There is a gap between that of Luke 21:20 and the coming recorded in verse 27.

[DavidPT]

I recommend to read the text in wider context and you will see the problem: Some Thessalonians were worried about their dead relatives who died before the coming.

Paul could say "we will all die, because He will return thousands years after us". But he did not. Its not indicated anywhere in the text, only the opposite - the expectation of it happening in their lifes. Therefore I do not think your explanation fits the text.

But if he was meaning how it's going to turn out over all in the end, whether the end was meaning back then or at a much later time, why would it have mattered to them when the end is meaning as long as it plays out exactly like he indicated?

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


Paul is the speaker here, so, should we take the 'we' to be including him as well? Assuming this event has already been fulfilled, did it include him at the time?

 

[trophy33]

But if he was meaning how it's going to turn out over all in the end, whether the end was meaning back then or at a much later time, why would it have mattered to them when the end is meaning as long as it plays out exactly like he indicated?

How was that comforting for them?

After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Paul is the speaker here, so, should we take the 'we' to be including him as well? Assuming this event has already been fulfilled, did it include him at the time?

Paul was not yet revealed that he will be killed in Rome. So he naturally included himself in the current generation who will be alive.

 

[Zao is life]

You created a gap that none of the original audience would have seen. And just to not leave you hanging, read Isaiah 19:1 and see what Jesus mean by coming on a cloud.

Regardless of what you say, I'm 100% convinced that when Jesus appears in bodily form in the clouds, sending His angels with a great sound of a trumpet to gather His elect, that the dead in Christ will rise, and then those who are still alive and remain will be caught up together with them, to meet the Lord in the air.

I'm 100% sure that Jesus promised it, the apostles taught it, and this is what they often wrote about.

I'm also 100% sure that making statements that negate the above does not negate it, no matter how the gospels, epistles and Revelation of Jesus is interpreted by Preterist beliefs.

 

[Zao is life]

I’m not big on long posts, so I’ll address this first, and we will see where it goes from here. This is another example of where knowledge of the OT is helpful. Sun, moon, stars are used throughout the OT as leaders. Even in Joseph’s vision, they represented his father, mother, and brothers. So what’s being put forth is that the leadership of Israel will lose its authority. They have fallen.

The metaphor used to describe the return of Christ and the events that surround the return of Christ does not = "He has already returned".

You have to find a much, much better argument in support of the notion that Jesus has already returned.

I see the metaphor in the Bible and in the Revelation that you are talking about.

I also see that your claim that Jesus has returned is totally devoid of any biblical evidence.

 

[Hammster]

Regardless of what you say, I'm 100% convinced that when Jesus appears in bodily form in the clouds, sending His angels with a great sound of a trumpet to gather His elect, that the dead in Christ will rise, and then those who are still alive and remain will be caught up together with them, to meet the Lord in the air.

I'm 100% sure that Jesus promised it, the apostles taught it, and this is what they often wrote about.

I'm also 100% sure that making statements that negate the above does not negate it, no matter how the gospels, epistles and Revelation of Jesus is interpreted by Preterist beliefs.

I’m sure you are convinced. But the original audience would never have that same conclusion. They understood the OT references that Christ used.

 

[Zao is life]

I dont see a gap in Luke 21:20-27 same event leading up to the second coming..

That's possible. It's also possible that one thing becomes a biblical type of another.

 

[DavidPT]

It does not seem to me that Luke 21:20-23 parallels Matthew 24:9-31, for the following reasons:-

1. Matthew used the Greek word thlipsis in Matthew 24:9, which is the same word used in Matthew 24:21 where the reader (and Jesus' audience) are being told about the intensity of the tribulation (thlipsis) that is being prophesied about by Jesus (megas thlipsis). I'm going to come back to something very important about this in a moment.

2. Luke does not use the same word to describe what he is talking about in Luke 21:20-23, where Luke records Jesus’ prophecy regarding the distress that was to come upon the people of Jerusalem, and mentions this period as coming about as a result of God’s wrath:

"But woe to those who are with child, and to those suckling in those days! For there shall be great distress (ἀνάγκη anánkē) in the land and wrath (ὀργή orgḗ) on this people."

3. I think it's noticeable that Matthew does not use the word "wrath" anywhere from Matthew 24:9 to Matthew 24:31, because that whole passage is joined together into one long sentence by the words "and", "therefore", "but", "for",and "then"; and if you look at the Greek words, the English translation of each Greek word which joins the entire passage into one long statement about one and the same period of tribulation, is accurate.

