This generation

[Spiritual Jew]

And you miss the fact that when the AOD affects the holy place meant, this is meaning after Jesus died and rose. No Christian should think the 2nd temple was still the holy place once Christ died and rose, and no Christian should think Jesus thought the 2nd temple was still the holy place up until it was finally destroyed. An AOD involving an obsolete useless temple does not make any sense.

Assuming the Luke 21:20 account and the Matthew 24:15-16 account are involving the same events, does this mean Jesus was trying to confuse ppl? In the former account He said to flee when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies. In the latter account He said to flee when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place. When should one flee if both accounts are involving the same events? When they see armies surrounding Jerusalem? Or when they see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place?

What do you think the abomination of desolation is exactly? What do you think it means for the abomination of desolation to stand in the holy place? How would someone recognize that the abomination of desolation is standing in the holy place? How do you know that armies surrounding Jerusalem just before the desolation of Jerusalem is not related to the abomination of desolation?

While "the holy place" usually referred to the temple in Jerusalem, it could also refer to Jerusalem itself. So, Jesus could have been saying that when you see the ones who would cause the desolation of Jerusalem standing there in the holy place Jerusalem (what His listeners would have understood the holy place to be at the time He was speaking) then those in Judea should flee into the mountains in order to avoid the wrath that would come by way of the armies that were surrounding Jerusalem.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The end of the age was 70 AD. I think the problem here is hermeneutics. I’m trying to understand it the way the original audience would understand it. We can’t take an anachronistic view and try to understand as if He was speaking to us today, because it’s not to us. Since the temple was still standing, that’s how they would have understood the AoD. There’s no NT writings that say anything other than that.

If the end of the age was 70 AD, then please explain how the following occurred in 70 AD.

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That's a decent analogy, I'll give you that. There is the following to take into consideration.

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

But is this in verse 14 meaning by means of an AOD, though? Granted, the temple was still being called the holy place after Christ died and rose. But by whom? Unbelieving Jews of course.

No, no, no. No. I am not saying that Jesus would have still considered it the holy place even after His death and resurrection. I thought I made that clear? I'm pretty sure I did. I'm saying that at the time He was speaking, which was obviously before His death and resurrection, the temple or Jerusalem itself was still considered the holy place. It was not wrong to refer to the temple or the city as the holy place at that time. And just because someone may have called the temple or the city the holy place at the time doesn't mean that they were implying that it would still be considered the holy place in the future when they talked about something that would happen in the location of what was then considered the holy place.

Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination 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:

What should we take this to mean----when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not?

Luke makes that easy for us. Since he was writing to a Gentile audience that wouldn't have known anything about any prophecy in the book of Daniel, Luke spelled it out as to how it should be understood. It had to do with Roman armies standing in and around Jerusalem while surrounding it.

Since He mentions Daniel the prophet, the answer to some of this is obviously found in the book of Daniel, which means we should look at all passages dealing with abomination and desolation in the book of Daniel. A lot of interpreters tend to think the answers are in Daniel 9 alone, thus let's just disregard any other passages in Daniel involving abomination and desolation.

Daniel 9:26-27 talks about the destruction of the city and the sanctuary which just happens to be what Jesus partially talked about as well. So, I think it makes a lot of sense to look there first to determine what He was talking about.

What is interesting about the book of Daniel, there are no passages when they are involving abomination and desolation that it is depicting anyone fleeing into the mountains, yet Jesus said to flee into the mountains. He must not have meant than in a literal sense though, otherwise something recorded in Daniel should match this.

This is not a valid argument. Daniel 9:26-27 clearly refers to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, so just because it wasn't pointed out there that believers had to flee doesn't mean it's not referring to the same thing that Jesus was referring to. It made more sense for Jesus to point that out since the fulfillment of that particular prophecy was drawing near at the time. It obviously wasn't near at all at the time the prophecy was made.

Something else we need to keep in mind. In Matthew 24:15, the word translated 'see', Jesus used the Greek word eido, while in verse 30 He used the Greek word optanomai for the word translated 'see' in that verse. Clearly, though Preterists disagree, He was meaning in the literal sense in verse 30 which means He wasn't meaning in the literal sense in verse 15. But if verse 15 is involving the 2nd temple in 70 AD, why would He have not meant 'see' in the literal sense in that case?

