I appreciate your honesty by admitting that you would be unable to make sense of verses 15-21 if verse 14 is meaning the end of this age.
When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?
- Thread starter Davidpt
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I appreciate your honesty by admitting that you would be unable to make sense of verses 15-21 if verse 14 is meaning the end of this age.
I submitted the following to chatgpt to get it's opinion.
--------------
Me:
An interpreter is arguing with another interpreter who insists dual fulfillments are found in the Bible and that this other interpreter is arguing against the concept of dual fulfillments in the Bible. This same interpreter though, the one arguing against dual fulfillments, takes Matthew 24:21 to be involving 70 AD while taking Daniel 12:1 to be involving the final days of this age, for example.
Both passages have this in common.
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 there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time
Isn't he then contradicting what he is arguing against, dual fulfillments, by interpreting Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 in the manner he is?
----------------------------
ChatGPT said:
Yes, you're raising a very sharp and important point. If the interpreter rejects the concept of dual fulfillments—the idea that a prophecy can have an initial, partial fulfillment in one historical context and a fuller or final fulfillment in another—but still claims that:
Matthew 24:21 refers to 70 AD, and
Daniel 12:1 refers to the end times/final tribulation,
despite the fact that both texts describe an unparalleled, singular time of trouble, then he is indeed employing a form of dual fulfillment, whether he admits it or not.
Here's why this is a contradiction:
Both Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 use absolute, superlative language:
Matthew 24:21: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."
Daniel 12:1: "There shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time."
These statements seem to refer to the same unique, unparalleled event. It would be inconsistent to say:
Matthew 24:21 describes the greatest tribulation that ever will be (in 70 AD),
But Daniel 12:1 describes a different, yet also greatest tribulation ever (in the end times).
Logically, there can only be one “worst ever” time of trouble. So treating these as different events—while insisting that there are no dual fulfillments—is problematic. Either:
He must acknowledge that the texts refer to the same event (either both 70 AD or both end times),
Or he must accept that at least one of them has a dual aspect—a shadow in 70 AD and a fuller expression later—thus implicitly accepting the principle of dual fulfillment.
Conclusion:
Yes, his handling of these passages is contradictory. If he opposes dual fulfillment in principle but interprets these two similar verses as referring to separate events—both labeled as "unequaled"—then he is applying a dual-fulfillment framework without calling it that.
What we have to keep in mind here, that works both ways. Well except in @Spiritual Israelite case. He is obviously an exception in this case. He always seems to be able to find ways around things others are unable to find ways around. The fact I do take verse 14 to be meaning the end of this age, I am then unable to make sense of verses 15-21 if those verses are supposed to be meaning the first century and 70 AD according to numerous interpreters.
As to verse 14 I tend to think Jesus is applying this in more than one manner. By the end meant, He is meaning the end of this age and that the fulfilling of verses 15-21 is the beginning of the end. Meaning what follows these events is the end meant in verse 14, and that what verses 15-21 is involving begins the final countdown. Which might mean, that this part is already fulfilled---And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations---before what is recorded in verses 15-21 begin. IOW, per my view this could mean a time of testing for those that were saved when this gospel was being preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations. Meaning the ones still alive in the end of this age.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
How do you make sense of Luke 21:20-24 being related to 70 AD when you believe that verse 19 relates to the end of this age (it is parallel to Matthew 24:13)?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Congratulations on not being the only one who believes what you do. As if I didn't already know that. I didn't claim otherwise, so you don't have to constantly prove that you're not the only one who believes something. Can you please address the rest of what I said in post 638?
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Then:
1. What is the explanation for Paul's declarations that the gospel had penetrated globally in his day?
2. Why is the word for "end" not "sunteleia", consistent with its usage in verse 3?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Was my question not clear? Can you not answer it? Which prophecies exactly in Revelation in relation to the 7 churches do you believe have a dual fulfillment?
