Understanding the Olivet Discourse

[Randy Kluth]

Athanasius here sees the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 as fulfilled in Christ, who he describes as the "Holy of Holies." This is similar to Tertullian's "Unction," or Clement's "Holy of Holies." Like Tertullian, he sees the destruction of the temple as a result of the Jews' rejecting their Christ. The end of the Law, in this sense, made Christ to be the only possible choice for the Jews. And so, he sees the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 as fulfilled in Jesus' generation of the Jews, who rejected him, and who thus suffered the destruction of the temple. Here is a clear linkage between the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, finding the destruction of the temple a fulfillment of what Jesus foretold. The ensuing Great Distress of the Jews would then logically be a continuation of this judgment, following after 70 AD.

Athenasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) On the Incarnation of the Word, Sec. 39. XXXIX.

Do you look for another ? But Daniel foretells the exact time.
Objections to this removed.

But perhaps, being unable, even they, to fight con-
tinually against plain facts, they will, without denying
what is written, maintain that they are looking for these
things, and that the Word of God is not yet come.
For this it is on which they are for ever harping, not
blushing to brazen it out in the face of plain facts.
2. But on this one point, above all, they shall be all
the more refuted, not at our hands, but at those of
the most wise Daniel, who marks both the actual
date, and the divine sojourn of the Saviour, saying :
" Seventy 1 weeks are cut short upon thy people, and
" upon the holy city, for a full end to be made of sin,
" and for sins to be sealed up, and to blot out iniquities,
" and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring
" everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and pro-
" phet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies ; and thou shalt
" know and understand from the going forth of the
" word to restore 2 and to build Jerusalem unto Christ
"the Prince." 3. Perhaps with regard to the other
(prophecies) they may be able even to find excuses
and to put off what is written to a future time. But
what can they say to this, or can they face it at all ?
Where not only is the Christ referred to, but he that is...

...to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but the
Holy of Holies; and Jerusalem is to stand till his
coming, and thenceforth, prophets and vision cease in
Israel. 4. David was anointed of old, and Solomon and
Ezechias ; but then, nevertheless, Jerusalem and the
place stood, and prophets were prophesying, Gad and
Asaph and Nathan, and, later, Esaias and Osee and
Amos and others. And again, the actual men that were
anointed were called holy, and not Holy of Holies. But
if they shield themselves with the captivity, and say that
because of it Jerusalem was not, what can they say about
the prophets too ? For in fact when first the people went
down to Babylon, Daniel and Jeremy were thei-e, and
Ezechiel and Aggams and Zachary were prophesying.

XL.
Argument (1) from the withdrawal of prophecy and destruction
of Jerusalem, (2) from the conversion of the Gentiles, and
that to the God of Moses. What more remains for the
Messiah to do, that Christ had not done ?

So the Jews are trifling, and the time in question,
which they refer to the future, is actually come. For
when did prophet and vision cease from Israel, save when
Christ came, the Holy of Holies ? For it is a sign, and
an important proof, of the coming of the Word of God,
that Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is any prophet
raised up nor vision revealed to them and that very
naturally. 2. For when he that signified was come,
what need was there any longer of any to signify him ?
When the truth was there, what need any more of the
shadow ? For this was the reason of their prophesying

68 Refutation of the Jews.

at all namely, till the true Righteousness should come,
and he that was to ransom the sins of all. And this
was why Jerusalem stood till then namely, that there
they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for
the reality. 3. So when the Holy of Holies was come,
naturally vision and prophecy were sealed and the king
dom of Jerusalem ceased. For kings were to be anointed
among them only until the Holy of Holies should have
been anointed ; and Jacob prophesies that the king
dom of the Jews should be established until him, as
follows : " The ruler 1 shall not fail from Juda, nor the
"Prince from his loins, until that which is laid up for
; him shall come ; and he is the expectation of the
" nations." 4. Whence the Saviour also himself cried
aloud and said : " The 2 law and the prophets prophesied
until John."

 

[dad]

I was speaking of the Church Fathers as a whole in what I'm referring to as the "Early Church." I'm not talking about the earliest of the Early Church Fathers. The confusion I refer to is on the part of the Pretribulationist I quoted from Tacoma who saw in the multiplicity of views a contradiction between what seemed to him as a blend of Preterism and Futurism. He banked on this so-called "confusion" in order to discount the fact the Church Fathers were clearly interpreting the Olivet Discourse and the 70th Week of Dan 9 as historical.

