The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives

[Spiritual Israelite]

But look where I place the gap. I place it after this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Stop trying to make excuses for yourself. There is nothing indicated anywhere in Daniel 9:24-27 that there would be any gaps anywhere within the 70 weeks. Daniel 9:24 clearly indicates that 70 weeks (490 years) was the determined time period during which the things prophesied to occur within the 70 weeks had to be completed. You stretch it out to at least around 2,500 years for the 70 weeks to be completed instead. You blatantly contradict what is indicated in the prophecy itself.

Since it is absurd, and borders on blasphemy to apply the next part to what Christ accomplished on the cross---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

That is related to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which happened after the 70 weeks were fulfilled. Because of the Jews cutting off the Messiah and rejecting Him, the temple was made spiritually desolate (Matthew 23:38) even until the consummation in 70 AD when the city and the sanctuary were made physically desolate. There is nothing in the text to demand that the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary had to occur within the 70 weeks. That occurred because of what happened in the 70th week.

IOW, after Christ goes to the cross the remainder of the 70th week is put on hold until the final days of this age and is involving the 42 month reign of the beast.

Nonsense. Show me anything in the text in Daniel 9:24-27 to indicate that anything would ever be put on hold during the 70 weeks. You can't do it. You are just making things up. The 70 weeks being determined means that a continuous time period of 70 weeks (490 years) was determined for the prophecy to be fulfilled from beginning to end.

Therefore, the gap I place is legit.

LOL. No, it is not. Not whatsoever.

The gap @Spiritual Israelite places in Matthew 24 is not legit.

All you do is make claims while doing nothing to back them up. How do you imagine that you should be taken seriously when your arguments are so shallow?

And you and I both know it. But, since @Spiritual Israelite agrees with you about verses 15-21, and that I don't, you are likely going to side with him on this issue, regardless you know he is wrong.

LOL. I have no problem saying that both of you are wrong in how you interpret some of the Olivet Discourse. I have debated him about it before, so it's no secret.

And speaking of gaps. I insist there is at least a 2000 year gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27. And guess what? I would bet that @Spiritual Israelite agrees.

I do. And that is why you are so hypocritical. It's somehow okay for you to see a gap between a time when people have to flee to the mountains and the second coming, but when I do that in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20, you have a huge problem with that. Why can't you see how hypocritical you are when you do that? Why is it okay for you to see a big gap between Luke 21:20-24a and Luke 21:27, but it's somehow unacceptable to you for me to see a gap between Matthew 24:15-22 and Matthew 24:29? That's ridiculous. Your lack of being willing to acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 is the real problem here.

Clearly then, there are gaps at times. But even so, there obviously isn't one after verse 21 in Matthew 24 though, involving at least 2000 years.

Says the guy who (correctly) says there is at least a 2,000 year gap between Luke 21:20-24a an Luke 21:27. Such hypocrisy. You can disagree with me about that if you want, but to say that there "obviously" isn't a gap after verse 21 in Matthew 24 completely contradicts your claim that there is a gap between Luke 21:20-24a and Luke 21:27. If anything should be obvious about what comes after Matthew 24:21, your understanding of a gap between Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:27 should make it obvious that the same gap occurs between Matthew 24:21 and Matthew 24:30.

If there was, the text would plainly and clearly make mention of another tribulation of days that follow the tribulation of days meant in verse 21, except we all know, including @Spiritual Israelite, the text never inserts another tribulation of days following the tribulation of days meant in verse 21.

I would say that a time period of deception featuring great signs and wonders that is so high that it can deceive even the elect, if possible, qualifies as tribulation. It should be clear that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-22, but you can't even discern that. If you did, then you would know enough to put all of the details of each passage together and understand that the times of the Gentiles trampling Jerusalem occurs after Matthew 24:15-22 up until Matthew 24:29-31.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

Where in any of this is there a mention of another tribulation of days? Why should anyone think that none of these verses belong with verses 15-21? These verses are giving us a glimpse into what it will be like during the days involving verses 15-21. Which includes, for example---and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Where anyone that has read the NT would be connecting with 2 Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13, for instance.

Matthew 24:15-22 describes tribulation in the form of God's wrath. Matthew 24:23-26 describes spiritual tribulation. Your failure to understand that Matthew 24:15-22 is a prallel pasage to Luke 21:20-24a is the reason why you are so confused about all this. You have no problem seeing a 2,000 year gap between a time when people have to flee to the mountains, as described in Luke 21:20-24, and Luke 21:27, but God forbid there could be a gap between another passage describing a time when people have to flee to the mountains, as described in Matthew 24:15-22, and Matthew 24:30.

IOW, verses 15-21 symbolize the 42 month reign of the beast. And that the 42 month reign of the beast equals great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Taking the time periods in Revelation literally is a big mistake on your part. Your hyper-literal approach to the most highly symbolic book in all of scripture is just a really bad approach to take to the book of Revlation and it only results in confusion and contradictions with other scriptures.

There is no way that these verses are involving 2000 years, since it is absurd, for example, that the past 2000 years have been involving this--and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Nobody is claiming that. Yet another strawman argument from you. Did Jesus go into a lot of detail about what would occur during the 2,000+ year gap that we both see between Luke 21:20-24a and Luke 21:27? No, right? So, why do you expect that to be the case in Matthew 24 in order for there to be a gap between Matthew 24:15-22 and Matthew 24:30?