Where are you getting this from? What I see from Strong's Greek concordance on blueletterbible.org is that the Greek word "horaō" is the word translated as "see" in Matthew 24:15. It has multiple meanings but one of the definitions is to literally see with one's eyes.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

This right here is the solution except some interpreters are ignoring this or they are simply not understanding this though the reader is encouraged to understand. Why add that to the text if this was simply in regards to what was about to happen to the 2nd temple in the near future? Wonder why that is missing in the Luke 21 account--- (let the reader understand) ? I wonder why the Luke 21 account is not telling anyone to consult the book of Daniel?

Because Luke's audience was Gentiles rather than Jews. It would make no sense to say "let the reader understand" to Gentiles who had no clue as to what the prophecies in Daniel were about.

Since his readers would not have been familiar with the book of Daniel, Luke spelled it out to them as to what would be seen that would indicate tha the desolation of Jerusalem was at hand.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The term Judea referred to the country of the elect. Where are the elect today?

Show me where scripture teaches that the term "Judea" could be understood as referring to the church of God. You're not going to convince me of anything with your words alone. Back up your claim with scripture, please.

What did Jesus mean when He indicated that fleeing would be a problem for nursing mothers and pregnant women if He wasn't talking in terms of literally, physically fleeing to the mountains? What did Jesus mean when He indicated that fleeing would be a problem in the winter or on the sabbath if He wasn't talking in terms of literally, physically fleeing to the mountains?

I've already done that. We don't agree on what the holy place means in Matthew 24:15 or what constitutes the abomination of desolation in it, or when this AoD will appear in it or appeared in it (past tense).

You may say that you do not understand what I've said, but clearer than I've already made it I cannot do. I'm not a miracle worker and certainly won't want to use such a power for winning an argument even if I was.

So I've exhausted all I am able to say regarding what I'm 100% sure Jesus meant by the holy place and the abomination in it.

Have a great "rest of your day"/evening.

What I meant is that you have not explained your understanding of Matthew 24:19-20 in particular. If you are going to claim that the holy place refers to the church and that the entire passage of Matthew 24:15-22 is figurative or spiritual language, then you should be able to tell me your understanding of what Matthew 24:19-20 means.

 

[claninja]

I understand that figurative language was sometimes used in relation to heaven and earth in the OT, but what evidence is there to show that it's being used that way in 2nd Peter 3? I see none. Peter directly compared a past, literal, global destruction event to the heavens and earth being burned up. If he wasn't comparing two literal physical destruction events there then why did he give the impression that he was comparing two similar events in 2 Peter 3:5-7 rather than comparing a literal event to a figurative one?

Ok, so we can at Least find some agreement that the OT prophets used the figurative language of stars falling, sun and moon not giving light, heavens and earth shaking, etc to indicate the terror and/or overthrow of kingdoms and governments.

1.) Since Peter, in his last letter, had just stated that “the end of all things had drawn near”, the verb being in the perfect tense thus indicative of literal nearness (1 peter 4:7), then i would argue that the removal of literal heavens and earth is not in view. Instead, this supports the consistent interpretation of this passage as being metaphorical for the overthrow of israel, as used in the OT, because as we know, the literal entire earth didn’t pass away.

2.)Peter contrasted the pre flood “heavens and earth” with the “heavens and earth” that “now exist”. The pre flood”heavens and earth” were destroyed by water. The “the heavens and earth” that “now existed” in Peter’s day were reserved for fire.

 

[claninja]

It's called interpreting scripture with scripture. The Olivet Discourse obviously relates to His coming at the end of the age. So, we should look at other scripture regarding His coming and the end of the age to aid our understanding of the OD. Determining when His coming at the end of the age would occur is vital to understanding when this generation would pass away, so I completely disagree with the idea that all these things are not related or not applicable to this thread.

then be consistent.

you use scripture to interpret scripture such that Luke’s armies surrounding Jerusalem interprets Matthew and marks AOD because they are parallel passages.

why wouldn’t use this same method to understand that Matthews “sign of your coming and end of the age” is interpreted by Mark and Luke’s as “sign these will be fulfilled”, because these are parallel passages?