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. No, it is not. Nothing is self evident when it comes to you. You are very evasive. Why can't you just answer the question? You come across like you have things to hide.
So, should I assume that you think all of Revelation 2 and 3 happens twice? Should I assume you believe that the following happened to the people of the church in Smyrna in the first century and will somehow happen to the people of the church in Smyrna again in the future even though the church in Smyrna no longer exists? A tribulation of ten days will occur again in a church that no longer exists?
Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; 9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. 10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
By the same token how do you make sense of Luke 21:24 being related to 70 AD when you do not believe that Luke 21:25 relates to 70 AD?
24 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, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Have you been following the whole discussion? You seem to not be understanding the point I was making there. David was arguing that it doesn't make sense to believe that Jesus was talking about things related to His future second coming and the end of the age up until Matthew 24:14 and then changed to talking about 70 AD starting in verse 15 and then went back to talking about things related His coming and the end of the age again at some point after that (starting in verse 23, I assume). So, in light of that, he was asking how it can make sense for Jesus to switch from talking about the future end of the age in verse 14 to 70 AD in verse 15.
So, I asked in response to him saying that: "How do you make sense of Luke 21:20-24 being related to 70 AD when you believe that verse 19 relates to the end of this age (it is parallel to Matthew 24:13)?". The point of the question was to show that he does the very same thing with his interpretation of Luke 21 that he criticizes people like me about in relation to how we interpret Matthew 24. So, I'm wondering why it's okay for him to interpret Luke 21 the way he does, but not okay for me to interpret Matthew 24 the way I do when, in each case, we see Jesus first talking about things related to His second coming followed by Him talking about things related to 70 AD and then back to talking about things related to His second coming again after that.
To answer your question here, my response is that He was asked two questions. One relating to the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time that He had just told the disciples would be destroyed. The other question was in relation to His second coming at the end of the age. So, where else did Jesus answer that question in Luke 21 except for Luke 21:20-24? I think it's clear that is where He answered that question. But, in verse 24 he talked about "the times of the Gentiles" taking place from the time of that local tribulation in Jerusalem on. So, there is "the times of the Gentiles" taking place between what happened in 70 AD and the day Christ returns. In verse 25 Jesus transitioned from talking about things related to 70 AD that would be followed by the times of the Gentiles to talking about things that would happen at the end of the times of the Gentiles at the time of His second coming.
Last edited:
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
I don't believe He spoke specifically of the temple again at all. If you compare all three synoptic gospels He opens His reply by talking about two things:
1.Birth-pain signs near the end of the age; and
2. Persecution & tribulation which Luke records Jesus saying His disciples would experience BEFORE the birth-pain signs, but Matthew records as taking place at the time of the end of the age, once the gospel has been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations (Mark 13 does not make it clear whether the tribulation Jesus was saying His disciples will endure would be before, or after the birth-pain signs - or before and after).
All three gospels record Jesus also speaking about the end of the age and His return - so that's the third subject Jesus spoke about in His reply to their loaded question.
But none of the three gospels record Him mentioning the temple specifically in His reply, though they had specifically asked about the temple. (Luke only records Jesus mentioning Jerusalem - but not specifically the temple).
IMO Jesus deliberately did not speak specifically about the temple again in His reply to them, because all He had to say about the temple and its destruction, He had already said before leaving the Temple Mount and making His way to the Mount of Olives.
So IMO He was not going to tell them when that destruction of the temple would come.
(and when Acts and the epistles were written, it had not yet occurred, and there is no hint in any of the books that were penned later that He had answered the disciples' specific question about when the temple would be destroyed. They simply did not know).
IMO mentioning the destruction of Jerusalem was done with the intent that the disciples could be warned to flee when they saw armies gathering around Jerusalem. But the destruction of the temple was not important to Jesus in what Luke 21:20-24 records Him saying.
But that's just my opinion.
But neither was the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem important to what Matthew recorded Jesus saying in Matthew 24:15, IMO. (I agree with @Davidpt regarding what he believes about Matthew 24:15 - that it's talking about the same thing Paul later wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and I really do not believe that the grammar allows for Mathew 24:15 not to be referring to Matthew 24:9-14, or for the grammar of Matthew 24:16-31 not to be referring to the same things mentioned in Matthew 24:9-15.
It's also possible that what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 will be fulfilled again. In other words there might be two signs telling the disciples who are in Judea to flee - armies gathered around Jerusalem (again) AND the man of sin setting Himself up in the church and being followed by apostate Christians.
I understand your valid argument about the disciples being told to flee when they see armies gathered around Jerusalem and Matthew 24:16 giving the exact same instruction - but you don't acknowledge the validity of my argument regarding the grammar of Matthew 19:15's use of the word "therefore" just after what Jesus said recorded in Matthew 24:9-14, or regarding the words "the holy place", and how the words "and", "but", "therefore", "for" etc bind Matthew 24:9-31 into one passage talking about one and the same period of tribulation - the great tribulation (of the saints).
But the jury is still out on ALL our opinions about this, IMO. And there's also at least a possibility that armies are going to gather around Jerusalem AGAIN, and that this will coincide with the man of sin setting himself up in the church, and apostate Christians following him - two signs for the saints in Judea that they must flee Judea (but that's also speculative). Speculative but not bizarre - because Israel's enemies want its destruction and they loathe the Jews. All it would take is for the man of sin to go into an alliance with them to annihilate the Jews. Any disciples of Jesus in Judea would need to flee if that occurred.
But the jury is still out on ALL our opinions about this, IMO. In the Olivet Discourse I let Matthew speak for Matthew and Luke speak for Luke, but most importantly, I let Jesus speak for Jesus - and because it's not 100% clear what sort of timing He was giving for the AoD, I don't speak for Him - but at the same time can't see how it refers to the Jerusalem temple.
1.Birth-pain signs near the end of the age; and
2. Persecution & tribulation which Luke records Jesus saying His disciples would experience BEFORE the birth-pain signs, but Matthew records as taking place at the time of the end of the age, once the gospel has been preached in all the world as a witness to all nations (Mark 13 does not make it clear whether the tribulation Jesus was saying His disciples will endure would be before, or after the birth-pain signs - or before and after).
All three gospels record Jesus also speaking about the end of the age and His return - so that's the third subject Jesus spoke about in His reply to their loaded question.
But none of the three gospels record Him mentioning the temple specifically in His reply, though they had specifically asked about the temple. (Luke only records Jesus mentioning Jerusalem - but not specifically the temple).
IMO Jesus deliberately did not speak specifically about the temple again in His reply to them, because all He had to say about the temple and its destruction, He had already said before leaving the Temple Mount and making His way to the Mount of Olives.
So IMO He was not going to tell them when that destruction of the temple would come.
(and when Acts and the epistles were written, it had not yet occurred, and there is no hint in any of the books that were penned later that He had answered the disciples' specific question about when the temple would be destroyed. They simply did not know).
IMO mentioning the destruction of Jerusalem was done with the intent that the disciples could be warned to flee when they saw armies gathering around Jerusalem. But the destruction of the temple was not important to Jesus in what Luke 21:20-24 records Him saying.
But that's just my opinion.
But neither was the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem important to what Matthew recorded Jesus saying in Matthew 24:15, IMO. (I agree with @Davidpt regarding what he believes about Matthew 24:15 - that it's talking about the same thing Paul later wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and I really do not believe that the grammar allows for Mathew 24:15 not to be referring to Matthew 24:9-14, or for the grammar of Matthew 24:16-31 not to be referring to the same things mentioned in Matthew 24:9-15.
It's also possible that what is recorded in Luke 21:20-24 will be fulfilled again. In other words there might be two signs telling the disciples who are in Judea to flee - armies gathered around Jerusalem (again) AND the man of sin setting Himself up in the church and being followed by apostate Christians.
I understand your valid argument about the disciples being told to flee when they see armies gathered around Jerusalem and Matthew 24:16 giving the exact same instruction - but you don't acknowledge the validity of my argument regarding the grammar of Matthew 19:15's use of the word "therefore" just after what Jesus said recorded in Matthew 24:9-14, or regarding the words "the holy place", and how the words "and", "but", "therefore", "for" etc bind Matthew 24:9-31 into one passage talking about one and the same period of tribulation - the great tribulation (of the saints).
But the jury is still out on ALL our opinions about this, IMO. And there's also at least a possibility that armies are going to gather around Jerusalem AGAIN, and that this will coincide with the man of sin setting himself up in the church, and apostate Christians following him - two signs for the saints in Judea that they must flee Judea (but that's also speculative). Speculative but not bizarre - because Israel's enemies want its destruction and they loathe the Jews. All it would take is for the man of sin to go into an alliance with them to annihilate the Jews. Any disciples of Jesus in Judea would need to flee if that occurred.
But the jury is still out on ALL our opinions about this, IMO. In the Olivet Discourse I let Matthew speak for Matthew and Luke speak for Luke, but most importantly, I let Jesus speak for Jesus - and because it's not 100% clear what sort of timing He was giving for the AoD, I don't speak for Him - but at the same time can't see how it refers to the Jerusalem temple.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Why not, though? Why would He not answer that question at all, knowing how significant the temple was to the Jews, including His disciples? And, knowing how shocking it must have been for the disciples to hear Him say that the temple buildings that they admired so much would be destroyed.
If He didn't want to answer that question, then why wouldn't He have told them that He was not going to answer it? Without Him clarifying that to them, how would they have known that nothing He was saying had anything to do with their first question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed? Especially when it comes to Luke 21:20-24 where He specifically mentions Jerusalem in relation to being made desolate? Jerusalem, obviously, was where the temple buildings were located, so I can't imagine, if He did not tell them He was not answering that question, that they would have understood that what He said in that passage was not His answer to that question.
I'm not following you here. Those were written before 70 AD, so, of course, they would not have known yet when exactly it would happen. But, they would have known it would happen soon after Jerusalem was surrounded by armies (and the abomination of desolation was standing in the holy place).
Are you thinking that just because no date or year was given for when the temple would be destroyed that means Jesus didn't answer the question of when it would happen? If someone asked a person when they are going to retire and they answer that they will retire when they have some certain amount of money saved up, does that mean their question wasn't answered since no exact date or year was given for when they would retire? No, right? The question was answered in terms of what would indicate that it was time for them to retire, but they just didn't say exactly when.
So, in light of that, would it not be a viable answer to their question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed for Jesus to say "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."? There is nothing which demands that He could only answer the question by giving them an exact day or year of when it would occur, right?
Well, in my opinion, I disagree, but I also don't fully understand what you are saying here. So, I'm not even completely sure what I'm disagreeing with in relation to what you're saying here beyond just disagreeing that Luke 21:20-24 is not related to the destruction of the temple buildings.
What is your understanding of Luke 21:20-24 then? Do you not see it as being parallel to Matthew 24:15-21 since you don't see it as being related to the destruction of the temple buildings?
Wait...I must have missed something here. So, you do believe that that Luke 21:20-24 was fulfilled in 70 AD? You understand that the temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD, right? So, I can't understand how you can believe that passage relates to what happened in 70 AD, but at the same time can't allow for the possibility that Jesus's answer to the question of when the temple buildings would be destroyed was “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies...".
As for believing in dual fulfillment, I don't know if you've seen the thread where that topic has been discussed? If so, you know how I feel about that. If you haven't seen it, then I'll just say that I don't believe in the concept of dual fulfillment because, if that was possible, how can we ever know when a Bible prophecy has been completely fulfilled? Could the Jews be taken captive in Babylon (which was located within what is now the nation of Iraq) again and then return from Babylon again? I know that seems like a ridiculous question, but I'm just trying to illustrate what kind of things people could try to claim if we allow for dual fulfillments of Bible prophecy. I can't accept that there is such a thing as that. Just giving my honest opinion. Not trying to be abrasive here.