. Therefore, these verses require a short period of time, not a lengthy period of time, such as 2 thousand years. And besides, if these verses are connected with 2 Thessalonian 2, and clearly they are, there is no one that I know of that takes anything in 2 Thessalonians 2 to be involving 2000 years.

Right. No one does. And no one is claiming that. Why do you waste so much time making strawman arguments? You need to stop spending time trying to refute what others beleive becuase you never even understand what others believe.

Most interpreters except for Preterists, place 2 Thessalonians 2 in the final days of this age. Even Amils do.

I do, too. So, you wasted all that time rambling on for nothing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That red light you called to come and get me arrived and arrested you instead of me because of your multitude of repeated offenses. I only got a warning and encouragement in my expose of your false doctrine.

What's this gibberish you're saying? I see that you will not admit your hypocrisy. No surprise.

 

[Zao is life]

Some argue, that because the temple was still the holy place when Christ spoke His words pertaining to Matthew 24:15, that this proves the 2nd temple is meant.

Yes I know that it's what @Spiritual Israelite argues because he has thrown out that same ludicrous argument in posts to me before also.

Those who are determined to ignore

(a) the word "THEREFORE" in Matthew 24:15; and

(b) the context of what Jesus was saying about the tribulation that His disciples - the living stones of the New Testament Temple - would experience at the end of the age and time of His return,

are not handling scripture any better than those who are determined to ignore

(a) the meaning of the word "AFTER" in Daniel 9:26; and

(b) the context of what had been said about the coming of the Messiah within 70 "weeks" from a certain historical point, and what the Messiah would do and accomplish.

After all, it did not say "69 weeks have been decreed until Messiah the prince".

The first group also ignore the fact that the false prophets are mentioned in Matthew 24:11 & 24, and the false Christs in Matthew 24:5 & 24-27 - and in-between verse 5 and verse 9, the birth-pain signs are given as a marker so that those who are alive when Christ returns can recognize the signs of the times.

They also ignore the fact that the words, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." in verse 13 and the words "except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened." in verse 22, belong together.

They also ignore the fact that the words "and", "but", "therefore" etc, used throughout Matthew 24 grammatically bind the passage into one very detailed description of what the living stones of the New Testament will experience FOLLOWING the birth-pain signs at the end of the age, immediately before the Lord's return.

And not one Christian here will actually go with the fact that what Jesus' first century Jewish audience would have immediately understood by the phrase "abomination of desolation" and the words "spoken of by Daniel",

has nothing to do with the destruction of the sanctuary or with Daniel 9:26-27 (where Daniel prophesied the destruction of the city and the sanctuary).

They conflate two different prophecies, and will never admit - even to themselves - the fact that what the apostles Jesus was talking to would have immediately understood the words "abomination of desolation" to be referring to, was a historical event that took place in the 2nd century BC - 136 years before Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week of Daniel 9

- and they would have understood that He was using THAT abomination of desolation as a biblical type of another abomination of desolation in the holy place that will come at the close of the age

- an abomination of desolation in the 2nd temple that did not cause the destruction of the city or the sanctuary, unlike Daniel's other prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27.

Except these interpreters don't fully comprehend how prophecy works. What counts is this. When the prophecy is fulfilled, is the temple still the holy place? IOW, from the time Christ spoke those words until the time the prophecy is fulfilled, is there anything that would have rendered the 2nd temple no longer the holy place in the meantime?

Exactly.

Even if verse 15 involved 70 AD, though I adamantly disagree it did, so what? It still wouldn't be the holy place because the 3rd temple is the holy place once Christ died and rose.

Yep - and the 3rd temple is the only holy place once Christ died on the cross.

And since the 3rd temple is the holy place, and continues to be the holy place even now, but not as of the 2nd temple's destruction, but as of Christ's death and resurrection, this tells any objective person that the first century involving 70 AD can't be meant.

Exactly.

Some of these interpreters want the 2nd temple to no longer be the holy place once Christ died and rose. And that they want the 2nd temple to contiunue being the holy place until it was destroyed in 70 AD. How can they not see that that is blatantly contradictory? How can both be true at the same time?

They can't see the contradiction because their minds have caused them to read the Bible according to themselves instead of the Bible according to the Bible.

 

[Zao is life]

What's this gibberish you're saying? I see that you will not admit your hypocrisy. No surprise.

Why should I when a much bigger hypocrite is telling me I'm a hypocrite and should admit my hypcrisy?

Admit your hypocrisy to me - and admit that you are a bigger hypocrite than me because you are a much bigger offender and far more frequent one than me,

then I can admit to you that therefore you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes I know that it's what @Spiritual Israelite argues because he has thrown out that same ludicrous argument in posts to me before also.

Those who are determined to ignore

(a) the word "THEREFORE" in Matthew 24:15; and

(b) the context of what Jesus was saying about the tribulation that His disciples - the living stones of the New Testament Temple - would experience at the end of the age and time of His return,

are not handling scripture any better than those who are determined to ignore

(a) the meaning of the word "AFTER" in Daniel 9:26; and

(b) the context of what had been said about the coming of the Messiah within 70 "weeks" from a certain historical point, and what the Messiah would do an accomplish.

After all, it did not say "69 weeks have been decreed until Messiah the prince".

