Preterists, Partial Preterists and Pre-tribulationists all conflate tribulation with God's wrath

[Zao is life]

1. Preterists and Partial-Preterists have conflated the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (Matthew 24:9-31) with God's wrath (Luke 21:23).

2. Likewise, Pre-tribulationsists have conflated the great tribulation with the wrath of God, albeit for a different reason.

Referring to the judgement of God that is prophesied to come upon the world (and which is produced by His wrath) as "the tribulation", or as "the great tribulation" is a complete and utter misnomer. Here's why:

Here are ALL New Testament references to tribulation experienced by non-Christians:-

1. Of all who do evil: Romans 2:9.
2. Of the world as repayment for bringing tribulation upon the saints: 2 Thessalonians 1:6.

There are no other New Testament mentions of tribulation as the experience of those who are not Christians.

TRIBULATION AND PERSECUTION EXPERIENCED BY CHRISTIANS

Persecution: Of Jesus: John 5:16

Of Christians: Matthew 5:10-12; John 15:20; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:11; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 4:9; Galatians 1:13 & 23; Galatians 4:29; Galatians 5:11

Of the woman who gave birth to the Messiah: Revelation 12:13

Tribulation: Of apostles or Christians:

Matthew 13:21 (Parallel: Mark 4:17); Matthew 24:9, 21 & 29 (Parallel Mark 13:19, 24); John 16:33; Acts 11:19; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23; Romans 5:3; Romans 8:35; Romans 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 6 & 8; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Ephesians 3:13; Philippians 1:16; Philippians 4:14; Colossians 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:3-4 & 7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 6-7; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:32-33; 1 Peter 5:9; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 2:9-10, 22; Revelation 7:14

Great Tribulation

Mentioned only three times in the New Testament, and each time it's the experience of Christians:

Revelation 2:22; Revelation 7:14; 'Olivet Discourse': Matthew 24:21 *

* Luke 21:23 uses the words "great distress" [anánkē] and "wrath" [orgḗ] to describe what was to come upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the city and temple were destroyed (not the word tribulation).

 

[Zao is life]

2 Thessalonians 2:4 (the man of sin seating himself up in the sanctuary of God) uses the Greek word naós, which is the only New Testament word used whenever God's sanctuary is being spoken about (the actual sanctuary of God).

The word used for the entire Jerusalem temple complex is hierón, but the word naós is only used in reference to the actual sanctuary in the temple complex:

[*StrongsGreek*] 02411
ἱερόν hierón, hee-er-on' neuter of 2413;
a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts (whereas 3485 denotes the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple (at Jerusalem or elsewhere):--temple.

[*StrongsGreek*] 03485
NAO/S ναός naós nah-os' from a primary ναίω naíō, (to dwell);
a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple. Compare 2411.

Note: Jesus was not a priest in terms of Moses' law and was not allowed into the naós (the holy places, where only the priests were allowed). So it makes sense that without exception, whenever you read of Jesus entering the temple in Jerusalem, the Greek word employed for "temple", is hierón.

Temple complex (word used: hierón): Before the tearing of the veil:

Matthew 4:5; Matthew 12:5-6; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:14-15; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 24:1; Matthew 26:55; Mark 11:11 & 15-16; Mark 11:27; Mark 12:35; Mark 13:1 & 3; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:27, 37 & 46; Luke 4:9; Luke 18:10; Luke 19:45 & 47; Luke 20:1 & 5; Luke 21:37-38; Luke 22:52-53; John 2:14-15; John 5:14; John 7:14 & 28; John 8:2, 20 & 59; John 10:23; John 11:56; John 18:20.

After the tearing of the veil:

Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1-3, 8 & 10; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:20-21 & 24-25; Acts 5:42; Acts 21:26-30; Acts 22:17; Acts 24:6, 12 & 18; Acts 25:8; Acts 26:21; 1 Corinthians 9:13.

The actual sanctuary of God (word used: naós): In the temple complex (until the tearing of the veil):

Luke 1:9 & 21-22; Matthew 23:16-17 & 21; Matthew 23:35; Matthew 27:5.

-- Body of Christ --
(John 2:19 & 21; Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29)

-- The veil torn (word used: naós) --

Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45.

After the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the temple, the first time the word naos is used again, is in Acts:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

-- the church & the temple in heaven (word used: naós) --

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22.

Note: The word hierón is never used in reference to the naós (the actual sanctuary in the temple complex), nor of the body of Christ, nor of the church, nor of the temple in heaven.

After His resurrection Jesus entered into the real and only naós in heaven, of which the earthly temple was the pattern.

This is why the word ceased being used in reference to the Jerusalem temple after the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the naós, and from then on naós is only used in reference to the church and the temple in heaven, and in reference to the bodies of individual Christians being (members of the) temple of God.

Jesus is the only temple of God, and those who are in Him are the living stones making up the church.

Not once does the New Testament call the church or Temple in heaven the hieron. Every reference uses the word naos, but the word hierón continues to be used in reference to the temple complex in Jerusalem even after the tearing of the veil (multiple times in Acts).

Revelation 11:1 is no exception, because there are no verses in the Revelation where Babylon the Great, or the city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, or the cities of the nations which fell when the 7th bowl of wrath was poured out, are called "the holy city",

but the Revelation calls New Jerusalem "the holy city" three times: Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:10; and Revelation 22:19.

Revelation 11:2 is talking about the holy city. The temple that Revelation 11:1 is referring to is the naós - it uses the word naós for "temple". The other city referred to in Revelation chapter 11, is referred to as a city that is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8).

Matthew 24:15 is talking about the holy place.

Preterists, Partial Preterists, Dispensationalists, and Pre-tribulationists all conflate the New Testament temple (the church) with the Old Testament temple (a physical temple in Jerusalem) (see post #3).

 

[Zao is life]

So now we have seen that in the New Testament,

1. The Greek word naós = the holy place/sanctuary (without exception - ALL verses listed in Post #2, FYI).); and
2. The temple in Jerusalem ceased being called the holy place (naos) when Jesus died on the cross (the Greek New Testament stops using the word naós in reference to the temple in Jerusalem at that point, and only uses it in reference to the church and temple in heaven thereafter).
3. Of all the verses mentioning persecution and tribulation in the New Testament, only Romans 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians 1:6 are not talking about the tribulation of Christians (ALL verses listed in Post #1, FYI).

Luke 21:23 uses the words "great distress" [anánkē] and "wrath" [orgḗ] to describe what was to come upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the city and temple were destroyed (not the word tribulation).

So what is it that the reader is meant to understand by the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (Matthew 24:15)?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++​

There are two separate prophecies in the book of Daniel where the word "abomination" is associated with the temple of God, and there is a major difference between the two:

(i) The text of Daniel 9:26-27 tells us that the abominations (plural) that were committed after the Messiah came, were going to end with the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the temple).

(ii) The abomination of desolation (singular) placed in the sanctuary by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes", was placed in the sanctuary over a hundred years before Jesus' crucifixion (Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11-2), and did not result in the destruction of either the city or the sanctuary: After he was ousted by the Maccabees, the temple was cleansed, and reconsecrated to God. This abomination is the forerunner of the one to come (this post shows why).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++​

So let's have a look at the two different prophecies in the book of Daniel regarding abominations and the desolation of the temple, and compare the two:

1. The cleansing of the temple after it was defiled by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" and the Abomination of desolation he had placed in the sanctuary: Daniel 11:31 & Daniel 8:11-14.

In 167 BC, Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" ordered an altar to Zeus erected in the temple in Jerusalem. and compelled Jews to dissolve the laws of Judea, to keep their infants un-circumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar.

After the Jewish rebels led by the Maccabees ousted Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the temple was cleansed, and reconsecrated to God.

The above took place over 100 years before the Messiah was born, and this is Daniel's prophecy and Jesus' prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of the temple:

2. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and all of you would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him in order to show him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them, See all of you not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Daniel 9:26-27; Matthew 23:37-24: 2).

Note: The only correct way of interpreting Daniel 9:26-27 is as follows:

"And after threescore and two weeks (after the first 69 weeks have past) shall (a) Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and (b) the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And (a) he (the Messiah) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and (b) for the overspreading of abominations he (the prince that shall come and shall destroy the city and the sanctuary) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

Daniel's prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple is a different prophecy to the one regarding the defiling of the temple.

In Matthew 23:37-38 Jesus repeated the prophecy of Daniel about the coming destruction of the temple, and that's why He was pronouncing woe upon the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:13-36.

Jesus was standing in the temple courtyard when He said these things.

Location: In the temple.
Subject: The coming destruction of city and sanctuary.
Audience: The scribes and Pharisees.

Then He came out of the temple, and His disciples famously pointed out the magnificence of the temple buildings (that Jesus had just told the scribes and Pharisees was going to be destroyed).

There were no chapter or verse divisions in the text of any part of the Bible until chapter and verse divisions were inserted in 1227 A,D, but the context of this portion of scripture is Jesus in the temple, repeating what Daniel had prophesied regarding the destruction of the city and the temple after Messiah came, and His audience was the scribes and Pharisees.

Matthew 24:1-2 records the fact that when Jesus came out of the temple, He repeated to His disciples what He had just told the Pharisees - and this agrees with what Daniel 9:26-27 said about the destruction of city and sanctuary after Messiah came.

Then Jesus walked down the mountain, and crossed through the Kidron Valley to the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple Mount, walked to the top, and sat down on the Mount of Olives. His audience was now lo longer the scribes and Pharisees, but His disciples.

New location: On top of the Mount of Olives.
New audience: The disciples.
New subject: The tribulation of the disciples:

Once having reached the top of the Mount of Olives on the same day, the disciples asked Him:

1. When the destruction of the temple would come; and
2. What would be the sign of His return and of the end of the Age.

The disciples had no way of knowing at the time that there would be a very long gap between the destruction of the city and the temple and the Lord's return, and true to form, Jesus did not correct their question. He simply answered it, not telling them that they had in fact asked two questions.

Whereas Matthew 24:1-2 pertains to what Jesus had been saying to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:13-39 (where in verses 37-38 He mentions the coming destruction of the temple), Matthew 24:15 starts with the word ".. Therefore .." meaning it pertains to the tribulation of the disciples that Jesus began to talk about in Matthew 24:9,

and the words "all nations" in Matthew 24:14 and Matthew 24:9 tells us that Matthew 24:15 does not pertain to Matthew 24:1-2. This was a different context, and Jesus was speaking to a different audience.

The surrounding context of Matthew 24:15 implies that "the holy place" being mentioned there is not referring to the physical temple structure in Jerusalem, which Jesus had earlier told the scribes and Pharisees was going to be destroyed, but to a church that had begun to experience tribulation for the sake of the name of Christ.

The defiling of the temple on the part of Antiochus IV Epiphanes became a type or forerunner of the abomination of desolation that will appear in the sanctuary of God (2 Thessalonians 2:4):

* Matthew 24:9-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about a falling away / apostasy.
* Matthew 24:9-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about lawlessness.
* Matthew 24:9-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about the time of the end and the coming of Christ.
* Matthew 24:9-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about abomination in the temple of God.

* The wording in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 takes our minds back to both Judas Iscariot * and to Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes".
* Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, is the first of only two men called the son of perdition in the New Testament.
* The way Daniel's 4th beast finds his end and Daniel Chapter 12 take our minds forward to the man of sin and the beast of Revelation 13:2.

Matthew 23:13-39 is the context of "this generation" in Matthew 23:36 - it's referring to the generation of Jews who would see the last days of the kingdom of Judea, the destruction of the city and sanctuary which occurred in 70 A.D.

Likewise, Matthew 24:9-31 is the context of "this generation" mentioned in Matthew 24:34, which has nothing to do with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, since all these surrounding verses are talking only about the tribulation of the saints when they become hated of all nations for His name's sake, leading up to His return; and in Matthew 24:29-31 Jesus is telling His audience (the disciples) about His return in the midst of this great tribulation.

Old Testament faithful: Capital City: Jerusalem.
New Testament faithful: City: New Jerusalem.

Old Testament harlot: Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 A.D.
New Testament harlot: Babylon the Great that is going to be destroyed.

Old: Jesus told the saints to flee Judea (Jerusalem was its capital city).
New: Jesus tells the saints to come out of Babylon the Great.

Old: Wrath of God came upon Jerusalem.
New: Wrath of God will come upon Babylon the Great.

Old: One geographical location.
New: "The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues." (Revelation 17:15).

(In other words, "catholic", which means "universal", or comprised of peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues).

* Luke uses the words great distress and wrath in Luke 21:23 to describe what was to come upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem (not the word tribulation).

1. Preterists, Partial Preterists and Pre-tribulationists all conflate tribulation with God's wrath (see Post #1).

2. Together with Dispensationalists, they also conflate the New Testament temple (the church) with the Old Testament temple (a physical temple in Jerusalem). See Post #2.

 

[DavidPT]

Note: The only correct way of interpreting Daniel 9:26-27 is as follows:

"And after threescore and two weeks (after the first 69 weeks have past) shall (a) Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and (b) the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And (a) he (the Messiah) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and (b) for the overspreading of abominations he (the prince that shall come and shall destroy the city and the sanctuary) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

Daniel's prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple is a different prophecy to the one regarding the defiling of the temple.

Based on everything else you are arguing in this thread, your logic concerning Daniel 9:27 makes no sense to me. For one, you won't even acknowledge that that entire verse is pertaining to the 70th week, which means there has to be a gap somewhere. You have a gap alright, but not before that of the 70th week nor in the middle of the 70th week, but after the 70th week. And that you are then, as far as I can tell, applying this part--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--to what happened in 70 AD and leading up to 70 AD. Which then makes nonsense out of the text the fact it involves the overspreading of abominations, except nothing in the first century leading up to 70 AD, and 70 AD itself, explains the overspreading of abominations.

In the NT, abomination, the Greek word bdelugma, is found in the following verses.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation(bdelugma) , spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination(bdelugma) of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination(bdelugma) in the sight of God.

Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations(bdelugma) and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS(bdelugma) OF THE EARTH.


Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination(bdelugma), or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.


Which of these passages do you propose supports your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 involving the overspreading of abominations? If none of them do, you don't find that being a problem, that, though you insist the overspreading of abominations is connected with the first century and 70 AD, there is nothing in the NT that supports that? Partial Preterists do think one or more of those passages support their interpretation of Daniel 9:27 and the overspreading of abominations, that being Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.

You could use those passages as well, except you are already applying those to something else. No matter how one looks at it though, the overspreading of abominations in the first century leading up to 70 AD makes no sense, since there is nothing involving any of those days that can explain this. You ask one Partial Preterist what the abomination was, that person will tell you that it was the continual sacrificing of animals after Christ sacrificed Himself. Then they apply Matthew 24:15-21 to that. Which then ignores the fact, assuming they are supposed to be correct, that that passage indicates when one sees the AOD, they are at that time to flee to the mountains. Except no one was ever fleeing to the mountains every time they noticed animal sacrificing was continuing for 40 years after Christ sacrificed Himself.

And if you ask another Partial Preterist what the AOD was, they have a different explanation. So on and so on. Except it is not reasonable, that if abominations were involving the first century and 70 AD, that this would still be questionable as to what this was. IOW, everyone would be on the same page, thus in agreement with one another rather that one Partial Preterist proposing the AOD involved this, and another Partial Preterist proposing it involved that.

And here you are with zero support from the NT regarding the alleged overspreading of abominations pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD, then still insisting you are interpreting Daniel 9:27 correctly.

 

[DavidPT]

Once having reached the top of the Mount of Olives on the same day, the disciples asked Him:

1. When the destruction of the temple would come; and
2. What would be the sign of His return and of the end of the Age.

The disciples had no way of knowing at the time that there would be a very long gap between the destruction of the city and the temple and the Lord's return, and true to form, Jesus did not correct their question. He simply answered it, not telling them that they had in fact asked two questions.

What we need to be asking ourselves, and some likely already do, if the focus was on the temple at the time, what possessed the disciples to also ask about His coming and the end of the world? Did they perhaps think that when the temple is destroyed, that this results in the end of this world? And the fact Jesus hasn't even went anywhere at this point, why would they then be enquiring about His coming? IMO, a lot of these things are answered per what all He had previously taught them before this Discourse. Yet, none of that appears to explain why they specifically inquired about the end of the world when the focus was on the temple at that particular time.

 

[Zao is life]

What we need to be asking ourselves, and some likely already do, if the focus was on the temple at the time, what possessed the disciples to also ask about His coming and the end of the world? Did they perhaps think that when the temple is destroyed, that this results in the end of this world? And the fact Jesus hasn't even went anywhere at this point, why would they then be enquiring about His coming? IMO, a lot of these things are answered per what all He had previously taught them before this Discourse. Yet, none of that appears to explain why they specifically inquired about the end of the world when the focus was on the temple at that particular time.

I'm going to reply to this question first.

I do believe that that day, the apostles were still under the impression that His coming would be when the city and the temple would be destroyed.

Bear in mind that they were probably aware of the apocalypse/prophecy in Zechariah 14:1-4 (and they were with Jesus on the Mount of Olives); and compare this with the question they asked Him 42 days later, immediately before He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:6-9). They were again standing with Him on the Mount of Olives.

Bear in mind also that Jesus reminded them at that point (Acts 1:6-8), just before He ascended, of what He had already told them before His crucifixion - that they were to be His witnesses "unto the end of the earth".

The apostles probably also did not know, because they were also not told, how many months, years, decades or centuries would pass between Jesus' death and resurrection and the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple - they did not even know when they asked what they asked in Matthew 24:3 that Jesus was going to be killed and that he would rise again, though He had told them (do you remember their reaction in-between His death and seeing Him alive again, and how one of them doubted it was really Him?) None of them remembered when "it happened" that Jesus had told them He would be killed and would rise again on the 3rd day.

The Day of Pentecost only came 10 days after Jesus ascended, when the Holy Spirit gave them power (and no doubt, a better understanding of the prophetic Word, so that they too could teach us, and prophesy, as Paul did in his letters to the Thessalonians).

I do not believe that before the Day of Pentecost, the apostles understood the prophetic word any better than what we do today (otherwise they would not have asked Jesus those questions), and there is every indication that whenever they asked a question like that, Jesus gave them cryptic answers. He never spelled anything out, but expected them to search the scriptures, and to remember everything He had told them over the space of 3.5 years - a period which was packed with activities and travels, and a whole lot of teaching from Jesus. They did a marvelous job.

It makes sense by the question they asked Him immediately before He ascended, that they must have had Zechariah 14:1-4 in mind when they asked the question 42 days earlier which is recorded in Matthew 24:3, and this is also why they combined the destruction of the temple with His return in their question in Matthew 24:3.

The apostles have also been very, very diligent and honest to give us the history of their silly questions and Jesus' replies, without interpreting His replies for us (though after the Day of Pentecost they might have understood a lot better, and probably did).

 

[Zao is life]

Based on everything else you are arguing in this thread, your logic concerning Daniel 9:27 makes no sense to me. For one, you won't even acknowledge that that entire verse is pertaining to the 70th week, which means there has to be a gap somewhere. You have a gap alright, but not before that of the 70th week nor in the middle of the 70th week, but after the 70th week. And that you are then, as far as I can tell, applying this part--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--to what happened in 70 AD and leading up to 70 AD. Which then makes nonsense out of the text the fact it involves the overspreading of abominations, except nothing in the first century leading up to 70 AD, and 70 AD itself, explains the overspreading of abominations.