4. What is also noticeable is that if Matthew 24:9-31 is indeed one long statement about one and the same period of tribulation (which the text and and the Greek words used to join sentences together, certainly implies), then it cannot possibly be talking about the same thing Luke is reporting Jesus as prophesying in Luke 21:20-23.

5. Luke 21:24-28 are more difficult verses (for me), because verse 24 is so similar to Revelation 11:1-2 and Revelation 13:10:

Luke 21
24 And they shall fall by the sword's edge. And shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the nations until the times of the nations is fulfilled.

Revelation 11
1 And a reed like a rod was given to me. And the angel stood, saying, Rise up and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship in it.
2 But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it was given to the nations. And they will trample the holy city forty-two months.

In Revelation 13 we have the words,

9 If any man has an ear, let him hear.
10 He who leads into captivity will go into captivity. If anyone will kill with the sword, he must be killed by a sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

The above is hardly "the patience and faith" of the unbelieving Jews who were led away captive in 70 A.D, so comparing the above verses in the Revelation with Luke 21:24, I find it difficult to assume that Luke 21:24 is talking about what happened to the Jews immediately following the events of A.D 70, especially when I consider this alongside the fact that Luke also said the following:

Luke 21
8 And He said, Take heed that you are not deceived, for many shall come in My name, saying, I AM! Also, The time has come! Do not go after them.
9 But when you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified, for all these things must first occur, but the end is not at once.
10 And He said to them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
11 And great earthquakes shall be in different places, and famines and plagues. And there shall be terrors and great signs from Heaven.
12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for My name's sake.
13 And it shall return to you for a testimony.
14 Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand what you shall answer.
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And you shall be betrayed also by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends. And they will cause some of you to be put to death.
17 And you shall be hated by all for My name's sake.
18 But there shall not a hair of your head perish.
19 By your patience you will gain your souls.

MARKAN SANDWICH IN LUKE'S GOSPEL TOO?​

Without assuming anything, I believe it's possible that Luke opens with recording what Jesus said about the close of the Age, interrupts the discourse with what will happen with THAT Jerusalem that still existed as part of the kingdom of Judea when Jesus was prophesying, and then closes with what he started off with.

Still, I don't assume anything because Luke chapter 21:5-28 is a difficult passage to interpret CORRECTLY (though many, many Christians believe they have it all worked out, and in its proper historical or future setting).

Imo, Luke 21:24 is key. Some of that began with what happened in Luke 21:20. That event is what initially led them captivity into all nations. Except Revelation 11:1-2 and Revelation 13 and the 42 month reign of the beast, this does not involve what is recorded in Luke 21:20, this involves what is recorded in Luke 21:24 after they have went into captivity to other nations.

Some might think this is only meaning the unbelieving Jews that weren't killed at the time, yet it is more involved than that since this also sent the believers at the time into other nations, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since this would allow for the gospel to spread even further than just the region they were living in at the time.

IMO then, Matthew 24:15-26 fits with a time involving Luke 21:24 not Luke 21:20. But even so, I admit, some things are difficult to explain if assuming that scenario. For example. What does it mean---Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains---assuming that is not involving anything regional?

 

[DavidPT]

That's possible. It's also possible that one thing becomes a biblical type of another.

I'm not grasping why you might see that as possible? If Luke 21:20 records what happened in 70 AD, and that verse 27 records the 2nd coming in the end of this age, and assuming the 2nd coming happens in our lifetimes, that places a gap of at least 2000 years between these two events.

 

[Zao is life]

Not everyone in the world were suddenly "not deceived" the day Christ bound Satan. Satan STILL rule over the unsaved world. He was only bound for the SAKE OF THE ELECT, not everyone in the world.

These statements Amills make: "he was only bound for the sake of", "he was only bound in terms of", "he was only bound in the sense that.."

I don't find any of them anywhere in the New Testament. I don't even find any verses in the New Testament that imply those statements, though I find a list of statements that imply the opposite.

Fortunately for me, due to the fact that the Bible has shown me that my (previous) Premil notion that there could be a thousand-year gap in-between the return of Christ and the NHNE, was wrong.

