Olivet Discourse revisited

[claninja]

What do you think?

Which Jews do I think you are talking about? I have no idea, that’s why i asked.

Since you didn’t want to answer I’ll guess you believe the Jews that wrote the New Testament and said the ends of the ages had come upon THEM (1 Corinthians 10:11), that the end of all things had drawn near (1 Peter 4:7), that it was the last hour (1 john 2:18), the coming of the Lord would occur in a little while and without delay (Hebrews 10:37), the coming of the Lord had drawn near (James 5:8-9) were wrong?

So yeah I did address what you posted.

The answer is YES. The Olivet discourse was not about 70AD. It is for the New Testament congregation prior to Second Coming.

Interesting, so you believe the disciples’ generation NEVER experienced persecution, famine, wars, earthquakes, lawlessness, false prophets, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the coming of the kingdom of God, nor the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13….good to know, since the epistles and book of acts, and the historical fact that the temple was destroyed within Jesus’ generation completely demonstrates the contrary to your position.

New Testament congregation - the one that Christ rebuilt in three days after his death (temple destroyed) where Christ is not a chief cornerstone.

Jesus was talking about his own resurrection, not the destruction and rebuilding of the church, in John 2.

John 2:21 21But Jesus was speaking about the temple of His body. 22After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

Matthew 24, luke 21, and Matthew 24 are about a completely different context: the destruction of the temple.

Jesus Christ knew that his disciples did not understand what temple and stones Christ talked about after the resurrection. Christ said that the temple and stones signify the fall of old testament congregation of Israel before providing the rest of the discourse about HIs New Testament congregations near the second coming. Not 70AD.

There’s no destruction of the temple in 3 days followed by its raising up anywhere in the olivet discourse. So I disagree with your conflation John 2:19-21 with the olivet discourse.

The disciples were looking at the temple buildings. And Jesus responded with do you see all these things…not one stone will be on another”. That’s clearly about the literal building.

 

[RandyPNW]

Those who do not receive the love of the truth usually play the victim cards. You are just saying this because you are offended by the truthful testimony. Simple as that.

Not interested.

 

[Marilyn C]

Jerusalem was so thoroughly trampled by the gentiles that the temple had not one stone standing upon another in 70ad. This occurred during the first century, during Jesus’ generation.

Not sure where you get “gentiles ruling the world” from?

Hi claninja,

Yes, I agree, Jerusalem was trampled by the Gentiles in 70 AD however it is still being trampled today.

`Gentiles ruling the world comes from God who gave the Gentiles rulership till the Lord comes, delivers Israel and judges the world system and armies. (Dan. 2: 37 - 44, 7: 27)

 

[Marilyn C]

Yes, that's true. Dan 9 does not terminate the times of the Gentiles. Dan 9 refers to the time of the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7. That Kingdom was to break up into states, which is basically the history of Europe.

And then, when Antichrist takes charge of Europe, Christ will return to end the rule of Gentile paganism. The Kingdom of Christ will rule the world, though I personally believe that nations and individuals will still choose to remain pagan in belief. They simply will not be allowed to destroy Christian nations for a thousand years.

Dan 9 indicates that the people, or army, of the prince to come, ie a Roman general, will savage Jerusalem and the sanctuary. That was to happen in the time when the Anointed One, or Messiah, would be "cut off."

As we know, Rome presided over Jesus' death, cutting him off. And a Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple 40 years later, within the time of Jesus' generation. Dan 9 was completely fulfilled in Jesus' time!

But this has little to do with the end of the times of the Gentiles. That time comes at the end of the time of the 4th Kingdom, after it has broken up into states, and Antichrist has assembled an empire with 10 of them, 7 kings and 10 states. Just my opinion, sister...

Hi Randy,

God judged the Roman Empire, (as with all the other rulers) and that rulership is no more. The 5th ruler, (feet and toes) & 4th great power (10 horns) is Islam. They are the most `terrifying` power the world will have ever seen. Europe is not much different from the first and second beast, but the terrifying one is. (Dan. 7)

 

[Douggg]

As we know, Rome presided over Jesus' death, cutting him off. And a Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple 40 years later, within the time of Jesus' generation. Dan 9 was completely fulfilled in Jesus' time!

Randy, Daniel 9 is still not completely filled.

When Gabriel appeared to Daniel in Daniel 9:21, Daniel recognized Gabriel from his first encounter with Gabriel in Daniel 8, regarding the vision of the little horn and the transgression of desolation - stated in the text of Daniel 8:17 as "time of the end".

