Abomination of Desolation in Luke?

[Timtofly]

The scholarly consensus is that the Abomination of Desolation refers to the incident where Emperor Caligula had an idol depicting him as Jupiter installed in the courtyard of the Second Temple.

Where in history? Josephus? Where does Daniel claim any Roman was involved? Josephus already mentioned Daniel and the scholars of the 1st century BC already claimed it was fulfilled. Rome did not even have an emperor prior to 26 BC. How many AOD should there be? Many Romans have been accused of repeating what Daniel prophesied. How many 1st century citizens can the scholarly consensus convince in 2021?

 

[jgr]

The scholarly consensus is that the Abomination of Desolation refers to the incident where Emperor Caligula had an idol depicting him as Jupiter installed in the courtyard of the Second Temple.

Luke doesn't agree.

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

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:

Luke elucidates Matthew by identifying the abomination as the Roman armies, who bore pagan ensigns of their deities, which were abominations to the Jews.

 

[safswan]

Thanks for that detailed explanation, however a preterits would point out that the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven (Colossians 1:23) prior to the destruction of Jerusalem; so they wouldn’t place Matthew 24:14 after 70 A.D.

The account given by Matthew is not chronological in all aspects and this is the major cause of confusion and misunderstanding.If we follow Luke's account and compare with Matthew then we will see that the coming of the kingdom of God which I understand to be the "end" occurs after the destruction of Jerusalem and the preaching of the gospel would have continued until then.

So whereas many use Matthew 24 as the primary scripture to inform of end time events it is more prudent,in my understanding,to use Luke 21.

 

[safswan]

Luke doesn't agree.

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

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:

Luke elucidates Matthew by identifying the abomination as the Roman armies, who bore pagan ensigns of their deities, which were abominations to the Jews.

Agree.Luke explains what Matthew meant.He understood.

 

[claninja]

I believe that when a believe dies their soul and spirit go to be with the Lord in heaven and reign with Him there while awaiting the redemption of their bodies which will occur at the last trumpet when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:51-54).

Ok, so then you would agree that ephesians 2:6 is in regards both a present and future reality?

I disagree that those passages refer to the loosing of Satan. By seeing it this way you are turning the "thousand years" into a very short amount of time because you have it ending already when Christ ascended. It's one thing to view the thousand years figuratively, but this is going too far.

Right, you would have to disagree because it disagrees with the amil paradigm. I disagree with the traditional amil paradigm because it doesn't fit with the gospel and epistolic narrative.

ISTM that Your view of scripture is then viewed through the lens of the traditional amil paradigm. Where as I interpret revelation 20 through the lens of the gospel and epistolic narrative.

If the thousand years ended when Christ ascended then how do you make sense of this verse:

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

That verse is the 1st resurrection. In the vision of revelation 20, The entire 1,000 years of living and reigning with Christ encompasses the first resurrection.

revelation 20:4-5 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

In the vision, The first resurrection, which occurs over the entirety of the 1,000 years, simultaneously occurs with the binding of satan.

Since I view the first resurrection as Christ, I view the 1,000 years as a symbolic number representing the fulfillment of the Davidic oath, when Christ ascended to the throne and cast satan out.

Also, I see Satan's binding as a case of him being restrained from stopping the spread of the gospel while your understanding of his binding is honesty not clear to me, but something different.

I view satan's binding as Christ's destruction of his works, which occurred at the 1st advent.

It seems clear to me that Paul wasn't interested in spelling everything out in 2 Thessalonians 2, overall. It's far from a clear, straightforward passage.

Absolutely agree. As such, it would seem 2 thessalonians 2 would not be the best passage for supporting the amil position due its highly mysterious and debatable nature. For Premils also use this passage to support their view.

Before the cross, the Gentiles were "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12), but that all changed afterwards.

Of course the gentiles were without Christ prior to His first advent, as Christ hadn't been born yet.

No, I think they go hand in hand. When the Holy Spirit's influence is taken away and the mass falling away from the faith occurs that Paul mentioned, that will all be because Satan is loosed and no longer restrained at that point.

Ok, so then you believe at the time satan is released from the abyss to persecute, deceive, and gather those to war against the church, the holy spirit is taken out of the way in order that the man of sin may be revealed?

