that sees the signs he previously referred to.

Actually I agree that the entire pericope is in mind. I've forgotten what it's called, but I read a commentary that said in Jewish writing 2 ideas were often summed up in the one piece of writing. It had 'layers' or overlapped. "This generation" could in the instance of Luke be referring *both* to Jesus generation would see the temple destroyed AND a future generation would see signs in the heavens and then see the Lord return. I'm convinced that there is no warning: that the Lord's return will be sudden. So whatever the roaring of the waves and signs in the heavens are, they're pretty much announcing the Day of the Lord's judgement then and there! (Because everything else in the New Testament says it's SUDDEN and UNANNOUNCED!)

This is inconsistent with the Olivet Discourse. The discourse is about the end of the age, which is why Mt. 24:29 correlates with Revelation 6 and the 6th seal.

The Disciples certainly didn't think so! The Disciples were asking about the destruction of THAT temple! So we have to be careful when reading Matthew that we don't just import the duality of Luke onto Matthew, if that makes sense. Let me put it this way: where Luke says "This generation will not pass away" and it could have dual meanings for Jesus generation witnessing the end of the temple AND also smuggle in meaning for the final generation witnessing the sun darkening and the Lord's return, Matthew doesn't do that. Matthew clearly splits the events. "These things" in Matthew refers to the end of the temple, and "that day" refers to the day of the Lord. And just in case there is any confusion, Matthew 24 includes this whole end section about how the Lord's return is UTTERLY unpredictable and unknowable. Utterly. Matthew's signs clearly apply to the temple in AD70, and 'that day' is distinguished.

If anything, it helps to read Matthew's clearer distinction of times first, then read Luke, because Luke's Duality confuses things to us modern readers unacquainted with Jewish doubling.

Because there are two comings. The coming without any sign whatsoever is Christ's rapture of the church. The coming after all of the plagues is the physical return to earth. This is really the only way to resolve the apparent contradiction.

No, fail, terrible. We're talking about the Olivet discourse here, not 'rapture' timetables from Revelation and other verses. I'm simply not going into all that with you. The Olivet discourse in Matt 24 is clearly about 2 times: "these things" that will be destroyed in "this generation" and then the future Return of the Lord on Judgement Day. When the Lord returns, it is definitely the end of human history on this planet! There is no 'hide and seek' from Christ when he comes back, no secret 'fly bye'.

Titus' "AOD" does not fulfill Jesus Christ's prophecy in Matthew 24. It is that simple.

It does. It's that simple.

It also does not fulfill the prophecy in Daniel, which I quoted in my previous post, which specifically says the AOD will come after the city/sanctuary have already been destroyed (Dan. 9:26-27).

25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[k]”[l]


1. It doesn't spell out Destruction then Abomination in such a strict timeline, but instead points out that a ruler will destroy the city and sanctuary and this is how it will happen. In other words, the next few verses do not describe what comes later, but merely unpacks what was said so briefly.

2. Some say the "He" in verse 27 is Jesus death on the cross: that there is a Ruler that destroys Jerusalem ONLY because Jesus death in the middle of the last '7' is so integral to OT eschatology that Daniel is actually being told Jesus sacrifice is what is laying desolate the whole sacrificial system.

3. Others see this as another reference to Antiochus Ephiphanes and then Jesus, in the Olivet discourse, refers to this historical event to warn the disciples of Titus.

4. What is clear from Matthew and Mark is that the temple is destroyed in "this generation" of Jews alive when Jesus walked the earth. "These things" = This generation. "That day" is a different timescale. It's confusing at first, but look out for it.

Christ tells his disciples when they see the AOD that is their sign to flee because distress in those days will be unequaled from the beginning of the world until that point. If the AOD is what you are describing, then that does not fit Christ's description since the city was already sacked. This is not nitpicking - it is just a fact.

Again you're being too literalistic and nitpicking on the details!!!!

Jesus often quoted one line of the OT when referring to a whole idea or category of thought. Go with me for a minute here! They didn't have Chapters and Verses the way we do. They'd quote a line to evoke a whole strain of thought.