So fortunately for me, with regards to the millennium I've taken the liberty of inventing a new category of eschatology for myself, which is the only category I now belong in:

agnosmillenialism.

Still, I often wish that when it comes to this "binding of Satan" thing, some or other Amilleniialist would one day say something or come up with something in the Bible which lends proper, unambiguous support for their "he was only bound for the sake of", "he was only bound in terms of", "he was only bound in the sense that.." claims.

I'm like millennium patient in need of a shrink, and the only "psychiatrist" whose opinions I find well enough thought-out (because he does not lend himself to claims that don't have biblical statements in support of them), is a Pre-millennialist who believes as I do that there cannot be any gap between the return of Christ and the NHNE.

 

[Zao is life]

I’m sure you are convinced. But the original audience would never have that same conclusion. They understood the OT references that Christ used.

Did you know the original audience so well that you could come to that conclusion without having any biblical basis for it?

 

[Hammster]

Did you know the original audience so well that you could come to that conclusion without having any biblical basis for it?

The options are that either they understood what Jesus was saying, and understood all of the OT references, or they didn’t understand and it’s taken 2000 to finally get it. I’m going with the former.

 

[Zao is life]

Imo, Luke 21:24 is key. Some of that began with what happened in Luke 21:20. That event is what initially led them captivity into all nations. Except Revelation 11:1-2 and Revelation 13 and the 42 month reign of the beast, this does not involve what is recorded in Luke 21:20, this involves what is recorded in Luke 21:24 after they have went into captivity to other nations.

Some might think this is only meaning the unbelieving Jews that weren't killed at the time, yet it is more involved than that since this also sent the believers at the time into other nations, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since this would allow for the gospel to spread even further than just the region they were living in at the time.

IMO then, Matthew 24:15-26 fits with a time involving Luke 21:24 not Luke 21:20. But even so, I admit, some things are difficult to explain if assuming that scenario. For example. What does it mean---Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains---assuming that is not involving anything regional?

Unless what someone else posted in this thread proves true:

The gathering of the armies against Jerusalem described in Luke 21:2-23 is till coming.

(Or will happen again).

But if we assume such things we have to go find O.T passages such as Zechariah chapters 12-14 (which are all and the same prophecy, prophesying the day the armies of all nations gather against Jerusalem).

But one of the Amills here long ago gave me a list of parallels between Zechariah 14 and the NHNE.

So, this is why I prefer not to assume anything, when no one really knows - but what you said in the above post about Luke 21:24 being key is very interesting. More to think about

 

[parousia70]

OK, so can you tell us then

1. when did the Age begin?

What age? The Christian age? the Church age? the New Covenant Age?

Whenever it began, we can be certain it hadn't begun, nor do the apostles have any idea it would begin, when the apostles asked Jesus "when will the end of the age be"? Manking it impssible that the apostles were asking, and Jesus was answering "when" would be the end of the Christian age.

2. Did the Day of Pentecost signify something, or nothing?

It did.
Can it be said that the Christian age was born fully grown on the first day? or was gentile inclusion a necessary component that had yet to be made manifest? Gentiles were not Included in the covenant on the day of pentecost. so, either gentile inclusion was not a prophetic necessity, or it was and pentecost was not the moment that the new covenant was in full effect for all who it was prophesied to be for.

3. When did the apostles write, and when did Paul write? Was it before or after the Day of Pentecost?

After. And they all affirmed the Law was still in effect, and that people were still in bondage to it, at the time they were writing.

Such is not the case today, so something happened between penecost and today that solidified the end of the Mosaic Law Age. I Wonder what that could have been?

 

[Zao is life]

The options are that either they understood what Jesus was saying, and understood all of the OT references, or they didn’t understand and it’s taken 2000 to finally get it. I’m going with the former.

The gospels and the beginning of Acts record even the apostles asking Jesus questions which showed that they misunderstood a lot of things, so I wouldn't go with the former for that reason, but neither would I go with the former on the basis of what the apostles later wrote, and the basis of what is written in the Revelation. There's just no real biblical evidence for the former, IMO. (my opinion).

 

[Hammster]

The gospels and the beginning of Acts record even the apostles asking Jesus questions which showed that they misunderstood a lot of things, so I wouldn't go with the former for that reason, but neither would I go with the former on the basis of what the apostles later wrote, and the basis of what is written in the Revelation. There's just no real biblical evidence for the former, IMO. (my opinion).

