Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
That is not the point. Matthew linked all events to the Second Coming. You are tearing Matthew apart to falsely interpret Luke.
Just a cursory look at Matthew 24 will tell you that isn't so. Matthew 24 begins with Jesus' announcement that the temple will be destroyed. He wouldn't be saying this unless it was relatively imminent. So he was asked when this would happen. And he answered by saying it would be preceded by birth pangs. Eventually he plainly said it would take place in "this generation," ie in his own generation. Nothing could be stated more clearly!
Luke did not tie the armies to the Second Coming. That is why Luke is about 66AD.
Right, Luke did *not* tie the Roman armies' coming to Jerusalem to his 2nd Coming. We agree on that. But Luke discusses both questions, the question of when the temple would come down and the question of when his Coming would take place. They were separate events. One would take place imminently, in that generation. And the other would take place after an entire age of Jewish tribulation which would only begin with the destruction of Jerusalem.
They were not supposed to plan an escape and settle land property issues. They were to immediately flee.
Not true. They were to plan.
Matt 24.20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.
But yes, Jesus did tell them to show urgency. When that becomes necessary, ie to make the flight, it will be closer to the actual arrival of Titus. First the prayer, and then the awareness of the coming of Titus. Prayer began after the coming and departure of Cestius Gallus. The fleeing began following that prayer with news of the coming of Titus.
20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.
Matthew is about the Second Coming, not 70AD.
That is clearly false, since all 3 synoptic Gospels have Jesus answering both questions, about when Jerusalem would fall and when he would Come Again.
Last edited: