Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Dave Watchman]

The Judean Christians recognized the timing of the abomination of desolation, of which Jesus had warned.

They couldn't have.

It didn't happen in their lifetimes.

They acted upon that recognition, and fled, and lived.

You're mixing up Jerusalem surrounded by armies, with the Olivet's 1290 day Abomination. Our end time Abomination is happening now. It's happening in proximity, in the context of, when people who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

(Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever)​

In 66 AD.

I know. I wrote this note too:

Timing of the abomination of desolation​

So if I'm right about the empirical, we won't have to wait until 2026, or 2029.

But just because I'm so sure of it, doesn't mean anyone else needs to be.

Because of the plethora of differing opinions by the prophecy expositors here, I have become convinced that the correct understanding of Apocalyptic Prophecy is not incumbent for the average Christian. Rather, this type of prophecy must have been intended for the glory of God at a latter date, ie: as we stand around the throne and around the Lamb.

(Luke 21 was not written in the architecture of an Apocalyptic Prophecy. It was written in the style of a Day of the Lord Prophecy. The chronology is broken at both verses 12, and 25)​

Five Types of Bible Prophecy:

1) Local Prophecy

Prophecy that pertains to a specific place, people or time. These would include Noah's flood, or Jonah's visit to the people of Nineveh. Maybe that old time king who saw his shadow move backwards, and Moses' dealings with Pharaoh and the curses of Egypt. Even when Jesus said to Peter: "Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times." You can think of more.

2) Messianic Prophecy

These had to do specifically with our Lord's first Visitation. Like Isaiah 52

He Was Pierced for Our Transgressions
Behold, my servant shall act wisely;
he shall be high and lifted up,
and shall be exalted.

As many were astonished at you—
his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
so shall he sprinkle many nations.

Kings shall shut their mouths because of him,
for that which has not been told them they see,
and that which they have not heard they understand.

3) Day of the Lord Prophecy

Very peculiar in their structure. Like Isaiah 13. John MacArthur calls them near/far prophecies. In a Day of the Lord Prophecy the prophet can begin in an ancient Day of the Lord event to do with the Babylonians, and then can seem to peer down through the millennia to the final and ultimate Day of the Lord event that will include all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.

Luke 21 is like Isaiah 13 but in reverse. Here the Prophet begins at the culmination of the event, but then at verse 12 (But before all this), then backspaces to the original Day where the Lord will act, then at verse 25 concludes with the culmination. The chapter is split into thirds.

4) Judaic Prophecy

These are CONDITIONAL in nature. Prophecies that pertained specifically to ancient Israel. IF you do this, then I will do that. IF they put away the bodies of their dead kings, then show them the plan of the Temple.

"If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the Lord your God

5) Apocalyptic Prophecy

Apocalyptic Prophesy has unique characteristics. These end time prophecies hold to chronological order. Each of these have a beginning point in time, and an ending point in time. In Revelation, when that chronological order is broken, and the subject matter changes, a new prophecy will begin. There are 17 Apocalyptic prophecies, and 18 prophetic time periods, in the Books of Daniel and Revelation.

I also think Matthew 24, Mark 13 and maybe 2 Thessalonians 2 would fit the criteria of this end time type of prophecy.

Thankfully, not one of them was a dispensational futurist.

How many people were there?

That was one ancient city in a small regional area of the world.

Now we're talking about the greatest event in the history of mankind and of the modern world.

Billions of saints from all of history, illuminating the stratosphere.

In the blink of an eye.

While all of the tribes of the earth will mourn.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The retaining walls are part of the temple buildings, the most important of them all because without them, nothing else could have been built.

You're again expressing your ignorance about building. The foundation could be built without the plaza--it just wouldn't be very serviceable for the public. I know this because in developing our own property we didn't always develop the land around the house, to save money. What you end up with is a lot of stairs, if the ground is sloped.

