What is "The Great tribulation"?

[jgr]

The Roman army was not the Abomination of Desolation.
It could not have been, because it did not result in the temple being cleansed and restored, and did not result in the return of Jesus.

The Roman army was the abomination of desolation. Matthew 24:15; paralleled by Luke 21:20

The holy place was the holy city of Jerusalem.

Nothing to do with the return of Jesus.

 

[Jamdoc]

His disciples who were physically present at His discourse.



Mark 13:30

1074 [e]
genea
γενεὰ
generation
N-NFS

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30

in all 3 Synoptic Gospels Jesus was referring to those who would witness the events He was talking about would witness ALL of the events He was talking about. IE no partial preterism 2000 year gap between the abomination of Desolation and the second coming of Jesus.
That's the point of the parable of the fig tree, and I'd argue that the Fig Tree being Jerusalem or Israel as a whole clues us that it is THIS generation not the 1st century generation, which witnessed the withering of the fig tree, not the sprouting of new leaves.

Partial Preterism is perhaps the most illogical eschatalogical position to hold because it argues against Jesus' teaching that all the events would happen within 1 generation.

You either have full preterism (in which case, you shouldn't be posting here), or full futurism
a partial disagrees with Jesus, and full disagrees with reality.

 

[jgr]

in all 3 Synoptic Gospels Jesus was referring to those who would witness the events He was talking about would witness ALL of the events He was talking about. IE no partial preterism 2000 year gap between the abomination of Desolation and the second coming of Jesus.
That's the point of the parable of the fig tree, and I'd argue that the Fig Tree being Jerusalem or Israel as a whole clues us that it is THIS generation not the 1st century generation, which witnessed the withering of the fig tree, not the sprouting of new leaves.

Partial Preterism is perhaps the most illogical eschatalogical position to hold because it argues against Jesus' teaching that all the events would happen within 1 generation.

You either have full preterism (in which case, you shouldn't be posting here), or full futurism
a partial disagrees with Jesus, and full disagrees with reality.

Jesus did not tell His disciples that everything that He was about to say had zero relevance to them.

It is inconceivable that an event of the magnitude and significance of the destruction of Jerusalem would be irrelevant to the believers of that time.

They certainly considered it relevant, for they heeded Jesus' warnings, fled prior to the invasion, and survived.

Had they been dispensational futurists, they would have ignored Jesus' warnings as irrelevant, and perished.

Who are "ye" in Luke 21:8?

 

[Jamdoc]

Jesus did not tell His disciples that everything that He was about to say had no relevance at all to them.

Who are "ye" in Luke 21:8?

I already said, believer's, disciples.
it's for us as much as them.

since you want to use Luke specifically...

32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

You cannot defend partial preterism in light of this.
If the abomination of desolation happened in the past, so did the second coming of Christ.
There is no wiggle room for a 2000 year gap.

and if Christ returned in AD 70, when did He go back to heaven, why isn't He physically on earth now ruling forever and ever as promised.
Why are death and sin still things that exist?

It's like you're on a limb, using "this generation shall not pass away" to refer to the apostles, and then saw the limb you're sitting on off at the base so you fall down when "till all be fulfilled" comes in.

 

[jgr]

I already said, believer's, disciples.
it's for us as much as them.

since you want to use Luke specifically...



You cannot defend partial preterism in light of this.
If the abomination of desolation happened in the past, so did the second coming of Christ.
There is no wiggle room for a 2000 year gap.

and if Christ returned in AD 70, when did He go back to heaven, why isn't He physically on earth now ruling forever and ever as promised.
Why are death and sin still things that exist?

It's like you're on a limb, using "this generation shall not pass away" to refer to the apostles, and then saw the limb you're sitting on off at the base so you fall down when "till all be fulfilled" comes in.

What Matthew 24 verses do you consider to be relevant, and irrelevant, to the disciples, and to us?

 

[Jamdoc]

What Matthew 24 verses do you consider to be relevant, and irrelevant, to the disciples, and to us?