Yes, the Church Fathers were not straight forward Preterists, but rather, historical interpreters of these sections of Scriptures, while at the same time being futurists, with respect to Antichrist and the 2nd Coming.

If I quote to you from the various views by the Church Fathers there are some distinct differences, and these can be confusing. I've parsed them out personally, as much as I can. The conclusion I've come up with, however, is that there is *not* all this confusion, but rather, a general historical view of Dan 9 and the 70 Weeks, linked together with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus.

The Abomination of Desolation was, for the most part, the Roman siege of Jerusalem, while there may have been one or two who felt this was the Antichrist. The Great Tribulation was, for the most part, the Distress experienced by the Jews during and immediately after the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, lasting throughout the entire age. Hence, I call this Great Tribulation the "Jewish Diaspora."

Laughably false. The Tribulation could not have happened in the past. Anyone familiar with (who also believed) how the Great Tribulation ends and what it involves (all waters turned to blood, all stars going out, all trees burnt, all people on earth worshipping the beast etc etc.) would know it could never have already happened.

As for your empty long words on supposed 'church' fathers, how about the actual quote and name of one or two. (unless you are trying to win the argument by boring us to death)

 

[dad]

Athanasius here sees the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 as fulfilled in Christ, who he describes as the "Holy of Holies." This is similar to Tertullian's "Unction," or Clement's "Holy of Holies." Like Tertullian, he sees the destruction of the temple as a result of the Jews' rejecting their Christ. The end of the Law, in this sense, made Christ to be the only possible choice for the Jews. And so, he sees the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 as fulfilled in Jesus' generation of the Jews, who rejected him, and who thus suffered the destruction of the temple. Here is a clear linkage between the 70 Weeks of Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, finding the destruction of the temple a fulfillment of what Jesus foretold. The ensuing Great Distress of the Jews would then logically be a continuation of this judgment, following after 70 AD.

Athenasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) On the Incarnation of the Word, Sec. 39. XXXIX.

Do you look for another ? But Daniel foretells the exact time.
Objections to this removed.

But perhaps, being unable, even they, to fight con-
tinually against plain facts, they will, without denying
what is written, maintain that they are looking for these
things, and that the Word of God is not yet come.
For this it is on which they are for ever harping, not
blushing to brazen it out in the face of plain facts.
2. But on this one point, above all, they shall be all
the more refuted, not at our hands, but at those of
the most wise Daniel, who marks both the actual
date, and the divine sojourn of the Saviour, saying :
" Seventy 1 weeks are cut short upon thy people, and
" upon the holy city, for a full end to be made of sin,
" and for sins to be sealed up, and to blot out iniquities,
" and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring
" everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and pro-
" phet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies ; and thou shalt
" know and understand from the going forth of the
" word to restore 2 and to build Jerusalem unto Christ
"the Prince." 3. Perhaps with regard to the other
(prophecies) they may be able even to find excuses
and to put off what is written to a future time. But
what can they say to this, or can they face it at all ?
Where not only is the Christ referred to, but he that is...

...to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but the
Holy of Holies; and Jerusalem is to stand till his
coming, and thenceforth, prophets and vision cease in
Israel. 4. David was anointed of old, and Solomon and
Ezechias ; but then, nevertheless, Jerusalem and the
place stood, and prophets were prophesying, Gad and
Asaph and Nathan, and, later, Esaias and Osee and
Amos and others. And again, the actual men that were
anointed were called holy, and not Holy of Holies. But
if they shield themselves with the captivity, and say that
because of it Jerusalem was not, what can they say about
the prophets too ? For in fact when first the people went
down to Babylon, Daniel and Jeremy were thei-e, and
Ezechiel and Aggams and Zachary were prophesying.

XL.
Argument (1) from the withdrawal of prophecy and destruction
of Jerusalem, (2) from the conversion of the Gentiles, and
that to the God of Moses. What more remains for the
Messiah to do, that Christ had not done ?

