Olivet Discourse revisited

[covenantee]

You make it sound as though such circumstances could never occur in the world again, not too long before the return of Christ. The above is not enough to convince me and many others that Jesus was not speaking primarily about the end of the current age which began on the Day of Pentecost. Maybe also to the conditions in the known world leading up to 70 A.D, but not primarily.

Scofield dispensational futurism claims that wars and rumors are signs of the end. Jesus declared just the opposite.

Scofield dispensational futurism attempts to claim that Jesus ignored His disciples' question. Jesus and His disciples knew that He answered their question.

In no verse of Matthew 24 did Jesus tell His disciples to go for coffee while He delivered a monologue to the wind.

 

[covenantee]

No. You are wrong. Naos is used a number of times in reference to the sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem, not only to the body of Christ.

Temple complex - the physical structure (word used: hierón):-

Matthew 4:5; Matthew 12:5-6; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 21:14-15; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 24:1; Matthew 26:55; Mark 11:11 & 15-16; Mark 11:27; Mark 12:35; Mark 13:1 & 3; Mark 14:49; Luke 2:27, 37 & 46; Luke 4:9; Luke 18:10; Luke 19:45 & 47; Luke 20:1 & 5; Luke 21:37-38; Luke 22:52-53; John 2:14-15; John 5:14; John 7:14 & 28; John 8:2, 20 & 59; John 10:23; John 11:56; John 18:20; Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; Acts 3:1-3, 8 & 10; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:20-21 & 24-25; Acts 5:42; Acts 21:26-30; Acts 22:17; Acts 24:6, 12 & 18; Acts 25:8; Acts 26:21; 1 Corinthians 9:13.

The actual sanctuary of God (word used: naós):-

-- in the temple complex --

Luke 1:9 & 21-22; Matthew 23:16-17 & 21; Matthew 23:35; Matthew 27:5.

-- Body of Christ --

(John 2:19 & 21; Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40; Mark 14:58; Mark 15:29)

After the verses talking about the tearing of the veil in the temple, the first time the word naos is used again, is in Acts:

Acts 7:48a
But, the Most High does not dwell in temples (Greek: naos) made with hands.

Acts 17:24
The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples (Greek naos) made with hands.

-- the church & the temple in heaven -- (word used: naós)

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 3:12; Revelation 7:15; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 14:15 & Revelation 14:17; Revelation 15:5-6 & Revelation 15:8; Revelation 16:1 & Revelation 16:17; Revelation 21:22.

So what Jesus and His apostles were showing us, is that Christ's body, i.e the place that the Spirit of God inhabits, is the holy place, the sanctuary of God. The Old Testament sanctuary ceased being the holy place when the veil was torn inside that physical structure (and that occurred at the moment of the Lord's death).

So Jesus should have used "naon" in both instances, because it can have the two different meanings.

Why didn't He?

 

[Zao is life]

Scofield dispensational futurism claims that wars and rumors are signs of the end. Jesus declared just the opposite.

Scofield dispensational futurism attempts to claim that Jesus ignored His disciples' question. Jesus and His disciples knew that He answered their question.

In no verse of Matthew 24 did Jesus tell His disciples to go for coffee while He delivered a monologue to the wind.

Seems like you've been reading too much Scofield and maybe also Preterist and PP scholars, and not enough of Matthew. I have not read Scofield or any of the others, but I have read Matthew. So you would have it that Jesus' mention of wars and rumors of wars before the time of the end of the age and the return of Christ means He was talking about things to take place before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, and about nothing else. We get that.

Next?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree that "the end" can mean the end of any prophesied period (not sure why you mentioned Daniel 11, because Daniel 11 is speaking about a prophesied period which ended over a hundred years before the events of Daniel 9:24-27).

I mention Dan 11 because it is reiterating the same which I referred to in connection with Dan 8. There, Persia, Greece, and Antiochus 4 exposed Israel to God's judgment against Israel for their sins. And despite the restoration of their temple, Daniel was told the temple would once again be destroyed (70 AD).

The "time of the end" is therefore used in connection with the "end of Israel" under covenant of the Law. Ultimately , Israel's "end" would be an entire age-long period of great tribulation and exile leading to the end of the age.

But bearing in mind that the chapter division between Jesus telling the pharisees in the temple about its coming destruction and Jesus repeating this news to His disciples just outside the temple, is man-made. IMO verse 1 and 2 of Matthew 24 belong at the close of Matthew chapter 23:

Yes, the chapter divisions were designed to aid in biblical study--not part of the original autographs.

So whatever follows that, and especially following the birth-pain signs, is in the context of whatever follows the birth-pain signs, because for the first time, it introduces the subject of the tribulation of the disciples, which has nothing to do with the fact that the temple was going to be destroyed.

I don't see any discontinuity in this! The temple destruction takes place in connection with the apostasy and sins of Israel. And this sin is evidenced, in part, by Israel's persecution of Jewish believers.

Where do you see "tribulation of the disciples?" The "great tribulation" is said in connection with God's punishment upon the Jewish people as a whole, and not as a punishment upon believers, who are *not* the target of this punishment.

Obviously, Jewish believers have to go through the tribulation that the entire nation was subjected to by the Romans. But never is it said that this exercise of God's wrath against Israel is designed to punish *believers!* And I'm sure you agree.

Nor has anyone ever had any way of knowing how many years will have passed before He comes. I really do not buy the Preterist and PP view that He came in a spiritual sense, or any sense in 70 A.D. That coming happened on the day of Pentecost. The next time will be in a literal sense when He appears in the clouds and sends out His angels to gather His elect, as per Matthew 24:29-31 and other passages.