Gabriel told Daniel, in Daniel 9:23, to consider the vision - the vision about the little horn is what is implied - to be sealed up (fulfilled) within the 70 weeks.

So the prince who shall come in verse 26 is that little horn person - time of the end. There is still the 70th week yet to be fulfilled.

 

[Marilyn C]

Dan 9 was completely fulfilled in Jesus' time!

Dan. 1 - 7 was mostly written in Aramaic, (regarding the nations) while Dan. 8 - 12 was written in Hebrew concerning Israel and what would happen to them - sacrifices, A/D and later Temple cleansed - before the Lord would set up His rule through Israel.

All the times are very important and detailed.

 

[RandyPNW]

Randy, Daniel 9 is still not completely filled.

When Gabriel appeared to Daniel in Daniel 9:21, Daniel recognized Gabriel from his first encounter with Gabriel in Daniel 8, regarding the vision of the little horn and the transgression of desolation - stated in the text of Daniel 8:17 as "time of the end".

Gabriel told Daniel, in Daniel 9:23, to consider the vision - the vision about the little horn is what is implied - to be sealed up (fulfilled) within the 70 weeks.

So the prince who shall come in verse 26 is that little horn person - time of the end. There is still the 70th week yet to be fulfilled.

I do find it interesting that the 2 visions seem connected to "the time of the end." But I don't believe it refers to the "endtimes" as we today conceive of them. Rather, it refers to something else, since the endtimes are not even in view (in my opinion).

A more likely scenario is that what is being described is the end of the old covenant period, or Israel's covenant with God. The temple is going to be destroyed. 1st, Antiochus tries to stop proper temple worship, and commits abominations in it.

And then, the Army of the Roman General comes against Jerusalem and destroys the temple, aka the "abomination of desolation." He brought pagan troops into the proximity of the holy city, with designs on destroying God's temple. And he did destroy both the city and the sanctuary, just as we read in Dan 9, signifying that God's covenant with Israel had been broken 40 years earlier when the Jews rejected their Messiah.

This is "the time of the end." And as acknowledged in the NT Scriptures, the "Last Days" actually began with the destruction of the temple in the generation of Christ...

Heb 1.2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

James 5.3 You have hoarded wealth in the last days.

2 Pet 3.3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

 

[RandyPNW]

Dan. 1 - 7 was mostly written in Aramaic, (regarding the nations) while Dan. 8 - 12 was written in Hebrew concerning Israel and what would happen to them - sacrifices, A/D and later Temple cleansed - before the Lord would set up His rule through Israel.

All the times are very important and detailed.

I'm aware that Daniel was written in two languages--my brother's fascination has been learning to translate the OT. But I'm not aware that the Bible indicates the reason for this is to make one part of Daniel about the nations, and another part of Daniel about Israel. That appears to be a view you've come up with--not what the Bible itself teaches?

I don't believe that the Kingdom of God will be set up "through Israel." I believe He will set up his rule through the Church, whether they are from Israel or from any other nation.

The reason I believe the Bible emphasizes Israel's restoration is because historically He has made Israel an example of grace for the nations. All nations who wish to adopt the true God should take lessons from Israel's history as a theocracy. Much to learn there!

 

[Douggg]

I do find it interesting that the 2 visions seem connected to "the time of the end." But I don't believe it refers to the "endtimes" as we today conceive of them. Rather, it refers to something else, since the endtimes are not even in view (in my opinion).

Randy, there is only one vision referred to in Daniel 9. Daniel 9:21, 23, 24. The fullfillment of that vision.

The vision regarding the little horn person is time of the end. The little horn person will not be broken by human hand, as he dares to stand up against the Prince of Princes, in Daniel 8:25.

the little horn > becomes the prince who shall come > becomes the Antichrist > becomes the revealed man of sin > becomes the beast.

As the beast, he will be broken by Jesus at Jesus's Second Coming.

A more likely scenario is that what is being described is the end of the old covenant period, or Israel's covenant with God. The temple is going to be destroyed. 1st, Antiochus tries to stop proper temple worship, and commits abominations in it.

Randy, Daniel did not have an encounter with Gabriel regarding a vision about the end of the old covenant in Daniel 8. Antiochus did not end the old covenant. Antiochus was not time of the end.

The transgression of desolation to take place at the time of the end - will be the 2Thessalonians2:4 act of the Antichrist going into the temple, sitting, claiming to have achieved God-hood.