So the Jews are trifling, and the time in question,
which they refer to the future, is actually come. For
when did prophet and vision cease from Israel, save when
Christ came, the Holy of Holies ? For it is a sign, and
an important proof, of the coming of the Word of God,
that Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is any prophet
raised up nor vision revealed to them and that very
naturally. 2. For when he that signified was come,
what need was there any longer of any to signify him ?
When the truth was there, what need any more of the
shadow ? For this was the reason of their prophesying

68 Refutation of the Jews.

at all namely, till the true Righteousness should come,
and he that was to ransom the sins of all. And this
was why Jerusalem stood till then namely, that there
they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for
the reality. 3. So when the Holy of Holies was come,
naturally vision and prophecy were sealed and the king
dom of Jerusalem ceased. For kings were to be anointed
among them only until the Holy of Holies should have
been anointed ; and Jacob prophesies that the king
dom of the Jews should be established until him, as
follows : " The ruler 1 shall not fail from Juda, nor the
"Prince from his loins, until that which is laid up for
; him shall come ; and he is the expectation of the
" nations." 4. Whence the Saviour also himself cried
aloud and said : " The 2 law and the prophets prophesied
until John."

Never heard of any of these guys, and looking at the confused drool that they uttered, it is no wonder why!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Never heard of any of these guys, and looking at the confused drool that they uttered, it is no wonder why!

You insult what you don't know.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Laughably false. The Tribulation could not have happened in the past. Anyone familiar with (who also believed) how the Great Tribulation ends and what it involves (all waters turned to blood, all stars going out, all trees burnt, all people on earth worshipping the beast etc etc.) would know it could never have already happened.

As for your empty long words on supposed 'church' fathers, how about the actual quote and name of one or two. (unless you are trying to win the argument by boring us to death)

I never said the Tribulation already happened. It's still going on. Your insulting remarks puts you into a category marked, "Do not disturb."

 

[Timtofly]

I never said the Tribulation already happened. It's still going on. Your insulting remarks puts you into a category marked, "Do not disturb."

If they were wrong, then all the church should follow their wrong lead?

There was no "one last set" of Daniel's sevens. Not even 7 months were there? No one week of days distinct in 70AD. No 7 years distinct in 70AD. Life went on for another 1800+ years without any of Daniels last week. The best one can do is wrap up all 69 weeks by 70AD. It was a period of 37 years. Enough time for all generations living at Jesus' time to no longer exist. But the end was not to be for another 1900+ years. It was not an extended tribulation. It was the actual time given to the church to accomplish the Will and Plan of God. The tribulation starts at the end of the church age, not during the whole of the church age. It is a tribulation because it is the harvest and end of humankind as living in Adam's fallen image.

 

[Davy]

I never intended to refer only to "1st century Church fathers!" My point is that the Church Fathers, generally, saw the 70th Week of Daniel and the Great Tribulation of the Olivet Discourse as fulfilled in the 66-70 AD war, in the destruction of Jerusalem at that time, and in the ensuing Jewish Dispersion, which lasts throughout the age.

Well we know your premise is not true, because even the later century Church fathers preached the coming of the Antichrist and the events of the day involving Christ's coming. It's because those are the things Jesus covered in His Olivet discourse, the day of His coming and gathering of His Church being the last Sign He gave there.

The idea planted in your mind which causes you to see Christ's Olivet discourse in this bad way is how certain ones you listen to try to tell you that Christ's Olivet discourse isn't meant for the Church, but for the Jews and that it was history.

 

[dad]

You insult what you don't know.

They insult a God and bible they didn't know.

 

[dad]

I never said the Tribulation already happened. It's still going on. Your insulting remarks puts you into a category marked, "Do not disturb."

The tribulation does not last thousands of years.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The tribulation does not last thousands of years.

That is the logical conclusion if we understand Jesus' statement on the Great Tribulation properly.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

I'm sorry to say that many Christians have had the "Great Tribulation," as Jesus used it, wrong for many years! Here, it is plain as the nose on my face that Jesus was speaking of a period of time dating from the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the end of the age. We now know that has to be thousands of years, contrary to your claim.

The reason for this is simple. Modern eschatology feeds the curiosity of modern Christians who wish to interpret their own times in the light of the book of Revelation, and in the light of the Olivet Discourse. To do so they think they have to interpret the Great Tribulation as the reign of Antichrist.

Well, the Great Tribulation certainly encompasses the Last Days, but it also encompasses the totality of NT history, as well, because the Jews have been in Diaspora all that time! And clearly, reading the passage above, that is precisely what Jesus said!

 

[Randy Kluth]

They insult a God and bible they didn't know.

If you don't even know who the Church Fathers are, why do you insult them?