Look, try this. Why does Luke 21 NOT mention the AOD? Luke just says:

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

Are the gospels inconsistent? Luke doesn't mention the AOD, but does mention the armies, and Matt and Mark don't mention the armies, but do mention the AOD! What's going on?

It's their referencing system. They're referencing similar ideas from the whole Antiochus Epiphanes events.

When Mark 13 doesn't mention the armies but does mention the AOD he's basically saying the same thing! Mark calls up the image of Antiochus Epiphanes, a horrible event EVERY Jew would have known of and referred to in the same way we might reference "Nazi's" or "Hitler!", and that's how Jesus warns them. It's going to be like Hitler! It's going to be like when Jerusalem was invaded by pagan Greeks and horrible things happened to the temple. That's the vibe here. It's simply the Jewish referencing system at work. Mark mentions the AOD, Luke mentions the armies. Go figure.

Christ also says the tribulation in those days shall be unequaled - it has never been before and never will be again since. Are we to believe that the troubles of AD 70 were unequaled?

Hyperbole. Are we to pluck out or eyes or cut off our hands or hate our mothers and fathers or let the dead bury their own dead? Are we?

But they were terrible times for God's people and the temple HAS NOT been rebuilt.

Matthew and Mark make the 2 times clearer than Luke.

Matthew 24 warns to GET OUT OF JERUSALEM when AOD type things start to happen (Roman invasion, surrounding, conquering, destroying temple, sacrificing in temple courtyard to Titus, etc). That's the lesson from the fig tree. That's 'these things'. Luke IS a bit different and the these things could be applying to both, I'll grant you that. But in Matthew and Mark it seems more clearly attached to the temple, because look what comes next!


32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
The Day and Hour Unknown

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39


THESE THINGS = AOD & TEMPLE DESTROYED IN AD70 IN THAT GENERATION, KNOWABLE, PREVENTABLE, GET OUT OF TOWN, NOT UNIVERSAL.

THAT DAY = RETURN OF THE LORD, UNKNOWN, UNKNOWABLE, UNAVOIDABLE, UNIVERSAL.

 

[Achilles6129]

I'm NOT taking my guide on how to read the plainer parts of scripture from the most metaphorical. Revelation is NOT a guide on how to read Luke, that's absurd. Revelation is a metaphorical description of the Last Days since Acts 2, not a 'timeline of the end'. In Rev 1 John clearly wants his generation to obey it.

The bottom line is the sixth seal in Revelation 6 corresponds to Mt. 24:29, which proves that Christ's statement in Mt. 24:29 is referring to the end. In addition, it corresponds to Isa. 34, Joel 3, etc., which also proves it is referring to the end.

The point is that Christ places Mt. 24:29 "immediately" after the tribulation of those days. This is strong evidence against your theory that the previous passages are referring to 70 AD.

"This generation" could in the instance of Luke be referring *both* to Jesus generation would see the temple destroyed AND a future generation would see signs in the heavens and then see the Lord return.

It is in the context of the parable of the fig tree, and therefore is referring to the signs of the end.

I'm convinced that there is no warning: that the Lord's return will be sudden. So whatever the roaring of the waves and signs in the heavens are, they're pretty much announcing the Day of the Lord's judgement then and there! (Because everything else in the New Testament says it's SUDDEN and UNANNOUNCED!)

Right - Christ also says there shall be signs in the sun/moon/stars which corresponds to the plague in Rev. 8 where 1/3 of the sun/moon/stars are struck.

The Disciples certainly didn't think so! The Disciples were asking about the destruction of THAT temple! So we have to be careful when reading Matthew that we don't just import the duality of Luke onto Matthew, if that makes sense. Let me put it this way: where Luke says "This generation will not pass away" and it could have dual meanings for Jesus generation witnessing the end of the temple AND also smuggle in meaning for the final generation witnessing the sun darkening and the Lord's return, Matthew doesn't do that. Matthew clearly splits the events. "These things" in Matthew refers to the end of the temple, and "that day" refers to the day of the Lord. And just in case there is any confusion, Matthew 24 includes this whole end section about how the Lord's return is UTTERLY unpredictable and unknowable. Utterly. Matthew's signs clearly apply to the temple in AD70, and 'that day' is distinguished.