The first group also ignore the fact that the false prophets are mentioned in Matthew 24:11 & 24, and the false Christs in Matthew 24:5 & 24-27 - and in-between verse 5 and verse 9, the birth-pain signs are given as a marker so that those who are alive when Christ returns can recognize the signs of the times.

They also ignore the fact that the words, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." in verse 13 and the words "except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened." in verse 22, belong together.

They also ignore the fact that the words "and", "but", "therefore" etc, used throughout Matthew 24 grammatically bind the passage into one very detailed description of what the living stones of the New Testament will experience FOLLOWING the birth-pain signs at the end of the age, immediately before the Lord's return.

And not one Christian here will actually go with the fact that what Jesus' first century Jewish audience would have immediately understood by the phrase "abomination of desolation" and the words "spoken of by Daniel",

has nothing to do with the destruction of the sanctuary or with Daniel 9:26-27 (where Daniel prophesied the destruction of the city and the sanctuary).

They conflate two different prophecies, and will never admit - even to themselves - the fact that what the apostles Jesus was talking to would have immediately understood the words "abomination of desolation" to be referring to, was a historical event that took place in the 2nd century BC - 136 years before Christ was crucified in the middle of the 70th week of Daniel 9

- and they would have understood that He was using THAT abomination of desolation as a biblical type of another abomination of desolation in the holy place that will come at the close of the age

- an abomination of desolation in the 2nd temple that did not cause the destruction of the city or the sanctuary, unlike Daniel's other prophecy in Daniel 9:26-27.



Exactly.



Yep - and the 3rd temple is the only holy place once Christ died on the cross.



Exactly.



They can't see the contradiction because their minds have caused them to read the Bible according to themselves instead of the Bible according to the Bible.

All nonsense coming from a guy who foolishly thinks that Jesus would not be interested in giving any details at all related to the destruction of the temple buildings despite the fact that he is the one who made that prophecy. Somehow, all He cared to say about it is that the temple buildings would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. As if He then said "Okay, so that's that. No reason to say any more about that minor event even if I get asked a question about when it will happen. On to the next topic.".

Even @Davidpt understands that Jesus talked about things related to the destruction of the temple buildings in the Olivet Discourse (in Luke 21:20-24a), but he somehow concludes that only Luke had any interest in recording Jesus's answer to the question about that while Matthew and Mark didn't think it was important enough to record His answer to that question for some unknown reason.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why should I when a much bigger hypocrite is telling me I'm a hypocrite and should admit my hypcrisy?

A much bigger hypocrite, eh? Which one of us complained about the insults of the other despite hurling many insults throughout this thread? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't me. It seems that maybe you don't know what the word hypocrite means.

Admit your hypocrisy to me - and admit that you are a bigger hypocrite than me because you are a much bigger offender and far more frequent one than me,

LOL. I don't admit things that aren't true. I don't complain about your many insults the way you complain about mine, so how exactly am I a bigger hypocrite than you? It's hypocritical for someone to complain about something someone else is doing despite doing the very same thing. And that's what you're doing. Am I doing that? I don't believe so. I haven't complained about your insults even once. Others have pointed them out in this thread and you respond as if you don't know what they are talking about, even though I'm sure you do.

then I can admit to you that therefore you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL.

 

[Zao is life]

All nonsense coming from a guy who foolishly thinks that Jesus would not be interested in giving any details at all related to the destruction of the temple buildings despite the fact that he is the one who made that prophecy. Somehow, all He cared to say about it is that the temple buildings would be destroyed with no stone left upon another. As if He then said "Okay, so that's that. No reason to say any more about that minor event even if I get asked a question about when it will happen. On to the next topic.".

Even @Davidpt understands that Jesus talked about things related to the destruction of the temple buildings in the Olivet Discourse (in Luke 21:20-24a), but he somehow concludes that only Luke had any interest in recording Jesus's answer to the question about that while Matthew and Mark didn't think it was important enough to record His answer to that question for some unknown reason.

Following the Day of Pentecost it's only fleshly Christians who would expect Jesus to say more about a temple that had already been decreed by God to be left condemned to desolation and destruction, along with the system it represented and the sin it could never take away.

The sin would be condemned in His flesh and the temple of stones would become obsolete when He died.

After Jesus declared it all over for the old temple and old system on the Temple Mount, the only thing on His mind was what lay ahead for Him and for His apostles - but at that point in time - when on the other mountain opposite the temple of stones - the apostles asked Him the questions they asked Him, they still had no way of understanding, let alone knowing, what was on His mind.

Whether you believe this or not (you won't believe it), your argument betrays a lack of appreciation for what Christ was soon to suffer and the most dramatic event of all time that caused a complete and utter shift away from the old system to the new.

- and that is why you not only expect Him to have replied to their question about that temple of stones, but you are so blind that you cannot see that He did not, though you read Him speaking only about the tribulation His disciples were to experience in this world, beginning His answer to their questions with "Be not deceived."

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Following the Day of Pentecost it's only fleshly Christians who would expect Jesus to say more about a temple that had already been decreed by God to be left condemned to desolation and destruction, along with the system it represented and the sin it could never take away.

That is absolute nonsense. You make it as if it was foolish for Jesus to even mention the destruction of the temple at all. As if there was no point in Him even mentioning it at all. It makes perfect sense for Him to say something about it if it involved Him warning believers to flee when Jerusalem and its temple buildings were about to be destroyed, which is exactly what He did. The temple itself was already rendered spiritually desolate and no longer had the significance it once did and I'm not saying otherwise. But, Jesus did not want His followers to be caught up in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, as prophesied by Daniel, so He warned them to flee when they saw that it was about to happen. It's perfectly reasonable to see it that way despite your childish protestations.

