A Biblical Lesson on Spiritual Discernment

[Spiritual Israelite]

They wanted to know what would happen and when to the physical city and temple,

And that is because He told them that the physical city and temple would be destroyed, right? When He said "see these great buildings?" and proceeded to tell them that no stone would be left upon another (Matthew 24:1-2, Mark 13:1-2, Luke 21:6-7), He was talking about the temple buildings, right? So, they would naturally want to know the timing of that, don't you think? So, that's why they asked Him that question about when they would be destroyed.

but the answer Christ gave them takes them and us back to the prophet Daniel that we would know the AOD is linked with the cross of Christ, and not the Old city and temple.

Why would Jesus not want to answer their question in the context in which it was asked, which was in relation to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings? He's the One who told them that would happen, so why wouldn't He want to answer a question about it?

They needed to look forward and stop looking back at that which was destined to destruction.

How are you coming to this conclusion? Why would Jesus bother telling them that the temple buildings were going to be destroyed if He had no interest in providing any further details about it? Don't you think He would want believers to know when that was about to happen so that they could flee the area instead of being killed or taken captive?

Since the advent of Christ coming to earth a man, the Old, represented by physical things is gone, because Christ brought with Him the New that is NOT physical but spiritual and can only be known and entered when one has been born again.

Yes, we all agree with this, but that does not mean that Jesus had nothing to say about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time.

 

[covenantee]

There is not biblical doctrine at demonstrable variance with past history.

True.

So the biblical doctrine of the literal flight of the literal Christians from literal Judaea is not at demonstrable variance with past history.

 

[TribulationSigns]

In Matthew 24, they all had not only literal meanings, but also literal realities.

You assume Matthew 24 must be interpreted literally because you begin with that presupposition. But Christ repeatedly taught in spiritual language that only those with ears to hear would understand (Matthew 13:10-17; Mark 4:11-12). This is a big difference between you and me!

Did Jesus intend them to be understood literally or symbolically?

E.g. Those in literal Judaea understood Jesus' warning literally, because they fled literally.

Otherwise, they would have perished literally.

No.

Jesus did not predict the destruction of earthly Jerusalem so believers could merely escape to literal mountains. Rather, He spoke prophetically concerning the judgment of His New Covenant congregation at the end of the age, using Old Testament covenant language and imagery.

The New Testament identifies the true Judea and Jews spiritually, something that you lack to understand:

• Romans 2:28-29 — "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly... but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly..."
• Philippians 3:3 — "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit..."
• Galatians 6:15-16 — the Israel of God is God's covenant people in Christ.
• Hebrews 12:22 — Believers have come unto mount Sion, the heavenly Jerusalem—not an earthly mountain.
• Revelation 14:1 — The Lamb stands upon mount Sion with His redeemed.

Therefore, Christ's command, "Let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains" (Matthew 24:16), is understood spiritually by comparing Scripture with Scripture. The elect are called to flee from the apostate covenant congregation to God's holy mountain—His kingdom—for refuge during His judgment of his unfaithful New Testament congregation (Isaiah 2:2-3; Joel 2:32; Hebrews 12:22).

You have the wrong Judea, the wrong Jews, the wrong temple, and therefore the wrong fulfillment.

Matthew 24 is not about escaping Roman armies in A.D. 70. It is about the future judgment that begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17), when Christ purifies His New Testament congregation before His Second Coming. Those with spiritual discernment will understand; those who insist on the letter will continue to miss the substance (2 Corinthians 3:6).

 

[covenantee]

You assume Matthew 24 must be interpreted literally because you begin with that presupposition. But Christ repeatedly taught in spiritual language that only those with ears to hear would understand (Matthew 13:10-17; Mark 4:11-12). This is a big difference between you and me!



No.

Jesus did not predict the destruction of earthly Jerusalem so believers could merely escape to literal mountains. Rather, He spoke prophetically concerning the judgment of His New Covenant congregation at the end of the age, using Old Testament covenant language and imagery.