The sense of Jesus' "coming" does make sense to me in some regards because as I've said, the "coming of God's wrath" in the OT is often used to express historical judgments and not THE eschatological judgment at Armageddon. So just as God "came" in judgment upon Israel during the Babylonian Captivity so Jesus "came" against Israel in 70 AD.

At any rate, this "coming" is never meant to be an eschatological coming, but only a coming in judgment. For this reason I wish to distinguish my view from the Preterist view. Again, Luke 17 seems to refer to Jesus' coming in judgment in 70 AD, as opposed to his eschatological coming at the end of the age. But that verse is arguable.

Thanks for sharing your views.

 

[Zao is life]

Where do you see "tribulation of the disciples?" The "great tribulation" is said in connection with God's punishment upon the Jewish people as a whole, and not as a punishment upon believers, who are *not* the target of this punishment.

You use the word "target" wrongly when you use it in reference to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus.

There are two things you are failing to see about this:

1. Luke 21:23 calls the punishment upon unbelieving rebellious Jewish people the wrath (orge) that was to come upon them, and says that when this happens there will be great distress (anangke).

2. The entire New Testament makes a very clear distinction between wrath and tribulation:

Here are ALL New Testament references to tribulation experienced by non-Christians:-

1. Of all who do evil: Romans 2:9.
2. Of the world as repayment for bringing tribulation upon the saints: 2 Thessalonians 1:6.

There are no other New Testament mentions of tribulation as the experience of those who are not Christians.

TRIBULATION AND PERSECUTION EXPERIENCED BY CHRISTIANS

A. Persecution Of Jesus: John 5:16

B. Of Christians: Matthew 5:10-12; John 15:20; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:11; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 4:9; Galatians 1:13 & 23; Galatians 4:29; Galatians 5:11

C. Of the woman who gave birth to the Messiah: Revelation 12:13

Tribulation Of apostles or Christians:

Matthew 13:21 (Parallel: Mark 4:17); Matthew 24:9 & 29 (Parallel Mark 13:24); John 16:33; Acts 11:19; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23; Romans 5:3; Romans 8:35; Romans 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 6 & 8; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Ephesians 3:13; Philippians 1:16; Philippians 4:14; Colossians 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:3-4 & 7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 6-7; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:32-33; 1 Peter 5:9; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 2:9-10, 22; Revelation 7:14.

Great Tribulation (Greek: mégas thlîpsis)

Mentioned only three times in the New Testament:

Great tribulation mentioned as the experience of Christians in Revelation 2:22 & Revelation 7:14.

Great tribulation is first mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse: Matthew 24:21 (parallel Mark 13:19) .

God's wrath on the other hand, is always produced by His burning anger, and in both Hebrew and Greek, there are different words that are used interchangeably in reference to both the emotion, and the actions produced by the emotion (sometimes the same word that is used in reference to the burning anger of God is also used for the action produced by the emotion).

HEBREW:

Isaiah 13:13
So I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall move out of its place, in the wrath [‛ebrâh] of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of His fierce [chârôn] anger ['aph].

Exodus 15:7
And in the greatness of Your excellency You have overthrown them that rose up against You. You sent forth Your wrath [chârôn], consuming them like stubble.

GREEK:

Ephesians 4:31
Let all bitterness and (English translation): wrath [thymós] and anger [orgḗ] and tumult and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.

Revelation 16:19
And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give to her the cup of the wine of the anger [thymós] of His wrath [orgḗ].

thymós, G2372 from 2380 (BELOW); passion (as if breathing hard):--fierceness, indignation, wrath.
thýō, 02380 A primary verb; properly, to rush (breathe hard, blow, smoke), i.e. (by implication) to sacrifice (properly, by fire, but genitive case); by extension to immolate (slaughter for any purpose):--kill, (do) sacrifice, slay.
orgḗ, 03709 from 3713; properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment:--anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.

There is no such thing as different types of wrath reserved for different groups of people (as some have it in their [mis]interpretations of the book of Revelation). As far as the action produced by the emotion (the burning anger) is concerned, there is only one type of it, but different words are used interchangeably in reference to both the emotion, and the actions produced by the emotion.

The unbelieving Jews faced God's wrath in 70 A.D, not "tribulation" nor "the great tribulation", as Luke 21:23 clearly states.

The subject of the tribulation of the disciples introduced by Jesus in Matthew 24:9 is called great tribulation in Matthew 24:21 - as the grammar in the passage clearly shows by linking verses 14 through 21-22 by using the words "and", "therefore" "for" etc.

Thank you too for sharing your views.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You use the word "target" wrongly when you use it in reference to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus.

There are two things you are failing to see about this:

1. Luke 21:23 calls the punishment upon unbelieving rebellious Jewish people the wrath (orge) that was to come upon them, and says that when this happens there will be great distress (anangke).

2. The entire New Testament makes a very clear distinction between wrath and tribulation:

Here are ALL New Testament references to tribulation experienced by non-Christians:-

1. Of all who do evil: Romans 2:9.
2. Of the world as repayment for bringing tribulation upon the saints: 2 Thessalonians 1:6.

There are no other New Testament mentions of tribulation as the experience of those who are not Christians.