The sin would be condemned in His flesh and the temple of stones would become obsolete when He died.

Do you actually think I'm saying otherwise? Why do you not care about wasting time making straw man arguments? Do you just enjoy wasting your time like that? I don't believe that Jesus talked about things related to the temple buildings being destroyed because the temple still had some kind of significance after His death. No. Again, I believe He talked about it because of His desire for His followers to flee the area rather than get caught up in the wrath and destruction that was going to occur there.

After Jesus declared it all over for the old temple and old system on the Temple Mount, the only thing on His mind was what lay ahead for Him and for His apostles - but at that point in time - when on the other mountain opposite the temple of stones - the apostles asked Him the questions they asked Him, they still had no way of understanding, let alone knowing, what was on His mind.

You don't think He would have had in mind the safety of His followers when Jerusalem and the temple buildings were being destroyed?

Whether you believe this or not (you won't believe it), your argument betrays a lack of appreciation for what Christ was soon to suffer and the most dramatic event of all time that caused a complete and utter shift away from the old system to the new.

This is slanderous nonsense. You are foolish. I absolutely appreciate what Christ sufferered on our behalf. All of us would be headed for hell if not for what Christ did for us. We would have no hope of eternal life otherwise. His blood established the new covenant and made the old covenant obsolete forever. I've never said otherwise. Your evil and foolish misrepresentation of what I believe shows there is something very wrong with you that you need to get fixed.

- and that is why you not only expect Him to have replied to their question about that temple of stones, but you are so blind that you cannot see that He did not, though you read Him speaking only about the tribulation His disciples were to experience in this world, beginning His answer to their questions with "Be not deceived."

It's quite reasonable to think that since Jesus thought it was important enough to mention the destruction of the temple buildings in the first place that He would be willing to answer a grand total of one question about it as well. But, you can't bring yourself to admit that because you are insistent on just believing what you want to believe.

 

[Davidpt]

The issue isn’t about which verses you feel like taking literally or symbolically. The real question is whether the disciples misunderstood Christ in the Olivet Discourse—and there’s zero evidence that they did.

That's basically my position as well. After all, one of their questions was about the end of the world. What possesesed them to ask that based on what Jesus said in verse 2?

Isn't it possible that on the surface, Matthew 24:2 is literally meaning in a literal sense, but that it also has spiritual meanings embedded in it? Rather than, it can only be meaning literal. Or it can only be meaning in another sense. Why not both?

An example of both.


Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


Clearly, that is to be taken literal since it is what every pregant woman experiences during pregnancy. But could there be a deeper spiritual meaning embedded? I tend to think so, therefore, this---Unto the church he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children of the kingdom; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, Christ, and he shall rule over thee.

 

[covenantee]

Your English and your understanding of biblical prophecy and how it is written is very poor, and as a result you talk complete nonsense.

More displays of your intrinsic ignorance. Obviously you flunked kindergarten English but have never realized it.

The grammatical referent of "he" in the words ""in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" resolves to the Messiah mentioned in verse 26 as being cut off.

No. It resolves to the "prince" in verse 26, which is the closest physically proximate referent matching the gender (masculine) and number (singular). "Prince" then resolves to "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25, which identifies the Prince. You lose.

The grammatical referent of "he" in the words "he shall make it desolate" resolves to the prince mentioned in verse 26 who would destroy the city and the sanctuary.

That "he" resolves to "Messiah the Prince" via the same methodology as just described. You lose again.

Christ was not the Commander of the Roman armies. He did not need to be. Without God's protection of the Jews the Roman armies were more than capable, equipped and well-trained enough to do the job all by themselves - and their commander was Titus, not Christ.

More risible absurdity. Yes, God had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Titus was waaaaaay smarter than you. Here are his reflections:

"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

 

[Davidpt]

That is related to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which happened after the 70 weeks were fulfilled. Because of the Jews cutting off the Messiah and rejecting Him, the temple was made spiritually desolate (Matthew 23:38) even until the consummation in 70 AD when the city and the sanctuary were made physically desolate. There is nothing in the text to demand that the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary had to occur within the 70 weeks. That occurred because of what happened in the 70th week.

It doesn't matter what someone thinks it is related to. It is still undeniably meaning something that takes place within the 70th week, not outside of it. What is the context of verse 27? Can't you even figure that out? The context is clearly the 70th week, not outside of the 70th week instead, The same way, for example, the context of verse 25 is the first 69 weeks, not outside of the 69 weeks instead. Nothing in verse 25 pertains to anything outside of the first 69 weeks. It only stands to reason that the same is true of verse 27 in the same way. But you would have us believe that the angel is all over the place here. In verse 25 the angel manages to keep everything within the first 69 weeks. But in verse 27 he can't even manage to keep everything within the 70th week. He has to go outside of it even though the context of verse 27 is the 70th week.

What exactly is the issue with my interpretation to begin with? No matter how you look at it, it still involves Christ throughout, since it is Christ that puts an end to the 42 month reign of the beast. Verse 27 also says Christ will confirm the covenant with many for one week. The first half He already did that. The way He continues to do it during the 2nd half might be like such.