In the NT, abomination, the Greek word bdelugma, is found in the following verses.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation(bdelugma) , spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination(bdelugma) of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination(bdelugma) in the sight of God.

Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations(bdelugma) and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS(bdelugma) OF THE EARTH.


Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination(bdelugma), or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.


Which of these passages do you propose supports your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 involving the overspreading of abominations? If none of them do, you don't find that being a problem, that, though you insist the overspreading of abominations is connected with the first century and 70 AD, there is nothing in the NT that supports that? Partial Preterists do think one or more of those passages support their interpretation of Daniel 9:27 and the overspreading of abominations, that being Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.

You could use those passages as well, except you are already applying those to something else. No matter how one looks at it though, the overspreading of abominations in the first century leading up to 70 AD makes no sense, since there is nothing involving any of those days that can explain this. You ask one Partial Preterist what the abomination was, that person will tell you that it was the continual sacrificing of animals after Christ sacrificed Himself. Then they apply Matthew 24:15-21 to that. Which then ignores the fact, assuming they are supposed to be correct, that that passage indicates when one sees the AOD, they are at that time to flee to the mountains. Except no one was ever fleeing to the mountains every time they noticed animal sacrificing was continuing for 40 years after Christ sacrificed Himself.

And if you ask another Partial Preterist what the AOD was, they have a different explanation. So on and so on. Except it is not reasonable, that if abominations were involving the first century and 70 AD, that this would still be questionable as to what this was. IOW, everyone would be on the same page, thus in agreement with one another rather that one Partial Preterist proposing the AOD involved this, and another Partial Preterist proposing it involved that.

And here you are with zero support from the NT regarding the alleged overspreading of abominations pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD, then still insisting you are interpreting Daniel 9:27 correctly.

Whether you realize this or not, your question is based on the premise that Jesus was the first and only person to prophesy that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed - yet Daniel 9:24-27 relates the very same thing to the coming of the Messiah. So would this be just a coincidence, then?

But Daniel did not only prophesy about one "abomination of desolation". He prophesied about one "abomination of desolation" that would be placed in the temple but would not result in the destruction of either the city or the temple (because the temple was cleansed and rededicated to God afterwards), and this prophecy had nothing to do with the coming of the Messiah;

and he prophesied about abominations that would be associated with the destruction of both the city and the temple and the coming of the Messiah.

Which of the two abominations do you think Jesus might have been referring to when He pronounced woe upon the scribes and Pharisees, wept over Jerusalem, and announced the city and the temple's coming destruction?

Or was it indeed just coincidence that Jesus also made a prophecy like that?

Was it just coincidental to Daniel's association of the destruction of the city and the temple with the coming of the Messiah that the city and the temple were destroyed 40 years after Messiah came? Is the word "after" in Daniel 9:26 just coincidental?

Did Daniel give any indication of when in the 70 weeks Messiah would be cut off? (Yes, he did) = after the 69th week, in the midst of the (70th) week.

But did Daniel indicate that the 2nd part of the prophecy associated with the coming of the Messiah (that of the destruction of the city and the temple by the people of the prince who was to come), would also have to occur before the end of the 70th week?

My answer to the second question is No (as regards the timing), but I leave the answer open to dispute for anyone who feels like confusing himself

So there was a gap (yes, there was a gap) between the middle of the 70th week and the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding destruction of city and sanctuary that was greater than 3.5 years. Was it 40 years (because the city and the temple were indeed destroyed in 70 A.D), or was the city and the temple never destroyed, so that we still have to wait for that part of the prophecy to be fulfilled,

OR is it going to happen again, though it's already happened?

Though my answer is, "It was a 40-year gap, and Daniel gave no indication in Daniel 9:26-27 that the destruction of city and sanctuary would take place in the 70th week, though he did say that the Messiah would be cut off in the midst of the 70th week",

I'll leave that question open to whoever feels like confusing himself, also.

As far as the Olivet Discourse is concerned, if we want to believe Preterist and Partial Preterist (as well as Dispensationalist) arguments, then not only must we believe that the abominations (plural) mentioned by Daniel in Daniel 9:27 that would be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, is the same as the abomination of desolation in the holy place that Matthew 24:15 is referring to,

but we also need to ignore the uncanny coincidences between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24:9-31:

Matthew 24:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about a falling away / apostasy.
Matthew 24:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about lawlessness (anomia - same word).
Matthew 24:14-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about the time of the end and the coming of Christ.
Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about an abomination in the temple of God.

We also need to ignore the fact that Matthew 24:15 does not even use the word temple or sanctuary, but "the holy place", and we have to ignore the fact that the temple in Jerusalem ceased being the holy place the moment Jesus died on the cross and the veil in that temple was torn,

and we have to ignore the fact that the context surrounding the mention of the holy place in Matthew 24:15 is the end of the Age and return of Christ, whereas the context surrounding the destruction of the city and sanctuary mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 23:37-38 and Matthew 24:1-2 is NEITHER the end of the Age NOR the return of Christ

- unless we want to believe that the Preterists and Partial Preterists are correct (in which case we will also readily believe that the fact that 2 Thessalonians 2 parallels Matthew 24;9-31, is not just an uncanny coincidence, because 2 Thessalonians 2 has already happened).

Only if we believe Preterist and Partial Preterist eschatology regarding the identity of the holy place mentioned in Matthew 24:15 and the historical fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2 can we ignore those parallels.

I don't know, I guess the text in Matthew 24:15 closes with "(let the reader guess what is meant by the holy place)".

@DavidPT PS: Thanks for that challenge (again), I enjoyed it. But it's my bedtime now. So I'll come back soon as I can next week to see if you replied to my reply (you often don't, even though you don't agree with me, but I'll check). Cheers.

 

[Zao is life]

In the NT, abomination, the Greek word bdelugma, is found in the following verses.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation(bdelugma) , spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination(bdelugma) of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination(bdelugma) in the sight of God.

Revelation 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations(bdelugma) and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS(bdelugma) OF THE EARTH.


Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination(bdelugma), or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.


Which of these passages do you propose supports your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 involving the overspreading of abominations? If none of them do, you don't find that being a problem, that, though you insist the overspreading of abominations is connected with the first century and 70 AD, there is nothing in the NT that supports that? Partial Preterists do think one or more of those passages support their interpretation of Daniel 9:27 and the overspreading of abominations, that being Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.

