WW III and the rebuilding of the temple

[Arial]

Matt 24 @TMSO

The questions put to Jesus in all three accounts were "When would these things be?" and "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" Three questions. The questions themselves likely appear to us to be unrelated so we must ask ourselves why the disciples treated them as related. For the disciples the "destruction of the temple would be such a momentous event that it must be mean the end of the age was at hand. (*Hagner Matt 14-28) Also the coming of the Lord and the end of the age were linked together.

When Jesus answered the questions he made plain that the coming destruction of temple (their first question) was not the end of the age or his return. Their were two coming judgments. One in which national Israel would be cut off, and her people scattered. Another judgement will occur when he returns and will signal the end of the age. The first would occur in a single generation (a.d.70). Jesus sets forth a series of times of the end describing them as birth pains. These would accompany the God's judgement on apostate Israel but would also characterize the entire church age---the time between the two advents. They warn of future judgement, but not its time. They were given to the disciples (and us) as a comfort in what was about to happen. Given not as things to be speculated about but are signs of the certainty of his return.

In verse 15 where Jesus speaks of an unsurpassed tribulation he refers to tribulation in Israel's history and is referring to the destruction of the temple. This is made clear by the parallel passage in Luke 21:20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies you will know that its desolation is near." It comes directly from Dan 11:31 and 12:11. The abomination of desolation that precedes the destruction of the city.

Abomination--the abominable thing cause the temple to be deserted. The pious Jew would avoid it.

 

[CrowCross]

That makes no sense. Clarify.

For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." Matt 24:21."

If AD70 was this tribulation Jesus spoke of....how was it worse than the destruction of the first temple?

 

[CrowCross]

In verse 15 where Jesus speaks of an unsurpassed tribulation he refers to tribulation in Israel's history and is referring to the destruction of the temple.

If AD70 was this tribulation Jesus spoke of....how was it worse than the destruction of the first temple?

 

[3 Resurrections]

If AD70 was this tribulation Jesus spoke of....how was it worse than the destruction of the first temple?

Christ was not referring to a superior body count of victims for this "Great tribulation" period. Neither was He comparing the episodes of temple destruction. He was referring to a particular type of tribulation that had never been experienced before nor since that time.

This unprecedented type of tribulation occurred in Israel's first-century experience was done by the entire Satanic realm descending upon that "wicked generation" which Christ called His own first-century Israelite generation in Matthew 12:43-45. Christ predicted this oppression of Israel by a complete, seven-fold level of the most wicked unclean spirits coming upon them in their "last state". This was going to render them even more miserable than during their "first state" when He and the disciples had been casting devils out of those in Israel's cities to which He and His disciples were ministering.

The scriptures portray demon possession as being quite prevalent in Israel in those days of Christ's ministry - so much so, that all 70 disciples who Christ commissioned to go to the cities of Israel returned to Christ with rejoicing that the devils were subject to them in Jesus's name (Luke 10:17).

The level of demonic oppression may have been bad at that time, but Christ predicted that it would get much, much worse for Israel during its "last state". The ENTIRE Satanic realm was going to plague them in those AD 66-70 years when Satan was granted a "short time" and a "little season" to do his most intensive, deceptive work on earth. THIS was the type of tribulation which Christ was referring to when speaking of the "Great tribulation". No nation either before or since then has experienced that ultimate level of demonic oppression of its citizens.

 

[Arial]

If AD70 was this tribulation Jesus spoke of....how was it worse than the destruction of the first temple?

Read my entire post, with comprehension, and don't ask questions that were answered in the post.

 

[Arial]

For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." Matt 24:21."

If AD70 was this tribulation Jesus spoke of....how was it worse than the destruction of the first temple?

How was the destruction of the first temple worse than a.d.70? It is Jesus who said it. Not me. Ask him. Did you read the links I posted?

 

[TMSO]

The six million happened in Europe, not Israel. Keep track of the question.

Except that I was talking about the 1.1 million in the 1st century. You lost track. I didn't talk about the 6 million in that comment. That came earlier to say that there was event worse than the 1st century in the history of the world, since Jesus said it was in the history of the world, not Israel. You mixed my comments together.

 

[TMSO]

I never have so why do you say such a thing?

I had forgotten to go back and say something, but you did change what Jesus said. To say that this is how you understand what Jesus says to mean, and give reasons is one thing. To say "I will word it slightly differently." is to change what Jesus said. Below you will see that when compared, the two renditions do not line up.