Where is that indicated anywhere in the text, though? Only one sign was asked about, not two.
Note: I'll have to divide this post into two posts because of the 10,000 character limit, so to be continued in the next post...
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I don't recall talking to you about these things. Have we talked about those particular things before? If so, it wasn't recently. As for "the holy place", have you ever seen what I've said to David about that? The temple standing at that time was still the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking, right? It stopped being the holy place when the temple veil was torn in two when Jesus died. Since it was still the holy place at the time Jesus was speaking, does that mean it necessarily had to still be considered the holy place when the abomination of desolation was standing there? I don't believe so. Both Jews and Roman soldiers did abominable things there before it was destroyed including murdering people and bringing false idols there and worshiping false gods there and other abominable things.
As for your claim about the word "therefore" in verse 15, I acknowledge that it's a valid argument now even if I didn't at some point in the past when we have discussed this. But, a valid argument just means it's is a real, valid possibility.
I still disagree with your interpretation, though. Though, it would be easy to just agree instead while claiming double fulfillment of all of Matthew 24 and then I would be correct no matter how I interpret it. You say it was fulfilled in the past? I agree! You say it will be fulfilled in the future? I agree! I'm just kidding. No, I don't want to take the easy way out.
My overall understanding of things does not allow for having some abomination of desolation occuring at some future physical temple that would be called "the holy place". No, the holy place now is the church. That is now the temple of God and God no longer dwells in temples made with hands. I understand that may well be your understanding of the holy place in Matthew 24:15, that it's referring to the church. But, in that case, what would people in Judea having to flee to the mountains mean in a spiritual sense? Why would it be difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women to flee in a spiritual sense? Why would it be more difficult to flee in the winter or on the Sabbath in a spiritual sense? I've never seen convincing answers to those questions from people who see a spiritual fulfillment of that passage.
Now, I realize that in order to disagree with your point about the word "therefore" in verse 15 that I would need to prove that the Greek word translated as "therefore" in verse 15, which is "oun" (Strong's G3767), does not necessarily have to point directly back to what was just being talked about in the previous verse. Can I do that? Yes.
Romans 11:30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” 35 “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” 36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen. 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.
So, in the passage above, in Romans 12:1, we can see Paul using the word therefore to point back to something he had previously said, but it's not something he said in the previous verse. Instead, he was pointing back to something he had been saying about God's mercy in Romans 11:30-32 and Romans 11:32 is written 5 verses before Romans 12:1.
There is something similar in Ephesians 4:1 where Paul uses the word "therefore" to refer to something he had been talking about up until Ephesians 3:13 which comes 9 verses before Ephesians 4:1. In between Ephesians 3:13 and Ephesians 4:1 is a prayer that Paul made for the Ephesians.
Another example is Philippians 4:1 where Paul uses the word "therefore" to refer to something he said Philippians 3:17 five verses earlier. In Phil 4:1 he said "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends!". The way in which he had previously said to stand firm in the Lord was not indicated in the immediate preceding verses of Philippians 3:18-21, but rather in Philippians 3:17 where he said "Join together in following my example, brothers and sisters, and just as you have us as a model, keep your eyes on those who live as we do.". That describes how to stand firm in the Lord.
So, I think I have adequately established that the word translated as "therefore" in Matthew 24:15 can be used to refer back to something before the previous verse. I fully acknowledge that this is not normally how the word is used, but it is occasionally used that way.
I hope you appreciate how thorough I'm being about this even if you disagree. I do appreciate that about your post that you gave a lot of thought to. One thing I think we can both say is that no one can accuse us of just skimming the surface and not making the effort to dig deep to see what scripture is saying.