So the plaza is to make a level surface for the public to easily access the temple. But leveling the area around the temple was not part of the temple structure. The foundation likely went *under* the plaza, since retaining walls hold fill dirt, which is not strong or stable enough to support a temple structure. Likely very large foundation stones were laid *under* the level of the plaza, before the plaza was even created.

I don't claim to know the details of how this was done. I'm just using common sense based on my own knowledge of the subject, and based on my own experience. The laws of physics today also applied back in the time of the temple.

I don't mean to be rude. But I bet you lack knowledge about building? You're not using the terms correctly. A retaining wall can indeed be part of a temple foundation. But in this case, the Western Wall was *not* part of the temple foundation!!

I understand why you hold so tenaciously to this irrational view--it destroys your argument that the Olivet Discourse was *not* about the temple in Jesus' day. But in fact, it was, and there is more than one argument in that regard.

 

[covenantee]

They couldn't have.

It didn't happen in their lifetimes.

Do you think that they fled just for the fun of it?

Thankfully, not one of them was a dispensational futurist.

Those would not appear for another 17 centuries.

Whom to believe?

1. The Judean Christians
or
2. Modernist armchair futurizers and fantasizers.

I know whom I believe.

 

[covenantee]

They couldn't have.

It didn't happen in their lifetimes.



You're mixing up Jerusalem surrounded by armies, with the Olivet's 1290 day Abomination. Our end time Abomination is happening now. It's happening in proximity, in the context of, when people who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

(Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever)​

I know. I wrote this note too:

Timing of the abomination of desolation​

So if I'm right about the empirical, we won't have to wait until 2026, or 2029.

But just because I'm so sure of it, doesn't mean anyone else needs to be.

Because of the plethora of differing opinions by the prophecy expositors here, I have become convinced that the correct understanding of Apocalyptic Prophecy is not incumbent for the average Christian. Rather, this type of prophecy must have been intended for the glory of God at a latter date, ie: as we stand around the throne and around the Lamb.

(Luke 21 was not written in the architecture of an Apocalyptic Prophecy. It was written in the style of a Day of the Lord Prophecy. The chronology is broken at both verses 12, and 25)​

Five Types of Bible Prophecy:

1) Local Prophecy

Prophecy that pertains to a specific place, people or time. These would include Noah's flood, or Jonah's visit to the people of Nineveh. Maybe that old time king who saw his shadow move backwards, and Moses' dealings with Pharaoh and the curses of Egypt. Even when Jesus said to Peter: "Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times." You can think of more.

2) Messianic Prophecy

These had to do specifically with our Lord's first Visitation. Like Isaiah 52

He Was Pierced for Our Transgressions
Behold, my servant shall act wisely;
he shall be high and lifted up,
and shall be exalted.

As many were astonished at you—
his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
so shall he sprinkle many nations.

Kings shall shut their mouths because of him,
for that which has not been told them they see,
and that which they have not heard they understand.

3) Day of the Lord Prophecy

Very peculiar in their structure. Like Isaiah 13. John MacArthur calls them near/far prophecies. In a Day of the Lord Prophecy the prophet can begin in an ancient Day of the Lord event to do with the Babylonians, and then can seem to peer down through the millennia to the final and ultimate Day of the Lord event that will include all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.

Luke 21 is like Isaiah 13 but in reverse. Here the Prophet begins at the culmination of the event, but then at verse 12 (But before all this), then backspaces to the original Day where the Lord will act, then at verse 25 concludes with the culmination. The chapter is split into thirds.

4) Judaic Prophecy

These are CONDITIONAL in nature. Prophecies that pertained specifically to ancient Israel. IF you do this, then I will do that. IF they put away the bodies of their dead kings, then show them the plan of the Temple.

"If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the Lord your God

5) Apocalyptic Prophecy

Apocalyptic Prophesy has unique characteristics. These end time prophecies hold to chronological order. Each of these have a beginning point in time, and an ending point in time. In Revelation, when that chronological order is broken, and the subject matter changes, a new prophecy will begin. There are 17 Apocalyptic prophecies, and 18 prophetic time periods, in the Books of Daniel and Revelation.