Does this mean you believe the church will go for a time without the Holy Spirit?

Yes, but what does that mean? You have criticized me before for viewing things like premils, but aren't you doing the same here? Premils assume that his being bound from deceiving the nations has to do with him being completely incapacitated and unable to deceive or do anything at all. I don't see it that way. I view it as him being bound from keeping the Gentiles in spiritual darkness the way he was able to do before Christ came and before the gospel went out into the world through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I interpret revelation 20:1-5 as this:

Acts 26:23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

Jesus said no one knows the day or hour of His coming except for the Father. So, to think that John knew exactly when Christ would come would contradict that. All believers from that time on have believed that He could come during their lifetimes. I just completely disagree with your understanding of Matthew 24:29-31. I believe you are missing that Jesus was asked both about the timing of the destruction of the temple AND the timing of His coming and the end of the age. I believe you are not missing that those are 2 separate events. There was no gathering of the elect in 70 AD. And heaven and earth did not pass away at that time, either (Matt 24:35).

When a mother is going to have a baby, she knows it will be born in around 9 months. However, She has no idea the day nor hour when it will be born.

Thus just as a mother knows the birth of a child is near, when she is in birth pains (contractions), so to would the early church know that Christ's coming in judgment upon Israel was near when they saw all the things listed in the olivet discourse.

Matthew 24:33-34 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place

We have james to testify to this:

Jeams 5:8-9 You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 9Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the gate.

 

[grafted branch]

The account given by Matthew is not chronological in all aspects and this is the major cause of confusion and misunderstanding.If we follow Luke's account and compare with Matthew then we will see that the coming of the kingdom of God which I understand to be the "end" occurs after the destruction of Jerusalem and the preaching of the gospel would have continued until then.

So whereas many use Matthew 24 as the primary scripture to inform of end time events it is more prudent,in my understanding,to use Luke 21.

Ok, both Matthew 24:29 and Luke 21:25 have the statement about the sun, moon, and stars. Matthew 24:29 says immediately after the tribulation of those days, and the last part of Luke 21:24 has Jerusalem trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

When I compare these verses I come up with the “end” described in Matthew 24:14 happening at 70 A.D.

So if I understand your view correctly, Matthew 24:14 is speaking of the gospel being preached prior to the final end (not 70 A.D.), which is to be equated with the last part of Luke 21:24 where Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

If this is your view, the thing that doesn’t make sense to me is that there still has to be some kind of difference between Jew and Gentile concerning the gospel until the final end. Romans 10:12 states there is no difference between Jew and Gentile: the same Lord is the Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him. I don’t think it currently can be “the times of the Gentiles” unless “the times of the Gentiles” has nothing to do with the gospel being preached or anyone who calls on Him.

So how do you see “the times of the Gentiles” fitting into Matthew24?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Ok, so then you would agree that ephesians 2:6 is in regards both a present and future reality?

No, I believe it refers figuratively to the present reality that we reign with Christ spiritually. If you look at verse 5, you can see that the context of what Paul was writing about was related to being saved.

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Right, you would have to disagree because it disagrees with the amil paradigm. I disagree with the traditional amil paradigm because it doesn't fit with the gospel and epistolic narrative. ISTM that Your view of scripture is then viewed through the lens of the traditional amil paradigm. Where as I interpret revelation 20 through the lens of the gospel and epistolic narrative.

I believe I am interpreting it through the lens of the gospel and epistolic narrative. Please don't tell me how I am interpreting scripture. I don't believe what I do because of tradition, I believe it because of my own studies.

That verse is the 1st resurrection. In the vision of revelation 20, The entire 1,000 years of living and reigning with Christ encompasses the first resurrection.

revelation 20:4-5 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

In the vision, The first resurrection, which occurs over the entirety of the 1,000 years, simultaneously occurs with the binding of satan.

Since I view the first resurrection as Christ, I view the 1,000 years as a symbolic number representing the fulfillment of the Davidic oath, when Christ ascended to the throne and cast satan out.

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know what else to say. You don't view the thousand years as an actual time period and I do. That's a major difference in our perspectives.