Anyway, getting back to Matthew 24:15 and what I believe Jesus was referring back to there. Notice that I am acknowledging your point that He was indeed referring back to something there, even if not to the previous verse. You probably can guess what I'm going to say He was referring back to, especially if I've already talked to you about this before. But, even if we haven't, I'm sure you can guess. I believe He was referring back to the disciples' question about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings. I see Him as making a transition there from answering the question about His coming and the end of the age to answering the question about the destruction of the temple buildings. This would be similar to how Paul transitioned from talking about one thing in the examples I gave to referring back again to what the topic was several verses earlier.
Another thing to consider here is that, assuming that Matthew 24:15-22 is a parallel passage to Luke 21:20-24, as I believe, then that means that the passage is talking about God's wrath against unbelieving Jews which believing Jews needed to flee from in order to not get caught up in it rather than being about the gospel being preached throughout the world and/or about apostasy, deception and wickedness, and/or about the persecution of believers, which are the things that Jesus was talking about in the verses immediately prior to verse 15. So, in that case, it's not possible that Jesus was referring directly back to what He was talking about in the verses immediately preceding verse 15 and instead He had to be referring back to something else written before those verses. He had to be referring back to something that would be related to being the reason that those in Judea would have to flee. And, in my view, that reason relates to the destruction of the temple buildings that Jesus was previously asked about.
I wish they would increase the character limit for posts...I'll have to put the rest of my responses in yet another post.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree. This is not easy to discern because of how the local event in Judea and Jerusalem has similarities to the future global event that will occur when Jesus returns. In the local event, the whole city of Jerusalem was destroyed, leaving no stone left upon another. In the future global event, the surface of the entire earth will be burned up and destroyed (to be clear, I don't mean completely annihilated - we don't need to go there again). And I understand that what I'm describing here only applies to your understanding of Luke 21 and not Matthew 24 or Mark 13.
Well, I guess that technically would be a possibility, but because of my belief that there are no dual fulfillments of any prophecies in the Bible, I don't really personally think it's possible. But, again, I do acknowledge that it's a at least technically possible because I can't prove with 100% certainty that dual fulfillments can't happen.
I agree. Wait, didn't I already respond to this comment or is this a repeated comment? Looking back...yes, this is something you had said before already, so I'm not just imagining things. LOL. I agreed with this when you said it a bit earlier and I still agree now.
I understand. But, like I said before, I can't see how it can refer to some future physical temple and I don't know how Matthew 24:15-21 could be interpreted in a spiritual sense as I already talked about before and therefore won't repeat again here.
Phew. That took a lot of time to respond to all that. Had to divide it up into 3 posts. I guess there probably won't be too much for either of us to add after this that we haven't already said. Thanks for taking the time to respond and I want to reiterate that I do believe you are making valid arguments.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I just revisited this post because I didn't think it made sense when I read it before, but I ended up getting sidetracked by something else and didn't respond to it. First of all, can you please stop with the accusations against me that I supposedly think I have all the answers and have a way around everything? I have given you a few examples of passages that I changed my interpretation of in recent months and I've told you that I do not believe I have all the answers, so why do you keep doing this? Which one of us frequently refers to our claims as being "undeniably true"? That would be you, not me. I never make such claims about my opinions. So, should I claim that you are the one who thinks he has all the answers then? No, I'm not going to do that because it would serve no purpose even if it was true (it's not). Yes, I have strong opinions on things, but I don't ever say they are facts or are "undeniably true".
I'd like to leave the unnecessary personal insults out of our discussions. Can we do that, please? If it helps, I apologize for every time I've ever personally insulted you in any way. I have felt convicted about that and I am trying to stop doing that.
Anyway, how you decide to respond to what I said there is up to you, of course. I hope you will agree to just stick to discussing scripture and leave the insults out of it while remembering that no matter how I might come across in terms of being confident about what I believe, I do not believe I have all the answers.