He is talking to Jews though and about Jerusalem, among other things. So let what follows count as addressing the assertions about the matter in your entire post.

Understanding the Structure of Matt 24.
One of the best ways to understand the structure is by comparing Matt 24 with the same accounts in Luke and Mark. To my knowledge those who use Matt 24 as proof of a future seven year tribulation (or 31/2 year, never do this and never use either of the other two accounts. So I will quote Luke 21 here and Mark 13 in the following post, and then begin on the structure of Matt.

5And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6“As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 7And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” 8And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them. 9And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified, for these things must first take place, but the end will not be at once.”

As you can see, it is different because all the disciples asked was when will the days come when there will not be left here one stone upon another... When will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place? Notice they didn't ask about Jesus coming. So there is already a difference in comparing this with Matthew.

Jesus Foretells Wars and Persecution

10Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. 12But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake. 13This will be your opportunity to bear witness. 14Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, 15for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. 16You will be delivered up even by parents and brothersc and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. 17You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. 18But not a hair of your head will perish. 19By your endurance you will gain your lives.

Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem

20“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

So, some differences:
1. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. (Luke) When you see the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place (Matthew)
2. For these are days of vengeance. (Luke) For then there will be a great tribulation (Matthew)
3. This is not a big difference because LUke here says that there will be great distress upon the Earth. (Great tribulation) Upon the Earth. So that is kind of in line with Matthew. However, this adds that there will be wrath against this people. So it is two fold.
4. I shouldn't have to point out that there is nothing here about the days being shortened, and also nothing about all flesh dying since the days were not shortened. (In fact, it is extended out to "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled".)

The Coming of the Son of Man

25“And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

Notice how this telling of Jesus return does not link up with the above destruction as the second coming links up with the Great Tribulation in Matthew. There is no "and immediately afterwards" present in Luke. Also notice how this is not aimed at the Jews/Israel but at the world. "on the Earth distress of nations in perplexity" and "people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world". This is not Israel or the Jews. What is for Israel and the Jews? "Straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

Do note the above is far from perfect, however, the differences between Luke make it difficult to compare. Both Matthew and Luke had goals with what they were writing, so it is possible that it affected what they covered. Notice how Luke doesn't deal with Jesus coming since he didn't even bother dealing with the disciples question of Jesus coming. That already changes what the answer will be. The above I give is my understanding and trying to mesh to Matthew. I give my understanding of what Jesus said.

There is nothing definitive here in comparing with Matthew. If anything, it makes it even more obscure, and seems to greatly increase the possibility that we have multi-fulfillment prophecy between Matthew and Luke.

 

[TMSO]

I meant frame, which is what you did say. That the discourse was framed by "world."

Why do you produce divergents in conversations in this way? It would help if you would stay focused on the subject.

It isn't divergent. That is Matthew 24. Before the end the word will be preached throughout all the nations. That changes things in Matthew.

I am not ignoring the relevant content here, but I am going to address it in a separate post.

Not interpreting them as you do does not mean they are being ignored.

What event though? If you are going to say the Great Tribulation of Revelation then you must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the events in Revelation are contained within a seven or three and a half year time period.

The Great Tribulation of Revelation? You are leaving behind prophecies. Matthew and Revelation are not the only prophecies of eschatology in the Bible. A large chunk of the Old Testament is eschatology. The Jews got it right. What they got wrong is that their Messiah was going to come to Earth twice. Once as the suffering servant, and then as King. They allegorized the prophecies and poof, there went Messiah's first coming. This is why we don't like spiritualizing prophecies. That is how the Jews missed Jesus literally prophesied first coming.

Yes.

I say no. Still Israel. The flood was far greater of a tribulation for one thing.

Okay. So we go with Jesus lied.

 

[TMSO]

Matt 24 @TMSO

The questions put to Jesus in all three accounts were "When would these things be?" and "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" Three questions. The questions themselves likely appear to us to be unrelated so we must ask ourselves why the disciples treated them as related. For the disciples the "destruction of the temple would be such a momentous event that it must be mean the end of the age was at hand. (*Hagner Matt 14-28) Also the coming of the Lord and the end of the age were linked together.

When Jesus answered the questions he made plain that the coming destruction of temple (their first question) was not the end of the age or his return. Their were two coming judgments. One in which national Israel would be cut off, and her people scattered. Another judgement will occur when he returns and will signal the end of the age. The first would occur in a single generation (a.d.70). Jesus sets forth a series of times of the end describing them as birth pains. These would accompany the God's judgement on apostate Israel but would also characterize the entire church age---the time between the two advents. They warn of future judgement, but not its time. They were given to the disciples (and us) as a comfort in what was about to happen. Given not as things to be speculated about but are signs of the certainty of his return.