I view satan's binding as Christ's destruction of his works, which occurred at the 1st advent.

So do I. But, the effect of that has been ongoing while the gospel has been spread through the world. What does Christ destroying the devil's works mean to you exactly? What was the effect of that on the world in your view?

Absolutely agree. As such, it would seem 2 thessalonians 2 would not be the best passage for supporting the amil position due its highly mysterious and debatable nature. For Premils also use this passage to support their view.

I didn't say it was. But, it is clear to me that Paul teaches that there will be a time of increased, unrestrained wickedness before the return of Christ that is marked by a mass falling away from the faith.

Of course the gentiles were without Christ prior to His first advent, as Christ hadn't been born yet.

This is a strange response. It's as if you are saying Paul was being dumb for mentioning that they were "without Christ". Was he just ridiculously stating the obivous or is there more to it? It appears that you don't understand why he said that. Do you not know that Christ is God and existed before He was born? I'm sure you know that. He was the spiritual Rock of the Old Testament saints.

1 Corinthians 10:4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

So, the Jews "drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, which was Christ. The Gentiles were "without Christ". Once Christ died and rose again and once the gospel started going out into the world through the power of the Holy Spirit the Gentiles were no longer "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:" (Eph 2:12). I believe the binding of Satan relates to that. He was no longer able to keep the Gentiles in spiritual darkness as he was able to do in Old Testament times.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Ok, so then you believe at the time satan is released from the abyss to persecute, deceive, and gather those to war against the church, the holy spirit is taken out of the way in order that the man of sin may be revealed?

Does this mean you believe the church will go for a time without the Holy Spirit?

No, of course not! You can't be born again/saved without receiving the Holy Spirit. I'm saying the church is weakened during that time because of many falling away and unrestrained wickedness. I believe the influence of the church has a weak impact on the world during that time and I think we're already starting to see that. In the U.S. and some other places in the world the increase in wickedness and immorality in more recent years is obvious.

I interpret revelation 20:1-5 as this:

Acts 26:23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

So do I. And I see the thousand years as the time period that He is proclaimed to the Gentiles. I see Satan's little season as a time when the gospel's impact is significantly descreased because of the increase in wickedness due to Satan being unrestrained.

When a mother is going to have a baby, she knows it will be born in around 9 months. However, She has no idea the day nor hour when it will be born.

Thus just as a mother knows the birth of a child is near, when she is in birth pains (contractions), so to would the early church know that Christ's coming in judgment upon Israel was near when they saw all the things listed in the olivet discourse.

Matthew 24:33-34 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place

We have james to testify to this:

Jeams 5:8-9 You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 9Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the gate.

I take those to mean that His coming was imminent, not literally soon to take place. It is still imminent. Do you not get excited at the prospect of the glorious return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? That is what keeps me going during hard times. I think about that day often. We will finally see Him as He is (1 John 3:2-3). I feel that preterism takes away from that anticipation. I'm not saying that Jesus didn't prophesy at all about what took place in 70 AD, but He also prophesied about His future coming at the end of this temporal age.

 

[claninja]

I believe I am interpreting it through the lens of the gospel and epistolic narrative. Please don't tell me how I am interpreting scripture. I don't believe what I do because of tradition, I believe it because of my own studies.

The gospels and epistles declare that when satan was cast out (john 12:31-33) and coming (john 14:30) following Christ's ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension, he would be: prowling and looking to devour (1 peter 5:8), scheming (2 corinthians 2:11), deceiving (2 corinthians 11:14), hindering the spread of the gospel (1 thessalonians 2:18), snatching away understanding of the kingdom (matthew 13:19), ensnaring (2 timothy 2:26), and working through the sons of disobedience (ephesians 2:1-2) and eventually through the man of sin (2 thessalonians 2:9). Effectively, he was warring against the saints (revelation 12:13-17). But he would be soon be crushed under the Church's feet (Romans 16:20).

