Luke doesn't actually add anything, as he doesn't mention the AoD at all.
Luke does add something
and he doesn't mention the AoD.
It appears to be a completely different situation.
It may be a different occasion but the particulars of the commentary, beginning with the question to be answered, "
Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" is nearly identical. Jesus did not give different answers to the same question just because he was standing on a different parcel of land.
One must consider that the questions that Matthew and Mark recorded are not the same as for Luke.
Except they are.
Matthew and Mark had an eschatological bent. Luke dealt with AD 70....
Which would make Luke eschatological.
The Bible is written from a Jewish perspective.
No, the Bible was written from the Divine perspective.
If you do not consider it from a Jewish perspective, you are going to miss a lot.
I did consider it. I have expounded on Matthew 24 many times in many posts in many forums.
HERE is one example. The event of Matthew 24 itself (the leaving of the temple and traversing the saddle to the Mount of Olives, the question asked and answered are simply events that occurred in a single day that began in Mathhew 21 at verse 18 and continued on through Matthew 26:5. Those five chapters cover one day. It is, therefore,
always inappropriate to pick out one paragraph and treat it as if it does not have any correlation with everything else that happened that day. There's a reason Matthew took so much time to report on the events of that day
and there is a reason Mark and Matthew saw fit to repeat that content (even if they have Jesus' words occurring at different events. Luke's paring Jesus answer to the question, "When will these things happen?" is still the day after Jesus entered Jerusalem (see Luke 19). Jesus did a lot of stuff that day. It was a very busy day,
It was a day rooted in a plethora of Old Testament precedents and contexts.
It's
you who has not considered the "
Jewish perspective" correctly. Jesus' cleaning out the temple is straight out of
Leviticus 14:33-57. Every Jew in that city would have understood what Jesus was doing the minute he declared the temple a den of thieves, and those that didn't understand would have done so when the news of Jesus indicting the Pharisees made the rounds.
That is the "
Jewish perspective." I'm pretty sure I have told you many times the Jews mucked a bunch of stuff up so they cannot be relied upon to properly understand scripture. Discernment has to be used. Discernment has to be used to properly sort out what the Jews correctly understood and what they perverted. Using an example of perverted "
Jewish perspective" to render scripture leads to more perversion, not truth. This poses enormous problems for Dispensational Premillennialists/modern futurists because they Judaize nearly everything.
The Jews mucked up the priesthood. The Jews mucked up the monarchy. The Jews mucked up the Messiah. The Jews mucked up the temple,, the throne, the kingdom, and a pile of other divine revelation. Using Jewish muck-ups to understand scripture leads to falsehoods, not truth.
For instance, the book of Hebrews. Why was it written? One important point is that it was written to Hebrews/Jews who were considering going back to Judaism to avoid persecution..................
The problem here is that you've just left the op.
Yes, the book of Hebrews was written to address concerns among Jewish converts to
The Way of The Messiah, or The Way of Jesus, which
at the time of Acts 24, was a sect within Judaism. By the time the book of Hebrews was written, however, followers of The Way had become known as "
little christs," or Christians. The title of the book, Hebrews, is a title given to the book long after it was written. The author of that book is not the one who called it "
Hebrews." The book is called Hebrews because it addresses concerns of Hebrew converts,
not Jewish ones. When the whole of scripture is consulted you will find the word "
Hebrew" and the word "
Jew"
are not synonymous.
More importantly, the entire content of the book of Hebrews is proof of what I stated above:
Jews mucked up God's revelation. We don't need the book of Hebrews to understand that because all four gospels is a testimony to how badly the Jews (and Judaism) mucked up God's words. Jesus repeatedly corrects Judaism and rabbinical teaching. Every time we read Jesus saying, "
You have heard it said X , but I say, (and he ten corrects their error) , that is an example of Jesus correcting a muck-up by the Jews.
