When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[WPM]

LOL. Why wouldn't you agree with him? It's not like some of us are surprised by that. After all, your interpretation of some of the Discourse also defies logic.

What matters is, is not your view nor @Spiritual Israelite view of Matthew 24:21. What matters is, what is Jesus' view of it? That's the view we have to agree with and not contradict. Jesus' view is that this great tribulation will be the greatest tribulation that has ever occurred on this planet since the beginning of time. That it can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness, proved by what He says here---no, nor ever shall be. So let's just pretend that what happened to the unbelieving Jews in the first century is greater in scale than great tribulation recorded in Revelation 7:9, 14. Let's just pretend that something local can surpass something global in greatness. Who cares about defying logic, right?

This is all noise! I will again present the biblical support in the form of the parallel passages (as I do), and you will doubtless avoid (as you do).

The context of Matthew 24:15-22 is clearly the destruction of Jerusalem.

In His discourse in Matthew 23:37-24:2 the Lord warns, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (the second coming). Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 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.”

The religious Jews of Jerusalem were about to witness the destruction of their temple. Moreover, that ruination would remain in place from its demolition right up until the second coming of the Lord.

Matthew 24:1-2 records, “And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 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.”

Christ was specifically speaking here of “the buildings of the temple” not the city.

Mark 13:1-2 records, “And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here. And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

In this parallel account, Mark corroborates the thought of Matthew.

Luke 21:5-6 records, “And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

The disciples then asked two questions in Matthew 24 in response to our Lord’s words.

Matthew 24:3 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

Mark 13:4 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled (finished or ended)?”

Luke 21:7 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?”

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the second coming.

In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-22, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying, “When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Mark 13:14-20 says, “when ye (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”

This can only refer to the wrath of God being poured out on Jerusalem that destroyed the existing socio-political/cultural/religious system of Judaism, which was an offence to God. This people were decimated. Their religious system was effectively brought to nought. Nothing before AD 70, or after it, could compare in regard to the extent of its demise. Luke 21:20-24 reinforces that we are looking at AD 70.

Luke’s parallel passage, in Luke 21:20-24, records, “when ye (the disciples) shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

Hello!

Compare these passages that are expressly speaking about "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not" that are clearly describing the coming of the Roman soldiers in AD70. To the objective Bible study, this is contextually, hermeneutically and historically watertight and crystal clear. There is no other conclusion here if you let the sacred text speak for itself. There is no other conclusion here if you do not have to justify false teaching. There is no other conclusion here when you compare Scripture with Scripture. It is as a result of this "sign," that God's people fled Jerusalem and skipped the destruction of the city at that time. This was their sign to go.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Disciple Thomas went to India in 52 AD and was slain there in 72 AD.

That's possible, but hard to confirm. But, was Paul really just talking about the gospel being preached only in part of all nations rather than literally throughout the world? Is there any evidence that the gospel was preached throughout India back then?

I still say Paul was only talking about the known world at that time. What about China? What about Japan? What about all of the nations in Africa, particularly in the southern part of Africa? What about in the Americas? Are you sure you want to claim that the gospel was preached literally throughout the world already by 60 AD?

What's wrong with the evidence of the Gospel reaching Britain that I provided?

I didn't say anything about Britain. That was WPM. I haven't looked into that. I don't doubt that it could have been preached there in the first century, but I'll take a look at that evidence to see what I think about that.

 

[covenantee]

Are you sure you want to claim that the gospel was preached literally throughout the world already by 60 AD?

Are you sure you want to claim that it wasn't?

I have complete confidence and certainty that God's Empowerment of His Early Church was more than abundant to enable them to preach His Gospel to "all nations" before 60 AD, as defined and declared by Christ and Paul in Matthew 24:14 and Romans 16:26.

You'll have to decide for yourself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You don't get it. Probably never will. At least not in this lifetime. One doesn't have to explain what those things mean if not meaning in the literal sense. Everything else I have been arguing already proves it's not literal events involving 70 AD.

If that's the case, then why do you act as if I can't disprove Zechariah 14 without being able to tell you exactly what it all means? That seems rather hypocritical. So, can you acknowledge that Zechariah 14 can at last potentially be proven to not have anything to do with a future millennium without having to show exactly what it all means?

I don't agree that everything else you have been arguing proves it's not literal events involving 70 AD. You seem to forget about the existence of Luke 21 sometimes. Would you agree that Luke 21:8-19 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:4-14? If so, tell me why the next verse after Matthew 24:14 would not refer to the same things as Luke 21:20? What makes you recognize that Luke 21:8-19 is parallel to Matthew 24:4-14, but not that Luke 21:20-24 is parallel to Matthew 24:15-21? Is it just a coincidence that the passages that follow Luke 21:8-19 and Matthew 24:14 are so similar? No, it isn't. It isn't reasonable at all to claim that Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-21 are not parallel passages.