TRIBULATION AND PERSECUTION EXPERIENCED BY CHRISTIANS

A. Persecution Of Jesus: John 5:16

B. Of Christians: Matthew 5:10-12; John 15:20; Acts 22:4; Acts 26:11; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 4:9; Galatians 1:13 & 23; Galatians 4:29; Galatians 5:11

C. Of the woman who gave birth to the Messiah: Revelation 12:13

Tribulation Of apostles or Christians:

Matthew 13:21 (Parallel: Mark 4:17); Matthew 24:9 & 29 (Parallel Mark 13:24); John 16:33; Acts 11:19; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23; Romans 5:3; Romans 8:35; Romans 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 6 & 8; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 4:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 2 Corinthians 7:4-5; 2 Corinthians 8:2; Ephesians 3:13; Philippians 1:16; Philippians 4:14; Colossians 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:3-4 & 7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 6-7; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:32-33; 1 Peter 5:9; Revelation 1:9; Revelation 2:9-10, 22; Revelation 7:14.

Great Tribulation (Greek: mégas thlîpsis)

Mentioned only three times in the New Testament:

Great tribulation mentioned as the experience of Christians in Revelation 2:22 & Revelation 7:14.

Great tribulation is first mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse: Matthew 24:21 (parallel Mark 13:19) .

God's wrath on the other hand, is always produced by His burning anger, and in both Hebrew and Greek, there are different words that are used interchangeably in reference to both the emotion, and the actions produced by the emotion (sometimes the same word that is used in reference to the burning anger of God is also used for the action produced by the emotion).

HEBREW:

Isaiah 13:13
So I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall move out of its place, in the wrath [‛ebrâh] of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of His fierce [chârôn] anger ['aph].

Exodus 15:7
And in the greatness of Your excellency You have overthrown them that rose up against You. You sent forth Your wrath [chârôn], consuming them like stubble.

GREEK:

Ephesians 4:31
Let all bitterness and (English translation): wrath [thymós] and anger [orgḗ] and tumult and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.

Revelation 16:19
And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give to her the cup of the wine of the anger [thymós] of His wrath [orgḗ].

thymós, G2372 from 2380 (BELOW); passion (as if breathing hard):--fierceness, indignation, wrath.
thýō, 02380 A primary verb; properly, to rush (breathe hard, blow, smoke), i.e. (by implication) to sacrifice (properly, by fire, but genitive case); by extension to immolate (slaughter for any purpose):--kill, (do) sacrifice, slay.
orgḗ, 03709 from 3713; properly, desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by analogy), violent passion (ire, or (justifiable) abhorrence); by implication punishment:--anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.

There is no such thing as different types of wrath reserved for different groups of people (as some have it in their [mis]interpretations of the book of Revelation). As far as the action produced by the emotion (the burning anger) is concerned, there is only one type of it, but different words are used interchangeably in reference to both the emotion, and the actions produced by the emotion.

The unbelieving Jews faced God's wrath in 70 A.D, not "tribulation" nor "the great tribulation", as Luke 21:23 clearly states.

The subject of the tribulation of the disciples introduced by Jesus in Matthew 24:9 is called great tribulation in Matthew 24:21 - as the grammar in the passage clearly shows by linking verses 14 through 21-22 by using the words "and", "therefore" "for" etc.

I appreciate the references and the word study, but I'll have to get back with you if I'm to get more detailed in the problem I have with this. Words are flexible and apply as they do in a particular context, which determines their meaning. The words themselves do not necessarily carry a specific technical context with them. This is an interpretive fallacy to impose context in passages precisely because of the words being used.

"Tribulation" is a motif in the Bible, indicating a nation going through problems. Whether this problem is due to God's anger against them or not is determined by the context.

As I said, the "tribulation" Jesus said would happen to Israel has a basis in biblical prophecy, and is referred to in Dan 12. And there, the tribulation is experienced by all Israel due to the compromises of Israel, suggested in the earlier problems with Antiochus 4.

In that event, both righteous and unrighteous suffer under Antiochus, the Hellenist Jews suffering by God's judgment and the believing Jews suffering as unfortunate casualties of God's judgment upon Israel as a whole.

So "tribulation" is to be applied flexibly, depending on the context. And in the Olivet Discourse, the context is the destruction of Jerusalem as a divine judgment against the Jews as a whole.

This "tribulation" was not, however, exhausted with the 70 AD event, but was intended to lead to an age-long blindness and suffering of the Jewish People. The believing Jews have been unfortunate casualties, having lost for the entire age the benefits of having a Jewish nation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You use the word "target" wrongly when you use it in reference to the tribulation of the disciples of Jesus.

Okay, I'll address the "words" issue now. I don't believe I'm using the word "target" improperly. "Tribulation" refers, in the Olivet Discourse, to the general experience of the Jewish People, once they've lost their temple worship and their homeland. A side consequence of this includes the suffering of believing Jews, who lose a homeland not for their own sins, but only because they're Jewish.

There are two things you are failing to see about this:

1. Luke 21:23 calls the punishment upon unbelieving rebellious Jewish people the wrath (orge) that was to come upon them, and says that when this happens there will be great distress (anangke).

What am I failing to see about this? Of course, punishment is "wrath." I've not said otherwise. The Jewish People are punished for breaking their covenant with God, and for rejecting their Messiah, which is the equivalent of rejecting any need for God. They are unfaithful, and thus experience God's "wrath." Believing Jews are innocent casualties.