The New Testament identifies the true Judea and Jews spiritually, something that you lack to understand:

• Romans 2:28-29 — "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly... but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly..."
• Philippians 3:3 — "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit..."
• Galatians 6:15-16 — the Israel of God is God's covenant people in Christ.
• Hebrews 12:22 — Believers have come unto mount Sion, the heavenly Jerusalem—not an earthly mountain.
• Revelation 14:1 — The Lamb stands upon mount Sion with His redeemed.

Therefore, Christ's command, "Let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains" (Matthew 24:16), is understood spiritually by comparing Scripture with Scripture. The elect are called to flee from the apostate covenant congregation to God's holy mountain—His kingdom—for refuge during His judgment of his unfaithful New Testament congregation (Isaiah 2:2-3; Joel 2:32; Hebrews 12:22).

You have the wrong Judea, the wrong Jews, the wrong temple, and therefore the wrong fulfillment.

Matthew 24 is not about escaping Roman armies in A.D. 70. It is about the future judgment that begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17), when Christ purifies His New Testament congregation before His Second Coming. Those with spiritual discernment will understand; those who insist on the letter will continue to miss the substance (2 Corinthians 3:6).

So the Christians were wrong to flee literally?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Yes, and the answer given can be known when we understand the abomination of desolation spoken by the prophet Daniel. Daniel links the AOD with the cross of Christ who is Messiah the Prince who was to come.

Mat 24:15-16
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
(16) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Sorry no. Christ did not talk about the temple at the Cross or the temple in 70AD here. The holy place on this side of the Cross (after the Cross) is the Church. This is where the abomination of desolation be set up near the end of age, after the building of the church is finished.

BTW, do you know exactly what is the abomination of desolation, RWB? If you believe that the AoD is literal, please explain what it is biblically.

 

[covenantee]

No.

So the Christians were wrong to flee literally?

Should be an easy answer. Why the delay?

 

[claninja]

Yes, but we also recognize there are hosts, and legions of spiritual beings, both demonic as well as angels of God.

Luke 2:13 (KJV) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Host - stratiá: as encamped); camp-likeness, i.e. an army, i.e. (figuratively) the angels, the celestial luminaries:—host

There are legions of angels as well as legions of evil.

Mt 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mr 5:9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
Mr 5:15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
Lu 8:30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him


legeṓn - of Latin origin; a "legion", i.e. Roman regiment (figuratively):—legion

Luke 21:20 has a different word, which is not defined as figurative for legions of spiritual beings. it’s define soldiers in a camp : STRONGS NT 4760: στρατόπεδον

Yes, and the answer given can be known when we understand the abomination of desolation spoken by the prophet Daniel. Daniel links the AOD with the cross of Christ who is Messiah the Prince who was to come.

The answer is related to the disciples’ questions about the literal temple buildings, the ones in front of them, being destroyed.

 

[TribulationSigns]

This does not address what I said at all. When the disciples asked "When shall these things be"? what exactly do you think they were asking with that question? And what do you believe spawned that question?

@rwb , I don't think they know they believe this because it's the easiest conclusion to hold, but in practice that is the case. Why else would anyone not take the time to notice how inconsistent, conflicting, and unsound the foundation of this whole theory actually is? It simply does not fit the context, the narrative, or the declarations of the prophetic text. This is why they have to artificially divide the one verse into two different eras "in order to" force it to fit their narrative. For example:

Mark 13:4

• "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"

There is NOT the slightest suggestion here that this verse speaks of two entirely different eras. It's speaking of one event, which is when these things occur, then will be the sign of His coming. If they believe in the 70 AD theory then it's easy for people to distort this passage (and others like it) and claim without any Biblical validation, that it refers to two different eras entirely. As an example, it's easier for me to believe that Satan was not bound at the cross "if" I hold to a Dispensationalist theory. To dig deeper and understand his true binding requires the honor of us working to search out a matter.

Also, things which "appear" right at first glance are often found wanting when compared with the "whole" of Scripture in the light of scripture, defined by scripture.

Luke 21:5-11

• "And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
• As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
• And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
• And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
• But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
• Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
• And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven."

Unless we would be Preterists, this answer Christ gave doesn't "fit" the context at all!!!

 

[TribulationSigns]

I am surprised that no one really understand what the "times of the Gentiles" is.