 

[Douggg]

I don't believe that the Kingdom of God will be set up "through Israel." I believe He will set up his rule through the Church, whether they are from Israel or from any other nation.

The set up of the Kingdom of God will be by Jesus when He returns to rule the nations with a rod of iron. It is in the Lord's prayer - may Your kingdom come - Jesus taught, fundamental to Christianity.

 

[claninja]

Yes, I agree, Jerusalem was trampled by the Gentiles in 70 AD however it is still being trampled today.

The context of the olivet discourse is the destruction of the temple and city. So the trampling down of Jerusalem by the nations should be understood in that scope.

Luke 21:5-6 5As some of the disciples were remarking how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and consecrated gifts, Jesus said, 6“As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Luke 21:20 20But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that her desolation is near.

Jesus said that Jerusalem “will be” trampled down by the gentiles. “Will be” is future tense. So Jerusalem wasn’t being trampled down when Jesus gave the olivet discourse. The trampling down by the nations was to be a future event in association with the destruction of the city and temple. Therefore I would NOT conflate the entire “times of the gentiles” with the “trampling of Jerusalem”. In other words the trampling of Jerusalem is the tail end of the times of the gentiles.

Gentiles ruling the world comes from God who gave the Gentiles rulership till the Lord comes, delivers Israel and judges the world system and armies. (Dan. 2: 37 - 44, 7: 27)

I think I would agree that the “times of the gentiles” most likely refers to the gentile kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7. In those chapters you have several gentile kingdoms ruling over the “world” until the kingdom of God comes. Basically, the coming of the kingdom of God is the end point of the “times of the gentiles”.

The beginning of the times of the gentiles would be with Babylon

Daniel 2:37 37You, O king, the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, and the might, and the glory,38and into whose hand he has given, wherever they dwell, the children of man, the beasts of the field, and the birds of the heavens, making you rule over them all—you are the head of gold.

The NT tells us that the kingdom of God would come during the apostles generation, so I would place the end point of the “times of the gentiles” within their generation. This would be consistent with the chronology of the kingdoms, Rome being the fourth.

Mark 9:1 1And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

Luke 22:31 31So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

So overall:

times of the gentiles = Babylon through Rome, until the coming of the kingdom of God.

 

[RandyPNW]

Randy, there is only one vision referred to in Daniel 9. Daniel 9:21, 23, 24. The fullfillment of that vision.

Didn't you notice that I, to some degree, acknowledged that? I said that the two visions appeared to be connected. But no, I don't think that means we have to make both visions a single vision--just connected. Clearly, they are visions separated by some time.

That means they can be referred to as distinct visions, even if they have some important connections. I already recognized that. Your attempt to make two visions into one is strange to me.

For example, I see Nebuchadnezzar's Dream in Dan 2 covering the same territory as Daniel's Dream in Dan 7. But they happened on separate occasions, and naturally refer to them as distinct and separate dreams. They were in fact dreams that different people had. I can't call them "one dream!" Wouldn't you consider it strange if I insisted on calling Dan 2 and Dan 7 the "same chapter?"

The vision regarding the little horn person is time of the end. The little horn person will not be broken by human hand, as he dares to stand up against the Prince of Princes, in Daniel 8:25.

the little horn > becomes the prince who shall come > becomes the Antichrist > becomes the revealed man of sin > becomes the beast.

As the beast, he will be broken by Jesus at Jesus's Second Coming.

I distinguish the Little Horn of Dan 8 from the Little Horn of Dan 7. Dan 8, in my view, speaks of Antiochus 4, whereas the Little Horn of Dan 7 represents the Antichrist. Though the language is similar, the history described in Dan 8 leads up to Antiochus 4, and not the Antichrist. Use of similar language may be a means of using Antiochus 4 as a foreshadowing of the Antichrist, though he is not himself the Antichrist.

If I'm right, that Dan 8 speaks of the history of ancient Greece leading up to the reign of Antiochus 4, then the "time of the end" referred to is not the "endtimes," as we view them. It would rather be the "Last Days," as the NT Scriptures described them.

The "Last Days" began with the end of the OT system, and with the beginning of Christianity in Jesus' generation. It appeared to be the "end" of the Jewish People, but really, it was just the beginning of a long Diaspora for the Jewish People, prior to their restoration at Christ's Coming.