 

[dad]

That is the logical conclusion if we understand Jesus' statement on the Great Tribulation properly.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

I'm sorry to say that many Christians have had the "Great Tribulation," as Jesus used it, wrong for many years! Here, it is plain as the nose on my face that Jesus was speaking of a period of time dating from the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the end of the age. We now know that has to be thousands of years, contrary to your claim.

The reason for this is simple. Modern eschatology feeds the curiosity of modern Christians who wish to interpret their own times in the light of the book of Revelation, and in the light of the Olivet Discourse. To do so they think they have to interpret the Great Tribulation as the reign of Antichrist.

Well, the Great Tribulation certainly encompasses the Last Days, but it also encompasses the totality of NT history, as well, because the Jews have been in Diaspora all that time! And clearly, reading the passage above, that is precisely what Jesus said!

Forty and two months. 1260 days. That does not equal thousands of years. You are wrong.

 

[Davy]

That is the logical conclusion if we understand Jesus' statement on the Great Tribulation properly.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

I'm sorry to say that many Christians have had the "Great Tribulation," as Jesus used it, wrong for many years! Here, it is plain as the nose on my face that Jesus was speaking of a period of time dating from the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the end of the age. We now know that has to be thousands of years, contrary to your claim.

The reason for this is simple. Modern eschatology feeds the curiosity of modern Christians who wish to interpret their own times in the light of the book of Revelation, and in the light of the Olivet Discourse. To do so they think they have to interpret the Great Tribulation as the reign of Antichrist.

Well, the Great Tribulation certainly encompasses the Last Days, but it also encompasses the totality of NT history, as well, because the Jews have been in Diaspora all that time! And clearly, reading the passage above, that is precisely what Jesus said!

What is contrary is your false interpretation of that Luke 21 Scripture.

The idea of those surrounding armies is for the last day of this world, and is about this...

Zeph 3:8-9
8 Therefore wait ye upon Me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for My determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them Mine indignation, even all My fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of My jealousy.
9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve Him with one consent.
KJV

Ezek 38:14-16
14 Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, 'Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when My people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?
15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:
16 And thou shalt come up against My people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against My land, that the heathen may know Me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.
KJV

Joel 3:2
2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for My people and for My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted My land.
KJV

Joel 3:9-14
9 Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:
10 Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.
11 Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD.
12 Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.
13 Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great.
14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.
KJV

Zech 14:1-3
14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle.
KJV

Rev 16:15-17
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
16 And He gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, 'It is done.'
KJV

Rev 19:17-19
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him That sat on the horse, and against His army.
KJV

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well we know your premise is not true, because even the later century Church fathers preached the coming of the Antichrist and the events of the day involving Christ's coming. It's because those are the things Jesus covered in His Olivet discourse, the day of His coming and gathering of His Church being the last Sign He gave there.

The idea planted in your mind which causes you to see Christ's Olivet discourse in this bad way is how certain ones you listen to try to tell you that Christ's Olivet discourse isn't meant for the Church, but for the Jews and that it was history.

Davy, I don't know how you can prove that anything I said above is "untrue," let alone rejected by "all" here? Are you the elected leader of "all" here? Do you know what everybody believes here? Do you know for certain that they can't change their minds when presented with more information?

You should actually read what I said before completely denouncing it. I provided the quotations, and you are even arguing something that I already addressed. I already mentioned that the Church Fathers largely believed in futurism--in a future Antichrist and in a future 2nd Coming. So why are you denouncing me for something I already stated I believe?

Regardless, I proved in my quotations above that the Church Fathers generally saw the 70th Week of Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse as focused on the 1st Coming of Christ and on how that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, followed by a long tribulation of the Jewish People.

The point was, this Jewish tribulation would also affect Jewish believers. And in the same way, Christians in all countries are also affected by the ungodliness in their own countries. It is a warning to Christians to endure difficult circumstances while we obey Christ's mandate to witness to the nations.

 

[Davy]

Davy, I don't know how you can prove that anything I said above is "untrue," let alone rejected by "all" here? Are you the elected leader of "all" here? Do you know what everybody believes here? Do you know for certain that they can't change their minds when presented with more information?

Funny, I don't have to try and prove anything. God's Word as written has done that.

I posted plenty of Scripture to show just what those armies surrounding Jerusalem in Luke 21 is about, which is why the Luke 21 Scripture is ultimately talking about the day of God's vengeance upon the wicked with Christ's coming. Now I have read enough of your commentary on the Luke 21 chapter, and the Scriptures I showed clearly debunks it. So instead of your continuously trying to point the finger at me, you need to look at the other fingers pointing back at yourself, and your need to go back and do a lot more Bible study.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Funny, I don't have to try and prove anything. God's Word as written has done that.