 

[DavidPT]

Where are you getting this from? What I see from Strong's Greek concordance on blueletterbible.org is that the Greek word "horaō" is the word translated as "see" in Matthew 24:15. It has multiple meanings but one of the definitions is to literally see with one's eyes.

I'm using a software version of Strong's that when you click on a word in a verse, it shows the Greek word and it's meanings at the bottom of the page. Maybe this Strong's I'm using is buggy or has typos if it's not agreeing with other Strong's?

When I click on 'see' in verse 15, the following is what displays at the bottom of the page.

1492
eidw
eido
i'-do
a primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equivalent optanomai - optanomai 3700 and oraw - horao 3708; properly, to see (literally or figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to know:--be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot. Compare optanomai - optanomai 3700.


Then if I click on 1492 it opens a new window listing all the verses that Greek word is found in, and that it lists Matthew 24:15 plus several hundred more verses.

And if I click on 3708 horao, the word you see being used in that verse, I'm not seeing Matthew 24:15 listed. The only verses it lists from the book of Matthew using 'horao are the following verses---Matthew 8:4, Matthew 9:30, Matthew 16:6, Matthew 18:10, Matthew 24:6.

 

[apollosdtr]

Those that try to say that "this generation" refers to some future chronological generation are wrong as well. He was not just talking about people alive at the time He was speaking nor only about people that would be alive in a future time. He was talking about a type of "generation" (Greek: genea) who were evil and adulterous.

You're right about generation not being a measure of time, (aion, kairos, chronos).

The Greek genea becomes the English genealogy, genetics, genes... racial terms.

genea = from genos (from ginomai: generate, become): kin, kindred, nation, offspring, stock.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

then be consistent.

you use scripture to interpret scripture such that Luke’s armies surrounding Jerusalem interprets Matthew and marks AOD because they are parallel passages.

why wouldn’t use this same method to understand that Matthews “sign of your coming and end of the age” is interpreted by Mark and Luke’s as “sign these will be fulfilled”, because these are parallel passages?

Not really sure of what you're talking about here. Though it's not made clear in Mark and Luke, it is clear in Matthew that Jesus was asked two different questions. One relating to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings and one related to His coming and the end of the age. Do you think Matthew made a mistake by recording those as two different questions?

I've already shown why the end of the age could not possibly have occurred in 70 AD and, yet, it's clear that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings did occur in 70 AD. So, it makes a lot of sense to me that Jesus spoke both of a (now past) local event in Jerusalem AND a global future event that will occur at the end of this temporal age that Jesus contrasted with the eternal age to come (Luke 20:34-36).

 

[apollosdtr]

then be consistent.

you use scripture to interpret scripture such that Luke’s armies surrounding Jerusalem interprets Matthew and marks AOD because they are parallel passages.

why wouldn’t use this same method to understand that Matthews “sign of your coming and end of the age” is interpreted by Mark and Luke’s as “sign these will be fulfilled”, because these are parallel passages?

You can't use Luke and Mark to interpret Matthew because, of the three, only Matthew was actually there.
Sometimes you can use John and Matthew to interpret each other, because they were both first-hand witnesses.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm using a software version of Strong's that when you click on a word in a verse, it shows the Greek word and it's meanings at the bottom of the page. Maybe this Strong's I'm using is buggy or has typos if it's not agreeing with other Strong's?

When I click on 'see' in verse 15, the following is what displays at the bottom of the page.

1492
eidw
eido
i'-do
a primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equivalent optanomai - optanomai 3700 and oraw - horao 3708; properly, to see (literally or figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to know:--be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot. Compare optanomai - optanomai 3700.


Then if I click on 1492 it opens a new window listing all the verses that Greek word is found in, and that it lists Matthew 24:15 plus several hundred more verses.

And if I click on 3708 horao, the word you see being used in that verse, I'm not seeing Matthew 24:15 listed. The only verses it lists from the book of Matthew using 'horao are the following verses---Matthew 8:4, Matthew 9:30, Matthew 16:6, Matthew 18:10, Matthew 24:6.