Arguments, such as. Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 are referring to the same era of time, the same events. Daniel 12:2 proves Matthew 24:21 is not meaning 70 AD since no resurrection event ever followed 70 AD.

Daniel 12:1 is referring to a major global event that occurs with the dead being resurrected immediately following it. That is not the case for Matthew 24:15-21. There is no indication that Jesus would come immediately after Matthew 24:15-21 is over with the dead being raised.

Starting in verse 23 Jesus indicated that after that time was over then false Christs and false prophets would appear that would be very deceptive. What would these false Christs and prophets try to deceive people into believing? With the city of Jerusalem being destroyed, they knew that people would want a Messiah/Christ to come and restore Jerusalem. They could try to show that Jesus did not do that and that instead of restoring Jerusalem to prominence, it ended up being destroyed. So, they could deceive people into thinking the real Messiah/Christ would show up and do what they expected the Messiah to do. This is the kind of thing that has occurred during "the times of the Gentiles" that follows the destruction of Jerusalem, according to Luke 21:24.

Arguments, such as.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Obviously, this is the greatest tribulation this world will ever see and experience, regardless when it is meaning. It can't be equalled nor surpassed in greatness.

Where does it say "It can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness.". Show me where it says that.

It doesn't say "It can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness", it says it would be great tribulation that would be unlike any other great tribulation. You are twisting the text to fit your doctrine. With the way it is worded, it gives no indication one way or another of whether it's talking about a local or global tribulation, it just indicates that it would be great tribulation unlike any other that occurred in the world before or that would ever occur again. What happened in 70 AD was indeed unlike any other great tribulation that had occurred anywhere in the world nor that has occurred ever since.

You act as if Jesus said "For then shall be great tribulation, greater than any tribulation that ever happened before or that will ever happen". That is NOT what He said. The phrase "such as was not" does not mean "greater than any other", it means "unlike any other". The great tribulation He referenced would be unlike any other great tribulation, not greater than any other great tribulation. If He was saying it would be the greatest tribulation ever, how could it be greater than the flood in Noah's day? That isn't possible unless you think less than 8 people will survive the supposed future great tribulation. I'm sure you don't believe that, though.

Let's say you knew about a future event where everyone in your city would be killed by wolves and you knew that nothing like that has ever happened anywhere in the world before or would ever happen again. So, you tell everyone that it's going to happen at some point in the future and when they see the wolves approaching the city, they should flee the city.

Could you not say in relation to this event "then shall be great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be"? Of course you could, right? Never before has any city in the world had all the people in their city killed by wolves and it wouldn't ever happen again. So, tell me how you are concluding that the phrase "such as was not" means "greater than any other tribulation" instead of "unlike any other tribulation"?

That presents a major poblem if this great tribulation is not the same as the great tribulation per the following. Because, clearly, it is the greatest tribulation this world will ever see and experience, proven by what I have underlined below.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

You are trying to relate unrelated passages. That passage is referring to all Christians from all-time, not just Christians that go through a future great tribulation. Notice that it says "great tribulation", not "THE great tribulation".

All Christians go through great tribulation.

Acts 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

The book of Revelation is not just a book about the future. It's a book that talks about the past, present and future (Revelation 1:19). Do you really think that "a great multitude, which no man could number" will be saved during a future great tribulation? Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. That passage talks about mass apostasy occurring during the time period just before Jesus returns, not mass salvation.

great
megas
meg'-as
(including the prolonged forms, feminine megale, plural megaloi, etc.; compare also megistoV - megistos 3176, 3187); big (literally or figuratively, in a very wide application):--(+ fear) exceedingly, great(-est), high, large, loud, mighty, + (be) sore (afraid), strong, X to years.

tribulation
thlipsis
thlip'-sis
from qlibw - thlibo 2346; pressure (literally or figuratively):--afflicted(-tion), anguish, burdened, persecution, tribulation, trouble.

What was the point of showing this? I did not say it doesn't refer to great tribulation.

What you ignore is that Luke 21:23 refers to "great distress". As if great tribulation and great distress are different things? No, they are not.

Yet, that "great distress" is related to God's wrath. Your claim that Matthew 24:15-21 can't be related to Luke 21:20-24 because tribulation can't refer to God's wrath doesn't hold water.

Romans 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Is this talking about persecution or God's wrath?

