Olivet Discourse historicist or preterist?

[DavidPT]

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

If you had been living in the first century and that it is before 70 AD that you were living in, in what way would any of the above alone shed more insight into what Jesus was meaning in the Discourse involving an AOD? When events are still future to someone, they obviously don't have hindsight at that point, concerning the events. The way some of you are reasoning some of this, you are using hindsight that none of these in the first century even possessed at the time, assuming 70 AD is even meant in both verse 26 and 27 above.

 

[jgr]

If you had been living in the first century and that it is before 70 AD that you were living in, in what way would any of the above alone shed more insight into what Jesus was meaning in the Discourse involving an AOD? When events are still future to someone, they obviously don't have hindsight at that point, concerning the events. The way some of you are reasoning some of this, you are using hindsight that none of these in the first century even possessed at the time, assuming 70 AD is even meant in both verse 26 and 27 above.

The insight was that a people would come who would destroy the city and sanctuary (the abomination of desolation), which Jesus confirmed in His Olivet discourse.

After His discourse, His hearers possessed understanding of Daniel 9 in hindsight.

 

[claninja]

As I said, Israel was made to be the model for all nations who wish to live in covenant relationship with God. Toda's covenant is the Christian covenant. So all nations who covenant together with God through Christ have the same hope that Israel had under the Old Covenant, except that the New Covenant is based on following Christ, and not on following the Law.

I know that because the promises made to Abraham are said in the NT to still be true, and involve not just Israel but also the Gentile nations. Though Israel is not yet "saved" as a nation, the hope of Abraham was to see many nations adopt a Christian Constitution.

He hoped for this *indirectly* because Christ had not yet come. But we know that's what he hoped for because Jesus said he hoped to see his day.

John 8.56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

Remember I'm not defining the "salvation" of nations as their being saved in the evangelical sense. Rather, I'm talking about their preservation as nations, or their being salvaged from destruction by hostile forces, whether enemies, natural disasters, or plagues.

I never disagreed that the old covenant was for national blessings for obedience to the law and/or judgement for disobedience. This is specifically defined in (Deuteronomy 28).

However, the old covenant was made obsolete and replaced with the new in the 1st century (Hebrews 8:13).

I was simply asking where scripture, in the NT, defines national blessings and or curses under the new covenant?

 

[RandyPNW]

I never disagreed that the old covenant was for national blessings for obedience to the law and/or judgement for disobedience. This is specifically defined in (Deuteronomy 28).

However, the old covenant was made obsolete and replaced with the new in the 1st century (Hebrews 8:13).

I was simply asking where scripture, in the NT, defines national blessings and or curses under the new covenant?

Matt 21.43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

Here, Jesus is saying that the Kingdom, of which Israel had been a part, would be bestowed, with all of its conditions and benefits, upon a "people," namely the Romans, or "Roman Civilization." We know that it was Roman Civilization that was converted during the Roman Empire, and spread Christianity throughout the world. It's called "Western values."

Since Catholicism, and its many branches, have spread these Western values around the world, this identifies them as the "nation" to which Jesus was referring, who would receive the Kingdom in place of Israel. We know that when Israel was under covenant with God, they were made partners with God in His Kingdom. God, in a real sense, ruled over Israel as their law-giver.

Now, that same covenant status as "participants in God's Kingdom" has been extended to a new nation, namely the Romans, or Roman Civilization. In order for them to have this status *as a nation,* they have to be under covenant with God. Obviously, that is the New Covenant. In fact, it is *called* the "New Covenant."

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

This indicates that the blessings of obedience to Christ have been conferred upon Christian nations!

Acts 3.25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’

This shows how blessings were conferred first upon Israel, but only through those who became members of the New Covenant.

 

[RandyPNW]

As to your analogy, that was perfectly rational if involving a scenario like that. Yet, the analogy you provided is still not taking some of the following into consideration, though.

I thought I explained all that in my analogy.

The Main Subject being asked about was purely focused upon the Fall of the Temple. The Coming of Jesus was ancillary to this, but nevertheless important. This is easily explained as a knee-jerk reaction from the Disciples by Jesus' announcement that the temple would fall!