You could use those passages as well, except you are already applying those to something else. No matter how one looks at it though, the overspreading of abominations in the first century leading up to 70 AD makes no sense, since there is nothing involving any of those days that can explain this. You ask one Partial Preterist what the abomination was, that person will tell you that it was the continual sacrificing of animals after Christ sacrificed Himself. Then they apply Matthew 24:15-21 to that. Which then ignores the fact, assuming they are supposed to be correct, that that passage indicates when one sees the AOD, they are at that time to flee to the mountains. Except no one was ever fleeing to the mountains every time they noticed animal sacrificing was continuing for 40 years after Christ sacrificed Himself.

And if you ask another Partial Preterist what the AOD was, they have a different explanation. So on and so on. Except it is not reasonable, that if abominations were involving the first century and 70 AD, that this would still be questionable as to what this was. IOW, everyone would be on the same page, thus in agreement with one another rather that one Partial Preterist proposing the AOD involved this, and another Partial Preterist proposing it involved that.

And here you are with zero support from the NT regarding the alleged overspreading of abominations pertaining to the first century leading up to 70 AD, then still insisting you are interpreting Daniel 9:27 correctly.

The word abomination means disgusting. It's abominable, it's disgusting.

Hundreds of years before the time of Christ God had this to say to the Jews:

Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! (Isaiah 1:13)

NetFree:
Do not bring any more meaningless offerings; I consider your incense detestable!
You observe new moon festivals, Sabbaths, and convocations, but I cannot tolerate sin-stained celebrations!

Disgusting. Detestable. Abomination.

Daniel 9:27b
".. in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! (Isaiah 1:13)

Who confirmed the covenant? Jesus. Who caused sacrifice and offering to cease in the middle of the seven years? Jesus. How did He cause it to cease?

Meditate on how He caused sacrifice and offerings to cease, then mediate on why He suffered like that, shedding His blood for our sins as a once-for-all sacrifice for sins. Then ask yourself what the abominations may have been, because the text doesn't tell us. I guess the Father expects us to understand.

Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! (Isaiah 1:13)

So He confirmed a covenant for a week yet He was cut off in the midst of the week? Yes, because the covenant was confirmed for the entire first week of the first seven of 7 weeks (7 x 7 years) when He said, ".. Today this prophecy is fulfilled in your midst":

"The Spirit of the Lord is on Me; because of this He has anointed Me to proclaim the Gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and new sight to the blind, to set at liberty those having been crushed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." And rolling up the book, returning it to the attendant, He sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on Him. And He began to say to them, Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears." (Luke 4:18-21).

If you know anything about the shmita cycles (the cycles of 7 x 7 years), you will understand that that prophecy is a prophecy about a Jubilee. Not only had the Jubilee year (to 50th year, which also began the next cycle of 7 x 7 years) begun, but the seven years - the first of 7 x 7 years, had begun - and it was a Messianic prophecy.

So people believe this and that, but we are not told what the 'abominations' entailed. God expects His elect to understand. I think the Father rightly expects His elect to understand what the abominations entail. And if some don't understand, then maybe they will never understand.

 

[Zao is life]

your logic concerning Daniel 9:27 makes no sense to me. For one, you won't even acknowledge that that entire verse is pertaining to the 70th week, which means there has to be a gap somewhere. You have a gap alright, but not before that of the 70th week nor in the middle of the 70th week, but after the 70th week.

That's not true. I've said that the gap is 40 years. Of course that 40 years began in the middle of Daniel's 70th week. I've never said it started after.

@DavidPT In Luke 21:20-21, Jesus told the disciples to flee Judea when they see armies gathering against Jerusalem. Luke says nothing about an abomination in a temple that should be the sign to them that they should flee Judea.

So which is true? Matthew's account in Matthew 24:15-22, or Luke's account? And whose tribulation was Matthew talking about? The Jews of Judea, or the disciples' (Matthew 24:9-15)?

Or was Matthew combining what Jesus said about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple with what He said about the tribulation of the disciples, the end of the Age and the return of Christ into one account of one and the same thing because Matthew thought the two would go together (it was still some time before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple that Matthew wrote his gospel)?

See? There is a seeming or apparent contradiction between Luke's account of the sign Jesus gave as to when they should flee Judea, and Matthew's account. Maybe some of the apostles still believed the two things would be the same event, just like the Preterists & Partial Preterists of today do, and maybe the apostles would only have known that it was not that time that Jesus would return if they lived past 70 A.D? Maybe, maybe not. The apostles in any case wrote by memory. It's a well-known fact that the synoptic gospels contradict one another's accounts here and there. And when eye-witness accounts differ, it's proof that the thing they're witnessing about did indeed occur.

You're almost blaming me in your post for the discrepancy. Sorry, not responsible , But now you know what I believe - and why (because I give the scriptural references for what I'm saying - whether you agree with it, or not - and you did take the trouble to read it).

 

[DavidPT]

It makes sense by the question they asked Him immediately before He ascended, that they must have had Zechariah 14:1-4 in mind when they asked the question 42 days earlier which is recorded in Matthew 24:3, and this is also why they combined the destruction of the temple with His return in their question in Matthew 24:3.

The apostles have also been very, very diligent and honest to give us the history of their silly questions and Jesus' replies, without interpreting His replies for us (though after the Day of Pentecost they might have understood a lot better, and probably did).

This in particular is a good point you raise here. I never thought of it from that perspective before. But if they did somehow connect Zechariah 14:2 with what would happen to the 2nd temple, clearly they were wrong about that, the fact the text indicates in Zechariah 14 that the Lord steps in on behalf of Jerusalem's occupants, thus defending them. Something that obviously never happened in the first century, that Christ fought the Romans on behalf of the unbelieving Jews still in Jerusalem.

 

[claninja]

1. Preterists and Partial-Preterists have conflated the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus (Matthew 24:9-31) with God's wrath (Luke 21:23).

Well this seems to be a kind of a strawman argument. No Preterism of any form conflates the persecution faced by the disciples (matthew 24:9-10) with God’s wrath (luke 21:23).

Preterism does conflate the persecution of the disciples in Matthew 24:9-10 with the persecution of the disciples in luke 21:12.

And preterism does conflate the great tribulation of Matthew 24: 21 with the days of wrath in luke 21:23.

But preterism does NOT conflate the persecution of the disciples (matthew 24:9-10, Luke 21:12) with the great tribulation/days of wrath (matthew 24:21, Luke 21:23). Such would be a false argument.