2. The entire New Testament makes a very clear distinction between wrath and tribulation:

"Wrath" and "tribulation" are 2 different words. Of course there is a distinction between them. But if you're arguing that each word carries a particular context with it, this is definitely an interpretive fallacy, which most scholars would agree on. There is no "wrath" against Israel, and "tribulation" for someone else. The "great tribulation" spoken of in the Olivet Discourse suggests God is pouring out His wrath on the Jewish People generally, and accepting that part of this ordeal means suffering for believing Jews, as well. They suffer from the sins of unbelieving Jews, as well as from the loss of a Jewish homeland.

Citing the uses of words in different passages does not prove this false.

 

[covenantee]

So you would have it that Jesus' mention of wars and rumors of wars before the time of the end of the age and the return of Christ means He was talking about things to take place before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, and about nothing else.

Not at all. There is certainly also the Second Coming in the Discourse in addition to 70 AD. The challenge is to identify each in the text.

Given the relative imminence of 70 AD to the time of the Discourse, it would be reasonable to expect no less than half of the Discourse to be devoted to it. I can recognize 70 AD up to and including verse 28.

It is not conceivable that an event of the watershed significance of the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in 70 AD would not receive significant prophetic attention in the Word.

Here's more.

FAMINES, PESTILENCES, EARTHQUAKES

Matthew: “And there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows” (24:7, 8).
Mark: “And there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles. These are the beginning of sorrows” (13:8).
Luke: “And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines and pestilences, and fearful sights” (21:11).

The Bible records that there was famine “throughout all the world. . . in the days of Claudius Caesar” (Acts 11:28). Judea was especially hard hit by famine. “The disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethern which dwelt in Judaea” (verse 29). Paul’s instructions concerning this “collection [of fruit] for the saints” is recorded in First Corinthians 16:1-5; Rom. 15:25-28.

Historians such as Suetonius and others mention famine during those years. Tacitus speaks of a “Failure in the crops, and a famine consequent thereupon.” Eusebius also mentions famines during this time in Home, Judea, and Greece. Yes, there were famines in those years before the fall of Jerusalem.

Along with famines, Jesus mentioned pestilences; that is plagues, the spread of disease, epidemics. Famine and pestilence, of course, go hand in hand. When people do not have proper food or insufficient food, pestilence results. Suetonius wrote of “pestilence” at Home in the days of Nero which was so severe that “within the space of one autumn there died no less than 30,000 persons.” Josephus records that pestilences raged in Babylonia in A.D. 40. Tacitus tells of pestilences in Italy in A. D. 66. Yes, there were pestilences in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

During this period, Jesus said there would also be earthquakes in many places. Tacitus mentions earthquakes at Rome. He wrote that “frequent earthquakes occured, by which many houses were thrown down” and that “twelve populous cities of Asia fell in ruins from an earthquake.”

Seneca, writing in the year 58 A. D., said: “How often have cities of Asia and Achaea fallen with one fatal shock! how many cities have been swallowed up in Syria! how many in Macedonia! how often has Cyprus been wasted by this calamity! how often has Paphos become a ruin! News has often been brought us of the demolition of whole cities at once.” He mentions the earthquake at Campania during the reign of Nero. In 60 A. D., Hierapous, Colosse, and Laodicea were overthrown — Laodocia being so self-sufficient that it recovered without the Imperial aid furnished other cities. In 63 A. D., the city of Pompeii was greatly damaged by earthquake. There were earthquakes in Crete, Apamea, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, and Judea. Earthquakes in divers places.
​

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

 

[Zao is life]

So "tribulation" is to be applied flexibly, depending on the context. And in the Olivet Discourse, the context is the destruction of Jerusalem as a divine judgment against the Jews as a whole.

Given the grammar chosen by Matthew and which joins the passage together from verse 9 to verse 31, the context of the tribulation mentioned in the Olivet Discourse is the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in verse 9. The context is not what Jesus had said about the destruction of the temple, but the disciples' question regarding the sign of His coming and of the end of the age.

In actual fact, the words "When will these things be? What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" do not even imply that the apostles believed that the return of Christ would come at the same time as the destruction of the temple, though we (including myself) have assumed they probably did. But it's still an assumption, and we are actually mind-reading the apostles when we say that this is what they believed.

In fact, if the disciples were at that time still under the impression that the Messiah was to save His people from their enemies, destroying the nations that would come against Jerusalem (as Zechariah 14 prophesied), then hearing that the city and temple was to be destroyed, they would probably not have linked His coming in glory as the Savior of His people, to the same time as the defeat of the Jews and destruction of their city and temple at the hands of the nations (that they had just heard was going to happen, instead of the Jews being delivered and their enemies destroyed).

They were fully aware, when they asked the question, that they had no idea when Jesus would come in His glory as the Messiah that would save His people (else they would not have asked the question), and may simply have wanted to know what the sign would be of His coming and the end of the age, without linking it to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.

and as the fact stands, when they asked Jesus what the sign would be of His coming and of the end of the age, Jesus replied with the tribulation that His disciples would experience when they become hated of all nations, and this:

"But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels of Heaven, but only My Father." (Matthew 24:36).

The point I'm making is that continually mind-reading the apostles as to what they believed and the reason they asked whatever they asked, is speculation, and we should not be using speculation to build doctrines upon.

Secondly, Israel is God's elect, both Jew and Gentile. Among God's elect there have always been the faithful and the unfaithful (a harlot). Throughout history the harlot has suffered the wrath of God, as have the nations, such as Babylon.