It's all relevant to all believers including the Apostles because Jesus did not know the exact time this would happen.
He declares He does not know in Mark 13:32.

So every generation, including the apostles, has been expecting this to happen in their lifetimes since then.

Had Jesus known a date, we'd clearly know a timeline. Jesus knew the events that'd happen, but not the date, so He gave the events to watch for, not a date. Jesus also knew that when these things started happening, they'd happen quickly, and declared it'd be over the course of a generation (disabling partial preterism, as I keep putting out there, but you apparently keep ignoring)

In all 3 synoptic gospels, the disciples ask when
But instead of giving a time, Jesus gives signs and events to watch for, and says nobody knows when but the Father.

 

[jgr]

It's all relevant to all believers including the Apostles because Jesus did not know the exact time this would happen.
He declares He does not know in Mark 13:32.

So every generation, including the apostles, has been expecting this to happen in their lifetimes since then.

Had Jesus known a date, we'd clearly know a timeline. Jesus knew the events that'd happen, but not the date, so He gave the events to watch for, not a date. Jesus also knew that when these things started happening, they'd happen quickly, and declared it'd be over the course of a generation (disabling partial preterism, as I keep putting out there, but you apparently keep ignoring)

In all 3 synoptic gospels, the disciples ask when
But instead of giving a time, Jesus gives signs and events to watch for, and says nobody knows when but the Father.

You didn't answer the question, so here it is again:

Which Matthew 24 verses do you consider to be relevant, and which do you consider to be irrelevant, to the disciples, and to us?

Specific verse numbers, please.

 

[Jamdoc]

You didn't answer the question, so here it is again:

Which Matthew 24 verses do you consider to be relevant, and which do you consider to be irrelevant, to the disciples, and to us?

Specific verse numbers, please.

The entire chapter is relevant to all believers, of every generation, and I explained why, because Jesus did not know the time.
Therefore His teachings stand until He returns.

You're coming at this from the angle that Jesus knew the time, and told the disciples in front of Him the things that'd happen within their lifetimes (meaning He'd have to know the time, which He said He did not), which would make the entire chapter irrelevant to us because that'd make it already all fulfilled.

Or you're playing remix DJ, which I think is what you're mainly doing
and just cutting and throwing out that "all" part and just going with "till some of this is fulfilled" to throw a partial preterist spin on all of it, that some could be fulfilled then and some thousands of years later.
That's not at all what Jesus taught.

Pretribs like to play remix DJ with the olivet discourse too.
They think it's for them until they get to Matthew 24:29-31 then they chop that up and say "that's to unbelieving Jews"

It's all relevant to all believers, and to all believers it was given, both those in front of Him physically, and those who read it later, across all generations, until this actually plays out.

 

[jgr]

The entire chapter is relevant to all believers, of every generation, and I explained why, because Jesus did not know the time.
Therefore His teachings stand until He returns.

You're coming at this from the angle that Jesus knew the time, and told the disciples in front of Him the things that'd happen within their lifetimes (meaning He'd have to know the time, which He said He did not), which would make the entire chapter irrelevant to us because that'd make it already all fulfilled.

Or you're playing remix DJ, which I think is what you're mainly doing
and just cutting and throwing out that "all" part and just going with "till some of this is fulfilled" to throw a partial preterist spin on all of it, that some could be fulfilled then and some thousands of years later.
That's not at all what Jesus taught.

Pretribs like to play remix DJ with the olivet discourse too.
They think it's for them until they get to Matthew 24:29-31 then they chop that up and say "that's to unbelieving Jews"

It's all relevant to all believers, and to all believers it was given, both those in front of Him physically, and those who read it later, across all generations, until this actually plays out.

So you believe that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in its entirety in the time of the disciples, and continues to be fulfilled every day since.

How many times has Jesus appeared at the Mount of Olives during this time?

 

[Jamdoc]

So you believe that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in its entirety in the time of the disciples, and continues to be fulfilled every day since.

How many times has Jesus appeared at the Mount of Olives during this time?