 

[DavidPT]

That's not true. I've said that the gap is 40 years. Of course that 40 years began in the middle of Daniel's 70th week. I've never said it started after.

What I mean by after the 70th week is that C) below is fulfilled after the entire 70 weeks were already fulfilled, therefore, C) not being part of the 70 weeks in that case.

As to your view, unless this means that the entire 70 weeks were not fulfilled until 70 AD, then it would be untrue what I said about your position. Which would mean that the 70 weeks were fulfilled up to Christ's death, thus 69 and 1/2 weeks of it, then stopped for 40 years, or better yet, stopped for 36 and 1/2 years, then from 66 AD or so through 70 AD, the final half of the 70th week was fulfilled. If that is basically what your view consists of, then it was untrue when I insisted that you wouldn't acknowledge that all of verse 27 is the 70th week. But if you are meaning that the 70 weeks were fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ death, then in that case I'm not grasping how anything I said pertaining to your view would be untrue.

From my experience with this subject, usually when any interpreter rejects a gap of thousands of years, this indicates they reject any and all gaps period, meaning in the 70 weeks, and that they insist the entire 70 weeks are fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ's death. And that they then apply the remainder of verse 27 to 70 AD, but not as a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks, but as a gap after the middle of the 70th week. which then isn't the same as having a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks.

IOW, because of B) it leads to the fulfilling of C) 40 years later according to this view. Except nothing within these 40 years explain the part pertaining to C) involving the overspreading of abominations. Though some interpreters insist Matthew 24:15 explains it. What were the abominations then? Whatever they were, once one sees it they are to flee to the mountains at that time. And if Matthew 24:15-16 involves the first century like they suppose, that obviously means fleeing to the mountains is meaning in a literal sense in that case.

It would look like this.

A) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

B) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

C) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

A) would be starting with His 3.5 year ministry prior to His death, then following that would be B), followed by the remaining 3.5 years, thus the entire 70 weeks are fulfilled with no gaps. As to C), this would not be meaning it is fulfilled in the 70th week. It would mean from the time of B) there would be a gap of 40 years until that of the fulfilling of C). Which is not the same as C) being fulfilled inside of the 70 weeks. It would mean C) is fulfilled outside of the 70 weeks.

Because, to be fulfilled inside of the 70 weeks, this indicates that the 70 weeks stop at B), then resume 36.5 years later, thus concluding in 70 AD. Which then means from 66 AD or so through 70 AD, the remainder of the 70th week is fulfilled. Which then begs the question, assuming anyone even holds a view like that, why would anyone that rejects a 2000 year gap in the 70 weeks be on board with a 40 year gap in the 70 weeks? A gap is still a gap regardless of it's length.

But what I am arguing is this. All of verse 27 is pertaining to the 70th week, which then makes it impossible that the entire 70 weeks have no gap somewhere since C) can't fit within 3.5 years of His death.

 

[DavidPT]

And preterism does conflate the great tribulation of Matthew 24: 21 with the days of wrath in luke 21:23.

In my view of things, the book of Revelation records events involving the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21. For example, the 5th seal(Revelation 6). The 42 month reign of the beast(Revelation 13). But as pertaining to the days of wrath in luke 21:23, the book of Revelation does not record those events. Which could mean the reason it doesn't is because the book of Revelation was written after those events, not prior to them. Or it could mean, even if Revelation was written before that of the events involving the days of wrath in luke 21:23, it is not relevant since the main focus in Revelation is the fate of the church not the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century.

Nothing recorded in Revelation gives me the impression any of these events are involving the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century. Unbelieving Jews don't believe the NT to begin with and that they don't take it to be holy writ. What then would be the point in focusing on their fate in Revelation when they either are not going to read it, or if they do, they don't even believe anything in Revelation, let alone think that it is may be involving their fate?

IMO then, the fate of unbelieving Jews per the book of Revelation, that appears to only be relevant to Preterists, not unbelieving Jews. It is Preterists trying to prove the book of Revelation is involving the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century, and not unbelieving Jews trying to prove that. They are not trying to prove anything one way or the other in regards to Revelation. They couldn't care less who it allegedly involves since they don't believe the NT is holy writ to begin with. Therefore, if Revelation records the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century, it is doing it in vain since unbelieving Jews couldn't care less what all Revelation allegedly involves.

 

[claninja]

In my view of things, the book of Revelation records events involving the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21. For example, the 5th seal(Revelation 6). The 42 month reign of the beast(Revelation 13). But as pertaining to the days of wrath in luke 21:23, the book of Revelation does not record those events. Which could mean the reason it doesn't is because the book of Revelation was written after those events, not prior to them. Or it could mean, even if Revelation was written before that of the events involving the days of wrath in luke 21:23, it is not relevant since the main focus in Revelation is the fate of the church not the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century.

Nothing recorded in Revelation gives me the impression any of these events are involving the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century. Unbelieving Jews don't believe the NT to begin with and that they don't take it to be holy writ. What then would be the point in focusing on their fate in Revelation when they either are not going to read it, or if they do, they don't even believe anything in Revelation, let alone think that it is may be involving their fate?

IMO then, the fate of unbelieving Jews per the book of Revelation, that appears to only be relevant to Preterists, not unbelieving Jews. It is Preterists trying to prove the book of Revelation is involving the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century, and not unbelieving Jews trying to prove that. They are not trying to prove anything one way or the other in regards to Revelation. They couldn't care less who it allegedly involves since they don't believe the NT is holy writ to begin with. Therefore, if Revelation records the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century, it is doing it in vain since unbelieving Jews couldn't care less what all Revelation allegedly involves.

Thanks Davidpt, but this isn’t really related to the point I was making, nor the OP point 1, which makes no mention of revelation.

The point is that the OP is making a strawman argument about preterists and Matthew 24:9-10, Luke 23:13, Matthew 24:21, Luke 21:23, regardless of YOUR belief on revelation.

In regards to your off topic response, i would be completely disagree. Jesus charged first century apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed (matthew 23 and Luke 11). Jesus, nor the epistles charge any other entity with such crime. Therefore, I interpret the symbolic Babylon in association with what Christ taught. Still waiting on any hyperfuturist to provide any other entity from the gospels or epistles or book of acts charged with all the righteous blood shed…..besides guesses or speculations..

 

[DavidPT]

Thanks Davidpt, but this isn’t really related to the point I was making, nor the OP point 1, which makes no mention of revelation.

The point is that the OP is making a strawman argument about preterists and Matthew 24:9-10, Luke 23:13, Matthew 24:21, Luke 21:23, regardless of YOUR belief on revelation.