I also think Matthew 24, Mark 13 and maybe 2 Thessalonians 2 would fit the criteria of this end time type of prophecy.



How many people were there?

That was one ancient city in a small regional area of the world.

Now we're talking about the greatest event in the history of mankind and of the modern world.

Billions of saints from all of history, illuminating the stratosphere.

In the blink of an eye.

While all of the tribes of the earth will mourn.

Historical Scriptural fulfillment is abhorrent to dispensational futurism.

To confirm, provide any proof from recognized historical Christian orthodoxy prior to the 19th century, that the Judean Christians mis-read, and mis-reacted to, the prophetic signs of their times.

I await your confirmation, or absence thereof.

 

[Randy Kluth]

They couldn't have.
It didn't happen in their lifetimes.
You're mixing up Jerusalem surrounded by armies, with the Olivet's 1290 day Abomination. Our end time Abomination is happening now. It's happening in proximity, in the context of, when people who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

There are different interpretations to these things. According to your view, certain things can or cannot be. According to my view, those same things can or cannot be, different from your claims. It depends on your interpretation what can or cannot be.

Because of the plethora of differing opinions by the prophecy expositors here, I have become convinced that the correct understanding of Apocalyptic Prophecy is not incumbent for the average Christian.

I think you're too easily discouraged. You should focus not on the opinion of the common reader, who has produced their own opinions based on the latest book they read. I know--I did this early in my Christian life. Each new book read produced for me a new view for myself.

Instead, begin with the historic commentaries, who will agree on some points and disagree on others. And then form your own opinions. They won't be right 100% of the time, but God gifted them with knowledge on the subject.

You seem to treat prophecy as if it's a crystal ball, designed to predict the future for you. But prophecy was never meant to be used like a horoscope. We are given the future because God's plan cannot be stopped. If we wish to participate with God as obedient servants, we must know something about God's plans for us.

That's why many prophecies that have already been fulfilled are recorded in the Scriptures for us. They serve as lessons representing God's eternal character. Those same lessons apply in our own time because God never changes.

I also think Matthew 24, Mark 13 and maybe 2 Thessalonians 2 would fit the criteria of this end time type of prophecy.

That's a supposition you're making, which determines for you what can or cannot be. But if you're wrong, and the Olivet Discourse focuses largely on the fall of Jerusalem, and not just on the endtimes, then your assumptions are leading you to false conclusions.

It is pretty clear to me and to the historic commentators that much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the fall of Jerusalem, even though some of it indeed refers to later in history and the Return of Christ. I would check your assumptions before drawing the conclusion that this cannot refer to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. To be honest, I don't see how any scholar could see it differently?

How many people were there?

That was one ancient city in a small regional area of the world.

Now we're talking about the greatest event in the history of mankind and of the modern world.

Billions of saints from all of history, illuminating the stratosphere.

In the blink of an eye.

While all of the tribes of the earth will mourn.

Such a comparison is relatively meaningless. To compare the importance of one event in prophecy from another there is no need to say one event is more important than the other and that no other event could be referred to that is less important than the other!

How could you compare the importance of prophecy concerning Jesus coming into his Kingdom and Jesus dying on the cross, for example? How could you compare the prophecy of Jesus' atonement for our sins with prophecy that Babylon would destroy Jerusalem?

But the prophecy of the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary" in Dan 9.26 was very important, nevertheless, in Israel's history. It was the end of Jewish religion in the time that Messiah was cut off. That was very important both to the Jews and to the new universal Christian religion.

 

[ewq1938]

You're again expressing your ignorance about building.

I stopped reading here. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[Truth7t7]

I agree 100

A wall is still part of the temple buildings Anything built with stacked stones that serves a function is a building and Christ said no stone would remain upon another. The Romans also spared a building for themselves at the time so no full match to the prophecy.