Not everyone worships the beast and falls away during the 42 month reign. The ones that don't is because these are the many Christ is confirming the covenant with the remainder of the week. That doesn't mean His covenant does not extend beyond 1 week. It just means it is only in regard to this 1 week in particular. IOW, outside of this week is not the focus of verse 27.

IMO, during the 42 month reign of the beast equals this in Daniel 12--Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried(verse 10). And why not?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's basically my position as well. After all, one of their questions was about the end of the world. What possesesed them to ask that based on what Jesus said in verse 2?

I'm not so sure that they actually asked that question as Matthew recorded it. I'll explain why I say that. I think Matthew may have paraphrased the question to help people see that Jesus answered their second question in relation to the separate event of His coming and the end of the age rather than in relation to the destruction of the temple buildings. I think he did that because the disciples probably would have assumed that His coming and the end of the age would have occurred when the temple buildings were destroyed, but that was not the case. So, Matthew was showing that Jesus spoke about two different events in the Olivet Discourse with one being the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD and the other being His coming at the end of the age.

Here is why I question whether the disciples actually asked the second question as it is recorded in Matthew 24:3. Here is how the other two accounts record the second question the disciples asked.

Mark 13:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?”

Luke 21:7 So they asked Him, saying, “Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”

See how similar the second question is recorded in the Mark 13 and Luke 21 accounts? I think those two accounts reflect what the disciples actually asked with their second question. It's not as if they also asked a third question about what would be the sign of His coming and the end of the age. That's not reasonable. So, I think it has to be that Matthew paraphrased the question in order to help people see that Jesus did not answer two questions about the same event, but rather one question about one local event that He had just told them about (destruction of the temple buildings in Jerusalem) and another global event that they didn't know much about yet. I think Matthew wanted people to realize that the Olivet Discourse was not only about the destruction of the temple buildings, but also about Christ's coming and the end of the age. Many preterists and futurists (not all) make the mistake of thinking it's all about one or the other.

Isn't it possible that on the surface, Matthew 24:2 is literally meaning in a literal sense, but that it also has spiritual meanings embedded in it? Rather than, it can only be meaning literal. Or it can only be meaning in another sense. Why not both?

Why both? There's no indication of that in the text anywhere. It was clearly the temple buildings that the disciples were talking about and Jesus even said "see these great buildings?". There's no hint at all that anything but the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time was in view there.

 

[covenantee]

And speaking of gaps. I insist there is at least a 2000 year gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27.

That's not a "gap". It has no ending.

A gap is a break in a barrier. It has an identifiable beginning and ending.

The gap in Matthew 24 and Daniel 9 began with Jesus' prophecy in 30 AD, and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Dispensational futurism's "gap" doesn't qualify.

 

[claninja]

But look where I place the gap. I place it after this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Since it is absurd, and borders on blasphemy to apply the next part to what Christ accomplished on the cross---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


IOW, after Christ goes to the cross the remainder of the 70th week is put on hold until the final days of this age and is involving the 42 month reign of the beast. Therefore, the gap I place is legit. The gap @Spiritual Israelite places in Matthew 24 is not legit. And you and I both know it. But, since @Spiritual Israelite agrees with you about verses 15-21, and that I don't, you are likely going to side with him on this issue, regardless you know he is wrong.

And speaking of gaps. I insist there is at least a 2000 year gap between Luke 21:20 and verse 27. And guess what? I would bet that @Spiritual Israelite agrees. Clearly then, there are gaps at times. But even so, there obviously isn't one after verse 21 in Matthew 24 though, involving at least 2000 years. If there was, the text would plainly and clearly make mention of another tribulation of days that follow the tribulation of days meant in verse 21, except we all know, including @Spiritual Israelite, the text never inserts another tribulation of days following the tribulation of days meant in verse 21.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

Where in any of this is there a mention of another tribulation of days? Why should anyone think that none of these verses belong with verses 15-21? These verses are giving us a glimpse into what it will be like during the days involving verses 15-21. Which includes, for example---and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Where anyone that has read the NT would be connecting with 2 Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13, for instance. IOW, verses 15-21 symbolize the 42 month reign of the beast. And that the 42 month reign of the beast equals great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

There is no way that these verses are involving 2000 years, since it is absurd, for example, that the past 2000 years have been involving this--and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.. Therefore, these verses require a short period of time, not a lengthy period of time, such as 2 thousand years. And besides, if these verses are connected with 2 Thessalonian 2, and clearly they are, there is no one that I know of that takes anything in 2 Thessalonians 2 to be involving 2000 years. Most interpreters except for Preterists, place 2 Thessalonians 2 in the final days of this age. Even Amils do.

Edited to add the following:

The Greek word behind 'then' (tote) is typically sequential, not something that signals a long, undefined gap. In a narrative like this, it usually means---'at that time / during that same period'

So when you read---Then if anyone says to you, Look, here is the Christ....

the most straightforward reading is----during that same time of tribulation just described in verses 15–21, these deceptions will occur.

And one is to believe that if verses 23-28 are involving verses 15-21, and that verses 15-21 are involving 70 AD, but that verses 23-28 are involving 2 Thessalonians 2, this means 2 Thessalonians 2 is not future still, it was fulfilled during the days leading up to 70 AD? Granted, Preterists likely believe that. But why would anybody that takes the coming in verse 30 to be meaning the 2nd coming, believe it as well? Oh, I almost forgot, some of these insist verses 23-28 are not meaning during verses 15-21. But if they are, there you go then, since it would undeniably mean 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled during the days leading up to 70 AD if verses 15-21 are involving 70 AD.