In regards to your off topic response, i would be completely disagree. Jesus charged first century apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed (matthew 23 and Luke 11). Jesus, nor the epistles charge any other entity with such crime. Therefore, I interpret the symbolic Babylon in association with what Christ taught. Still waiting on any hyperfuturist to provide any other entity from the gospels or epistles or book of acts charged with all the righteous blood shed…..besides guesses or speculations..

I got the point you were trying to make via that post. It was not my intention to take focus off that since your point still stands regardless what I wrote. I was pointing out, if Revelation is involving the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century as Preterists apparently believe, what would be the point of it if unbelieving Jews in the first century, and any unbelieving Jews after that era of time, couldn't care less about any of those things since they don't take the NT to be holy writ to begin with?

Who then is the intended audience since it can't be unbelieving Jews? Look at the way the book of Revelation begins. It begins by involving the seven churches which are in Asia. What does any of that have to do with what happened to unbelieving Jews in 70 AD?

 

[parousia70]

Who then is the intended audience since it can't be unbelieving Jews? Look at the way the book of Revelation begins. It begins by involving the seven churches which are in Asia. What does any of that have to do with what happened to unbelieving Jews in 70 AD?

While Israel was the hub of the tribulation/Day of the Lord at AD 66-70, scripture is clear that there were ramifications for all of the empire.

Those elect were spread all over the empire, and Christ came to them at his promised 1st century return and brought them relief--He did this as well as bringing judgment upon apostate Israel.

From the Letters to the Churches we see that each of those "First Century Churches" Christ was DIRECTLY ADDRESSING had unique, contemporary situations that John & Paul testified were to "soon" be directly addressed by Christ's coming to them:

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Thyatira
promise: Revelation 2:18-25
result: their false prophetess and all her followers would be killed off by
Christ's coming. The Church was granted Christ's authority.

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Pergamum
promise: Revelation 2:12-16
result: the heretical Nicolaitans were to be put down by Christ's coming to
Pergamum. The Nicolaitans that were causing them to break the decree of the Council of Jerusalem were killed (Rev 2:14; cf. Acts 15:28-29).

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Sardis
promise: Revelation 3:1-5
result: Christ promises them that his "thief-in-the-night" coming will come
upon them. They had not been faithfully expecting "the thief" as explained to them in Matt 24:43/1 Thess5:2-5. However, a few in Sardis were found worthy and had not soiled their garments. At Christ's coming to them "they walked in white, for they were worthy" (Rev 3:4-5).

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Philadelphia
promise: Revelation 3:7-13
result: Christ puts down the then-contemporary Jewish persecution (3:9).
He preserves the Church at Philadelphia through the testing which was then about to come upon the whole empire (3:10). God makes his faithful ones "pillars" in the Temple of God.

* Christ's Coming to First-Century Laodicea
promise: Revelation 3:14-21
result: Christ is shown to be knocking at their door as first promised in Matt 24:33 (cf. also James 5:9). If they didn't repent, they were annihilated. Repentant and obedient followers said to become partakers of Christ's heavenly authority.

Even Paul gets into the Act:
* Christ's Coming to First-Century Thessalonica
promise: 2 Thessalonians 1:6-7
result: their persecutors would be cut off by Christ's coming, ending their persecution and granting them rest and relief.

 

[Zao is life]

What I mean by after the 70th week is that C) below is fulfilled after the entire 70 weeks were already fulfilled, therefore, C) not being part of the 70 weeks in that case.

As to your view, unless this means that the entire 70 weeks were not fulfilled until 70 AD, then it would be untrue what I said about your position. Which would mean that the 70 weeks were fulfilled up to Christ's death, thus 69 and 1/2 weeks of it, then stopped for 40 years, or better yet, stopped for 36 and 1/2 years, then from 66 AD or so through 70 AD, the final half of the 70th week was fulfilled. If that is basically what your view consists of, then it was untrue when I insisted that you wouldn't acknowledge that all of verse 27 is the 70th week. But if you are meaning that the 70 weeks were fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ death, then in that case I'm not grasping how anything I said pertaining to your view would be untrue.

From my experience with this subject, usually when any interpreter rejects a gap of thousands of years, this indicates they reject any and all gaps period, meaning in the 70 weeks, and that they insist the entire 70 weeks are fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ's death. And that they then apply the remainder of verse 27 to 70 AD, but not as a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks, but as a gap after the middle of the 70th week. which then isn't the same as having a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks.

IOW, because of B) it leads to the fulfilling of C) 40 years later according to this view. Except nothing within these 40 years explain the part pertaining to C) involving the overspreading of abominations. Though some interpreters insist Matthew 24:15 explains it. What were the abominations then? Whatever they were, once one sees it they are to flee to the mountains at that time. And if Matthew 24:15-16 involves the first century like they suppose, that obviously means fleeing to the mountains is meaning in a literal sense in that case.

It would look like this.

A) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

B) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

C) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

A) would be starting with His 3.5 year ministry prior to His death, then following that would be B), followed by the remaining 3.5 years, thus the entire 70 weeks are fulfilled with no gaps. As to C), this would not be meaning it is fulfilled in the 70th week. It would mean from the time of B) there would be a gap of 40 years until that of the fulfilling of C). Which is not the same as C) being fulfilled inside of the 70 weeks. It would mean C) is fulfilled outside of the 70 weeks.

Because, to be fulfilled inside of the 70 weeks, this indicates that the 70 weeks stop at B), then resume 36.5 years later, thus concluding in 70 AD. Which then means from 66 AD or so through 70 AD, the remainder of the 70th week is fulfilled. Which then begs the question, assuming anyone even holds a view like that, why would anyone that rejects a 2000 year gap in the 70 weeks be on board with a 40 year gap in the 70 weeks? A gap is still a gap regardless of it's length.

But what I am arguing is this. All of verse 27 is pertaining to the 70th week, which then makes it impossible that the entire 70 weeks have no gap somewhere since C) can't fit within 3.5 years of His death.

I don't believe that the 70 weeks prophecy is about anyone or anything other than the coming of the Messiah.

It's not unusual for apocalyptic/prophetic literature to mix two different things into one and the same text like that. We see it in prophetic literature all the time - the example I always use being the mention of the destruction of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) in the Valley of Jezreel in one and the same verse where the uniting of Israel and Judah into one nation (after the restoration of both to God) is suddenly introduced:

Hosea 1:11
(a) Then the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel shall be gathered together, and shall set over themselves one head,

(b) and they shall come up out of the land. For great shall be the day of Jezreel.