I posted plenty of Scripture to show just what those armies surrounding Jerusalem in Luke 21 is about, which is why the Luke 21 Scripture is ultimately talking about the day of God's vengeance upon the wicked with Christ's coming. Now I have read enough of your commentary on the Luke 21 chapter, and the Scriptures I showed clearly debunks it. So instead of your continuously trying to point the finger at me, you need to look at the other fingers pointing back at yourself, and your need to go back and do a lot more Bible study.

Nobody's pointing fingers here. I'm just saying that I believe most Christian scholars in history would interpret Luke 21 as fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, and in the destruction of the temple, leading to the Jewish Diaspora. If you have it settled in your mind, so be it.

 

[Davy]

Nobody's pointing fingers here. I'm just saying that I believe most Christian scholars in history would interpret Luke 21 as fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, and in the destruction of the temple, leading to the Jewish Diaspora. If you have it settled in your mind, so be it.

Well, when you start throwing out falsehoods towards me that have NOTHING to do with my coverage of Bible Scripture, like in your above post #174, then that is... POINTING YOUR FINGER. I am not... the "elected leader of all here"! I simply KEEP TO GOD'S WORD AS WRITTEN!

But no matter, God's written Word full strength isn't popular, and there aren't that many that can handle the "strong meat" and must instead stay with the "milk". I'm not here for those on the "milk" of God's Word. One can get that in just about any Christian Church. However, those in Christ that are not new babes are not supposed to be still sucking on the milk bottle, but instead should be on the "strong meat". This is why many have a hard time understanding some of the things I cover from God's Word. It's because I stick with the "strong meat", and many can't chew it. (See end of Hebrews 5).

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, when you start throwing out falsehoods towards me that have NOTHING to do with my coverage of Bible Scripture, like in your above post #174, then that is... POINTING YOUR FINGER. I am not... the "elected leader of all here"! I simply KEEP TO GOD'S WORD AS WRITTEN!

You said, "Well we know your premise is not true, because even the later century Church fathers preached the coming of the Antichrist and the events of the day involving Christ's coming."

When you say, "we know," who are "we?" Are you referring to the "royal we," or were you trying to represent a number of people here on this forum? I'm new to this forum, and so I just assumed you were representing the entire forum and its general assessment. But maybe you just meant to represent yourself, using the royal "we?"

Regardless, when you saw "we know your premise is not true," and then go on to try to disprove my premise by stating that the Church father "preached the coming of the Antichrist and the events of the day involving Christ's coming," then it shows you haven't even read the background to my statements. I had already given that the Church Fathers generally believed in a future Antichrist and in a future 2nd Coming!

So I'm reiterating that my "premise" is not based on this at all. Rather, my premise is based on the quotes that I provided, that a sampling of the Church Fathers' beliefs on Dan 9 and and on Luke 21 were unanimous that this was largely an historical fulfillment, even if some elements of Luke 21 had to do with the future 2nd Coming of Christ.

They saw the 70th Week of Daniel as fulfilled in the Anointed One coming and dying, after which Jerusalem was destroyed in that generation. And they saw the Olivet Discourse as saying the same thing, that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed immediately after the death of Christ, in his generation, followed by a long period of Jewish Diaspora.

So when you say, "we all know your premise is not true," you are not basing your conclusion on what I've been saying on this thread at all. And if you're not trying to represent all Christians here on this forum, citing their general opinion, then I apologize. That's just how I took it.

 

[Davy]

You said, "Well we know your premise is not true, because even the later century Church fathers preached the coming of the Antichrist and the events of the day involving Christ's coming."

When you say, "we know," who are "we?" Are you referring to the "royal we," or were you trying to represent a number of people here on this forum? I'm new to this forum, and so I just assumed you were representing the entire forum and its general assessment. But maybe you just meant to represent yourself, using the royal "we?"

More in the royal we sense.

Regardless, when you saw "we know your premise is not true," and then go on to try to disprove my premise by stating that the Church father "preached the coming of the Antichrist and the events of the day involving Christ's coming," then it shows you haven't even read the background to my statements. I had already given that the Church Fathers generally believed in a future Antichrist and in a future 2nd Coming!

Then that shows your argument has no basis. But when you mock at the start, it's difficult for me to want to continue reading.