The traditional Amil paradigm forces you to interpret these events as occurring when satan is locked in the pit, which is the exact opposite of what the vision of revelation ch 20 states. You seem to look at the traditional Amil paradigm first, and then see where the events of the gospels/epistles fit in, resulting in a confusing placement of the activities of satan into the verses 1-3 of revelation ch 20 where it says satan has no activities.

revelation 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pita and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

I, on the other hand, interpret these events, as recorded in the gospels and epistles, as being a reference to satan's release from the pit. I look at the gospels and epistles first and then look to where they fit in the vision of revelation 20. It seems more plausible to place these events in verse 7, than in verses 1-3.

revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know what else to say. You don't view the thousand years as an actual time period and I do. That's a major difference in our perspectives.

Here's the main difference:

Traditional Amils and Premil's interpet the first resurrection as initiating the 1000 years.

IMHO, 1,000 years is the ENTIRETY of the first resurrection because the vision/parable states it as so:

revelation 20:4-5 They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

Therefore, as I view the 1,000 years as WITHIN the entirety of Christ's resurrection, I believe it points to the fulfillment of the Davidic oath, which came literally 1,000 years prior to Christ. The fulfillment of the Davidic Oath at Christ's resurrection and ascension resulted in saints becoming a kingdom of priests to God and satan being cast out to wage war against the them.

What does Christ destroying the devil's works mean to you exactly? What was the effect of that on the world in your view?

1.) Satan no longer holds the power of death
Hebrews 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

2.) Satan can no longer accuse because the righteous requirements of God are now fulfilled in us through Christ
romans 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

romans 8:33-34 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

3.) We are able to overcome the evil one.
1 john 2:14 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

revelation 12:9-11 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothersb has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.

I didn't say it was. But, it is clear to me that Paul teaches that there will be a time of increased, unrestrained wickedness before the return of Christ that is marked by a mass falling away from the faith.

Paul taught nothing that Christ did not already teach was to occur prior to the great tribulation of Jerusalem

Matthew 24:9-12 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.

This is a strange response. It's as if you are saying Paul was being dumb for mentioning that they were "without Christ". Was he just ridiculously stating the obivous or is there more to it? It appears that you don't understand why he said that. Do you not know that Christ is God and existed before He was born? I'm sure you know that. He was the spiritual Rock of the Old Testament saints.

Why is this a strange response? Paul clearly states the gentiles being fellow heirs through Christ and the gospel was a mystery not made known in other generations, but was revealed "now". The "now" being after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Do you believe it was not made known because Satan was hiding it or because God had not yet revealed it?

Ephesians 3:4-6 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

It's an "of course" response to your argument because Living 2,000 years post the cross, I am well aware that Jesus Christ existed before creation. Did the gentiles, let alone the jews, prior to the cross, know that Jesus existed prior to creation or were they just learning about this mystery in the 1st century, after the 1st advent?

No, of course not! You can't be born again/saved without receiving the Holy Spirit. I'm saying the church is weakened during that time because of many falling away and unrestrained wickedness. I believe the influence of the church has a weak impact on the world during that time and I think we're already starting to see that. In the U.S. and some other places in the world the increase in wickedness and immorality in more recent years is obvious.

So then the restrainer being taken out of the way is not the removal of the Spirit in general, just the removal of the Spirits restraint against the man of sin? Sorry, for asking all these questions, I'm just trying to clarify.

So do I. And I see the thousand years as the time period that He is proclaimed to the Gentiles. I see Satan's little season as a time when the gospel's impact is significantly descreased because of the increase in wickedness due to Satan being unrestrained.

Right, you see the 1,000 years as a literal unspecified amount of time POST the 1st resurrection, While I see the 1,000 years as symbolic for WITHIN the 1st resurrection.

I take those to mean that His coming was imminent, not literally soon to take place. It is still imminent.

Confused by this statement. Imminent means literally soon to take place.

"ready to take place : happening soon" (Definition of IMMINENT)

Imminent would not be used for events that are far off. That would be the antonym of imminent.

Do you not get excited at the prospect of the glorious return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Yes, I am excited that Christ is coming on the clouds and all eyes will see him. I am not a full preterist.

 

[grafted branch]

But he would be soon be crushed under the Church's feet (Romans 16:20).

In Romans 16:20 the word “crushed” or “bruise”<4937> means to shatter or break into pieces. Do you see a possible connection with Daniel 12:7 and the scattering (breaking in pieces) of the power of the holy people?