What then would happen to Israel? What would happen to God's promises to Abraham regarding Israel? What about God's Law? The Disciples knew that if the temple fell one more time in history that the hope of Israel's Salvation would appear lost to history!

So the main subject was the Fall of the Temple. The immediate gut reaction was: What about Israel? What about your 2nd Coming, which was the event that promises the final Salvation of National Israel?

Jesus' reaction to these questions therefore focus primarily on the question about the main subject, the Fall of the Temple. But in order to answer this as a means of helping the Disciples with their concerns, Jesus adds much more. He adds both preliminary warnings and after effects. He knows that God promised Israel preliminary warnings.

"God does nothing without telling His servants, the Prophets." Amos.

And so Jesus was telling his Disciples they must prepare for this event, and recognize as the event draws near in which the Temple would Fall. Secondly, Jesus wanted them to know the after effects, the things that would test their mettle with respect to their endurance as Christians and with respect to their hope as Jews for the Salvation of National Israel. Indeed, the Church in history eventually lost all hope in Israel's full Restoration. Premillennialists became Amillennialists.

All of these things were corollary to the main subject, the Fall of the Temple. And so, after dealing with all of these peripheral items, Jesus returns to the main subject, and the main question: *when* will all this happen, referring only to all these things directly connected with the Fall of the Temple. And Jesus replies, "It will be in this generation."

This is indeed a normal way for language to work. We do not speak strictly in chronological sequences, or geometrically. We meander along different paths, depending on the importance of each element. Jesus meandered through the maze of concerns the Disciples had, and dealt with each concern, including the need for preparation in advance and for endurance afterwards.

But the main subject always was the Fall of the Temple. It was the end of the symbol of their religion and covenant. Big, big deal! And Jesus was specifically asked, "When?" And he told them, "In this generation."

He was literally telling his Disciples that their contemporaries in their own generation would literally see this event unfold. And that's the kind of language Jesus used, as if the Disciples of Jesus present at that time period would see this. And their *generation* would literally see it! They saw it 40 years later in 70 AD.

 

[DavidPT]

I thought I explained all that in my analogy.

The Main Subject being asked about was purely focused upon the Fall of the Temple. The Coming of Jesus was ancillary to this, but nevertheless important. This is easily explained as a knee-jerk reaction from the Disciples by Jesus' announcement that the temple would fall!

What then would happen to Israel? What would happen to God's promises to Abraham regarding Israel? What about God's Law? The Disciples knew that if the temple fell one more time in history that the hope of Israel's Salvation would appear lost to history!

So the main subject was the Fall of the Temple. The immediate gut reaction was: What about Israel? What about your 2nd Coming, which was the event that promises the final Salvation of National Israel?

Jesus' reaction to these questions therefore focus primarily on the question about the main subject, the Fall of the Temple. But in order to answer this as a means of helping the Disciples with their concerns, Jesus adds much more. He adds both preliminary warnings and after effects. He knows that God promised Israel preliminary warnings.

"God does nothing without telling His servants, the Prophets." Amos.

And so Jesus was telling his Disciples they must prepare for this event, and recognize as the event draws near in which the Temple would Fall. Secondly, Jesus wanted them to know the after effects, the things that would test their mettle with respect to their endurance as Christians and with respect to their hope as Jews for the Salvation of National Israel. Indeed, the Church in history eventually lost all hope in Israel's full Restoration. Premillennialists became Amillennialists.

All of these things were corollary to the main subject, the Fall of the Temple. And so, after dealing with all of these peripheral items, Jesus returns to the main subject, and the main question: *when* will all this happen, referring only to all these things directly connected with the Fall of the Temple. And Jesus replies, "It will be in this generation."

This is indeed a normal way for language to work. We do not speak strictly in chronological sequences, or geometrically. We meander along different paths, depending on the importance of each element. Jesus meandered through the maze of concerns the Disciples had, and dealt with each concern, including the need for preparation in advance and for endurance afterwards.

But the main subject always was the Fall of the Temple. It was the end of the symbol of their religion and covenant. Big, big deal! And Jesus was specifically asked, "When?" And he told them, "In this generation."

