I'm not meaning a small gap. I'm meaning one that consists of 2000 years or so, this assuming the coming recorded in verse 27 happens within our lifetimes.
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Most ppl propose that the parallel of Luke 21:20 is Matthew 24:15-26. So let's examine that and see if that is indeed the case.
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:
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.
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.
Let's skip ahead to verse 29.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately 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:
Obviously, the tribulation of those days meant are meaning what is recorded in verse 15-26 above. It even clearly calls it tribulation in verse 21. It couldn't be any clearer then, that this great tribulation in verse 21 is what is meant by the tribulation of those days in verse 29. Yet, some will dispute even this. But why? What other tribulation days could it possibly be talking about if that is what this chapter was just talking about prior to verse 29?
If we make Matthew 24:21 parallel to Luke 21:20, this presents a cpl of problems, such as the following. Matthew 24:29 records---immediately 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.
When did any of that ever happen immediately after the fulfillment of Luke 21:20 in the first century? That's one problem this interpretation presents. Some ppl are Preterists though, so maybe to them there are none of these problems I'm insisting that there is. But not everyone are Preterists, though. A lot of us believe, thus agree, that the coming recorded in Luke 21:27, and the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30, these involve the 2nd coming in the end of this age, not a coming in another sense involving Jerusalem in 70 AD instead.
The other problem this interpretation presents is this, keeping in mind what I have been arguing up to this point involving Matthew 24:29 and Matthew 24:21.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately 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:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
I have been arguing that the trib of those days meant in verse 29 is meaning the great trib recorded in verse 21. I have been arguing that nothing recorded in Matthew 24:15-26 involves Jerusalem in the first century since what is recorded in verse 29 never immediately followed any events in the first century.
I have also been arguing that there is a gap of at least 2000 years after the fulfilling of Luke 21:20 and the coming recorded in verse 27 in that same chapter. If Matthew 24:15-26 is parallel to Luke 21:20, where then is this same 2000 year gap between what is recorded in Matthew 24:29 and the coming recorded in verse 30? There is no 2000 year gap between those verses. Obviously, there is a gap of some kind, but it couldn't possibly be a gap involving thousands of years.
In Luke 21:20 the 2nd coming is still several thousand years away. In Matthew 24:29, which is immediately after the trib of those days recorded in verses 15-26 in this same chapter, the 2nd coming is not still 2000 years or so away. It's at the door instead. Thus the other problem this interpretation presents if Matthew 24:15-26 is assumed the parallel of Luke 21:20.
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).