So I'm reiterating that my "premise" is not based on this at all. Rather, my premise is based on the quotes that I provided, that a sampling of the Church Fathers' beliefs on Dan 9 and and on Luke 21 were unanimous that this was largely an historical fulfillment, even if some elements of Luke 21 had to do with the future 2nd Coming of Christ.

But that's simply not true. You haven't provided all... the available samples of the early Church fathers. And the ones you picked were mostly from the school at Alexandria, a group that was influenced by the pagan philosophers around them in Alexandria, especially as shown in Origen's writings.

Tertullian (155 - 240 A.D.):
“Now, forasmuch as the seasons of our entire hope have been fixed in the Holy Scripture, and since we are not permitted to place the accomplishment thereof, as I apprehend, previous to Christ’s coming, our prayers are directed towards the end of this world, to the passing away thereof at the great day of the Lord—of His wrath and vengeance—the last day, which is hidden (from all), and known to none but the Father, although announced beforehand by signs and wonders, and the dissolution of the elements, and the conflicts of nations.”

Tertullian linked the day of God's vengeance with the last day of this world. That is what the Luke 21 Scripture is showing also, so no way does he agree Christ's Olivet discourse was already fulfilled with the 70 A.D. destruction.

Irenaeus (130 - 202 A.D.):
"Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.” [Matt 24:15, 21]

Irenaeus speaks on events Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse as a future event.

Hippolytus (170 - 236 A.D.):
“These things, then, being to come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope? who shall bring the conflagration and just judgment upon all who have refused to believe on Him. For the Lord says, “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” [Luke 21:28] “And there shall not a hair of your head perish.” [Luke 21:18] “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” [Matt 24:27, 28]

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - 386 A.D.):
“The Antichrist just mentioned by Paul will come when the destined period of the Roman Empire has run its course and the subsequent end of the world is drawing near. Ten claimants to the empire will arise simultaneously, I suppose in different parts, but all wearing the purple at the same time. Antichrist will form an eleventh after them, having seized the imperial power by the use of magic arts. He will humble three of those who came to power before him and cause the remaining seven to be Caesars under him [Cf. Dan 7:24]. At first he will feign mildness and will appear to be a learned and understanding man, with pretended prudence and kindness. Then he will take in the Jews, by making them suppose him to be their expected Messiah, by false signs and wonders produced by magical trickery. And afterwards his character will be written large in evil deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness of every kind, so as to outdo all wicked and godless men that were before him. He will display a murderous, most absolute, pitiless and unstable temper toward all people, but especially toward us Christians. He will act insolently for only three and a half years. Then he will be defeated by the second glorious coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus, the true Christ. He will destroy Antichrist “with the spirit of his mouth” and commit him to the flames of hell.”

John Crysostom (347 -407 A.D.):
"Here he discourses concerning the Antichrist, and reveals great mysteries. What is “the falling away?” He calls him Apostasy, as being about to destroy many, and make them fall away. So that if it were possible, He says, the very Elect should be offended. [From Matt. 24:24] And he calls him “the man of sin.” For he shall do numberless mischiefs, and shall cause others to do them. But he calls him “the son of perdition,” because he is also to be destroyed. But who is he? Is it then Satan? By no means; but some man, that admits his fully working in him. For he is a man. “And exalteth himself against all that is called God or is worshiped.” For he will not introduce idolatry, but will be a kind of opponent to God; he will abolish all the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church. “Setting himself forth,” he says; he does not say, saying it, but endeavoring to show it. For he will perform great works, and will show wonderful signs.”

The fact is that many of the early Church fathers pulled from Christ's Olivet discourse and linked many of its signs with the events of 2 Thess.2 about the coming Antichrist shows how they did not see Christ's Olivet discourse as history. Instead, they saw those signs as being future to their day.

 

[Randy Kluth]

...You haven't provided all... the available samples of the early Church fathers. And the ones you picked were mostly from the school at Alexandria, a group that was influenced by the pagan philosophers around them in Alexandria, especially as shown in Origen's writings.

You simply separate out the good from the bad. They were very accomplished and studied Christians. And being much closer in time to Christ and to his apostles, they bear important testimony as to how they may be interpreted.

Tertullian (155 - 240 A.D.):
“Now, forasmuch as the seasons of our entire hope have been fixed in the Holy Scripture, and since we are not permitted to place the accomplishment thereof, as I apprehend, previous to Christ’s coming, our prayers are directed towards the end of this world, to the passing away thereof at the great day of the Lord—of His wrath and vengeance—the last day, which is hidden (from all), and known to none but the Father, although announced beforehand by signs and wonders, and the dissolution of the elements, and the conflicts of nations.”

