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.

 

[rwb]

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



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

Yes, they were looking back toward the Old Covenant physical realities, but the answer Christ gave them should have made them (and it did) look ahead. Because Christ links the AOD with the crucifixion of Christ which is that which was spoken by the prophet Daniel. Christ never gives the slightest answer as to when the Old Covenant physical realities would be utterly destroyed. He is simply telling them to stop looking back as you Preterits tend to do.

 

[covenantee]

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

No one is surprised that you don't understand how to answer the simple question:

"So the Christians were wrong to flee literally?"

 

[claninja]

Yes, they were looking back toward the Old Covenant physical realities, but the answer Christ gave them should have made them (and it did) look ahead. Because Christ links the AOD with the crucifixion of Christ which is that which was spoken by the prophet Daniel. Christ never gives the slightest answer as to when the Old Covenant physical realities would be utterly destroyed. He is simply telling them to stop looking back as you Preterits tend to do.

1.) where does Christ explicitly and clearly link the AOD to the cross?

2.) Any time the disciples have a misunderstanding, either Christ corrects, or the author narrates the explanation. Where, in the OD, does Christ explicitly correct the disciples? Or where does the author insert a narrated correction?

3.) the destruction of the temple was future to them, not in the past, so I’m not sure what you mean by “not looking back”?

 

[covenantee]

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

No one is surprised that you don't understand how to answer the simple question:

"So the Christians were wrong to flee literally?"

Afraid of something?

 

[rwb]

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.

No, Christ doesn't talk about the cross, it is in reading from the prophet Daniel that the connection between AOD and the crucifixion is made manifest.

No, I don't believe AOD is some thing! According to the prophet Daniel AOD is spiritual not physical. AOD was committed by the nation of Old and is the reason that the city and Solomon's temple were destroyed. The Babylonians didn't destroy the city and sanctuary, they were used by God to judge the people. Because it was the apostate Jewish people, the people of the Prince (Christ) that "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." According to Daniel's heartfelt prayer the city and sanctuary were already AOD by committing sins against God and not being obedient to keep the Law.
According to what is written by the prophet Daniel, though the city and sanctuary will be re-built, the same wickedness that brought AOD to the nation of Daniel's time, so too shall be again, the nation will once again turn away from God and by rejecting His Son the nation (apostate Jews) shall be the cause of "overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

 

[Davidpt]

Daniel links the AOD with the cross of Christ who is Messiah the Prince who was to come.

No he doesn't. Daniel links the AOD with that of Matthew 24:21, for one. Compare Daniel 12:1 to Matthew 24:21 then explain why Daniel 12:1 is not meaning Matthew 24:21?

And it's not like no AOD is ever mentioned in Daniel 12.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.


Now look carefully and note what is at the end of this, meaning at the end of the days pertaining to verse 11 and 12. Daniel literally bodily rises from the dead at the end of these days. Therefore, making him among the many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth and awake to everlasting life(verse 2).

This can't be a coincidence, meaning all of the following.

In Matthew 24 there is an AOD during a time of trouble that has no equal in the past nor in the future. And at the end of it Christ returns and involves a resurrection event.

Equally, in Daniel 12 there is an AOD during a time of trouble that has no equal in the past nor in the future. And at the end of it a resurrection event occurs, obviously meaning Christ has bodily returned in order for there to be this resurrection event in the first place.

IMO, it is absurd that the resurrection event the NT speaks of when Christ returns is not the same resurrection event Daniel 12:2 speaks of. But since pretty much everyone agrees they are the same resurrection event, well, speaking of Daniel 12:2 then, one cannot arrive at this resurrection event by bypassing Daniel 12:11 altogether.

Therefore, Daniel 12:11 has to be fulfilled before Daniel 12:2 can be fulfilled. And that it is absurd if anyone , for example, applies verse 11 to that of the time of A4E(167 BC), when Daniel 12:13, nor Daniel 12:2 could remotely be referring to the days of A4E. The idea then, one is to not take Daniel 12:11 in the literal sense where it is involving a literal temple. It has to be interpreted spiritually and is applicable to the temple meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Which in turn is meaning the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15. Which in turn is involving the 42 month reign of the beast and satan's great wrath upon the NT church in the final hours of this age, thus great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Nowhere in all of the Discourse is the time of the cross ever in view. What is in view in the Discourse is the era of time between His ascension and His bodily return in the end of this age, then what follows His return. And believe it or not, like it or not, it is during His ascension when Daniel 12:11 is meaning.

 

[rwb]

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



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

Okay, but Christ does not give them an answer for when the Old shall physically be destroyed. 70 AD is found nowhere in Scripture but must be read into the Bible by Preterits who cling to the Old after the New Covenant in Christ has come. Like the first century disciples of Christ, Preterits want to cling to the Old forgetting the Old came to an end with the advent of Christ coming to earth a man.

 

[rwb]

@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!!!

I think the main difference between how you and I understand this prophesy is that you see it as being mostly fulfilled near the very end of the age. But I view the prophesy as having begun to be fulfilled with the advent of Christ, and continuing to be fulfilled throughout all the ages until the last/seventh trumpet begins to sound that time given the church to proclaim the Kingdom of God through Christ, that the Kingdom of heaven would be complete, shall be no longer. The only time left for this earth after that is Satan's little season.

 

[claninja]

Okay, but Christ does not give them an answer for when the Old shall physically be destroyed. 70 AD is found nowhere in Scripture but must be read into the Bible by Preterits who cling to the Old after the New Covenant in Christ has come. Like the first century disciples of Christ, Preterits want to cling to the Old forgetting the Old came to an end with the advent of Christ coming to earth a man.

His answer is about the temple being destroyed, unless there is something contextual where Jesus clearly indicates he is not addressing their question.

 

[rwb]

1.) where does Christ explicitly and clearly link the AOD to the cross?

2.) Any time the disciples have a misunderstanding, either Christ corrects, or the author narrates the explanation. Where, in the OD, does Christ explicitly correct the disciples? Or where does the author insert a narrated correction?

3.) the destruction of the temple was future to them, not in the past, so I’m not sure what you mean by “not looking back”?

Christ does this by telling them and us to understand the AOD spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

When they admired the city, temple and buildings they were going back to the Old Covenant. Which is why Christ told them all these things shall be destroyed. He wanted them to understand that with His coming and making atonement for sins, the Old was already GONE forever spiritually and because of that all these Old things would be destroyed.

 

[rwb]

No he doesn't. Daniel links the AOD with that of Matthew 24:21, for one. Compare Daniel 12:1 to Matthew 24:21 then explain why Daniel 12:1 is not meaning Matthew 24:21?

And it's not like no AOD is ever mentioned in Daniel 12.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

It's in Daniel 9 the connection of the coming Messiah, the Prince and the crucifixion of Christ coming to fulfill all that was ordained of Him.

I'll try to reply to more later when time permits. Blessings David for you and yours!