 

[FredVB]

The question and answer session of the army surrounding Jerusalem and the present abomination of desolation is the same one in Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's gospel accounts. That the prophecy has fulfillment in two distinct events which the prophecy precedes is not unusual for scripture prophecies, there are other cases of that. Armies surrounded Jerusalem later that century, when those who heard the prophecy needed to flee, that was the first and the minor fulfillment, there had not been as much destruction from an army as there was then. But there is further fulfillment coming in the endtime scenario, the major fulfillment. So temple worship will by then already start in Jerusalem, when the abomination of desolation comes.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Right, you see the 1,000 years as a literal unspecified amount of time POST the 1st resurrection, While I see the 1,000 years as symbolic for WITHIN the 1st resurrection.

This is the part of what you believe that makes no sense to me whatsoever. We've already gone over the other things repeatedly and I don't feel like doing it again. This here is the biggest difference in what we believe. We both see the thousand years as being figurative, but I see it as referring to an actual period of time (just not a literal 1,000 years) and you don't.

Confused by this statement. Imminent means literally soon to take place.

"ready to take place : happening soon" (Definition of IMMINENT)

Imminent would not be used for events that are far off. That would be the antonym of imminent.

I mean imminent from God's perspective. So, I take it as being certain to happen and soon, but from God's perspective. Remember, to Him a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. Jesus said that no one knows the day or hour of His coming (Matt 24:36) and I believe that is still true. It's certain to happen and it hasn't been long from God's perspective (2 Peter 3:8-9).

Jesus is returning at the end of the age (Matt 24:3) and the end of the age (which is this temporal age, not an old covenant age) has not yet come. This is another major difference in our views. Your understanding of the end of the age as occurring in 70 AD is flawed, in my opinion. But, we've been over that already. I'm not really interested in going over all of that again. We just need to agree to disagree on that.

Yes, I am excited that Christ is coming on the clouds and all eyes will see him. I am not a full preterist.

That's good to know. He can't come soon enough, in my opinion. But, I know He is being patient because of God's desire for all people to repent (2 Peter 3:9). In the meantime, we just have to go about our lives and try to serve Him the best we can until He comes.

 

[claninja]

This is the part of what you believe that makes no sense to me whatsoever. We've already gone over the other things repeatedly and I don't feel like doing it again. This here is the biggest difference in what we believe. We both see the thousand years as being figurative, but I see it as referring to an actual period of time (just not a literal 1,000 years) and you don't.

In the parable, the first resurrection takes place over the entirety of 1,000 years

revelation 20:4-5 and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Therefore, I believe the interpretation of the parable of the those living and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years, which is the first resurrection = Christ's resurrection.

Maybe some visuals will help:

Parable:
[-------first resurrection-----]
[-------satan bound----------]
[-----1,000 years------------]


Amil:
Christ's resurrection then
[----born again believers----]
[----satan bound-------------]
[---symbolic 1,000 years- ---]

**1,000 years symbolic for time between Christ's 1st advent and 2nd advent

premil:
Christ's 2nd advent then
[--first resurrection believers----]
[--satan bound -------------------]
[--literal 1,000 years-------------]

**1,000 years literal time period between Christ's 2nd advent and satan's release from the abyss.


Inmil:
[-----Christ's resurrection--------]
[-----satan works destroyed-----]
[----symbolic 1,000 years--------]

**1,000 years symbolic for the fulfillment of Davidic oath found fulfilled in Christ's resurrection (Acts 2:30-32). The oath was made to David literally 1,000 years before Christ.

I mean imminent from God's perspective.

Can't God tell us when things are near or far in regards to human perspective?

Daniel 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been spoken is true. Now you must seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.”

revelation 22:10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of prophecy in this book, because the time is near.

If "near" can mean 2,000+ years from God's perspective, how many years is "distant future" for the events of Daniel 8 to come to pass? Is daniel 8 not yet fulfilled?

 

[grafted branch]

That the prophecy has fulfillment in two distinct events which the prophecy precedes is not unusual for scripture prophecies, there are other cases of that.