As Jesus approached Jerusalem his parables moved away from soteriology to eschatology. They moved away from salvation to judgment. Over the course of the day that is recorded between Matthew 21:18 - 26:5 (and Mark 11:27 - 13:37 and Luke 19:47 - 21:38) Jesus is constantly quoting from, citing, referencing, and alluding to Old Testament content....... or what you would call the "
Jewish perspective." The problem is Jesus is near-constantly correcting
their Jewish perspective and, therefore, yours, too. The cleansing of the temple is rooted in the Levitical Law. The mention of the fig tree is rooted in several of the Old Testament prophets (and the judgment of Israel). Jesus response to the challenge of his authority is rooted in the psalms and Isaiah. The parable of the two sons is rooted in Ezekiel and Hosea. The parable of the landowner is straight out of Isaiah 5 &28, Daniel 2, and Psalm 118. Every single step of the way the Jews in Jesus' audience would have recognized all those OT references.
Matthew 21:45
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.
Jesus was speaking about
them. In other words, Jesus was NOT speaking about people living thousands of years later. ALL of those Old Testament references were brought to bear on the Jews, Jewish leaders, and mucked-up Judaism of the first century. Very little in first century Judaism was a correct rendering of God's original words. Jesus did not teach something entirely new. He taught something
restored; restored to its original true meaning. I can walk you through all 11 chapters in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and show where the Old Testament references are, the references the Jews in his audience would have recognized, the references brought to bear
on that one single solitary day, the day after Jesus entered Jerusalem. Two days later he'd be dead. Three days after that he be alive again. Everything said in that day, in all three gospels cited, in all 11 chapters, is eschatological.
All three gospels do comment on the abomination of desolation, and I have not couched my posts firmly in the context of God's whole revelation (Old and New) and the "
Jewish perspective." The Jews of Jesus' day thought the temple was God's house. Jesus informed them of the truth. They had turned the temple into a den of thieves
and God does not dwell in houses built by humans hands!!! The "
Jewish perspective" was a mucked up. The Law required the den of thieves to be destroyed because
after Jesus cleaned it out, the infestation of corruption returned. It didn't even take seven days. It too less than one. The rot inside was visible every time the Jewish leaders came to challenge Jesus. The rot was visible every time they cowered, every time they acquiesced to politics, every time they thought to kill Jesus, every time the Messiah stood right in front of them
fulfilling messianic prophecy and they denied his position.
They were the leprosy. They were the abomination. They had made Israel desolate..... and the Jews happily went along because long, long ago they'd become covenant breakers so chronically that God divorced them. All the everlasting promises of destruction found in God's covenants would be brought to bear on them. The entire land was desolate.
It was an abomination.
And things got worse. The Zealots captured Jerusalem for themselves and waged war against the Romans. They murdered the Jewish leaders, many of them within the inner courts of the temple, bathing its floor and walls in blood. They mocked God's words under the delusion they were they purists, they could usurp the priests and stand as Judge over God's people who were no longer God's people. They made modern-day Islamic jihadists look like amateurs. The Romans, who had been exceptionally tolerant with the Jews over the centuries, had enough. With everyone else the Romans either flattened the local temple or took it over for one of their gods, but in Jerusalem they were so impressed with its majesty that they permitted it to stand
and stand as a Jewish temple. No more. Just as God had used other pagan armies in the past to judge Israel, He used Rome. Rome paid for mercenaries from nine different countries to form ten armies. They surrounded Jerusalem, laid seige to it, and over the course of seven years the destroyed nearly everything in Israel, including the temple in Jerusalem. The fires burned so profusely when Jerusalem was destroyed that the smoke blotted out the sun. The het was so intense the gold in which the temple was clad melted into the crevices between the stones. No mortar had been used to build the temple. Its stones were so finely hewn in disobedience of God's command never to hew stones when building an altar that they did not need mortar. That pride work of sinful flesh would be the undoing of the temple. Soldiers in that day got paid by the loot they could scavenge after a battle. The soldiers pried apart the stones, eventually commandeering plows from the countryside with which they tore up the foundation of the temple.
Not one stone stood upon another. The only thing left was the retaining wall built by Herod.
Just as
Adam and Eve's disobedience was further burdened by God, just as
Pharoah's hard heart was hardened, just as
God made deaf and blind the already blind and deaf, just as
those who deny God's power are given over to their lusts, God completed the desolation the Jews had created.
Just do a word search for "
desolation" in the Old Testament and see how often desolation is a promised by God.
Do a search for "
abomination," too.
The AoD is not a person. It's not something or someone in
our future, either.