He was literally telling his Disciples that their contemporaries in their own generation would literally see this event unfold. And that's the kind of language Jesus used, as if the Disciples of Jesus present at that time period would see this. And their *generation* would literally see it! They saw it 40 years later in 70 AD.

So let me ask this. The following is the context Jesus said verse 32 in. I already know what you think Jesus is applying verse 32 to. What about the other verses?

Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.


In your opinion---

What is He applying verse 29 to?

What is He applying verse 30 to?

What is He applying verse 31 to?

What is He applying verse 33 to?

What is He applying verse 34 to?

What is He applying verse 35 to?

What is He applying verse 36 to?

 

[RandyPNW]

So let me ask this. The following is the context Jesus said verse 32 in. I already know what you think Jesus is applying verse 32 to. What about the other verses?

Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.

Jesus was obviously referring to the things he had mentioned were "birth pains," or the preliminary signs of the approaching disaster. These were only the beginning things, as Jesus indicated. As leaves and various shoot forms precede the production of fruit on a fig tree, so these beginning signs would precede the season in which fruit should've been developed.

As we know, Jesus had already anticipated that Israel, the "fig tree," would fail to produce good fruit. And so, he was not actually predicting that fruit would come. He was only saying that the preliminary signs of Israel's judgment would consist of the sins that would lead to that judgment. There would be, for example, preliminary behaviors that God would begin to judge, but would ultimately judge more completely with the coming of the temple's destruction.

31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

This is where we get into all of the negativity with respect to Preterism. I am *not* a Preterist, and I do not believe the Kingdom of God in any eschatological sense appears on earth until Jesus 2nd Coming!

But this misdirected attack is being used to discredit a legitimate position that may sound like Preterism to some people, but is actually far from it. Jesus indicated that he comes in judgment in any instance in which he comes, as God, to bring judgment on earth.

And this happens all the time, whether low-scale or high-scale. An example of a high-scale judgment would be the 70 AD judgment of Jerusalem. A lower-scale judgment might be the judgment mentioned in Rev 2-3, when Jesus threatened to come in judgment to discipline the various churches in Asia that were disobedient. Luke 17.30; Rev 2.5,16; 3.3.

Vs. 31 above, therefore is indicating that the Kingdom of God draws *near* on these occasions, specifically this one major judgment in 70 AD, because Christ is on these occasions preparing in advance for the eschatological Kingdom. But the Kingdom will not actually be *here* until that happens at Christ's 2nd Advent.

32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Jesus is saying that his word is indestructible, that nothing can stop it from happening once he has uttered it and is determined to follow through with it. Once God proclaims judgment against Israel's rebellion, and they are determined in their rebellion, then nothing can stop him from bringing judgment.

All the declarations of God's faithfulness to His covenant with Israel will not be able to stop His judgment. He will still fulfill His promises to Israel, but the world itself is not as unchangeable as God's word. Those who were linked to God's covenants can be cast out if they rebel. But God will not go back on His standards of justice.

34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Christ was saying that all Israel would be brought under judgment, following his testimony to them. He had sent out his disciples to warn them of judgment, if they rejected his righteousness. And their rejection of him would result in judgment against the entire land. It was intractable. Because they rejected his righteousness, they would suffer this large-scale destruction, despite the fact the nation was promised ultimate restoration.

Read the Scriptures and the Gospel accounts in this light, and I believe you will agree that this makes sense. And you may even come to agree that this is a possible option in interpreting this. Let me know?

 

[jgr]

This is where we get into all of the negativity with respect to Preterism. I am *not* a Preterist, and I do not believe the Kingdom of God in any eschatological sense appears on earth until Jesus 2nd Coming!

Colossians 1
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.

I'm on earth, I've been translated, and I've been in the Kingdom ever since.

 

[claninja]

Now, that same covenant status as "participants in God's Kingdom" has been extended to a new nation, namely the Romans, or Roman Civilization. In order for them to have this status *as a nation,* they have to be under covenant with God. Obviously, that is the New Covenant. In fact, it is *called* the "New Covenant."

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

This indicates that the blessings of obedience to Christ have been conferred upon Christian nations!

Acts 3.25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’

This shows how blessings were conferred first upon Israel, but only through those who became members of the New Covenant.