I don't know what to make of that. When I look on blueletterbible.org it shows that it's translated from "horao". In the list of verses that use horao (3708) I see Matthew 24:15 on the list along with Mark 13:14 and Luke 21:20. The word horao can also mean to perceive or to know, but when I look at other verses where the word is used it's almost always used in the sense of literally seeing something. So, I feel certain that it's used in the sense of literally, physically seeing something with someone's own eyes in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. I'm sure you would agree it's used that way in Luke 21:20. What does your software show for the Greek word translated as "see" in Luke 21:20?

How would someone mentally or spiritually perceive something standing in the holy place rather than literally see something standing in the holy place?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Ok, so we can at Least find some agreement that the OT prophets used the figurative language of stars falling, sun and moon not giving light, heavens and earth shaking, etc to indicate the terror and/or overthrow of kingdoms and governments.

1.) Since Peter, in his last letter, had just stated that “the end of all things had drawn near”, the verb being in the perfect tense thus indicative of literal nearness (1 peter 4:7),

It means it was continually approaching and not that it was literally near. It could have been literally near for all anyone knew, but only the Father knows the day or hour (Matt 24:36) that it will occur. Something can be continually approaching for a long time. And, Christ's return, which will bring the end of all things as we know them, has been approaching for what we (but not the Lord) consider a long time.

then i would argue that the removal of literal heavens and earth is not in view. Instead, this supports the consistent interpretation of this passage as being metaphorical for the overthrow of israel, as used in the OT, because as we know, the literal entire earth didn’t pass away.

The burning up of the literal heavens and earth clearly is in view because in 2 Peter 3:13 Peter indicated that the result of the burning up of the heavens and earth that he just described in the previous verses would be the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells.

It makes perfect sense that if if this earth with all its wickedness was burned up and renewed then all that would be left on the new earth is righteousness with wickedness being no more. That lines up with what John wrote in Revelation 21:1-4 which is that when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in there will be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain. Sin and wickedness lead to death, sorrow, crying and pain, so Revelation 21:4 implies not just no more death, sorrow, crying and pain, but no more sin and wickedness. That has clearly not yet occurred.

2.)Peter contrasted the pre flood “heavens and earth” with the “heavens and earth” that “now exist”. The pre flood”heavens and earth” were destroyed by water. The “the heavens and earth” that “now existed” in Peter’s day were reserved for fire.

But, the literal earth was destroyed by water in Noah's day. Peter compared the future destruction of the existing earth by fire directly to that. He was comparing like events that involve the physical destruction of the earth. And just not physical destruction of the earth, but physical destruction of the entire earth. So, you are not interpreting 2nd Peter 3 in the correct context.

 

[Hammster]

If the end of the age was 70 AD, then please explain how the following occurred in 70 AD.

Matthew 13:47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Those are speaking of different ages. There are multiple ages throughout scripture. Context helps determine the difference.

 

[Timtofly]

There is no way, contextually, that the apostles were asking, and Jesus was answering, about the end of an age tha hadn't even begun, nor did the apostles have any idea WOULD begin, when they asked about "the end of the age".

Of course they were. Jesus was going away, which literally ended, that age. His return on Resurrection Sunday was not "The Return". They were not being persecuted in the age that ended on the Cross. They were still with Jesus Christ.

The OT ended at the Cross, not 40 years later. They were persecuted, imprisoned, and martyred within months of the Cross. That did not start 40 years later. It also did not end 40 years later. People today are still put in prison, and martyred for the Gospel's sake.

 

[apollosdtr]

No, no, no. No. I am not saying that Jesus would have still considered it the holy place even after His death and resurrection. I thought I made that clear? I'm pretty sure I did. I'm saying that at the time He was speaking, which was obviously before His death and resurrection, the temple or Jerusalem itself was still considered the holy place. It was not wrong to refer to the temple or the city as the holy place at that time. And just because someone may have called the temple or the city the holy place at the time doesn't mean that they were implying that it would still be considered the holy place in the future when they talked about something that would happen in the location of what was then considered the holy place.

Luke makes that easy for us. Since he was writing to a Gentile audience that wouldn't have known anything about any prophecy in the book of Daniel, Luke spelled it out as to how it should be understood. It had to do with Roman armies standing in and around Jerusalem while surrounding it.