In verse 15 where Jesus speaks of an unsurpassed tribulation he refers to tribulation in Israel's history and is referring to the destruction of the temple. This is made clear by the parallel passage in Luke 21:20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies you will know that its desolation is near." It comes directly from Dan 11:31 and 12:11. The abomination of desolation that precedes the destruction of the city.

Abomination--the abominable thing cause the temple to be deserted. The pious Jew would avoid it.

You have to look at the disciples. They were Jews (obviously). They would have spent their lives in the temple/sanctuary learning about God from the religious leaders. They also would have learned all about Jewish eschatology. This is where the questions were coming from. They had their knowledge, and what Jesus was saying didn't line up with what they knew. They knew the Messiah would be a conquering king who would conquer their enemies and bring in the Messianic Kingdom. So, they wanted to know when what Jesus said would happen. They then wanted to know what the sign would be when Jesus comes as Messiah King, when He is revealed and takes His position, and the end of the age. Two things the Jews believed in eschatology. Once the Messiah King conquers and brings in His kingdom, the complete end follows. The end of the age. Luke seems to only deal with the question of what Jesus said about the destruction of Jerusalem. When will this all happen, and what signs will there be when it is about to happen.

In Luke he is speaking of the destruction of the temple, but in Matthew it is different. No armies surrounding Jerusalem mentioned in Matthew. No one being led captive. No extension of the Great Tribulation through to the times of the Gentiles is completed. In fact, it says that the times are shorted, or everyone would be led captive... I mean, there would be no flesh left alive. The fact that Jesus didn't differentiate means He meant everyone would die. Jews and Gentiles. I believe this Great Tribulation, at least the end and the cutting short, is spoken of at the end of Revelation 19. The 3 1/2 years in Revelation starts when the beast is revealed and comes in the power of Satan as Anti christ. I believe, well, lean towards believing that the first 3 1/2 years is the beast/Antichrist being everyone's best friend. Then comes a moment, which is the abomination of desolation, where he is fully revealed, and Satan/Antichrist declares himself to be the one true God inside God's own temple. That marks the beginning of the Great Tribulation. As to whether it is exactly 3 1/2 years, that depends on God and how God determined it to unfold. We won't know exactly when Jesus returns. He will show up to save His elect from Satan and his allies.

 

[Arial]

I had forgotten to go back and say something, but you did change what Jesus said. To say that this is how you understand what Jesus says to mean, and give reasons is one thing. To say "I will word it slightly differently." is to change what Jesus said. Below you will see that when compared, the two renditions do not line up.

You need to show where I said "I will word it slightly differently". Show what I worded differently. If you are applying that as a statement I made and what I did which is what you address below, it is egregious. I posted verbatim the accounts of the conversation between Jesus and his disciples in Luke 21 and Mark 13 that is also in Matt 24. So what you are saying is that no comparisons can be made and nothing in the other accounts matters, just the one you want to use to interpret your beliefs. Why are they even in our Bible if they are not important and shed light on more difficult passages? Which one would be the liar? Matthew, Mark, or Luke?

As you can see, it is different because all the disciples asked was when will the days come when there will not be left here one stone upon another... When will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place? Notice they didn't ask about Jesus coming. So there is already a difference in comparing this with Matthew.

It is the same conversation, written by different persons, whose accounts have their own perspective and purpose. And yet, all are the inspired word of God. So to say we can't take into consideration the account given by Mark or Luke because Matthew has more and different words that are more suitable to a favored interpretation of eschatology is nothing more than picking and choosing according to presuppositions, with no desire to get at what God is saying. Why not derive all your teaching and beliefs from the Mark account or the Luke account instead of only the Matthew account? Why not instead of jumping to conclusions from the Matthew account alone and assuming then that you are right, compare all three accounts to see if it clarifies those things that are in dispute in eschatological views? After all---they are probably in our Bible for a reason. And why not check all the OT references made in those accounts to see how Jesus is interpreting them with authority in the NT?

To be continued in order to shorten the posts.

 

[Arial]

So, some differences:
1. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. (Luke) When you see the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place (Matthew)

That is because there are two different men writing. Are you saying the Bible cannot be trusted?
But look at the part you "conveniently" left out. Luke 21:20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come." It was the abomination of desolation in the temple that signaled what? Jerusalem's desolation. Which I am guessing you do not like Luke's way of saying it because it identifies the desolation of Jerusalem (and Israel) in a.d.70 as the desolation you prefer to be sometime in the future and the ultimate sign of Jesus' return. Jesus then proceeds to list exactly what happened in a.d.70. And history shows that a pig was slaughtered and the Holy Place overrun by Gentiles where they were not allowed. They themselves desecrated the temple. It was deserted, desolate, no longer a meeting place with God. And it will remain desolate until "the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

2. For these are days of vengeance. (Luke) For then there will be a great tribulation (Matthew)

Vengeance is great tribulation. Straining out gnats and swallowing a camel. Desperation on display.

3. This is not a big difference because LUke here says that there will be great distress upon the Earth. (Great tribulation) Upon the Earth. So that is kind of in line with Matthew. However, this adds that there will be wrath against this people. So it is two fold.

Glad the word of God has your semi-approval.

4. I shouldn't have to point out that there is nothing here about the days being shortened, and also nothing about all flesh dying since the days were not shortened. (In fact, it is extended out to "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled".)

Perhaps it doesn't mention all flesh dying because all flesh does not die and that is not what Matthew said. Matthew, in his account, simply is more detailed, but he is still referring to the destruction of the temple and the carnage of that time. Which was cut short for the sake of the elect who lived there. Luke is focused on another aspect. He is not extending the war of a.d.70 until the times of the Gentiles is finished. He is referring to Israel remaining desolate until the time of the Gentiles is finished and when it is finished----until the last elect Gentile (and Jew) has been gathered to the shepherd of the flock Jerusalem will remain desolate---God no longer dwelling with them in the place of worship in the Holy Place.

 

[Arial]

Notice how this telling of Jesus return does not link up with the above destruction as the second coming links up with the Great Tribulation in Matthew.

Or else you do not understand what Jesus means by the tribulation, superimposing a meaning onto it. And/or not being able to ascertain which things apply to which things in the discourse. You bring a doctrine into the scriptures instead of doing all the work necessary to bring the teaching out of the scriptures (comparing the gospel accounts is a help there. But instead you simply say the other two accounts are incomplete or inaccurate. You interpret Revelation a certain way and then use Matt 24 singularly to support it. Whereas Revelation is interpreting OT passages and Jesus in them.

There is no "and immediately afterwards" present in Luke

No, because Luke is structured differently. And he writes differently than Matthew. But Luke tells the same thing and in the ESV anyway, it is under the heading of The Coming of the Son of Man.

These are the headings the discourse is divided into in Luke.

Jesus Foretells Destruction of the Temple (5-9)
Jesus Foretells Wars and Persecution (10-19)
Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem (20-24)
The Coming of the Son of Man (25-28)
The Lesson of the Fig Tree (29-33)
Watch Yourselves (34-38)

IMO it is a much better organized piece of writing. But because of that it leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation and vain speculation.

Do note the above is far from perfect, however, the differences between Luke make it difficult to compare

Well no reason to leave poor Mark out of the equation.Comparing them does not mean pitting them against each other. It means letting what is clear define what is less clear on the same subject.

Notice how Luke doesn't deal with Jesus coming since he didn't even bother dealing with the disciples question of Jesus coming.

He did deal with it. Versed 25-28.

There is nothing definitive here in comparing with Matthew. If anything, it makes it even more obscure, and seems to greatly increase the possibility that we have multi-fulfillment prophecy between Matthew and Luke.

Nonsense. It does not make Matt more obscure. It messes with the beliefs you are wed to is all.

 

[Arial]

The Great Tribulation of Revelation? You are leaving behind prophecies. Matthew and Revelation are not the only prophecies of eschatology in the Bible

I didn't leave out anything. I ask for proof of a specific thing. That being that the prophecies IN Revelation all take place in a seven or 31/2 year period of time you call the Great tribulation?

A large chunk of the Old Testament is eschatology.

But not all eschatological prophecy in the OT is about the end of the age and it is questionable (very questionable if the whole counsel of God correctly interpreted is considered) if any of it has to do with seven or 31/2 years before Christ's return. The majority of it has to do with Christ's first advent, the coming of Messiah as Son of Man.

The Jews got it right. What they got wrong is that their Messiah was going to come to Earth twice. Once as the suffering servant, and then as King. They allegorized the prophecies and poof, there went Messiah's first coming. This is why we don't like spiritualizing prophecies. That is how the Jews missed Jesus literally prophesied first coming.