Because we all have to negotiate with text, whether we will admit it or not.

It just depends what you are willing to negotiate on.

 

[Davidpt]

That's not a "gap". It has no ending.

A gap is a break in a barrier. It has an identifiable beginning and ending.

The gap in Matthew 24 and Daniel 9 began with Jesus' prophecy in 30 AD, and ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Dispensational futurism's "gap" doesn't qualify.

I’m using ‘gap’ in the prophetic sense---a gap in fulfillment, not a break in the text itself. The passage moves from the events surrounding Jerusalem’s fall to the still future coming of the Son of Man, which suggests a long interval between those fulfillments. So maybe I'm using the wrong term then? I'm simply meaning that there are 2000 years between Luke 21:20 and verse 27. That assuming that Christ returns sometime soon, like within 50 years or less.

But in Matthew 24, from verse 15 to verse 30, there is not this same 2000 years between these verses. Therefore, verses 15-21 can't be involving 70 AD. Because if it is, that would undeniably indicate that the coming meant in verse 30 is not the 2nd coming of Christ in the end of this age. IOW, the coming meant in verse 30 has to immediately follow the tribulation of days meant in verses 15-21, the fact there are no other tribulation of days mentioned after verse 22. Plus, I argue that verses 23-28 are meaning during verses 15-21, and that verses 23-28 are also involving 2 Thessalonians 2. Good luck any Amil that is not a Preterist, but agrees with them about verses 15-21, getting 2 Thessalonians 2 to somehow fit the first century leading up to 70 AD. It's clues like these why it is no wonder some of us reject that verses 15-21 involve 70 AD. But who cares about any clues, right?

 

[Davidpt]

Nonsense. Show me anything in the text in Daniel 9:24-27 to indicate that anything would ever be put on hold during the 70 weeks. You can't do it. You are just making things up. The 70 weeks being determined means that a continuous time period of 70 weeks (490 years) was determined for the prophecy to be fulfilled from beginning to end.

In verse 24 this---

upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression

It really makes sense, doesn't it, to first finish the transgression concerning it, then attack this same city and destroy it some 40 years later. Which then makes it untrue that the transgression concerning it was finished earlier. Not to mention, this same city is back upon the map again and it's being occupied and controlled by unbelieving Jews not believing Christians.

to bring in everlasting righteousness

It really makes sense, doesn't it, if everlasting righteousness was already brought in, that Peter was still looking for a place in the future wherein dwelleth righteousness. Apparently, everlasting righteousness can be trumped by the righteousness Peter was still longing for. As if it makes sense that everlasting righteousness can be trumped by another form of righteousness, period.

to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


And since, IMO, verse 25 and 26 can be read in the following manner, this means B) is not meaning 3.5 years within that of the fulfillment of A).

A) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

B) and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Who in their right might mind would think the consummation means 70 AD rather than the end of this age? No one except for Preterists and those that are not Preterists but align with Preterist thinking. B), btw, is not meaning 70 AD, it is meaning Revelation 11:2, for one. Which means no literal buildings or literal cities are being destroyed. In the book of Daniel, destruction(shachath) does not always mean in literal sense involving the destroying of literal cities and literal buildings.

For example.

Daniel 11:17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting(shachath) her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy(shachath) wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy(shachath) the mighty and the holy people.

Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy(shachath) many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

It really makes sense, doesn't it, that in the book of Daniel that (shachath) never means as in to literally destroy buildings and places, but in Daniel 9:26 it does.

It really makes sense, doesn't it, that the NT doesn't aid in interpreting the OT. Who cares what Revelation 11:2 says and what that is involving, right? One is not supposed to interpret Scripture with Scripture. God forbid one do that.

So if anyone is speaking nonsense here, it is not me, it is you accusing me of speaking nonsense since you couldn't possibly debunk all of the above. IOW, truth can't be debunked. Nothing I provided above is not the truth. For example, are you going to insist it is untrue that everywhere in the book of Daniel, (shachath) never means as in to literally destroy buildings and places? For example, are you going to prove that , if the transgression upon a city is finished, that that means it still gets attacked in the future? Even today this same city is subject to attack and is attacked on occasion. Except the transgression upon it is supposed to already be finished.

That might be like doing a crime, then being sent to prison for 10 years as punishment for this crime, then 20 years later once you are out of prison you are once again sent back to prison for this same crime that you already paid for in full by serving 10 years in prison earlier. But I expect you still don't get it, that it is absurd, that if the transgression upon the holy city is finished, that this same holy city is attacked later and still being attacked today. After all, no one can deny that the holy city meant in Daniel 9:24 is meaning Jerusalem in the middle east. But that doesn't mean it's still meaning Jerusalem in the ME in verse 26, in light of Revelation 11:2 and what all that involves. Of course though, maybe you can argue that Scripture does not interpret Scripture. And that maybe you can argue that everywhere else in the book of Daniel, , (shachath) never means as in to literally destroy buildings and places, that this is untrue.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It doesn't matter what someone thinks it is related to. It is still undeniably meaning something that takes place within the 70th week, not outside of it.

Did you not see the post where I told you that you need to learn what the word "undeniably" means? You obviously still haven't learned what it means. Your opinions are not undeniable facts. Please get that through your head. I deny that verse 27 only refers to things that occur during the 70th week. So, there it is. It is deniable. You have come nowhere near proving otherwise.