No I believe it was not fulfilled.
perhaps a precursor fulfillment showing the withering of the fig tree
but not the restoration of the fig tree and the Abomination of Desolation, Great Tribulation, and return of Christ.

I am saying that you cannot chop it up and say "this happened 2000 years ago, but this part hasn't happened yet". Jesus precludes that by saying that that generation won't pass away until ALL is fulfilled.

That forces either full preterism, or full futurism.
Partial does not work at all.

So I ask you again, have you decided to disconnect from reality and go full preterist, in which case, thank you and goodbye since that's not allowed in this subforum....
or full futurist.

I'm a full futurist.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No I believe it was not fulfilled.
perhaps a precursor fulfillment showing the withering of the fig tree
but not the restoration of the fig tree and the Abomination of Desolation, Great Tribulation, and return of Christ.

I am saying that you cannot chop it up and say "this happened 2000 years ago, but this part hasn't happened yet". Jesus precludes that by saying that that generation won't pass away until ALL is fulfilled.

That forces either full preterism, or full futurism.
Partial does not work at all.

So I ask you again, have you decided to disconnect from reality and go full preterist, in which case, thank you and goodbye since that's not allowed in this subforum....
or full futurist.

I'm a full futurist.

You're a full futurist? Who knew? It's hilarious to me that you act as if those (full preterist or full futurist) are the only two possible options when it comes to interpreting the Olivet Discourse.

Are you somehow forgetting that the discourse starts out with the disciples marveling at the temple buildings and Jesus telling them that they would be destroyed? The disciples then asked him two questions, one of which had to do with the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. Why do you act as if the destruction of the temple buildings has nothing to do with anything that Jesus talked about? You can't just ignore that He was asked about that.

Both preterists and futurists like yourself miss that Jesus talked about two different events in the Olivet Discourse. One was local to the area in and around Jerusalem. That already happened long ago. The other is global. That has not yet happened. Interpreting it any other way results in the nonsensical conclusions that both preterists and futurists draw from the text. Such as the preterist conclusions that Christ's coming, the gathering of the elect, heaven and earth passing away, and the end of the age have already occurred (no, they have not). And such as the futurist conclusion that Jesus didn't answer the question regarding when the temple buildings would be destroyed (why not?). Some think that the answer is only recorded in Luke 21 and not Matthew 24 and Mark 13 (nonsense - give me a break), so that's how they keep their belief that Matthew 24 (and Mark 13) only relate to the future intact. That's just a case of twisting scripture and nothing more.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Stop ignoring that Jesus said ALL of those things, including His second coming and the gathering of the elect would take place within 1 generation.
please.

No, He said that "this generation" would not pass away until all those things happened first. That does not mean that all those things had to occur within (or to) "this generation".

In other words He did not say that everything He talked about had to occur within (or to) this generation. He was only saying that this generation would not pass away before the last thing to happen that He talked about occurred first. You're making the text say what you want it to say instead of paying attention to what it actually says.

 

[Jamdoc]

No, He said that "this generation" would not pass away until all those things happened first. That does not mean that all those things had to occur within (or to) "this generation".

In other words He did not say that everything He talked about had to occur within (or to) this generation. He was only saying that this generation would not pass away before the last thing to happen that He talked about occurred first. You're making the text say what you want it to say instead of paying attention to what it actually says.

ALL fulfilled, not part.
and the last thing talked about was His return.
so if you take "this generation" as the Apostles, then Jesus was saying the apostles would see His return before they passed away.
did that happen?
Look around.

 

[jgr]

ALL fulfilled, not part.
and the last thing talked about was His return.
so if you take "this generation" as the Apostles, then Jesus was saying the apostles would see His return before they passed away.
did that happen?
Look around.

You deny that Matthew 24 and the parallel Scriptures contain descriptions of events and conditions relating to the historical destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

So then what Scripture does contain descriptions of events and conditions relating to the historical destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

ALL fulfilled, not part.