The part speaking about the coming up out of the land and the day of Jezreel (the day and place that Israel was judged) happened in circa 722 B.C (see Hosea 1:4-5) - and that's what Hosea Chapter 1 is about. But the first part of the verse is speaking of a future time that would occur hundreds of years later.

@DavidPT Hosea did not write, "Reader, please take note: This prophecy is about the judgment of the Northern kingdom of Israel ONLY. It's not about anything else just because God inspired me to pop into verse 11 an extra piece of information about the eventual reuniting of Israel and Judah into one nation with one Head (after both have been restored to God), in a time that lies way in the future and long after the judgment of Israel that this prophecy is about."

Likewise with Daniel 9:26-27. It's not talking about the same things. Daniel 9:26-27's mention of the people of the prince who would come and who would destroy the city and the sanctuary is not part of the 70 weeks prophecy which is talking ONLY about the coming of the Messiah, even though it's included in the same two verses.

This is about the Messiah (not about the people of the prince who would come and destroy the sanctuary):

24 Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going out of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in times of affliction.

Still about the coming of the Messiah coming in the 70th week:

26 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week.

27 And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease.

The 70th week - the entire week - was still only about the Messiah. The fact that the mention of the people of the prince who was to come (who would destroy the city and the sanctuary) is included in two verses, does not make the 70 weeks prophecy either about them, or about the Messiah AND them. The 70 weeks is not about them, any more than the uniting of Israel and Judah and appointing themselves one Head in Hosea 1:11 is about the judgment of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel, circa 722 B.C.
​

The Messiah is the only person mentioned in verse 24-25. If the prophecy was about both the Messiah AND the people of the prince who was to come, the latter would have got a mention in the beginning, in verses 24-25. Likewise, Hosea Chapter 1 is not about Israel and Judah being eventually united and appointing one Head over them - it's about the judgment of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C.

So just because verse 27 did not specify that the people of the prince who was to come would only destroy the city and temple some time AFTER the 70th week, does not mean that that prophecy is included in the 70th week - because the 70 weeks is ONLY about the Messiah.
​

So the gap between the crucifixion of the Messiah and the destruction of the city and temple does not change the meaning of the prophecy in any way - because the 70 weeks prophecy is about the Messiah ONLY, and just like the reuniting of Israel and Judah is secondary to Hosea 1's prophecy about the judgment of the Northern kingdom (and yet got popped into Hosea 1:11 with the final statement of Israel's coming up out of the land, i.e Israel's exile), so the telling about the people of the prince who would come and would destroy the city and the sanctuary got popped into verses 26 & 27 of Daniel's prophecy regarding the 70 weeks and the coming of the Messiah. It's an added piece of information that is not part of the same 70-weeks prophecy.

 

[claninja]

if Revelation is involving the fate of unbelieving Jews in the first century as Preterists apparently believe, what would be the point of it if unbelieving Jews in the first century, and any unbelieving Jews after that era of time, couldn't care less about any of those things since they don't take the NT to be holy writ to begin with?

Who then is the intended audience since it can't be unbelieving Jews? Look at the way the book of Revelation begins. It begins by involving the seven churches which are in Asia. What does any of that have to do with what happened to unbelieving Jews in 70 AD?

Davidpt, please understand your argument, in attempt to demonstrate audience relevance, with the statement “what do the 7 churches in asia have to do with 70ad And unbelieving jews?” Is very ironic.

1.) The purpose of revelation is found in 1:1-3: to show events that would “quickly” take place and that the time is “near”. The purpose is also found in the last the chapter: “do not seal up the visions for the time is near”.

2.) the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia were being persecuted by those claiming to be Jews (commentators generally agree this mean Jews who were not Christian’s). Would they not have been granted relief at the destruction of apostate Israel?

3.) the church in Philadelphia was to be kept from the hour of trial about to come upon the “whole world”. What event was the church of Philadelphia kept from?

4.) Jesus charged apostate Israel with all the righteous blood shed and stated it would come upon their generation (luke 11 and Matthew 23). In the parable of the wicked tenants and wedding feast, following the destruction of apostate israel, the kingdom is given to the saints and the good and bad are gathered into the wedding hall. When we look at revelation, when Babylon, who is charged with all the righteous bloodshed, is judged, the wedding is ready and “blessed are those who are invited”. Would the 7 churches not being looking forward to this?

So with the purpose understood, if revelation contains no quickly occurring events about 70ad, nor a near world wide hour of trial, nor the fate of unbelieving Jews as being near, i would counter your ironic question with: what does any of the visions of revelation have to do with the 7 churches of Asia?

 

[Zao is life]

This in particular is a good point you raise here. I never thought of it from that perspective before. But if they did somehow connect Zechariah 14:2 with what would happen to the 2nd temple, clearly they were wrong about that, the fact the text indicates in Zechariah 14 that the Lord steps in on behalf of Jerusalem's occupants, thus defending them. Something that obviously never happened in the first century, that Christ fought the Romans on behalf of the unbelieving Jews still in Jerusalem.

Exactly. The apostles were expecting to see the Lord standing on the Mount of Olives and coming to destroy the nations that had gathered against Jerusalem, and they were expecting that the city and temple would become exalted above the nations (Isaiah 2:1-5) - and instead, here was the Messiah, telling them that not only was the city and temple going to be destroyed, but He had also already told them that He - the Messiah - was going to be killed, and rise again on the 3rd day.

And then 40 days later here they were with the Messiah again, standing on the Mount of Olives:

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.
9 And saying these things, as they watched, He was taken up. And a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And while they were looking intently into the heaven, He having gone, even behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them,
11 who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into the heaven? This same Jesus who is taken up from you into Heaven, will come in the way you have seen Him going into Heaven.

The apostles knew the prophecies, and the way the Messiah fulfilled them must have kept turning their understanding of the prophecies upside-down. It was not what they had expected (as their questions on the Mount of Olives showed - twice in 40 days). It's another reason why the scribes and Pharisees considered Him a false Messiah.

 

[Zao is life]

Well this seems to be a kind of a strawman argument. No Preterism of any form conflates the persecution faced by the disciples (matthew 24:9-10)

You conveniently left out all the verses following verse 10. Matthew 24:9-31. The whole passage from verse 9 onward is joined together by the words "and, therefore, but, for, because .."

The grammar shows that the tribulation being spoken of in verses 21-22 is the same tribulation of the elect (Matthew 24:22) that Jesus began speaking of in verse 9.

And because you have left the rest of the passage out, shows that you have everything after verse 10 completely conflated with Luke 21:23.