They missed it for exactly the opposite reason. Because they did not see the spiritual aspects of the prophecy. Call it allegorizing if you wish. They thought Messiah was an earthly king and deliverer from all Israel's enemies. To wage war and not be under the dominion of other nations and kings ever again. They did not know the same thing Christians today still do not seem to know and who retain that same national, earthly, kingdom of Israel, as one of Jesus's purposes. It was not even God's purpose for Israel in the first place. They were to be a witness to the rest of the world of his kingship over creation and all that is in it, and to reveal him to the world just as he had revealed himself to Israel. Same mission the church has. God's goal is not nation building but redemption of the whole creation through Christ redeeming citizens for that kingdom. Israel was one step towards that goal, not because of the nation as a nation, but because of the Seed.

Okay. So we go with Jesus lied.

Wow! That was a rather arrogant leap. You could say that maybe your understanding is wrong. If the flood was a greater tribulation than anything coming and it beats anything we see in Revelation---then Jesus must not have been referring to that seven or 31/2 years you say he is speaking of. What would be greater than the flood is if earth and all that is in it ceased to exist and everyone spent eternity in torment, separated from God.

 

[Arial]

duplicate

 

[Arial]

Except that I was talking about the 1.1 million in the 1st century. You lost track. I didn't talk about the 6 million in that comment. That came earlier to say that there was event worse than the 1st century in the history of the world, since Jesus said it was in the history of the world, not Israel. You mixed my comments together.

An easy way to answer given what He said would be to ask if Israel has ever faced a time in its history that would be considered categorically worse then the death of about 1 million people. The question to ask would be, do you consider the holocaust and all of that to be a worse time then any time in the history of the Jewish people.

 

[Mr GLee]

The questions put to Jesus in all three accounts were "When would these things be?" and "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" Three questions. The questions themselves likely appear to us to be unrelated so we must ask ourselves why the disciples treated them as related. For the disciples the "destruction of the temple would be such a momentous event that it must be mean the end of the age was at hand. (*Hagner Matt 14-28) Also the coming of the Lord and the end of the age were linked together.

No saign s were given to wonder after as if prophecy .Normal stuff history repeating itself because of moral issues

When Jesus walked out for the last time in Mathew 23 of the abomination of desolation (kings in Israel .He declared it is desolate .Not in 70 AD when a few bricks fell

Believer have prohecy no need to wonder, wonder, wonder after (Limbo)

 

[TMSO]

You need to show where I said "I will word it slightly differently". Show what I worded differently. If you are applying that as a statement I made and what I did which is what you address below, it is egregious. I posted verbatim the accounts of the conversation between Jesus and his disciples in Luke 21 and Mark 13 that is also in Matt 24.

Except they don't all line up, so you changed what Jesus said in Matthew 24.

 

[TMSO]

That is because there are two different men writing. Are you saying the Bible cannot be trusted?
But look at the part you "conveniently" left out. Luke 21:20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come." It was the abomination of desolation in the temple that signaled what? Jerusalem's desolation. Which I am guessing you do not like Luke's way of saying it because it identifies the desolation of Jerusalem (and Israel) in a.d.70 as the desolation you prefer to be sometime in the future and the ultimate sign of Jesus' return. Jesus then proceeds to list exactly what happened in a.d.70. And history shows that a pig was slaughtered and the Holy Place overrun by Gentiles where they were not allowed. They themselves desecrated the temple. It was deserted, desolate, no longer a meeting place with God. And it will remain desolate until "the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Vengeance is great tribulation. Straining out gnats and swallowing a camel. Desperation on display.

Glad the word of God has your semi-approval.

Wow. Okay. The ad hominem is non-stop. Tribulation is stress, pressure, etc. Vengeance is killing. As in, my business is killing, and business is gooood. I never heard God say, tribulation is mine, sayeth the Lord, and mean that He was going to destroy His enemies.

 

[TMSO]

Except that I was talking about the 1.1 million in the 1st century. You lost track. I didn't talk about the 6 million in that comment. That came earlier to say that there was event worse than the 1st century in the history of the world, since Jesus said it was in the history of the world, not Israel. You mixed my comments together.

An easy way to answer given what He said would be to ask if Israel has ever faced a time in its history that would be considered categorically worse then the death of about 1 million people. The question to ask would be, do you consider the holocaust and all of that to be a worse time then any time in the history of the Jewish people.

We could make this a poll. Does anyone see 6 million mentioned in the lower quote, or just the upper? I think you got lost due to the number of times I mentioned 6 million, and then I stopped.