Again, Jesus didn't say that all would be fulfilled within one generation. You are reading that into the text. He said that this generation would pass away once all was fulfilled, but did not say that all had to be fulfilled within one chronological generation. He clearly talked both about things that happened around 70 AD (the destruction of the temple buildings), but He also talked about things that would be ongoing (earthquakes, wars, famines, etc.) and about things that still haven't happened yet (like His coming at the end of the age when the elect are gathered).

and the last thing talked about was His return.
so if you take "this generation" as the Apostles, then Jesus was saying the apostles would see His return before they passed away.
did that happen?
Look around.

I don't take "this generation" as the Apostles. I see "this generation" as referring to a type of people that Jesus elsewhere called evil, adulterous and wicked. In the next verse after Jesus said "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Matt 24:34) He said "Heaven and earth will pass away". I believe He was implying that this generation would pass away when heaven and earth pass away, which I believe will happen when He returns (2 Peter 3:3-13). So, I certainly don't take "this generation" to refer to the apostles.

 

[Jamdoc]

Futurism would not be persuaded, even though every Jew crucified during the great tribulation of 70 AD rose from the dead.

There's still sin, and still death.. and Jesus promised the end of both when He returns. It's that simple.

 

[DavidPT]

There's still sin, and still death.. and Jesus promised the end of both when He returns. It's that simple.

Are you now an Amil? Or maybe you have been Amil this entire time but that I never realized it? If satan's little season is after His return this would mean there is still death after His return, yet you said His return puts an end to it.

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them .

What I have underlined if that doesn't involve death what does it involve?

 

[DavidPT]

Futurism would not be persuaded, even though every Christian who escaped the great tribulation of 70 AD rose from the dead.

In Matthew 24 it mentions the elect in a cpl of verses. Who do you take the elect to be meaning in those verses and why? Me, I take them to mean the saved, IOW of the church. Which means that great trib is cut short for their sakes, which makes zero sense since they all got out safely before what happened to Jerusalem happened to it.

 

[jgr]

In Matthew 24 it mentions the elect in a cpl of verses. Who do you take the elect to be meaning in those verses and why? Me, I take them to mean the saved, IOW of the church. Which means that great trib is cut short for their sakes, which makes zero sense since they all got out safely before what happened to Jerusalem happened to it.

I will defer to Bro. Ralph Woodrow for the explanation:

• 
  Matthew: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (24:21, 22).
  
  Mark: “For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days” (13:19, 20).
  
  Luke: “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled . . . for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles” (21:22-24).
  

"The prophecy that Jesus gave continues with these words: “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved [alive]; but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (Mt. 24:22; Mk. 13:20).

We must bear in mind that the reference here is to the area upon which the tribulation of those days fell — Judea and Jerusalem. It should not be wrested from its proper setting.

Concerning the destruction that came upon this same land and city in the Old Testament, we read: “Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate . . . Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:1, 7, 9). With the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, of course, there was no flesh saved alive. It was total destruction.

There is an obvious similarity here. In the Old Testament, “Except the Lord” had left a remnant, no flesh would have been saved alive. In the New Testament, “Except the Lord” had shortened the days, there would no flesh be saved alive. The meaning is basically the same in both cases.

We will notice in more detail later that the destruction that came upon that land and people was the judgment of God. It was no mere accident that things happened the way they did. The tribulation had definite bounds, however; it could only continue for a limited period of time. The days, we are plainly told, had been shortened. The Gentile armies could only go so far!

Looking at Luke’s account of “the days of vengeance” and “great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people”, we read: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles.” Now, who were the Gentiles that did this? It was Titus and his armies. And how long were they to tread it down? “Until the times of the Gentiles [Titus and his armies] be fulfilled” (Lk. 21:24). In other words, only a certain length of time was allotted for them to carry out the work of judgment; or, as Matthew and Mark put it, the days had been shortened!