What is the context of verse 27? Can't you even figure that out?

Of course I can, but you obviously can't.

The context is clearly the 70th week, not outside of the 70th week instead,

The context is partly the 70th week and partly the eventual consummation of the effects of what happened during the 70th week. Because of Jesus being rejected and cut off during the 70th week, the consummation of that was the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary (temple) being destroyed in 70 AD. How's that for context? Why do you miss it? The previous verse says the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. Well, it was physically destroyed and made desolate during the 70th week. Hello? This is very simple and you still don't get it. You need to ask God for wisdom about this (James 1:5-7).

The same way, for example, the context of verse 25 is the first 69 weeks, not outside of the 69 weeks instead. Nothing in verse 25 pertains to anything outside of the first 69 weeks. It only stands to reason that the same is true of verse 27 in the same way.

It doesn't stand to reason at all. This is the kind of nonsense you have to resort to in order to keep your false beliefs afloat. It's sad to witness.

But you would have us believe that the angel is all over the place here.

LOL! You can't possibly be serious. In the book of Daniel the text is often all over the place in terms of the timing of things. Who do you think you're fooling with your nonsense? Not me.

In verse 25 the angel manages to keep everything within the first 69 weeks. But in verse 27 he can't even manage to keep everything within the 70th week.

This is utterly ludicrous reasoning. That's as nicely as I can put it. There is no reason why verse 27 can't contain something related to verse 26 (destruction of the city and the sanctuary) while also having something about the 70th week. There is absolutely nothing in the text itself to demand that everything written in verse 27 has to occur during the 70th week.

He has to go outside of it even though the context of verse 27 is the 70th week.

The context of verse 27 is only partly the 70th week and partly about the eventual consequences of the Jews rejecting and crucifying Christ during the 70th week.

What exactly is the issue with my interpretation to begin with?

You mean other than the fact that there is no basis whatsoever for inserting a big gap of time within the prophecy since it clearly says that it was a determined 70 week (490 year) time period during which the prophecy would be fulfilled? You have stretched that time period out to be around 2,500 years instead.

No matter how you look at it, it still involves Christ throughout, since it is Christ that puts an end to the 42 month reign of the beast. Verse 27 also says Christ will confirm the covenant with many for one week. The first half He already did that. The way He continues to do it during the 2nd half might be like such.

This is a prophecy relating to Israel in particular even though we know that the Gentiles are saved under the new covenant as well. Do you not think that part of the confirming of the new covenant to Israel was the preaching of the gospel of Christ in Israel before it went to the Gentiles? I certainly do. That is what the second half of the 70th week entailed. But, you can't accept that just because it's not spelled out to you explicitly.

Not everyone worships the beast and falls away during the 42 month reign. The ones that don't is because these are the many Christ is confirming the covenant with the remainder of the week. That doesn't mean His covenant does not extend beyond 1 week. It just means it is only in regard to this 1 week in particular. IOW, outside of this week is not the focus of verse 27.

We agree that each of the 70 weeks equal seven years. You agree that the 70th week began with the beginning of Christ's ministry and that He was cut off in the middle or midst of the 70th week. With the 70th week being a 7 year time period there is no reason whatsoever to think that it would not be a continuous 7 year time period just like the rest of the 69 weeks were. Your view turns the time period of the 70th week of seven years into at least around a 2,000 year time period instead. The idea that there would be a pause in the middle of the 70th week for at least around 2,000 years before it would continue is ridiculous. I can't take that view seriously at all.

IMO, during the 42 month reign of the beast equals this in Daniel 12--Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried(verse 10). And why not?

What does that have to do with confirming the new covenant during the 70th week? Nothing. Many believers have been purified, made white and tried for the past 2,000 years. Are you somehow not aware of that? Why would you think that only applies to a literal 42 month period? None of the time periods given in Revelation are literal. Why you try to interpret the most highly symbolic book in the Bible as literally as you possibly can is beyond me.

 

[Davidpt]

Did you not see the post where I told you that you need to learn what the word "undeniably" means? You obviously still haven't learned what it means. Your opinions are not undeniable facts. Please get that through your head. I deny that verse 27 only refers to things that occur during the 70th week. So, there it is. It is deniable. You have come nowhere near proving otherwise.

If I were to say to a JW, for example, that Christ is undeniably God, this means it is not true? This means it is not undeniable simply because this JW refuses to believe it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In verse 24 this---

upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression

It really makes sense, doesn't it, to first finish the transgression concerning it, then attack this same city and destroy it some 40 years later. Which then makes it untrue that the transgression concerning it was finished earlier. Not to mention, this same city is back upon the map again and it's being occupied and controlled by unbelieving Jews not believing Christians.

What in the world are you talking about here? You obviously don't understand what finishing the transgression is about. It's something that only Jesus could accomplish. So, let me show you how He did it. You need to learn how to interpret scripture with scripture.

Finishing the transgression:

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Hebrews 9:15 That is why he is the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, so that all who are invited can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.

John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace".