Okay, back to the scripture. I disagree that what is described in Matthew 24:15-21 chronologically follows what is described in verse 14 and I'll explain why.
It's clear to me that once the gospel is preached in the whole world the end will come right then or, at least, very shortly afterwards. To me, that's exactly what Jesus said. When the gospel has been preached in the whole world then at that point the end will come. Not after a period of testing first. Right then. Otherwise, it seems to me that Jesus would have instead said something like this: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will be near, but not yet.". Or "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come after a time period of testing of the faith of those who accepted the gospel".
With that said, how exactly do you interpret Matthew 24:15-21? I think it's time for you to finally give an actual interpretation of the passage instead of only claiming that it has to occur in the future just before Jesus comes without any real explanation of why that is the case. I'm not going to be convinced that it could be true without you showing how it can be true.
I know you see the holy place as referring to the temple of God, as in the church, but I'd like to see your understanding of what it means spiritually for those in Judea to flee to the mountains and what you think Judea represents spiritually. And why it would be particularly difficult for pregnant women and nursing mothers to flee. And why people should pray to not have to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath. I personally can't even guess as to what those things would mean in a figurative, spiritual sense. If you at least have a guess as to what those things might mean in a figurative and spiritual sense then please share that so I can at least get an idea of how you actually interpret the passage.
Zao is life
Well-Known Member
Well, thanks for taking all that time.
Just to confirm that yes, we did speak about this before so I was aware that you regard Luke 21:20-24 as parallel to Matthew 24:15-22, and the words "the holy place" as Jesus referring to the Jerusalem temple because it was still regarded as the Holy Place when He spoke.
Anyway in His reply IMO He certainly did not speak specifically and directly about the Jerusalem temple - as He had done twice before leaving the Temple Mount and making His way to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 23:38 and 24:2).
If referring to the Jerusalem temple then the AoD in the holy place is IMO a very veiled reference to it - because A4E had done the same thing in the 2nd temple, and that event had also been prophesied by Daniel (just not in Daniel 9:26-27);
and A4E's AoD did not result in the destruction of the temple at the time, though it had been defiled. It was cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward. So if Matthew 24:15 is referring to the N.T Temple and to 2 Thessalonians 2:4, then what the man of sin does will defile the Temple of God, but it will not be destroyed - just like the 2nd temple, it will be cleansed and reconsecrated to God after Christ has returned and destroyed that man of sin.
That's the reason I say that IF Matthew 24:15 is referring to the temple in Jerusalem then is it's a very veiled reference because Daniel prophesied both about an abomination that would defile the 2nd temple but not result in it being destroyed, as well as abominations that are associated with the destruction of the 2nd temple.
So not only do I believe that if Matthew 24:15 is referring to the Jerusalem temple then it's a very veiled reference to it, but likewise Luke 21:20-24's reference to Jerusalem is not specifically and directly referring to the temple in Jerusalem even though Jesus specifically and directly referred to it in Matthew 23:38 and 24:2.
Maybe I just need things spelled out for me, and either Jesus did not spell it out at the time, or the apostles and Luke had no idea how what they did and didn't say in their records was going to confuse the churches down the line.Just to confirm that yes, we did speak about this before so I was aware that you regard Luke 21:20-24 as parallel to Matthew 24:15-22, and the words "the holy place" as Jesus referring to the Jerusalem temple because it was still regarded as the Holy Place when He spoke.
Anyway in His reply IMO He certainly did not speak specifically and directly about the Jerusalem temple - as He had done twice before leaving the Temple Mount and making His way to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 23:38 and 24:2).
If referring to the Jerusalem temple then the AoD in the holy place is IMO a very veiled reference to it - because A4E had done the same thing in the 2nd temple, and that event had also been prophesied by Daniel (just not in Daniel 9:26-27);
and A4E's AoD did not result in the destruction of the temple at the time, though it had been defiled. It was cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward. So if Matthew 24:15 is referring to the N.T Temple and to 2 Thessalonians 2:4, then what the man of sin does will defile the Temple of God, but it will not be destroyed - just like the 2nd temple, it will be cleansed and reconsecrated to God after Christ has returned and destroyed that man of sin.