View attachment 22581

I agree 100%, the foundation stones you present are under the Muslim Mosque presently, and were the original foundation for the 70AD temple

Yes the preterist claims of 70AD fulfillment and the words "one stone upon another" falls on this fact alone, good research

 

[Randy Kluth]

I stopped reading here. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The retaining walls could in some sense become part of the foundation for the temple. At any rate, Jesus said the buildings would come down--not the foundation, nor the retaining walls.

Obviously, when you destroy a building, you destroy what is on top of the foundation, and not what is on the ground or below the ground. That is the main point I wish to make here.

When you say things like walls have stones upon stones, making them a "building," I start losing faith in your ability to understand construction. But I do see your point about how a retaining wall in ancient times plays a role in providing a foundation for the temple. I grant you that.

The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History - Biblical Archaeology Society
In this article you can read how the new retaining walls were extended out from the original walls of the Temple Mount, with fill dirt filling the gaps. As such, these were creating a mound for the temple to sit on.

You may therefore call the part of the Temple Mount underneath the temple a "foundation" for the temple. But again, calling the Retaining Walls themselves the "temple foundation" expresses something far removed from the reality.

It may work in communicating the idea that the Temple Mount provided a level foundation. But the retaining walls of the Temple Mount were not themselves the temple foundation.

The foundation would be directly beneath the temple, if you're going to use proper construction language. And if the retaining walls themselves were not part of the temple building itself, then it has nothing to do with having to be thrown down, "stone by stone." It would be like saying a house demolition, to be complete, must include the demolition of the fence around the property.

And at any rate, it was the temple itself that Jesus said would come down--not the foundation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree 100

I agree 100%, the foundation stones you present are under the Muslim Mosque presently, and were the original foundation for the 70AD temple

Yes the preterist claims of 70AD fulfillment and the words "one stone upon another" falls on this fact alone, good research

He was saying the "retaining wall" constituted part of the building. The foundation is the entire area beneath the temple, which may include part of the old retaining walls--not sure.

That, however, is not a remnant of the temple buildings. And I'm not a preterist in saying this. I just justifiably believe that Jesus referred to the temple which came down in 70 AD.

 

[covenantee]

I agree 100

I agree 100%, the foundation stones you present are under the Muslim Mosque presently, and were the original foundation for the 70AD temple

Yes the preterist claims of 70AD fulfillment and the words "one stone upon another" falls on this fact alone, good research

If anyone would know what was and was not part of the temple, it would be the Jews and Romans.

You apparently consider them to be liars.

From the Jewish Virtual Library:

History & Overivew of the Western Wall (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

"When the Romans razed the Second Temple, they left one outer wall standing. They probably would have destroyed that wall as well, but it must have seemed too insignificant to them since it was not part of the Temple itself, just a retaining wall surrounding the Temple Mount."

 

[ewq1938]

The retaining walls could in some sense become part of the foundation for the temple. At any rate, Jesus said the buildings would come down--not the foundation, nor the retaining walls.

Both are buildings and he said all of them would come down.

Obviously, when you destroy a building, you destroy what is on top of the foundation, and not what is on the ground or below the ground. That is the main point I wish to make here.

Which changes "all these things" to "some of these things".

When you say things like walls have stones upon stones, making them a "building," I start losing faith in your ability to understand construction.

Which is wrong because my understanding is better than yours. You fail to understand that something built with stone upon stone is a building no matter what form or shape it is because it was BUILT.

But I do see your point about how a retaining wall in ancient times plays a role in providing a foundation for the temple. I grant you that.

It's not the only thing I have been correct about.

And at any rate, it was the temple itself that Jesus said would come down--not the foundation.