Daniel 9:26-27 talks about the destruction of the city and the sanctuary which just happens to be what Jesus partially talked about as well. So, I think it makes a lot of sense to look there first to determine what He was talking about.

Luke didn't know anything about the Sabbath Day, mentioned in Matthew's account, either... Because this isn't about gentiles... these are the "enemies" in Revelation 11:12, who give glory to God, and become the remnant of Revelation 12:17.

Daniel 9:26-27 And after the sixty-two weeks, the Anointed One shall be destroyed and there is no judgment in Him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations. 27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.LXX
(Daniel 10:20-21 And he said, Knowest thou, wherefore I am come to thee? and now I will return to fight with the prince of the Persians: and I was going in, and the prince of the Greeks came. 21 But I will tell thee that which is ordained in the scripture of truth: and there is no one that holds with me in these matters but Michael your prince.
Revelation 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority... the prince that is coming is the lion from Babylon... huh)

Revelation 11:1-3 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 3 And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.KJV

So the temple was either still standing when John wrote down the Revelation, or it'll be rebuilt before the two witnesses...

 

[claninja]

You're acting like you're stating a fact here when you're just giving opinions. You THINK the word is always used to specifically describe a group of people living at a certain time, but I disagree.

He referred to "this generation" as being a type of people who were wicked, sinful and adulterous. The type of people who had existed ever since Cain killed Abel. Yes, Jesus predicted the destruction of those type of people in Jerusalem who lived at that time, but He also indicated that certain things would happen first before that type of people would pass away completely. Many of the wicked, sinful and adulterous Jews were killed in 70 AD, but not all of them. Some were taken captive and brought to other nations. They will not completely pass away until Jesus returns in the future which will bring an end to this temporal age and at which time heaven and earth, as we know them, will pass away.

Please demonstrate where any definition defines genea as a “type of people throughout time, non contemporaneous”.

 

[claninja]

Not really sure of what you're talking about here. Though it's not made clear in Mark and Luke, it is clear in Matthew that Jesus was asked two different questions. One relating to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings and one related to His coming and the end of the age. Do you think Matthew made a mistake by recording those as two different questions?

inconsistent interpretation.

Your argument is the same as when dispensationals claim Luke’s armies surrounding Jerusalem is not the same as Matthew and marks AOD.

Mathew, Mark, and Luke are parallel passages. the disciples’ question should be understood as the same.

Question 1
Matthew- when will these things happen,
Mark-Tell us, when will these things happen?
Luke-when will these things happen?

Question 2
Matthew-and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”
Mark-And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”
Luke-And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Therefore, what will be the SIGN they are about to be fulfilled? = what will be the SIGN of your coming and the end of the age?

Matthew doesn’t give any more information about the 2nd question than he does about the AOD.

 

[claninja]

It means it was continually approaching and not that it was literally near. It could have been literally near for all anyone knew, but only the Father knows the day or hour (Matt 24:36) that it will occur. Something can be continually approaching for a long time. And, Christ's return, which will bring the end of all things as we know them, has been approaching for what we (but not the Lord) consider a long time.

please demonstrate how the “perfect indicative active” in Greek means continual. I cannot find any source that agrees with what you claim.

“The perfect tense is used to describe completed action in the present time (i.e. I have studied Greek). ”
(LESSON XII: Perfect and Pluperfect Indicative Active)

“1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence ('It is here') because the moment of this coming happened (i.e. at the beginning of Jesus' ministry)" (J. Schlosser).”

The burning up of the literal heavens and earth clearly is in view because in 2 Peter 3:13 Peter indicated that the result of the burning up of the heavens and earth that he just described in the previous verses would be the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells.

It makes perfect sense that if if this earth with all its wickedness was burned up and renewed then all that would be left on the new earth is righteousness with wickedness being no more. That lines up with what John wrote in Revelation 21:1-4 which is that when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in there will be no more death, sorrow, crying or pain. Sin and wickedness lead to death, sorrow, crying and pain, so Revelation 21:4 implies not just no more death, sorrow, crying and pain, but no more sin and wickedness. That has clearly not yet occurred.