So what I have to conclude is that you are much more spiritually attuned than they were, and when Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote about the Olivet Discourse, they were simply confused about what Jesus was talking about.

 

[Jake Arsenal]

In some cases it might be too late by then. Why would one not want to at least try and do that in advance? Either it will turn out they were right all along or that they were way off. I see that you are arguing that some prophecies involving Christ weren't understood until after they were fulfilled first. I have no dispute with that, but is that enough reason to simply wait until further unfilled prophecies are fulfilled first?

I'm basically just trying to determine a chronological chain of events. That doesn't mean I have to understand in detail what every event might look like as it is being fulfilled. It just means this happens first, followed by that next, so on and so on.

As to the AOD recorded in Matthew 24:15. I don't know what that is going to look like when it is initially fulfilled, but I'm not expecting it to involve a literal temple in Jerusalem. One of the signs indicating we have entered that period is what Matthew 24:21 records---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


I don't see us being quite there yet nor do I think a time in the past explains what is recorded in verse 21 either. Daniel 12 records the same event, which is then followed by a resurrection of the dead. This alone tells us this is still future not past, yet some would have us believe, and not just Preterists, that Matthew 24:21 involved the first century and 70 AD, not something in the end of this age instead, thus totally contradicting what Daniel 12:1-2 records.

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said,

I am proposing avoiding attempts to make the pieces fit before all the pieces are lined up.

I did not mean to wait until the events occur. In the same paragraph, I said,

to understand these prophesies, we must cast off all that we think we know and replace it with the Scriptures. Rather than try to determine what an individual prophesy refers to, we should take advantage of the NT explanations for how the prophesies about Christ were fulfilled.

In that same post, I also said,

Many of the prophesy books of the OT have to do with the great and terrible day of the Lord. We can know this because they either say so, or they talk about the most prominent signs of that day(Sun and moon darkened)

Which I think is one of the main keys to understanding all of the OT and NT prophesies about the last days. I highly recommend not trying understand individual prophesies without first gathering the whole of prophesies about the same events.

 

[Zao is life]

I'm not grasping why you might see that as possible? If Luke 21:20 records what happened in 70 AD, and that verse 27 records the 2nd coming in the end of this age, and assuming the 2nd coming happens in our lifetimes, that places a gap of at least 2000 years between these two events.

I'm talking about the possibility of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies again at the close of the Age. The bodies of the two witnesses lie in the street of Jerusalem on earth. That means that this place does feature in the last-days scenario.

 

[Zao is life]

So what I have to conclude is that you are much more spiritually attuned than they were, and when Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote about the Olivet Discourse, they were simply confused about what Jesus was talking about.

Nope, not at the time they wrote. At the time He spoke, yes, but not by the time they wrote.

So in keeping with the faithfulness of the Bible's recording of history, they wrote what was said, and when it was said. The Bible tells it like it is. That's why you see apostles getting mad at other apostles whose mother petitioned the Lord to have her sons in the most prominent positions in His Kingdom, over the others. That's why ten days before the Day of Pentecost, the disciples asked the Lord a question which caused him to correct the question and remind them of what He told them around 42 days earlier:

Acts 1
6 Then, indeed, these coming together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, do You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
7 And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority.
8 But you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

Matthew 24
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come.

On what biblical passages do you base the claim that the Lord returned in the first century and that all the above had already been fulfilled when He returned?

 

[pasifika]

Where do you place Luke 21:20 in time? Because if it involves 70 AD and that the coming in verse 27 involves the 2nd coming in the end of this age how could there possibly not be a gap of at least 2000 years beyween those 2 events? Maybe I should also ask you what you take the 2nd coming to mean? Maybe you don't take it mean what I take it to mean?

Luke 21:20 begins at the last 3.5weeks(years) of the final 7weeks(years) taken from Daniel when the desolation of Jerusalem is decreed and complete at the second coming of Christ as also in Matthew 24:15

 

[Zao is life]

so something happened between penecost and today that solidified the end of the Mosaic Law Age. I Wonder what that could have been?

You mean something like the power of the gospel message?

Or do you mean something like the return of Christ that occurred in the first century but which the apostles all failed to mention in their epistles in plain and unambiguous language while they repeatedly wrote about the return of the Lord as a future event, in such a way as to strongly imply that His return was still a future event?