He didn't say that. This is what he said:

Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

G3619
οἰκοδομή
oikodomē
oy-kod-om-ay'
Feminine (abstraction) of a compound of G3624 and the base of G1430; architecture, that is, (concretely) a structure; figuratively confirmation: - building, edify (-ication, -ing).
Total KJV occurrences: 18

G3619
οἰκοδομή
oikodomē
Thayer Definition:
1) (the act of) building, building up
2) metaphorically edifying, edification
2a) the act of one who promotes another’s growth in Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness
3) a building (i.e. the thing built, edifice)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: feminine (abstract) of a compound of G3624 and the base of G1430
Citing in TDNT: 5:144, 674



Retaining walls are architecture. Jesus is saying everything men built with stones will no longer be standing. The Romans accomplished a lot of that but not all of it. They left a building they wanted as well as many of the retaining walls. There's more than just the wailing wall that also are still standing.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Both are buildings and he said all of them would come down.

The implication is not that the temple foundation itself would be brought up out of the earth!

Which changes "all these things" to "some of these things".

No, "all" of the temple buildings came down--not the foundation, which is embedded in the earth.

Which is wrong because my understanding is better than yours. You fail to understand that something built with stone upon stone is a building no matter what form or shape it is because it was BUILT.

No, poor language. A "building" in the semantic sense that Jesus used the word, did not implying just anything that is constructed. A retaining wall is constructed with the use of large stones, and can be said to be "built." But it is still not a "building" in the sense Jesus used the word.

It's not the only thing I have been correct about.

You've been correct on about *nothing* in this discussion. Sorry, you choose to double down on ludicrous points you've been making, such as something "built" is a building, no matter what it is. ...Such as, something that surrounds the plaza is part of the complex that is built on top of the plaza. ...Such as, a retaining wall, because it has stones on top of stones, must also be a "building."

Retaining walls are architecture. Jesus is saying everything men built with stones will no longer be standing. The Romans accomplished a lot of that but not all of it. They left a building they wanted as well as many of the retaining walls. There's more than just the wailing wall that also are still standing.

Another silly assertion--retaining walls are architecture. They certainly "can be" architecture, but are you insinuating they are an architecturally designed building. Absurd. I don't think I can reason with you. And no, you don't appear to know more than I do about building. And I'm not even a "builder!"

 

[Truth7t7]

Both are buildings and he said all of them would come down.







Which changes "all these things" to "some of these things".





Which is wrong because my understanding is better than yours. You fail to understand that something built with stone upon stone is a building no matter what form or shape it is because it was BUILT.



It's not the only thing I have been correct about.




He didn't say that. This is what he said:

Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

G3619
οἰκοδομή
oikodomē
oy-kod-om-ay'
Feminine (abstraction) of a compound of G3624 and the base of G1430; architecture, that is, (concretely) a structure; figuratively confirmation: - building, edify (-ication, -ing).
Total KJV occurrences: 18

G3619
οἰκοδομή
oikodomē
Thayer Definition:
1) (the act of) building, building up
2) metaphorically edifying, edification
2a) the act of one who promotes another’s growth in Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness
3) a building (i.e. the thing built, edifice)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: feminine (abstract) of a compound of G3624 and the base of G1430
Citing in TDNT: 5:144, 674



Retaining walls are architecture. Jesus is saying everything men built with stones will no longer be standing. The Romans accomplished a lot of that but not all of it. They left a building they wanted as well as many of the retaining walls. There's more than just the wailing wall that also are still standing.

I agree 100%, good post!

 

[ewq1938]

A retaining wall is constructed with the use of large stones, and can be said to be "built." But it is still not a "building" in the sense Jesus used the word.

You are wrong. That is exactly what the Greek word means and I even posted the definition and you still make up your own. Such eisegesis you use!

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are wrong. That is exactly what the Greek word means and I even posted the definition and you still make up your own. Such eisegesis you use!

Words mean what they mean in context. Don't just give me "what a word means in the Greek." Give me what the word means *in context.* It will not violate "the Greek."

Would you translate the following passage as "a wise man who built his building on the building?" The "rock" was the foundation. And the "building" was the house. They are two distinct things.

Matt 7.24 24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock."

In the Greek one can "build" tombs, or one can "build" cities. In this particular context, of which we speak, we are talking about building a temple structure--not the foundation of that structure.

 

[ewq1938]

Words mean what they mean in context. Don't just give me "what a word means in the Greek." Give me what the word means *in context.* It will not violate "the Greek."