But, the literal earth was destroyed by water in Noah's day. Peter compared the future destruction of the existing earth by fire directly to that. He was comparing like events that involve the physical destruction of the earth. And just not physical destruction of the earth, but physical destruction of the entire earth. So, you are not interpreting 2nd Peter 3 in the correct context.

The earth we live on now is a completely different rock than pre flood?

 

[Zao is life]

Show me where scripture teaches that the term "Judea" could be understood as referring to the church of God. You're not going to convince me of anything with your words alone. Back up your claim with scripture, please.

What did Jesus mean when He indicated that fleeing would be a problem for nursing mothers and pregnant women if He wasn't talking in terms of literally, physically fleeing to the mountains? What did Jesus mean when He indicated that fleeing would be a problem in the winter or on the sabbath if He wasn't talking in terms of literally, physically fleeing to the mountains?

What I meant is that you have not explained your understanding of Matthew 24:19-20 in particular. If you are going to claim that the holy place refers to the church and that the entire passage of Matthew 24:15-22 is figurative or spiritual language, then you should be able to tell me your understanding of what Matthew 24:19-20 means.

The miracle you try to work with the words the holy place is fake. You're saying Jesus never mentioned this about such an important sign: "I'm calling it the holy place now but it won't be the holy place anymore when My words are fulfilled."

What Jesus says to one church in the Revelation, He says to all. Does His message to the church at Pergamos not apply to us because the church at Pergamos no longer eixsts?

What He says to those in Judea He says to all.

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus told His disciples about:-

1. The coming destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6 & Luke 21:20-24).

2. The great tribulation His disciples would experience at the time of the end of the Age in the days preceding His return, when He comes in the clouds (Matthew 24:9-28; Mark 13:9-23; Luke 21:12-19).

3. The redemption of His disciples from the great tribulation at the the time of His return (Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28).

It is in the midst of telling His disciples about the great tribulation that they would experience at the end of the Age, and in this context that He says,

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then (Greek: toteh: "at the time of") let those in Judea flee into the mountains..." (Matthew 24:15-16 ff; Mark 13:14 ff).

The Jerusalem temple stopped being the holy place (the holy place of the presence of God) when the veil in it was torn in two when Jesus died on the cross.

Note:

1. It's quite obvious that whether in Judea or Canada, the disciples of Jesus are being told to flee "into the mountains" (or into the country, but the point is they are being told to flee) when they see it, and for those living in most parts of the world, it would be especially difficult if their flight would take place in the winter.

2. It should be quite obvious why they are told to flee. Matthew says the disciples will be killed, and many will stumble and fall away, and those who don't fall away will be betrayed by many who do fall away. Mark says brother will betray brother to death. Luke says the disciples will be delivered up to the authorities.

Not only so, but when the beast is judged, we are told the following by Jesus in His Revelation: Revelation 16:17-21

Note: It's quite clear by the very grammar in the passage that in the Olivet Discourse Jesus spoke a great deal more about the great tribulation that His disciples would experience at the time of the end in the days immediately preceding His return, than He spoke about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

The entire discourse and the grammar used makes it clear that it sufficed Jesus to speak about the coming destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6 & Luke 21:20-24.

Strange indeed to some Christians (not to me), but true. Aside from saying that armies were going to gather around Jerusalem and the city and temple would be destroyed, Jesus did not give a long discourse about the details of it.

Instead, He gave a long discourse about the details regarding the great tribulation His disciples would experience at the end of the Age and the time of His return, and the sign our Lord gave to us that we should flee out of the towns and cities, is the abomination of desolation in the holy place (the church).

In other words, when we see the final son of perdition seating himself up in the church and claiming to be God, then we will know that it's time to flee. We will also know it by the apostasy that Jesus and Paul told us will accompany it.

Jesus did not have to give His disciples who lived before or after 70 A.D a whole lot more detail than He did about the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. He told them that the city and temple was going to be destroyed and when they see the armies gather against Jerusalem they should flee. No more, and no less.

It has nothing to do with the abomination of desolation in the holy place that is the sign for His disciples who would be living at the end of the Age and the time of His return.