No, you're getting things mixed up. Remember what I said earlier - the entire Olivet Discourse has not been preserved by any Evangelist. Luke answers the question about the destruction of the temple that was posed in Matthew, and places it well before the end.

It does. It's that simple.

I am sorry, but what you described does not fulfill Matthew 24. Christ's words must be literally true - if not, of what value are they? How could anyone flee the city during the AOD you're describing? It would be futile - the city had already been sacked!

1. It doesn't spell out Destruction then Abomination in such a strict timeline, but instead points out that a ruler will destroy the city and sanctuary and this is how it will happen. In other words, the next few verses do not describe what comes later, but merely unpacks what was said so briefly.

2. Some say the "He" in verse 27 is Jesus death on the cross: that there is a Ruler that destroys Jerusalem ONLY because Jesus death in the middle of the last '7' is so integral to OT eschatology that Daniel is actually being told Jesus sacrifice is what is laying desolate the whole sacrificial system.

3. Others see this as another reference to Antiochus Ephiphanes and then Jesus, in the Olivet discourse, refers to this historical event to warn the disciples of Titus.

4. What is clear from Matthew and Mark is that the temple is destroyed in "this generation" of Jews alive when Jesus walked the earth. "These things" = This generation. "That day" is a different timescale. It's confusing at first, but look out for it.

1. The prophecy clearly places the death of the Messiah after '69' sevens. It then refers to a people of the prince who shall come (Prince Titus) who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. It then states that an unnamed individual will confirm a covenant with many for one seven, and he will set up the AOD. The last seven, then, is placed after the destruction of the city/sanctuary in AD 70, per Daniel's chronology. That argues against the notion that the AOD was fulfilled in AD 70.

2. How could the 'he' refer to Christ, since v. 26 skips over about 40 years? V. 27 would have to go 40 years back in time to refer to Christ! The chronology would be all mishmashed - it doesn't make sense to read it that way. The chronology is very simple in vv. 26-27: Death of the Messiah------>city/sanctuary destroyed-------->AOD.

3. Already responded

4. Already responded

Look, try this. Why does Luke 21 NOT mention the AOD?

Luke 21 doesn't mention the AOD because the AOD was not placed during the destruction of Jerusalem!!!!!!

And that is what Luke 21 is about

Are the gospels inconsistent? Luke doesn't mention the AOD, but does mention the armies, and Matt and Mark don't mention the armies, but do mention the AOD! What's going on?

Because Matthew and Mark leave out the answer to when the temple will be destroyed and focus mainly on the end of the age, while Luke includes the answer to when the temple will be destroyed and then focuses on the end of the age.

Hyperbole. Are we to pluck out or eyes or cut off our hands or hate our mothers and fathers or let the dead bury their own dead? Are we?

You can't take everything Christ says and just say that it doesn't have to be literally fulfilled because it can be "hyperbole" or "symbolic." The things you mention are obvious metaphors to give us an idea of what it takes to be a true disciple of Christ and to make the kingdom of God the #1 priority in life.


--------------------


Here is another line of evidence against your theory that Matthew 24 is referring to AD 70: Consider:

"40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Dan. 11:40 - 12:2

Christ is making reference to Daniel 12:1 during his Olivet Discourse:

"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." Mt. 24:21

Daniel 12:1 is proven to be referring to the time of the very end. Christ's quote in Matthew 24:21 is a direct reference to Daniel 12:1, and is yet another line of evidence that the Olivet Discourse preserved in Matthew is referring to the end of the age, not the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

 

[eclipsenow]

The bottom line is the sixth seal in Revelation 6 corresponds to Mt. 24:29, which proves that Christ's statement in Mt. 24:29 is referring to the end. In addition, it corresponds to Isa. 34, Joel 3, etc., which also proves it is referring to the end.