Do you believe the earthly blessings of the law (deuteronomy 28:1-14), are the same blessings that all the peoples of the earth receive through the offspring (acts 3:25)?

 

[RandyPNW]

Do you believe the earthly blessings of the law (deuteronomy 28:1-14), are the same blessings that all the peoples of the earth receive through the offspring (acts 3:25)?

We don't see God showing up on Mt. Sinai for every nation of the world, but God doesn't change. The nations are under a New Covenant, but with the same God as the God of Sinai. So I imagine the agreement would be the same in some respects. I do think that if a nation commits to God and to Christ that they would experience the corresponding blessings, yes.

However, we know from the experience with ancient Israel that any national experience under God's covenant is subject to human failure and always ends up eventually under a curse. The object is for us to testify to the ideal, so that all know God is a good God, even in a world that rejects Him.

Take, for example, the Roman Empire. They adopted Christianity as their political system and as their law. And the Byzantine Empire lasted longer than any empire in history that I know of---a Millennium!

And look at one of the oldest Christian countries in the world--England. They adopted Christianity as their chosen form of rule. And though they fell into corruption numerous times, some of the great historical Christian revivals took place there, including the Great Awakening. England ultimately came to control more of the earth than any other nation in history--1/4th the world!

The U.S. also participated in the Great Awakening revival that England had, and was a child of England. And the U.S. is currently probably the most powerful country in world history!

If these aren't blessings received from national commitment to Christ, what is? I might add that the nations do not need a "Sinai experience," such as Israel had, in order to enter into a covenant with God.

Better than Sinai, we have the Gospels and the account of the life of Christ. And we have the Holy Spirit poured out on not just nations, but more importantly, on individuals from any nation, so that no matter what our particular nation chooses to do, we can individually experience the blessing of Eternal Life by our embrace of the righteousness of Christ.

Sinai was for a single nation, but could not confer Eternal Life on either the nation or the individual. Blessings were temporal, and could largely be conferred on a national basis. Even the righteous went through what the nation went through. If the nation was wicked, and fell under God's judgment, the righteous among them would suffer too.

But in the New Covenant, though the righteous suffer what their own nation suffers, as well, the individual can have the blessing of eternal life. Christ came, most importantly, to bring Eternal Life to the individual. But he also came to fulfill the promises to nations that God promised Abraham.

 

[RandyPNW]

Colossians 1
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.

I'm on earth, I've been translated, and I've been in the Kingdom ever since.

Some of my respected friends are "Partial Preterists." I'm sorry that I lump all Preterism together as if they're the same thing--they're not. But I reject all of the positions.

Where I partly agree with Partial Preterism is in the sense that the Kingdom is here *spiritually.* But it is not here *physically.*

In the eschatological sense it is *not* here, but it is only "near." That's my view, anyway. Thanks for making me clarify this further.

 

[Douggg]

near term (preterist)../...long term (historicist).../... end times (futurist)

All in the Olivet discourse. Jesus is coming and His reward is with Him.

 

[RandyPNW]

near term (preterist)../...long term (historicist).../... end times (futurist)

All in the Olivet discourse. Jesus is coming and His reward is with Him.

View attachment 300955

I held to this view for a long time primarily because that's how I was taught. It seemed to be the universal thought, perhaps due to my limited depth of knowledge at the time. Looking at things from only the "popular" view isn't always wise. Often, the current, popular view is wrong!

A big example of this would be the heresy called Arianism, which reigned supreme in the Early Church for a time. Ultimately, these things had to be reconsidered, and corrected. It was indeed a heresy that many good Christians accepted, simply because it was the current, popular view at the time.

So as "reasonable" as this view may sound, I found it to be wanting, and in fact wrong. If we simply do an objective experiment, you will, if you are objective yourself, agree with me that this is possible, and perhaps even likely.

Just compare Luke 21.20-24 with Matt 24.15-21. They equate the Abomination of Desolation with the historic destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. The disciples of Jesus were to recognize it with the appearance of early signs of wars and rumors of wars, and even more in 66 AD, when the 1st Roman approach took place.

Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again."

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

 

[Douggg]

Just compare Luke 21.20-24 with Matt 24.15-21.