Randy, Daniel did not have an encounter with Gabriel regarding a vision about the end of the old covenant in Daniel 8. Antiochus did not end the old covenant. Antiochus was not time of the end.

No, you're right. Antiochus 4 did not end the OT era. But he was the beginning of the end of true temple worship. Israel was fading. Hellenism was rampant among the Jews, and many Jews turned away from true temple worship to cooperate with Antiochus' encouragement to practice corrupt Judaism or outright paganism.

There was a brief reprieve under the Maccabees. But eventually this led to Rabbinic Judaism, which evolved into the Jewish leadership that conspired to kill Jesus.

And so, Rabbinic Judaism was stripped of temple worship until it had to reinterpret temple worship to mean something different. The OT worship fell into disrepair. It was, in fact, "the end."

The transgression of desolation to take place at the time of the end - will be the 2Thessalonians2:4 act of the Antichrist going into the temple, sitting, claiming to have achieved God-hood.

The problem with that is, Paul did not say that. He didn't at all refer to the Abomination of Desolation in 2 Thes 2! So I don't think that the AoD was a reference to Antichrist, but rather, to the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD.

Luke 21 makes it quite clear to me when Jesus described this activity, called the AoD by Matthew and Mark, as a surrounding of Jerusalem by soldiers, as eagles descend upon a prey. The Romans worshiped the eagle.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."

This is precisely what Daniel described the Army of the general to come as doing...

Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

 

[Douggg]

Didn't you notice that I, to some degree, acknowledged that? I said that the two visions appeared to be connected. But no, I don't think that means we have to make both visions a single vision--just connected. Clearly, they are visions separated by some time.

Randy, where in the text of Daniel 9 are you coming up with two visions ?

Daniel did not have a vision in Daniel 9. He was making a prayer of remorse that his people had transgressed the covenant, and sought God's mercy for his people considering that the 70 years of serving the King of Babylon as prophesied by Jeremiah were about over. But Daniel had no vision in doing so.

If I'm right, that Dan 8 speaks of the history of ancient Greece leading up to the reign of Antiochus 4, then the "time of the end" referred to is not the "endtimes," as we view them. It would rather be the "Last Days," as the NT Scriptures described them.

The little horn and his transgression of desolation are time of the end in the text of Daniel 8:17. That he will be broken not by hand, but by the Prince of Princes in Daniel 8:25 - is endtimes - of what happens to the beast person being cast into the lake of fire at Jesus's return
.

 

[Douggg]

The problem with that is, Paul did not say that. He didn't at all refer to the Abomination of Desolation in 2 Thes 2! So I don't think that the AoD was a reference to Antichrist, but rather, to the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD.

Please go back and read what I wrote. I said nothing about the Abomination Desolation. The Abomination of Desolation is not in 2Thessalonians2, agreed. However, the Transgression of Desolation act is 2Thessalonians2:4.

I wrote about the Transgression of Desolation - an act, not a thing.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

 

[Douggg]

That means they can be referred to as distinct visions, even if they have some important connections. I already recognized that. Your attempt to make two visions into one is strange to me.

For example, I see Nebuchadnezzar's Dream in Dan 2 covering the same territory as Daniel's Dream in Dan 7. But they happened on separate occasions, and naturally refer to them as distinct and separate dreams. They were in fact dreams that different people had. I can't call them "one dream!" Wouldn't you consider it strange if I insisted on calling Dan 2 and Dan 7 the "same chapter?"

But Daniel had encountered Gabriel in only one event previously - and that was regarding the vision of the little horn and the transgression of desolation which Gabriel informed Daniel was the time of the end.

Randy, you are trying to get creative, different from what is in the text. There is only one time of the end period in the book of Daniel - and it takes place in the 70th week. And only one vision in Daniel 9, which is found in Daniel's encounter with Gabriel in Daniel 8 - the only previous encounter that Daniel had with Gabriel.

 

[Douggg]

@RandyPNW

The expression "time of the end" is found in 5 places in the book of Daniel.

 

[RandyPNW]

Randy, where in the text of Daniel 9 are you coming up with two visions ?

Daniel did not have a vision in Daniel 9. He was making a prayer of remorse that his people had transgressed the covenant, and sought God's mercy for his people considering that the 70 years of serving the King of Babylon as prophesied by Jeremiah were about over. But Daniel had no vision in doing so.


The little horn and his transgression of desolation are time of the end in the text of Daniel 8:17. That he will be broken not by hand, but by the Prince of Princes in Daniel 8:25 - is endtimes - of what happens to the beast person being cast into the lake of fire at Jesus's return
.