It doesn't correspond: John quotes these to refer to something he is saying to his generation and all generations. Revelation is not a future timetable irrelevant to all but those who live through it: it is the gospel to ALL generations of Christians in all ages.

The point is that Christ places Mt. 24:29 "immediately" after the tribulation of those days. This is strong evidence against your theory that the previous passages are referring to 70 AD.

Only because modern readers don't know how to read it. Let me put it to you another way. If it's all about an AoD in our future, just before Jesus return, isn't the AoD a bit of a give-away? Doesn't the AoD make a mockery of Jesus next statement:

6 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

 

[Achilles6129]

It doesn't correspond: John quotes these to refer to something he is saying to his generation and all generations. Revelation is not a future timetable irrelevant to all but those who live through it: it is the gospel to ALL generations of Christians in all ages.

The sixth seal is the day of the Lord. The sixth seal exactly corresponds to Mt. 24:29 and also corresponds to Isa. 34, Joel 3, etc., which are also talking about the day of the Lord.

Only because modern readers don't know how to read it. Let me put it to you another way. If it's all about an AoD in our future, just before Jesus return, isn't the AoD a bit of a give-away? Doesn't the AoD make a mockery of Jesus next statement:

6 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Not at all. Notice that Christ says no man knows the day or hour...but he does say we can know the general time frame:

"28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." Lu. 21:28

Paul says that we can know the general timeframe:

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." 1 Th. 5:1-6

Christ's statement about the days of Noah, etc., applies only to those who disobey God's commands. Paul says that for those who obey God's commands, the day will not overtake them as a thief. Hence, we can know the general timeframe, just not the exact day or hour.

 

[eclipsenow]

The sixth seal is the day of the Lord. The sixth seal exactly corresponds to Mt. 24:29 and also corresponds to Isa. 34, Joel 3, etc., which are also talking about the day of the Lord.

There are a number of days of the Lord. (Luke 17). Plural.

Not at all. Notice that Christ says no man knows the day or hour...but he does say we can know the general time frame:

"28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." Lu. 21:28

Paul says that we can know the general timeframe:

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." 1 Th. 5:1-6

That's a REALLY suspect reading of 1 Thess. Paul does not say they will be able to predict when the Lord will return, rather, that they will not be caught unprepared. Read the rest of the passage which is about a Christian's character, not their knowledge about a particular day.

When the Disciples ask about the destruction of their temple (YES, HEROD'S TEMPLE!), and then tack on the question about the end of the age, Jesus first of all warns them NOT to be persuaded by those who think they know.

Luke 21:

5 And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 7 And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” 8 And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.9 And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified, for these things must first take place, but the end will not be at once.”

You realise this verse applies to you? You're saying you've got an end times table that will predict the future. You're saying 1 Thess tells us we can know the future and be prepared for it. That's directly contradicting what Jesus is actually saying in the Olivet Discourse and 1 Thess.


For instance, if I'm trusting in Jesus to take away my sin and save me, and have put up with persecution for my faith, and longed for the return of the Lord, but am a bit vague about the timing of That Day, are you telling me I won't be saved?

Do you REALLY think 1 Thess is telling us we have to know a timetable to be saved on That Day? I'm afraid that's another gospel. I'm saved by Jesus death and resurrection, not by my clever figuring out of some future timetable. I'm saved by remaining true to his gospel, and I'm busy reminding my Christian friends and family to keep trusting in the Lord even in tough times. That's the focus of 1 Thess above! You've managed to twist it completely upside down and back to front. It's about character, not timetables!

Christ's statement about the days of Noah, etc., applies only to those who disobey God's commands. Paul says that for those who obey God's commands, the day will not overtake them as a thief.

Correct, it's about the character of those who trust in the Lord.

Hence, we can know the general timeframe, just not the exact day or hour.

And there you go again telling us we need to know a 'general timeframe'. There's only one way I can agree with you here.