I also think it’s possible that the events described in Matthew, Mark and Luke could possibly be referring to some kind of dual fulfillment.

But there is further fulfillment coming in the endtime scenario, the major fulfillment. So temple worship will by then already start in Jerusalem, when the abomination of desolation comes.

I find it difficult to believe that there will be future temple worship which would include sacrifices that can be considered valid in the sight of God. So do you see God allowing sacrifices to become legitimate once again in the future?

 

[Timtofly]

Therefore, I believe the interpretation of the parable of the those living and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years, which is the first resurrection = Christ's resurrection.

Maybe some visuals will help:

Parable:
[------------------first resurrection-----------------------]
[-----------------satan bound-----------------------------]
[-------------------1,000 years----------------------------]

How is Revelation 20 a parable?

The first resurrection is not a when. It is a type, which is a physical bodily resurrection. That physical bodily resurrection has been ongoing for 1990 years. The church is not dead, nor ever was dead after the Cross. The church is alive in a physical incorruptible body. Thank God not a literal nor figurative 1000 years. It has been a literal 1990 year ongoing life changing experience. We alive on earth are dead literally. Many are quickened by the credit given by the Holy Spirit, until life happens when the soul leaves a dead body for an incorruptible one. Adam's flesh is constant death, but Christ's first resurrection (type) is an ongoing non stop (when) of eternal life.

 

[FredVB]

I also think it’s possible that the events described in Matthew, Mark and Luke could possibly be referring to some kind of dual fulfillment.

I find it difficult to believe that there will be future temple worship which would include sacrifices that can be considered valid in the sight of God. So do you see God allowing sacrifices to become legitimate once again in the future?

Sacrifices would resume, but I would not say they will be legitimate to God, God would not be initiating it, though God spoke of it in prophecy. The Ezekiel prophecy was for a possibility before Christ came initially. But Jews then were not obedient in observing to build the temple in the way shown in the prophecy, then, so the fulfillment was not yet coming. Sacrifices from the people of Israel were abominable to God and God despises those when the people sacrificing an animal were not recognizing that they sacrificed a precious life for them, it was to point them to Jesus Christ whose coming was foretold, he was the only effective sacrifice, bearing God's judgment with the consequence of all our sins, which we would suffer for through eternity, with deliverance only to those who are in Christ. Jesus Christ has already come, any more sacrifices of animals can only be offensive to God.

Sacrifices would be initiated by Jews in Jerusalem still, surely Jesus as king in this world, when he returns, will put a stop to those. Only he is the deliverer. The world must go through reparation then with those remaining who contributed to the world worsening (consider Revelation 11:18), that it would approach the design with the Garden of Eden meant for us, under the rule of Jesus as king, though with the fallen there it will not be fully realized, only those in the new earth afterward, which is the full restoration to that design God meant for us, will see that.

 

[FredVB]

Time is not abundant, the crisis is coming that starts the coming scenario when Mystery Babylon falls. Its collapse is coming so soon that believers are surprised and they are not fully ready to flee out from the city, because they are not preparing to leave, where they should not be with all the exploitation involved that makes that way of living there possible for all there.

 

[lsume]

Matthew 24 and Mark 13 both use the term abomination of desolation; however that specific term isn’t used in Luke 21. Trying to harmonize these chapters by equating Jerusalem surrounded by armies with the abomination of desolation presents some issues.

Points that support AOD and JSA (Jerusalem surrounded by armies) being the same event are

1. Matthew and Mark were written for a Jewish audience while Luke was written mainly to Gentiles.
   
   
2. The description and instructions on fleeing is nearly identical for both AOD and JSA.
   
   
3. There can be little doubt that the questions asked and the answer given by Jesus in the 3 gospels prior to the phrases AOD and JSA are to be viewed as the same question/answer session.

Points that don’t support AOD and JSA being the same event are

1. The Jews would have certainly been aware of Antiochus Epiphanies sacrifice and wouldn’t necessarily associate armies surrounding Jerusalem as the abomination spoken of in Daniel.
   
   
2. If the Jews would have waited until the armies were standing in the holy place (Jerusalem) it surely would’ve been too late to escape. If the holy place is outside of Jerusalem then it doesn’t seem likely that the Jews would’ve understood the warning written for them.
   