The faithful suffer tribulation at the hands of the same nations that God uses as instruments of wrath being poured upon the unfaithful among His elect. But it is not (God's) wrath that the faithful are experiencing, it's tribulation.

The unfaithful among God's elect and their city and temple came under God's wrath in 70 A.D, just as Luke said in Luke 21:23, using the word wrath. They experienced great distress (anagke) in the process, just as Luke said in Luke 21:23.

The disciples had already experienced tribulation under the hands of Nero, and frequently since then, and in many parts of the world the disciples of Jesus experience tribulation even today.

The subject of the great tribulation that the elect will experience which will bring about the return of Christ is the answer to the disciples question (Matthew 24:3b - the sign of His coming and of the end of the age); is spoken of in Matthew 24:9-10 and Matthew 24:21-22; and Matthew 24:29-31; and Revelation 7:14:

"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

The subject of this tribulation was introduced by Jesus Himself in verse 9, in response to the question regarding the sign of His coming and of the end of the age, and Matthew himself, who wrote the passage, joins the passage together from verse 9 to 31 with the words "and", "therefore", "for", "but", "because" etc.

The grammar needs to be flatly ignored (as though the plain use of grammar is suddenly unimportant and of no consequence to a correct understanding of the passage when it's used in Matthew 24:9-31), as well as the fact that it's not talking about the wrath of God coming upon Jerusalem, but about the tribulation Jesus was warning His disciples that they would face at the time of the end which will lead to His coming, in answer to their question.

Continuing to ignore the difference between the wrath of God that was to come upon the unfaithful among God's elect nation (and will come upon the unfaithful among God's elect - Babylon the Great - again), and the tribulation that would be experienced by the faithful disciples of Jesus, and continuing to ignore the plain grammar of the passage, is wilful ignorance, and then on top of that remaining fixated on "the Jews" and the destruction of the Old Testament temple in our understanding of God's elect, will cause the person doing so never to be enabled to rightly divide the Olivet Discourse.

And in regards to the difference between the faithful and the unfaithful, remaining faithful not to Jesus and wishing to understand what He meant in any passage of scripture, but rather to a particular eschatological model (to the point of wilful ignorance), is not a good choice for any saint to make. Turning an eschatological model and its proponents into your shepherds, rather than Jesus and His apostles, and His words and their words, leads people away.​

 

[Davy]

I'm not and have never considered myself a Preterist. Preterists believe, by definition, that both the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation are, for the most part, about the generation or time of Christ, the Early Church. I don't agree with that.

Belief that the Olivet Discourse was mostly about the time or generation of Christ is something believed in by the Church Fathers and many Christian leaders. This was long before Preterism came into existence as a school of interpretation.

Amillennialism was an early doctrine that crept into the 2nd century Church too, and it is not Biblical. So labels for an idea that came later doesn't change the fact that a doctrine, even an old one, can go against God's written Word.

There's simply too many indicators about the end of this world in those Signs Lord Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse, especially what He said about the final generation which will see all those signs, which has to mean the last generation since His future return is included in those Signs. So trying to use the fact that some in the early Church were misguided as a 'pry bar' just does not work. Common sense about what Jesus said regarding the last generation does make simple sense.

 

[covenantee]

Amillennialism was an early doctrine that crept into the 2nd century Church too, and it is not Biblical. So labels for an idea that came later doesn't change the fact that a doctrine, even an old one, can go against God's written Word.

There's simply too many indicators about the end of this world in those Signs Lord Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse, especially what He said about the final generation which will see all those signs, which has to mean the last generation since His future return is included in those Signs. So trying to use the fact that some in the early Church were misguided as a 'pry bar' just does not work. Common sense about what Jesus said regarding the last generation does make simple sense.

Whom to believe?

1. Modernist deniers
2. Historical Church Fathers and Christian leaders

Easy decision.

 

[Truth7t7]

Amillennialism was an early doctrine that crept into the 2nd century Church too, and it is not Biblical. So labels for an idea that came later doesn't change the fact that a doctrine, even an old one, can go against God's written Word.

False

The earliest of church fathers (Justin Martyr) (Iranaeus), saw a literal human man as (The Beast) or (The Antichrist) and the Lord returning in his destruction (The End) no millennial kingdom to follow

A future millennial kingdom on this earth is a fabricated fairy tale of man, found no place in scripture

 

[Randy Kluth]

Amillennialism was an early doctrine that crept into the 2nd century Church too, and it is not Biblical. So labels for an idea that came later doesn't change the fact that a doctrine, even an old one, can go against God's written Word.

There's simply too many indicators about the end of this world in those Signs Lord Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse, especially what He said about the final generation which will see all those signs, which has to mean the last generation since His future return is included in those Signs. So trying to use the fact that some in the early Church were misguided as a 'pry bar' just does not work. Common sense about what Jesus said regarding the last generation does make simple sense.

I'm just saying that current popular views of prophecy should not cause us to close our mind to the fact respectable Christians have had other views. Jesus tended to focus on the time and place he spoke to, and was less speculative than practical. He was clearly speaking to the experiences of his own disciples, and not prognosticating about the future. He did not ignore the end of all things and his 2nd Coming, but put it in perspective both for his own time and for ours. He had little interest in sensationalism and crystal ball reading.

He was not trying to excite the last generation of Christians to fire them up about their being the last days people of God. Rather, he was warning his own generation of Jewish People that their society had fallen away and was in imminent danger of judgment. This was a warning for Christians in all times that their societies can begin well and end up falling away, entering into a time of judgment.