If that general timeframe is any point in these Last Days, which started in Acts 2 at Pentecost, then sure! We have wars and rumours of wars and persecution and natural disasters all breaking out regularly. These are the signs of the Last Days. These remind us not to get too comfortable here. This is not our home.

But where we disagree is that I see that the Lord could return at ANY moment, and there does not need to be a 3rd temple rebuilt or another AoD. Those were signs about THAT temple. "These things" = "This generation" = the AoD = AD70.

But the sun and moon and stars and signs in the heaven are what occur on Judgement Day, when the Lord himself returns, on THAT DAY.

And, as we know from the end of Matt 24, THAT DAY is completely wild and unpredictable. There's absolutely no warning.

There is even a sense in which Matt 24 is about the whole Last Days period, as well as being specific to the temple. I'm not sure how much the prophetic perspective overlaps here: I'm still working on it. But the prophetic perspective is when a prophet is actually talking about more than 1 thing at a time. Jesus seems to be talking about the end of Jerusalem and the temple, but also generally about the 'signs' of the Last Days, the 2000 years and counting we've had since the Holy Spirit was given in Acts 2. Some things in the Olivet discourse are specific to the end of the temple that Jesus was actually looking at and actually discussing: not some still-to-be-built hypothetical 3rd temple. But then, there are other passages that use the same signs (wars, disasters, false Messiahs) to describe the entire Last Days. So I'm not sure how much 'prophetic perspective' (or doubled meaning) is smuggled into these passages.

What seems clear is that we WILL NOT KNOW about THAT DAY, but the disciples COULD predict THESE THINGS = end of temple.

We cannot DO ANYTHING about THAT DAY: it will be universal, appalling to those who are not saved, and unmistakable. (In contrast to the false Messiah's Jesus warned about).

The Disciples COULD do something about THESE THINGS, like get out of town. That's why its terrible for pregnant women and nursing mothers. That's why they are not to even stop to pick up a coat. They are to DO SOMETHING, they are to get out of town.

See the difference? One judgement is local, the other universal.
One is 'these things' = temple and that generation, the other is That Day, at the end of the age, and it is utterly unpredictable and we have NO BUSINESS asking what the opening post asks: When will Christ return?

 

[Achilles6129]

Ok well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree then.

 

[eclipsenow]

Except if you are going to enter this conversation, the burden of proof remains on you to explain:-
1. why you think the disciples were not asking about that temple that they could see with their own eyes,
2. and why Jesus did not actually mean 'this generation' the same way he used that term every other time in the gospels.
(I decided to use italics and bold rather than caps as CAPS LOOKED TOO MUCH LIKE I WAS SHOUTING. I did not mean to SHOUT, I was just too lazy to format properly. Please do not let my lazy use of capital letters cause you to back out of this conversation. I was not shouting).

 

[watchman333]

He will return to this generation, and this generation is 64 years old.

 

[eclipsenow]

He will return to this generation, and this generation is 64 years old.

There's just one problem with that...
Matt 24
No One Knows That Day and Hour

36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

 

[Douggg]

He will return to this generation, and this generation is 64 years old.

Yes, that's my age! I think though that 1967 has to be included as the start point if we figure 70 years for a generation. Which would mean all of the prophecies must be complete by 2037. Sometime between now and then.


Doug

 

[Achilles6129]

Except if you are going to enter this conversation, the burden of proof remains on you to explain:-
1. why you think the disciples were not asking about that temple that they could see with their own eyes,
2. and why Jesus did not actually mean 'this generation' the same way he used that term every other time in the gospels.
(I decided to use italics and bold rather than caps as CAPS LOOKED TOO MUCH LIKE I WAS SHOUTING. I did not mean to SHOUT, I was just too lazy to format properly. Please do not let my lazy use of capital letters cause you to back out of this conversation. I was not shouting).

.

I have already explained the things you mentioned above in my posts. I am not leaving the conversation because of the way you format your responses, but simply because I have said everything I've needed to say and we have not come to an agreement. There really is no reason for me to continue to say the same things again and again. So we are just going to have to agree to disagree.