   
3. Matthew and Mark both have the phrase AOD and the days being shortened, Luke has neither phrase.
   
   
4. It wouldn’t seem to matter whether the days of vengeance were shortened or not after the believing Jews fled, their flesh would still be saved.

These are just some points that I can think of, I would like to hear from others if they have additional points to make on either side.

I made this chart to show my current view of how I deal with some of the issues.


View attachment 289557


This chart might be difficult to read and I couldn’t fit all my thoughst on it; so I have each time period listed below (I’m not very good at making charts, this is my first attempt at it).

1. Daily sacrifice is taken away. In Daniel 12:11 the daily sacrifice shall be taken away and Hebrews 7:27 shows that the high priests offered up daily sacrifice, first for their own sins, and then for the peoples. The necessity to provide the daily sacrifices was taken away because God will provide the sacrifice. The point at which this occurs is in John 1:29 where Jesus is declared to be the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. Jesus has power to forgive sins prior to the cross (Matthew 9:2-6) proving that the high priests sacrifices were no longer necessary. The sacrifices were allowed to continue in the temple even though the shadow they were portraying was presently with them because the second (in Hebrews 10:9) was not yet established. Hebrew 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
   
   
2. Jesus’s ministry starts. In Matthew 4:12-17, after He heard that John the Baptist was cast into prison … from that time Jesus began to preach, and say, repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
   
   
3. The cross (30 A.D.)

1. Abomination of Desolation. The first sacrifice made after the veil was torn is an abomination that makes those who perform it desolate. It’s an abomination because it denies that Jesus was the Lamb and the sacrifices they are making can’t forgive sins so they are now desolate. Fleeing didn’t happen here because the days of vengeance were shortened. The first part of “the days of vengeance” was truncated, so the sign to flee is now Jerusalem surrounded by armies.
   
   
2. Pentecost. This event would be in doubt if the days of vengeance weren’t shortened.
   
   
3. Jerusalem surrounded by armies. Daniel 9:27 and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolate. The fleeing happens here because these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
   
   
4. 70 A.D.

Please consider a spiritual interpretation. At some point, something is going to make many people desolate of the ability to be born again. Much scarier don’t you think?

 

[grafted branch]

Please consider a spiritual interpretation. At some point, something is going to make many people desolate of the ability to be born again. Much scarier don’t you think?

I agree that it would be scary if people were unable to become saved. In fact I think the great tribulation has to do with Israel being blind in part till the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. I can’t think of any greater tribulation than spiritual blindness. I would much rather have all of the physical tribulations that some people think will occur in the future than to have spiritual blindness.

What verses lead you to believe that we still await some kind of spiritual desolation that prevents people from becoming saved?

 

[lsume]

I agree that it would be scary if people were unable to become saved. In fact I think the great tribulation has to do with Israel being blind in part till the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. I can’t think of any greater tribulation than spiritual blindness. I would much rather have all of the physical tribulations that some people think will occur in the future than to have spiritual blindness.

What verses lead you to believe that we still await some kind of spiritual desolation that prevents people from becoming saved?

Something that happened to me over 30 years ago is what opened my eyes and ears. I had professed and believed that I was born again sometime in my early 20’s. It wasn’t until shortly after my 36th birthday that Christ came to me. This led to my rebirth. Everyone must be taught directly by Christ. How would I sound any different than the many, as yet unconverted, professing Christian pastors? Seek and ye shall find and He shall appear a second time to those who look for him are promises in The Word as I’m confident you already know. Unless one is called by God and delivered unto Christ Who then reveals The Father, understanding is wanting. I think that the day is approaching when God’s wrath will be felt. The Word Says anyone who calls on His Name in that time will be saved. Definitely not good to wait.

 

[grafted branch]

Time is not abundant, the crisis is coming that starts the coming scenario when Mystery Babylon falls. Its collapse is coming so soon that believers are surprised and they are not fully ready to flee out from the city, because they are not preparing to leave, where they should not be with all the exploitation involved that makes that way of living there possible for all there.

If Mystery Babylon is currently being occupied by believers on earth, which city is it?