Luke 21 is a parallel to the Mt. of Olives. Luke 21 is a message Jesus gave when he was in the temple courtyard, not on the Mt. of Olives.

They equate the Abomination of Desolation with the historic destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD

No, the Abomination of Desolation is not mentioned in Luke 21:20-24. The destruction of Jerusalem is not the Abomination of Desolation.

What is the same though is way to survive those times - flee into the mountains - which is in both those passages.

The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet is in Daniel 12:11-12 - time of the end.

Jesus did not return in Luke 21:20-24. Instead, the Jews were led away into the nations.

In Matthew 24:15-31, is after the gospel had been spread to the nations v14. Jesus returns in the Matthew 24:15-31. Jerusalem will not be destroyed, like it had been 2000 years in Luke 21:20-24, because Jesus returns to Jerusalem in Zechariah 14.

The Abomination of Desolation will be the (statue) image of beast in Revelation 13.

 

[RandyPNW]

Luke 21 is a parallel to the Mt. of Olives. Luke 21 is a message Jesus gave when he was in the temple courtyard, not on the Mt. of Olives.

Don't agree. It was the same Discourse, the account of which is told by 3 different authors. I've compared them. They say the exact same things, using some different words and sometimes different order.

It is possible that someone repeats the same speech twice. After all, some pastors preach 3 of the same sermon on Sunday morning.

However, I don't consider it to be likely, since Jesus wasn't just repeating the same story in different places at different times, or in the same place to different crowds. When Jesus spoke of the fall of the temple, he likely began to speak of it as he was departing the temple area, walked up the hill beyond the temple complex, and then continued on the Mt. of Olives.

The initial reaction to Jesus' statement that the temple would fall would invite an immediate reaction from the Disciples, and the distance from the temple site to the Mt. of Olives was short.

It seems, therefore, that you have some kind of vested interest in this view, perhaps to preserve a view on this you've previously put your money on? I wouldn't do this, if you hope to prove you're an objective debater.

No, the Abomination of Desolation is not mentioned in Luke 21:20-24. The destruction of Jerusalem is not the Abomination of Desolation.

If I'm right that all 3 of the synoptic Gospels are giving an account of the *same Discourse,* and many scholars would say so, then the AoD in Matt 24 and Mark 13 perfectly aligns with the Destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21. You can see some of the exact same words used by Jesus.

The fact Jerusalem is not mentioned in Matt 24 and Mark 13 is easily explained as being already obvious since in all 3 versions the focus is on the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem! To say the temple will be destroyed is also to state that Jerusalem will be destroyed. After all, the prophecy of this happening is referenced, by Jesus, to Dan 9, where both the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are mentioned.

What is the same though is way to survive those times - flee into the mountains - which is in both those passages.

Much more than that. Coming down from housetops is not at all a modern phenomenon.

The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet is in Daniel 12:11-12 - time of the end.

It's specifically Dan 9, where the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are mentioned--vs. 26. Dan 12 has nothing whatsoever to do with this period of time, in 70 AD, though there are parts of this chapter that do refer to the 3.5 year period of Antichrist's rule.

There is also reference to Antiochus 4 in ch. 12, who is another, different AoD. He will rule for a little longer than the rule of Antichrist, extending beyond 1260 days to 1290 days.

In other words, Dan 12 contains reference to two, and not just one, prophecy. Both were future to Daniel. The prophecy of Antichrist's rule, and the prophecy of Antiochus 4 were both very important future prophecies in Daniel's future.

But Dan 9 is, I believe, what Jesus was referring to, because it specifically referenced both an AoD and the destruction of both the temple and Jerusalem. This only took place in Christ's generation, which was also referred to in Dan 9.26.

Jesus did not return in Luke 21:20-24. Instead, the Jews were led away into the nations.

I agree. Jesus returns at the end of the Great Punishment of the Jewish People, after their national suffering.

In Matthew 24:15-31, is after the gospel had been spread to the nations v14. Jesus returns in the Matthew 24:15-31. Jerusalem will not be destroyed, like it had been 2000 years in Luke 21:20-24, because Jesus returns to Jerusalem in Zechariah 14.