Your personal definition that buildings must be the type you can enter is false. The context and the word Christ used means anything built, and the mention of stones means anything built with stones would come down and not exist as it had been.

Would you translate the following passage as "a wise man who built his building on the building?" The "rock" was the foundation. And the "building" was the house. They are two distinct things.

Come on Randy, think things through! A man did not build the rock so that isn't a building but if a man took stones and made a foundation and walls, those are buildings/architecture.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your personal definition that buildings must be the type you can enter is false. The context and the word Christ used means anything built, and the mention of stones means anything built with stones would come down and not exist as it had been.

When the Bible uses the word denoting a "building" and the context suggests it is a structure that is entered into, then yes--it suggests a building of the type that you enter. The buildings of the temple were such buildings, yes.

Come on Randy, think things through! A man did not build the rock so that isn't a building but if a man took stones and made a foundation and walls, those are buildings/architecture.

The point is, the rock was the foundation. Rocks were the instruments used in building foundations. So if this house had a rock for a foundation, and it is not included in the "building," then that suggests the rock was *not* part of the building. I've thought it through--your turn.

 

[ewq1938]

The point is, the rock was the foundation. Rocks were the instruments used in building foundations. So if this house had a rock for a foundation, and it is not included in the "building," then that suggests the rock was *not* part of the building. I've thought it through--your turn.

When you use stones to build walls that support a foundation, it is a building and is part of the temple complex because without it nothing else could be built. The Greek word means architecture which isn't just "buildings" like you are imagining. You are using a western, modern English way of thinking which doesn't match the ancient Greek mindset or language.

 

[Randy Kluth]

When you use stones to build walls that support a foundation, it is a building and is part of the temple complex because without it nothing else could be built. The Greek word means architecture which isn't just "buildings" like you are imagining. You are using a western, modern English way of thinking which doesn't match the ancient Greek mindset or language.

False, I used a Concordance that referred to how similar words were used. When you mention "part of a temple complex," it really matters what you mean by "complex."

I just see "temple buildings" as being the focus, and not every item in the vicinity of the temple that played a role in the environment, arbors, fences, retaining walls, etc. The temple buildings were just that--buildings designed for human habitation. Retaining walls were not inhabited. They were *not* part of the inhabited buildings!

Buildings were built on top of their foundations. Jesus mentioned that the house was built upon the rock, which was the foundation. So Jesus distinguished the house as a building from the rock, the foundation. They were not the same thing, as the term was being used.

In the English language, we may refer to a house as inclusive of its foundation. But in our sense, the retaining wall may have enclosed the rocks that made up the temple foundation. But it does not in any sense mean that it's part of the temple buildings.

Luke 19.41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, the example I gave you of Jesus coming to dine with you isn't literal. That was my whole point! It was not referring to a literal, physical "coming." But the point is, it was in fact described as a "coming."

And that's how I think Jesus "comes" in judgment all through history, when his word shows up to cast a judgment on some specific activity. He comes to reward us, he comes to judge us, he comes to act in our present lives, and not just at the eschaton.

That was my point. When Israel became so rebellious against Rome that Rome sent a 2nd army to Jerusalem, Jesus showed up in the form of his word of judgment. He was executing his Father's wish, to bring an end to the form of religion that Jesus had already discarded at the cross.

And so, there are non-literal comings of Jesus in history in which he brings God's word of judgment. I think that's what the quotes I gave you from Rev 2-3 suggested, and also the quote from Luke 17.30...

“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.

This happened in 70 AD because it is very unlikely that Jews in the future will "go down from their housetops!" But that did in fact happen in 70 AD. Those Jews who had waited too long, saw the Roman army coming from their houses in the fields, ran down from their rooftops, and took off for the hills. Being Jesus' disciples, they knew what was coming and that this judgment was not for them!

Here is an example of a "coming of God" in the context of 70 AD....

Luke 19.41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”

This goes together with
Luke 17.30...

“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.