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Jesus finished the transgression in the sense of being sacrificed for the transgressions of the Israelite people (and for Gentiles as well, but the prophecy relates particularly to the Israelites). Because of that they had the opportunity to be set free "from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant" of the law of Moses which "worketh wrath" against them. Because of Jesus making the old covenant law obsolete, it meant "there is no transgression" and instead "it is of faith, that it might be by grace". When Jesus said "it is finished", He was talking about finishing what He came to do, which included fulfilling the finishing of the transgression and the rest of the six things listed in Daniel 9:24.

to bring in everlasting righteousness

It really makes sense, doesn't it, if everlasting righteousness was already brought in, that Peter was still looking for a place in the future wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Your carnal way of looking at the prophecy is sad to witness. Have you never read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16? Do you somehow not understand that we need spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit to understand things like this? Why do you think reading the Bible is just like reading a news article where only straightforward facts are reported? Why do you think that you don't need any help from the Holy Spirit to understand these things?

It's not talking about literally bringing in everlasting righteousness on the earth. Here is how Jesus brought in everlasting righteousness in the context of what Daniel 9:24 is about....

To Bring In Everlasting Righteousness

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 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.

Before Jesus came and sacrificed Himself, the concept of everlasting righteousness was a foreign one. But, Jesus brought in the possibility of people having everlasting life and righteousness by way of His shed blood.

Apparently, everlasting righteousness can be trumped by the righteousness Peter was still longing for. As if it makes sense that everlasting righteousness can be trumped by another form of righteousness, period.

So, you, like Amils, believe that the new heavens and new earth will be ushered in when Jesus returns. How do you think that everlasting righteousness will be literally brought in when Jesus returns when you believe that at least some sin and wickedness will occur during the thousand years, based on your understanding of Zechariah 14:16-21, and that a whole lot of wickedness will occur during Satan's little season after that? So much for literal everlasting righteousness being brought in when Jesus returns. Your understanding of what everlasting righteousness being brought in means is clearly flawed.

to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

You mentioned these, but made no comments about them. How do you think those things will be fulfilled?

And since, IMO, verse 25 and 26 can be read in the following manner, this means B) is not meaning 3.5 years within that of the fulfillment of A).

A) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

B) and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Who in their right might mind would think the consummation means 70 AD rather than the end of this age?

Many people in their right mind think that because the context of the consummation relates to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary which happened in 70 AD. Why are you making something simple so complicated?

No one execpt for Preterists and those that are not Preterists but align with Preterist thinking.

LOL. Because I agree with preterists on a couple things means I align with Preterist thinking? That's just a ridiculous comment. Do I also align with futurist thinking since I agree with futurists about a few things, also? Am I a preterist futurist in your mind? LOL. Come on. Please get serious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

B), btw, is not meaning 70 AD, it is meaning Revelation 11:2, for one. Which means no literal buildings or literal cities are being destroyed.

Nonsense. Are you somehow not aware why the physical city and sanctuary were destroyed in 70 AD? It was because of the Jews having cutting off and rejecting the Messiah. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary has a direct relation to the Messiah being cut off.

In the book of Daniel, destruction(shachath) does not always mean in literal sense involving the destrying of literal cities and literal buildings.

For example.

Daniel 11:17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting(shachath) her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy(shachath) wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy(shachath) the mighty and the holy people.

Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy(shachath) many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

It really makes sense, doesn't it, that in the book of Daniel that (shachath) never means as in to literally destroy buildings and places, but in Daniel 9:26 it does.

This is an incredibly weak argument. The fact of the matter is that the word can be used to describe destruction both physically and figurativly. So, you have proven nothing here.

It really makes sense, doesn't it, that the NT doesn't aid in interpreting the OT.

LOL! What an incredibly ironic thing for you to say! You can't even recognize how the NT interprets Daniel 9:24, and you say something like this? You are really something else. Unbelievable.

Who cares what Revelation 11:2 says and what that is involving, right? One is not supposed to interpret Scripture with Scripture. God forbid one do that.

LOL. You are truly hilarious. We all believe that we are supposed to interpret scripture with scripture whenever possible. The problem is that you are very bad at doing that. You try to relate unrelated scriptures all the time. You think you can figure everything out without the help of the Holy Spirit while relying completely on your own flawed human wisdom and common sense.

So if anyone is speaking nonsense here, it is not me, it is you accusing me of speaking nonsense since you couldn't possibly debunk all of the above.

LOL. You really need to learn what words mean. You misuse the word "undeniably" all the time and now you are misusing the phrase "couldn't possibly". You need to humble yourself and acknowledge that your opinions are not undeniable facts that can't possibly be debunked. I'm very confident in my opinions, as you know, but I never say that they are undeniable and can't possibly be debunked. I don't claim that my opinions are facts. You need to stop doing that.

IOW, truth can't be debunked.

That's correct, but your false opinions are not truth.

Nothing I provided above is not the truth.

Once again you are claiming that your flawed opinions are facts. What you're saying is only in your mind. That means nothing to me because I know you are wrong frequently.

For example, are you going to insist it is untrue that everywhere in the book of Daniel, (shachath) never means as in to literally destroy buildings and places?

You listed 3 verses where the word was used. LOL. As if that proves it can only ever be used that way? Get serious! Your arguments are extrmely weak but you think they are irrefutable facts. Sad.

For example, are you going to prove that , if the transgression upon a city is finished, that that means it still gets attacked in the future?

Where does it say that to finish the transgression means "the transgression upon a city is finished"? Why wouldn't you think that finishing the transgression would be related to making an end of sins and making reconciliation for iniquity? How do you think that the making an end of sins and making reconciliation for iniquity are fulfilled?