The visions we are speaking of had to do with Gabriel, the 1st one in ch. 8 and the 2nd one in ch. 9. I'm calling them visions, but yes, the 1st episode is a vision whereas the 2nd episode is more of a prophecy. I wasn't calling Daniel's prayer a "vision." I was calling his prophetic insight a "vision," though properly it was more of an explanation of the future, a prophecy.

I don't agree that the visit of Gabriel with his prophecy is synonymous with his earlier visit and Daniel's vision at that time. What Gabriel did was tie the vision and the explanation together to make the entire history of Israel to be an approach towards an end, the fall of Israel even as they hoped for Messiah.

Gabriel was not saying that his explanation perfectly correlated to the earlier vision. Rather, it was an extension of the same Jewish experience of tribulation. Gabriel was not saying that the earlier vision was the endtimes, or that the explanation coming later was the endtimes. Both were leading to the same end, the fall of Israel, even as they awaited the Messiah and final national salvation.

Dan 8 is clearly, for me, the kingdoms of ancient Persia and ancient Greece, leading to the ferocious reign of Antiochus 4, the Little Horn. Prior to that, in ch. 7, a different Little Horn had been predicted who would also have a ferocious reign, the Antichrist.

Dan 9 is all about the slow decline of Israel, even after the temple is restored in the time of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The Romans would come, cut off Christ, and destroy both Jerusalem and the temple. This was the Abomination of Desolation. It would leave Israel in a final "Great Tribulation," the Jewish Diaspora of the NT age. Just how I see it, brother.

 

[RandyPNW]

Please go back and read what I wrote. I said nothing about the Abomination Desolation. The Abomination of Desolation is not in 2Thessalonians2, agreed. However, the Transgression of Desolation act is 2Thessalonians2:4.

I wrote about the Transgression of Desolation - an act, not a thing.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

That's a little confusing, don't you think? The Abomination of Desolation, the "Transgression of Desolation??" Where are the words "transgression of desolation" in 2 Thes 2.4?

2 Thes 2.4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

 

[Douggg]

That's a little confusing, don't you think? The Abomination of Desolation, the "Transgression of Desolation??" Where are the words "transgression of desolation" in 2 Thes 2.4?

2 Thes 2.4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

The term transgression of desolation is not in the text of 2Thessalionians2:4. But what he does is an act - a transgression. That act of sitting in the temple of God - will make the temple desolate - empty of - worship of the One True God.

 

[RandyPNW]

But Daniel had encountered Gabriel in only one event previously - and that was regarding the vision of the little horn and the transgression of desolation which Gabriel informed Daniel was the time of the end.

What "transgression of desolation" are you talking about? This one?...

Dan 8.13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”

Israel had fallen into Hellenism, debauchery, and idolatry under the influence of Antiochus 4. God then desolated Israel, using the very one who had enticed them--a satanic figure. Though Israel's temple had been restored, the people were still challenged, and suffered the abuse of pagan kings reigning over them. Gabriel was explaining to Daniel, even as he prayed for Israel, that Israel would not be saved yet. Their temple would be destroyed once again in the future.

This is not the end of the age, but the end of the age of Law. It was the end of Israel's position as representative of God's Kingdom on earth. The temple would be destroyed, and another "Holy Place" would be anointed, Jesus, who would introduce the Kingdom of God to other nations.

Randy, you are trying to get creative, different from what is in the text. There is only one time of the end period in the book of Daniel - and it takes place in the 70th week. And only one vision in Daniel 9, which is found in Daniel's encounter with Gabriel in Daniel 8 - the only previous encounter that Daniel had with Gabriel.

I'm not at all being "creative." I've gone where the text took me. I have no axe to grind, and no book to defend. I will adopt the position that makes most sense to me.

The "time of the end" does not mean what we mean by the term today, the endtimes, as in the end of the age. Rather, it means the end of a dynasty, or the end of a progression.

The closest thing in Daniel to the end of the age is the implication that one day Israel will be delivered, as a nation, from hostile pagan nations, and will be restored spiritually. And in ch. 12 we read of the judgment of the righteous and of the wicked, making the earth the exclusive domain of the righteous. The wicked are removed. At least, that's how I read it.

In Dan 7, we read that the Son of Man comes down from heaven and establishes God's eternal Kingdom on the earth. This is the end of the age--not the "time of the end."