Jesus was speaking of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD, and of the end of Israel's religion, Judaism. But at the end of the age, final judgment once again visits Israel by God, I believe. And they will be spared as a nation, and eventually restored.

The Abomination of Desolation will be the (statue) image of beast in Revelation 13.

No, the AoD is *never said* to be the image of the Beast--nowhere in Scriptures! There are only 2 AoDs in the Bible, the Roman Army 66-70 AD, and Antiochus 4 in the time before Christ.

I'm really sharing this for the benefit of others, because it appears you're not objective, and already have your mind made up. I run into that often.

 

[Douggg]

Don't agree. It was the same Discourse, the account of which is told by 3 different authors. I've compared them. They say the exact same things, using some different words and sometimes different order.

It is possible that someone repeats the same speech twice. After all, some pastors preach 3 of the same sermon on Sunday morning.

However, I don't consider it to be likely, since Jesus wasn't just repeating the same story in different places at different times, or in the same place to different crowds. When Jesus spoke of the fall of the temple, he likely began to speak of it as he was departing the temple area, walked up the hill beyond the temple complex, and then continued on the Mt. of Olives.

The initial reaction to Jesus' statement that the temple would fall would invite an immediate reaction from the Disciples, and the distance from the temple site to the Mt. of Olives was short.

It seems, therefore, that you have some kind of vested interest in this view, perhaps to preserve a view on this you've previously put your money on? I wouldn't do this, if you hope to prove you're an objective debater.



If I'm right that all 3 of the synoptic Gospels are giving an account of the *same Discourse,* and many scholars would say so, then the AoD in Matt 24 and Mark 13 perfectly aligns with the Destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21. You can see some of the exact same words used by Jesus.

The fact Jerusalem is not mentioned in Matt 24 and Mark 13 is easily explained as being already obvious since in all 3 versions the focus is on the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem! To say the temple will be destroyed is also to state that Jerusalem will be destroyed. After all, the prophecy of this happening is referenced, by Jesus, to Dan 9, where both the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are mentioned.



Much more than that. Coming down from housetops is not at all a modern phenomenon.



It's specifically Dan 9, where the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are mentioned--vs. 26. Dan 12 has nothing whatsoever to do with this period of time, in 70 AD, though there are parts of this chapter that do refer to the 3.5 year period of Antichrist's rule.

There is also reference to Antiochus 4 in ch. 12, who is another, different AoD. He will rule for a little longer than the rule of Antichrist, extending beyond 1260 days to 1290 days.

In other words, Dan 12 contains reference to two, and not just one, prophecy. Both were future to Daniel. The prophecy of Antichrist's rule, and the prophecy of Antiochus 4 were both very important future prophecies in Daniel's future.

But Dan 9 is, I believe, what Jesus was referring to, because it specifically referenced both an AoD and the destruction of both the temple and Jerusalem. This only took place in Christ's generation, which was also referred to in Dan 9.26.



I agree. Jesus returns at the end of the Great Punishment of the Jewish People, after their national suffering.



Jesus was speaking of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD, and of the end of Israel's religion, Judaism. But at the end of the age, final judgment once again visits Israel by God, I believe. And they will be spared as a nation, and eventually restored.



No, the AoD is *never said* to be the image of the Beast--nowhere in Scriptures! There are only 2 AoDs in the Bible, the Roman Army 66-70 AD, and Antiochus 4 in the time before Christ.

I'm really sharing this for the benefit of others, because it appears you're not objective, and already have your mind made up. I run into that often.

The destruction of the temple is in column 1. The abomination of desolation is in column 3.

It is easy to see the 2000 years, which the Jews were in exile, in column 2, between the temple/city destroyed and the abomination of desolation in the end times.

 

[RandyPNW]

The destruction of the temple is in column 1. The abomination of desolation is in column 3.

It is easy to see the 2000 years, which the Jews were in exile, in column 2, between the temple/city destroyed and the abomination of desolation in the end times.
View attachment 300965

Yes, the 1st thing I saw was that you put the AoD at the end, in the endtimes--probably as the Antichrist. The AoD does not follow the Jewish Diaspora, although I do think the Diaspora takes place throughout the age, along with the preaching of the Gospel.