And so, while Jews often thought of the coming of Christ as a restoration event, Jesus warned that it was also a judgment event. Before restoration comes judgment, like lightning from heaven. It strikes suddenly, almost without warning. The only way to be prepared is to stay prepared morally and spiritually.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Given the grammar chosen by Matthew and which joins the passage together from verse 9 to verse 31, the context of the tribulation mentioned in the Olivet Discourse is the tribulation of the disciples mentioned in verse 9. The context is not what Jesus had said about the destruction of the temple, but the disciples' question regarding the sign of His coming and of the end of the age.

The suffering of Jesus' Disciples is not the context for the statement that the temple would be destroyed, leading to an entire age of Jewish Diaspora. Therefore, the context behind the "Great Tribulation" is not Christian suffering, but rather, God's judgment of the nation Israel, leading to the destruction of the temple and the Jewish Diaspora.

One cannot just select any event mentioned in the Olivet Discourse to create a "context" for the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation derives from the main theme, the introductory theme of the temple's destruction. This is what started the Discourse, as a corrective for the false notion of Jesus' Disciples that the temple was beautiful and to be admired. By contrast, Jesus determined to get his Disciples to see that the beautiful buildings cloaked evil within that would surely lead to its demise.

The context for the Great Tribulation, therefore, is the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish People, and not the suffering of Christians. Mentioning the suffering of Christians just highlighted the sins for which Israel would be judged. It is the judgment of God against Israel that is the main theme and context for this Discourse. Therefore, the context for the Great Tribulation is the suffering of the Jewish People for having rejected their Savior and Messiah.

I understand that we disagree on this. I'm just giving you my rebuttal to the point you're trying to make. This is not an "emotional" issue with me--just a disagreement among friends over interpretation of a particular passage.

In actual fact, the words "When will these things be? What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" do not even imply that the apostles believed that the return of Christ would come at the same time as the destruction of the temple, though we (including myself) have assumed they probably did. But it's still an assumption, and we are actually mind-reading the apostles when we say that this is what they believed.
​

I'm not guessing either. What we're told is that the Disciples were confused, because they apparently thought the coming of Messiah would bring about the full restoration of Israel and complete deliverance from the Romans. Jesus therefore clearly separated the idea of Israel's restoration from his present and future coming. He came to bring judgment to Israel in his very own generation, and he will come again to bring judgment upon the whole world, not just to deliver Israel, but also to deliver all of his people in all nations.

"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of mégas thlîpsis (great tribulation), and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
​

When the world turns against God after having been exposed to the Gospel and even after having embraced the Gospel, that world is thrown into great tribulation. Though this distress comes upon people who return to their paganism and evil, Christians are forced to live through this themselves, though they do not merit this experience as a judgment against themselves. It is just the price we pay for being here as a testimony on behalf of the truth.

May I say that the entire civilized world has begun to go through the throes of death? We are experiencing epidemics and the threat of great wars the like of which has never been seen. And Christians are here to testify to the love of God in the midst of all of this division and hate. It's our job to persevere. May the Lord have mercy!

 

[Davy]

I'm just saying that current popular views of prophecy should not cause us to close our mind to the fact respectable Christians have had other views. Jesus tended to focus on the time and place he spoke to, and was less speculative than practical. He was clearly speaking to the experiences of his own disciples, and not prognosticating about the future. He did not ignore the end of all things and his 2nd Coming, but put it in perspective both for his own time and for ours. He had little interest in sensationalism and crystal ball reading.

Each person must... decide who... they are going to listen to. God allows us that as a test. I choose to listen to God in His Word. I already know what it's like to be deceived by preachers that preach doctrines of men per their specific Church denominations, which is why I am non-denominational.

Lord Jesus in His Olivet discourse was giving 7 main Signs of the end of this world leading up to His future return. The very last Sign He gave was that of His return and gathering of His faithful saints. And it is those... Signs that He 'commanded' His Church to be 'watching'.

Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5 even covered one of those Signs Jesus gave also, right after Paul had given the events of Jesus' coming and gathering of His Church. Apostle Paul said when 'they' (the deceived) say, "Peace and safety", then "sudden destruction" will come upon them. That's the Sign Jesus showed in Matthew 24:6 about wars and rumors of war, but the END is not yet, meaning the 'end' will be like the opposite of wars and rumors of war, i.e., world peace. That Sign also is given in Daniel 8 about the king of fierce countenance at the end that will destroy many using peace. Even the "little horn" prophecy in that Daniel 8 chapter is associated with the Sign of the end involving the "abomination of desolation" that Lord Jesus quoted in His Olivet discourse from the Book of Daniel.

So really, you have NO EXCUSE for not understanding those Scripture relationships Christ gave in His Olivet discourse that point to the end of this world and the final Antichrist. You have simply chosen to listen to men instead of God in His Word about such things.

So what have those men promised you? Are you a deacon or elder in their church system or something?

 

[covenantee]

Each person must... decide who... they are going to listen to. God allows us that as a test. I choose to listen to God in His Word. I already know what it's like to be deceived by preachers that preach doctrines of men per their specific Church denominations, which is why I am non-denominational.

Lord Jesus in His Olivet discourse was giving 7 main Signs of the end of this world leading up to His future return. The very last Sign He gave was that of His return and gathering of His faithful saints. And it is those... Signs that He 'commanded' His Church to be 'watching'.

Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5 even covered one of those Signs Jesus gave also, right after Paul had given the events of Jesus' coming and gathering of His Church. Apostle Paul said when 'they' (the deceived) say, "Peace and safety", then "sudden destruction" will come upon them. That's the Sign Jesus showed in Matthew 24:6 about wars and rumors of war, but the END is not yet, meaning the 'end' will be like the opposite of wars and rumors of war, i.e., world peace. That Sign also is given in Daniel 8 about the king of fierce countenance at the end that will destroy many using peace. Even the "little horn" prophecy in that Daniel 8 chapter is associated with the Sign of the end involving the "abomination of desolation" that Lord Jesus quoted in His Olivet discourse from the Book of Daniel.

So really, you have NO EXCUSE for not understanding those Scripture relationships Christ gave in His Olivet discourse that point to the end of this world and the final Antichrist. You have simply chosen to listen to men instead of God in His Word about such things.

So what have those men promised you? Are you a deacon or elder in their church system or something?

Whom to believe?


1. Historical orthodox Christian Church Fathers and Leaders whose faith, vision, and sacrifice, often to the death, preserved and sustained the true Christian Church over the centuries

2. Armchair modernist scorners and scoffers


Does anyone need a hint?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Each person must... decide who... they are going to listen to. God allows us that as a test. I choose to listen to God in His Word. I already know what it's like to be deceived by preachers that preach doctrines of men per their specific Church denominations, which is why I am non-denominational.

Being denominational or non-denominational does not have to figure into whether you follow the orthodoxy of a particular church. We always face peer pressure from the orthodoxies of our time, some being right and some being wrong. We don't have to live on an island and spurn people in order to hold to independent opinions. How are you going to help those who need correction if you attack them and run away from them?

Lord Jesus in His Olivet discourse was giving 7 main Signs of the end of this world leading up to His future return. The very last Sign He gave was that of His return and gathering of His faithful saints. And it is those... Signs that He 'commanded' His Church to be 'watching'.

Actually, he told his own generation to watch for the "birth pang" signs, which preceded the gathering of Roman troops to Jerusalem to destroy the temple. But yes, he also indicated we "watch for" his 2nd Coming, not by trying to anticipate the date of that event, but rather, by cleaning up our act and living civil and moral lives, as well as wholesome spiritual lives.

Jesus said that we don't always know when we're doing something good for him, but if we're serving His people well, we'll be preparing for a good reception at the coming of the Kingdom. We also prepare and watch for Christ's coming by recognizing false Christs and deceptions that hope to sidetrack us. There is a lot to "watching for Christ's Coming!"

Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5 even covered one of those Signs Jesus gave also, right after Paul had given the events of Jesus' coming and gathering of His Church. Apostle Paul said when 'they' (the deceived) say, "Peace and safety", then "sudden destruction" will come upon them. That's the Sign Jesus showed in Matthew 24:6 about wars and rumors of war, but the END is not yet, meaning the 'end' will be like the opposite of wars and rumors of war, i.e., world peace. That Sign also is given in Daniel 8 about the king of fierce countenance at the end that will destroy many using peace. Even the "little horn" prophecy in that Daniel 8 chapter is associated with the Sign of the end involving the "abomination of desolation" that Lord Jesus quoted in His Olivet discourse from the Book of Daniel.

I think you've cross-referenced passages that don't belong together. The Dan 8 passage is about Antiochus 4 in ancient times BC.

The Birth Pang signs Jesus mentioned in his Olivet Discourse were warning signs that the fall of Jerusalem was about to take place, that national Israel was about to be judged and exiled for the entire NT age.

Paul's reference to "peace and safety," and "sudden destruction" does indicate that the world lives in an unprepared state for divine judgment. The world is living by their own knowledge, making choices independent of God's guidance and help and counsel.

That kind of living is not prepared for what is coming when God's Kingdom comes and that knowledge is exposed as "false knowledge." Their false sense of peace will explode with the realization that Jesus is Lord and will not tolerate idolatry in his Kingdom.

So really, you have NO EXCUSE for not understanding those Scripture relationships Christ gave in His Olivet discourse that point to the end of this world and the final Antichrist. You have simply chosen to listen to men instead of God in His Word about such things.

So what have those men promised you? Are you a deacon or elder in their church system or something?

[sigh]

 

[Davy]

Being denominational or non-denominational does not have to figure into whether you follow the orthodoxy of a particular church. We always face peer pressure from the orthodoxies of our time, some being right and some being wrong. We don't have to live on an island and spurn people in order to hold to independent opinions. How are you going to help those who need correction if you attack them and run away from them?

You're trying to use men's secular type thinking with that again. It's like I said, either we listen to God in His Word, or to man.

Isa 2:22
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?
KJV

Actually, he told his own generation to watch for the "birth pang" signs, which preceded the gathering of Roman troops to Jerusalem to destroy the temple. But yes, he also indicated we "watch for" his 2nd Coming, not by trying to anticipate the date of that event, but rather, by cleaning up our act and living civil and moral lives, as well as wholesome spiritual lives.

Nope, you left God's Word again and went with man's word. It's doctrines of men that came up with that idea about the Roman army and the 'birth pangs' prophecy, because the prophets taught the 'birth pangs' prophesy in conjunction with Signs of the very end. Men's doctrine that you have instead listened to is trying to apply 70 A.D. to those 'birth pangs'.

Notice how Apostle Paul used that idea in conjunction with the "day of the Lord" coming "as a thief in the night", which is the timing of Jesus' future coming...

1 Thess 5:1-3
5 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
KJV

That travail upon a woman with child is about that birth pangs prophesy regarding the END of this world.