Tertullian linked the day of God's vengeance with the last day of this world. That is what the Luke 21 Scripture is showing also, so no way does he agree Christ's Olivet discourse was already fulfilled with the 70 A.D. destruction.

There you go again--misrepresenting my arguments! I never said the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled with the 70 AD destruction! Do you even know my position? The O.D. indicated that after Christ was rejected the Jewish People would lose Jerusalem, and thus their religion, and would then go into an age-long dispersion. That means the O.D. is *not* fulfilled in 70 AD alone, but also in an age-long dispersion of the Jewish People!

Irenaeus (130 - 202 A.D.):
"Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.” [Matt 24:15, 21]

Irenaeus speaks on events Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse as a future event.

Yes, he did.

Hippolytus (170 - 236 A.D.):
“These things, then, being to come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope? who shall bring the conflagration and just judgment upon all who have refused to believe on Him. For the Lord says, “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” [Luke 21:28] “And there shall not a hair of your head perish.” [Luke 21:18] “For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” [Matt 24:27, 28]

I believe Hippolytus shared with Irenaeus belief about a future AoD--I'd have to re-check. My point, however, is not that *all* of the Church Fathers interpreted the AoD as historical, but that *most of them did.* The historical position is not popular today in some areas of the Church. But this does not mean my position is not legitimate and reasonable.

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - 386 A.D.):
“The Antichrist just mentioned by Paul will come when the destined period of the Roman Empire has run its course and the subsequent end of the world is drawing near. Ten claimants to the empire will arise simultaneously, I suppose in different parts, but all wearing the purple at the same time. Antichrist will form an eleventh after them, having seized the imperial power by the use of magic arts. He will humble three of those who came to power before him and cause the remaining seven to be Caesars under him [Cf. Dan 7:24]. At first he will feign mildness and will appear to be a learned and understanding man, with pretended prudence and kindness. Then he will take in the Jews, by making them suppose him to be their expected Messiah, by false signs and wonders produced by magical trickery. And afterwards his character will be written large in evil deeds of inhumanity and lawlessness of every kind, so as to outdo all wicked and godless men that were before him. He will display a murderous, most absolute, pitiless and unstable temper toward all people, but especially toward us Christians. He will act insolently for only three and a half years. Then he will be defeated by the second glorious coming from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus, the true Christ. He will destroy Antichrist “with the spirit of his mouth” and commit him to the flames of hell.”

John Crysostom (347 -407 A.D.):
"Here he discourses concerning the Antichrist, and reveals great mysteries. What is “the falling away?” He calls him Apostasy, as being about to destroy many, and make them fall away. So that if it were possible, He says, the very Elect should be offended. [From Matt. 24:24] And he calls him “the man of sin.” For he shall do numberless mischiefs, and shall cause others to do them. But he calls him “the son of perdition,” because he is also to be destroyed. But who is he? Is it then Satan? By no means; but some man, that admits his fully working in him. For he is a man. “And exalteth himself against all that is called God or is worshiped.” For he will not introduce idolatry, but will be a kind of opponent to God; he will abolish all the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church. “Setting himself forth,” he says; he does not say, saying it, but endeavoring to show it. For he will perform great works, and will show wonderful signs.”

The fact is that many of the early Church fathers pulled from Christ's Olivet discourse and linked many of its signs with the events of 2 Thess.2 about the coming Antichrist shows how they did not see Christ's Olivet discourse as history. Instead, they saw those signs as being future to their day.

No, that is your conclusion. The fact the Church Fathers largely believed in a future Antichrist in no way rendered their view of the 70th Week and their view of the Olivet Discourse non-historical. They clearly believed that the 70th Week was fulfilled in Christ's 1st Coming, and they clearly believed the AoD was the destruction of Jerusalem after 70 AD.

Only Preterists believe in the historicity of these passages while denying the futurity of the Antichrist and of Christ's 2nd Coming. Neither do I reject futurism, as such. I only reject the idea that the 70th Week and the AoD is future--rather, they were fulfilled historically in Christ's death and in the fall of Jerusalem soon afterwards. I've posted the Church Fathers comments to prove this, as a general proof, though not as a 100% consensus of opinion among the Church Fathers.