Some have pulled these five words, “The times of the Gentiles”, out of their setting and have attempted to stretch them into a long age of time for which there is no real proof in this passage. One noted writer of the dispensational school says: “`the times of the Gentiles’ covers the entire period during which the nation of the Jews, the city of Jerusalem, and the land of Palestine are under Gentile domination. This began with Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Palestine and will end at the Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven at the close of the Great Tribulation.”2 This is the teaching set forth in the notes of the Scofield Bible.3

But considering the setting, this verse about “the times of the Gentiles” is not talking about who is ruling Jerusalem, it is talking about Jerusalem being trodden down. It is not talking about long ages of time, but of Jerusalem being trodden down by Gentiles, the Gentiles being those that destroyed it in 70 A.D. — Titus and his armies!

It was no exaggeration when Jesus spoke about no flesh being saved alive in that land upon which his judgment came. Josephus informs us that “the populace was almost annihilated . . . there was no part of Judea, which did not partake of the calamities of the capital city.” But for the elect’s sake, those days were shortened; the times allotted the Gentile armies to inflict that tribulation were limited. Though the Christians had escaped into the mountains, living without housing or provisions, they too could have eventually been destroyed by sword or famine if those days of tribulation had not been shortened."

 

[DavidPT]

I will defer to Bro. Ralph Woodrow for the explanation:

• 
  Matthew: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (24:21, 22).
  
  Mark: “For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days” (13:19, 20).
  
  Luke: “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled . . . for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles” (21:22-24).
  

"The prophecy that Jesus gave continues with these words: “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved [alive]; but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” (Mt. 24:22; Mk. 13:20).

We must bear in mind that the reference here is to the area upon which the tribulation of those days fell — Judea and Jerusalem. It should not be wrested from its proper setting.

Concerning the destruction that came upon this same land and city in the Old Testament, we read: “Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate . . . Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:1, 7, 9). With the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, of course, there was no flesh saved alive. It was total destruction.

There is an obvious similarity here. In the Old Testament, “Except the Lord” had left a remnant, no flesh would have been saved alive. In the New Testament, “Except the Lord” had shortened the days, there would no flesh be saved alive. The meaning is basically the same in both cases.

We will notice in more detail later that the destruction that came upon that land and people was the judgment of God. It was no mere accident that things happened the way they did. The tribulation had definite bounds, however; it could only continue for a limited period of time. The days, we are plainly told, had been shortened. The Gentile armies could only go so far!

Looking at Luke’s account of “the days of vengeance” and “great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people”, we read: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles.” Now, who were the Gentiles that did this? It was Titus and his armies. And how long were they to tread it down? “Until the times of the Gentiles [Titus and his armies] be fulfilled” (Lk. 21:24). In other words, only a certain length of time was allotted for them to carry out the work of judgment; or, as Matthew and Mark put it, the days had been shortened!

Some have pulled these five words, “The times of the Gentiles”, out of their setting and have attempted to stretch them into a long age of time for which there is no real proof in this passage. One noted writer of the dispensational school says: “`the times of the Gentiles’ covers the entire period during which the nation of the Jews, the city of Jerusalem, and the land of Palestine are under Gentile domination. This began with Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Palestine and will end at the Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven at the close of the Great Tribulation.”2 This is the teaching set forth in the notes of the Scofield Bible.3

But considering the setting, this verse about “the times of the Gentiles” is not talking about who is ruling Jerusalem, it is talking about Jerusalem being trodden down. It is not talking about long ages of time, but of Jerusalem being trodden down by Gentiles, the Gentiles being those that destroyed it in 70 A.D. — Titus and his armies!

It was no exaggeration when Jesus spoke about no flesh being saved alive in that land upon which his judgment came. Josephus informs us that “the populace was almost annihilated . . . there was no part of Judea, which did not partake of the calamities of the capital city.” But for the elect’s sake, those days were shortened; the times allotted the Gentile armies to inflict that tribulation were limited. Though the Christians had escaped into the mountains, living without housing or provisions, they too could have eventually been destroyed by sword or famine if those days of tribulation had not been shortened."

At the end of that article you submitted, there was an interesting point being made, I guess, that being this---"Though the Christians had escaped into the mountains, living without housing or provisions, they too could have eventually been destroyed by sword or famine if those days of tribulation had not been shortened". Maybe that's a valid point, maybe it isn't. I don't know yet, since I haven't had time to give it much thought.