Jesus said that we don't always know when we're doing something good for him, but if we're serving His people well, we'll be preparing for a good reception at the coming of the Kingdom. We also prepare and watch for Christ's coming by recognizing false Christs and deceptions that hope to sidetrack us. There is a lot to "watching for Christ's Coming!"

Uh... what? Jesus never said that by just having good works that we wouldn't be deceived. That must be something else you've picked up from those preachers you listen to. And I know, a lot of brethren actually believe that if they only focus on doing good, that they won't be subjected to the coming "great tribulation", and don't have to know the things Lord Jesus and His Apostles warned us about for the 'end'.

No, those in Christ have to 'discipline' theirselves in His Word to know how to make a 'stand' for Him in the "evil day" (future "great tribulation"). It's not just about having good works, it's about being prepared HOW Lord Jesus and His Apostles said to be prepared. And that is why... Lord Jesus gave us the Signs of the end per His Olivet discourse and His Book of Revelation. And much of it was first written in the Old Testament prophets too. So WOW! God really made sure the subject of the events for the very end were well covered in MANY Books of His Word! And that's what makes the Preterist/Historicist doctrines that try to treat most all Bible prophesy as being past history, which is the idea you are pushing here about Jesus' Olivet discourse, as a joke.

 

[Davy]

I mention Dan 11 because it is reiterating the same which I referred to in connection with Dan 8. There, Persia, Greece, and Antiochus 4 exposed Israel to God's judgment against Israel for their sins. And despite the restoration of their temple, Daniel was told the temple would once again be destroyed (70 AD).

The "time of the end" is therefore used in connection with the "end of Israel" under covenant of the Law. Ultimately , Israel's "end" would be an entire age-long period of great tribulation and exile leading to the end of the age.

Yes, the chapter divisions were designed to aid in biblical study--not part of the original autographs.

I don't see any discontinuity in this! The temple destruction takes place in connection with the apostasy and sins of Israel. And this sin is evidenced, in part, by Israel's persecution of Jewish believers.

Where do you see "tribulation of the disciples?" The "great tribulation" is said in connection with God's punishment upon the Jewish people as a whole, and not as a punishment upon believers, who are *not* the target of this punishment.

Obviously, Jewish believers have to go through the tribulation that the entire nation was subjected to by the Romans. But never is it said that this exercise of God's wrath against Israel is designed to punish *believers!* And I'm sure you agree.

The sense of Jesus' "coming" does make sense to me in some regards because as I've said, the "coming of God's wrath" in the OT is often used to express historical judgments and not THE eschatological judgment at Armageddon. So just as God "came" in judgment upon Israel during the Babylonian Captivity so Jesus "came" against Israel in 70 AD.

At any rate, this "coming" is never meant to be an eschatological coming, but only a coming in judgment. For this reason I wish to distinguish my view from the Preterist view. Again, Luke 17 seems to refer to Jesus' coming in judgment in 70 AD, as opposed to his eschatological coming at the end of the age. But that verse is arguable.

Thanks for sharing your views.

You know, prophesy first given in the Old Testament and shown as fulfilled in the New Testament is supposed to be the order of interpretation we follow in God's Word, not the other way around like you're trying to do.

My point is this, in Jeremiah 46:10, the phrase "day of the Lord" is applied about the historical event of the Jew's captivity to Babylon by king Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah's day. Yet in 1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Peter 3:10, Apostles Paul and Peter were using that "day of the Lord" phrase when pointing to the very end of this present world. So didn't Paul and Peter know that "day of the Lord" already happened in history back in Jeremiah's day??

What it means is, we CANNOT look at terms in the OT prophets and think they have all been completed back in history. Also, this means God's Word uses some of those prophetic terms as a multi-fulfillment. Daniel 11 about Antiochus IV is one such example. The disciplined Bible student will recognize some of the prophetic parameters about the "vile person" were never fulfilled by Antiochus.

And one the greatest mistakes with men's doctrines saying that Daniel 11 prophecy about the "vile person" has already been fulfilled is the fact that Lord Jesus quoted that prophecy of the "abomination of desolation" event around 200 years after Antiochus had been dead! Nor did the Romans in 70 A.D. fulfill it either, because the temple burned down before they could get control of it. The AOD from Daniel 11 REQUIRES a standing temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Davy]

The suffering of Jesus' Disciples is not the context for the statement that the temple would be destroyed, leading to an entire age of Jewish Diaspora. Therefore, the context behind the "Great Tribulation" is not Christian suffering, but rather, God's judgment of the nation Israel, leading to the destruction of the temple and the Jewish Diaspora.

That the event of "great tribulation" is not about Christian suffering sure is a bunch of deceived baloney. The coming "great tribulation" will have this kind of far reach by the coming "dragon", and these are what Jesus told John...

Rev 13:4-9
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, "Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

That's equal to 1260 days, by the way, and represents the latter half of Daniel's symbolic "one week" of Daniel 9:27. Revelation 11 already revealed that period also for the end in the 6th trumpet - 2nd woe timing, with Jesus' return shown on the 7th trumpet - 3rd woe.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

How... will he do that blasmphemy? By claiming to be GOD, like Apostle Paul showed in 2 Thess.2.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
KJV

Those verses is red are proof AGAINST WHAT YOU SAID that the "great tribulation" will not be upon Christians. It will be upon ALL NATIONS and PEOPLES, not just in Jerusalem and the Jews.