That's the reason I say that IF Matthew 24:15 is referring to the temple in Jerusalem then is it's a very veiled reference because Daniel prophesied both about an abomination that would defile the 2nd temple but not result in it being destroyed, as well as abominations that are associated with the destruction of the 2nd temple.
So not only do I believe that if Matthew 24:15 is referring to the Jerusalem temple then it's a very veiled reference to it, but likewise Luke 21:20-24's reference to Jerusalem is not specifically and directly referring to the temple in Jerusalem even though Jesus specifically and directly referred to it in Matthew 23:38 and 24:2.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Do you remember when that was? Just curious. I think I vaguely remember it but couldn't recall if that was you or David or even if it was on this forum or not.
Yes, but I don't think that's a significant point (just being honest) because He did refer to what at the time He was speaking was the Jerusalem temple (the holy place) and He referred to Jerusalem itself (Luke 21:20).
Well, it does say "let the reader understand", so it seems that Jesus was not specific for a reason. It seems that He wanted people to recall or look up the prophecy in Daniel and figure out what He was talking about from that. And, Daniel 9:26-27 does specifically reference the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. Since He had already told them that the temple standing at the time would be destroyed, I think they would have immediately thought of Daniel 9:26-27 in relation to Jesus having said that the temple would be destroyed.
That's a valid point if "the man of sin" is supposed to represent an individual person, but that's not what I believe. I think "the man of sin" is either sinful mankind in general, in contrast to "the man of God" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 who represents all believers, or it generally refers to the many who fall away in particular during the time that Paul wrote about in conjunction with the revealing of the man of sin in 2nd Thess 2. I think I lean more towards the latter. In that case I would see it as Paul talking about people in the church (the temple of God) falling away and then deciding they don't need God because they are essentially their own God.
Yeah, the fact that multiple abominations of desolation are referred to in Daniel does complicate this. No doubt. This is a very difficult passage to interpret for that reason and other reasons, including grammatical reasons like we have talked about. Any honest person will acknowledge that.
Again, I don't see that as being a particularly strong argument, but at the same time it is a valid argument to consider.
Haha! I agree. Perhaps if we were there while Jesus was speaking and knew the language He was speaking, which I think would've been in Aramaic, we would have understood what He was saying better than Matthew, Mark and Luke did. I'm kidding! It seems that it was intended for us to spiritually discern what He was saying, though. That is certainly the intention for some of scripture (the deeper things), according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. The fact that Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 say "let the reader understand" might be a hint that it wasn't all meant to be easily discerned even though that statement only applied to those verses in particular.
Why are you including this---and the abomination of desolation was standing in the holy place)? What AOD standing in the holy place allegedly in the first century pertaining to the 2nd temple? What would that have looked like to them at the time? It has to look like something to them if when they see it standing in the holy place, they are to get out now. No time to spare. No time to even pack first.
Clearly, armies surrounding Jerusalem, we know what that would have looked like to them. That's not in question what that would have looked like to them. What's in question, if Matthew 24:15 is involving the first century and 70 AD, what would they have seen at the time, pertaining to Matthew 24:15, that alarmed them so much that they did the following at the time---Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes?
Some interpreters insist the holy place is simply meaning the city. If that's true, why isn't it also simply meaning the city per the following?
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:
Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
One reason, though there are numerous reason why I do, I reject a Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:15 is because not one person can convincingly explain what AOD they saw standing in the holy place that alarmed them to such a degree that it led to what verses 17-18 record at the time. And not only that. Assuming this AOD was already fulfilled 2000 years ago, thus should no longer be a mystery if true, why is it then that not all interpreters agree with each other as to what it was?
Similar threads