When I compare the 3 versions, which I believe are 3 different presentations of the *same Discourse,* all we need to do is line up the various accounts and see where they are saying the same thing, and what they mean.

For example, the AoD in Matt 24 and Mark 13 lines up with the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21. The beginning of birth pains in Matt 24 and Mark 13 express the same thing as Luke 21, though presented a little differently. They all refer to signs that the 70 AD destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem is soon to take place.

Since the AoD immediately follows the beginning birth pains in all 3 accounts, it seems very clear to me that the AoD is the thing that Jesus had predicted, the destruction of the temple.

And so, when the Disciples asked Jesus *when* this would occur, it makes perfect sense for Jesus to say it would take place in *this generation.* The 70 AD destruction of the temple took place 40 years later, with the people of the apostles' generation witnessing these things.

The Gospel did begin to be preached universally as a sign that the 70 AD event would happen. It was one of the initial "birth pains," as well as something that would continue throughout the age.

The universal message of the Gospel implied that Jewish exclusivity was coming to an end, and that the Gentiles would be ushered in. The Gospel contained a message of warning to the Jews that their religion was inadequate, that their rejection of Christ was actually breaking the Law.

The Gospel pointed to Christ as the exclusive means of eternal life. The Law was inadequate for this. The temple was about to be destroyed to show that sin was in Israel and would not allow national salvation to take place through the Law alone. Apart from the righteousness of Christ, salvation cannot come to the individual nor can national salvation come to Israel.

 

[Douggg]

Yes, the 1st thing I saw was that you put the AoD at the end, in the endtimes--probably as the Antichrist.

The Antichrist is not the AoD. The Antichrist will commit the ToD, an act, something different - that will precede the AoD.

The ToD (Transgression of Desolation) is an act, from Daniel 8:12-13, and 2Thessalonians2:4.

The AoD (Abomination of Desolation) is a thing, an idol, a statue image, prefigured by what Antiochus did when he placed a statue image of Zeus in the temple. The AoD is something that is "setup"

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Antichrist is not the AoD. The Antichrist will commit the ToD, an act, something different - that will precede the AoD.

The ToD (Transgression of Desolation) is an act, from Daniel 8:12-13, and 2Thessalonians2:4.

The AoD (Abomination of Desolation) is a thing, an idol, a statue image, prefigured by what Antiochus did when he placed a statue image of Zeus in the temple. The AoD is something that is "setup"

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Okay, at least I know where you're getting this. The notion that the AoD is a *thing,* a graven image or idol, is from the era of the Church Fathers. Apparently, Porphyry came up with the "image" notion.

Antiochus 4 set up a statue to Zeus, according to Maccabees. But what was "abominable" was anything that brazenly displaced the worship of the true God with something else.

I personally believe the 1290 days in Dan 12 refer to the rule of Antiochus 4. Dan 8 and 11 refer to the AoD of Antiochus 4, and not to the Antichrist.

The AoD in the Olivet Discourse has to do with Dan 9, which identifies the desolation of the temple in 70 AD. This is a different AoD from the AoD of Antiochus 4.

But these are things we have to work out for ourselves. We just need to know the source of our ideas, so we can consider how valid they are.

 

[Douggg]

Okay, at least I know where you're getting this. The notion that the AoD is a *thing,* a graven image or idol, is from the era of the Church Fathers. Apparently, Porphyry came up with the "image" notion.

Has nothing to do with Porphyry.

That the AoD is a thing comes from Daniel 12:11-12 as something "setup" and prefigured historically by the image of Zeus that Antiochus had placed in the temple.

I personally believe the 1290 days in Dan 12 refer to the rule of Antiochus 4. Dan 8 and 11 refer to the AoD of Antiochus 4, and not to the Antichrist.

Daniel 12 is time of the end, not in Antiochus's day.

Daniel 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

The AoD in the Olivet Discourse has to do with Dan 9, which identifies the desolation of the temple in 70 AD. This is a different AoD from the AoD of Antiochus 4.

Daniel 9 in v21-24 contains reference to the vision of the little horn, his transgression of desolation, and 2300 days associated with him - in forthcoming 7 year 70th week. The 70th week contains both the transgression of desolation and the abomination of desolation - time of the end event.