Daniel 12:1---and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time---Matthew 24:21--For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


trouble
tsarah
tsaw-raw'
feminine of 'tsar' (6862); tightness (i.e. figuratively, trouble); transitively, a female rival:--adversary, adversity, affliction, anguish, distress, tribulation, trouble


Well at least we know that 'thlipsis' and 'tsarah' are not meaning the same thing? Right? Of course we don't know that. Of course both words are meaning the same thing.

When did I say those words don't mean the same thing? Never. What gave you the idea that I thought otherwise when I have never indicated as such? You have spent much of your time over the years on these forums arguing with straw men and it's a shame. You can't get that time back.

I believe both Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 refer to God's wrath. God's wrath can be described as tribulation, like it is in Romans 2:9 and other verses, so trying to argue otherwise is pointless. The difference is that Daniel 12:1 refers to God's wrath that will happen just before the resurrection of the dead, while that is not the case for Matthew 24:21 because the times of the Gentiles follows that event.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And even though Daniel 12:1 does not mention great, we obviously know it will be great based on what this says, which obviously means, since the beginning of the world to this time, it has no equal, that is can't be surpassed in greatness

There you go again twisting the text. Nowhere does it say "that it can't be surpassed in greatness". That is impossible. Nothing can reasonably surpass the tribulation of the flood in Noah's day in greatness.

It only indicates that it would be unlike ("such as never was") any tribulation "ever was since there was a nation even to that same time". Notice in Daniel 12:1 it doesn't say at the end "nor ever shall be" like it does in Matthew 24:21. This implies that the Daniel 12:1 tribulation occurs at the end of time in contrast to the Matthew 24:21 tribulation that has time continuing on after it's over.

And this obviously presents a major problem if this---Matthew 24:21--For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be---is not the same tribulation meant in Daniel 12:1, and that it precedes the one meant in Daniel 12:1.

That is not a problem at all if you don't change the text to say that the great tribulation is greater than any other tribulation that would ever happen rather than seeing that it says it would be unlike "such as was not" any other great tribulation that happened in the world, which is something that can be said about what happened in 70 AD.

You obviously don't fully grasp what constitutes an obvious contradiction.

LOL. You obviously don't fully grasp that it is dishonest to twist scripture the way you do with Matthew 24:21.

You place your doctrinal bias above logic in this case. Your interpretation of Matthew 24:21 and Daniel 12:1 defies logic.

Your doctrinal bias causes you to twist the text of those verses to say they are talking about the greatest tribulation ever rather than about tribulation that is unlike any other. The phrase "such as was not" does not mean "greater than any other", it means "unlike any other".

Arguments, such as. If the AOD was fulfilled in the first century involving 70 AD, why don't all interpreters agree with each other as to what it was? If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is.

Why is that? Most agree that it relates to abominations that occurred in and around the temple at that time even if they don't agree on which abomination that occurred at that time is the actual abomination of desolation. In my view, all the abominable things that occurred in and around the temple in the time just prior to the temple being destroyed were a collective abomination to God because they were doing abominable things at a place that was intended to be a place of worship and a place where God would meet His people.

Those abominable acts are recorded in historical documents. Why does it matter so much what exactly the abomination of desolation was when we know there were abominable acts committed at the temple at that time and the temple was soon after made desolate by way of being destroyed?

Also, we have Luke 21:20-24 which tells us that it relates to the time when Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. Instead of just accepting that, you try to make it as if Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-21 are not parallel passages even though I highly doubt that you believe the verses which precede each passage are not parallel to each other. You inexplicably decided that Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-21 are not parallel even though you would not try to say the same about the verses which precede each passage. If that is not a red flag, I don't know what is.

Here we have all these interpreters insisting that the AOD has already been fulfilled, thus no longer a mystery as to what it was if true, then all of these same interpreters not even agreeing with each other as what the AOD was.

It's not like we have video evidence of what happened in 70 AD. We can only go by what was written about it. Josephus is the primary source on that and he believed the abomination of desolation related to the Roman armies committing abominations at the temple in the years before it was destroyed.

Somehow, though, you think my inability to explain the fleeing recorded in Matthew 24 if not meaning in the literal sense, that this trumps all and any of my arguments above and elsewhere that I have argued these things.

I never said that. But, you act so sure that it should be interpreted in a non-literal sense that I would think you would at least be able to offer a guess as to how it can be interpreted that way.

Though, you try to, you cannot get around any of these arguments above.

I don't need to try to get around your twisting of the text in Matthew 24:21. Instead, you need to stop twisting it and accept what it actually says. And it does not refer to the greatest tribulation ever, it refers to a great tribulation unlike any other great tribuation that has ever happened anywhere in the world.

The way you try to get around my arguments is to claim that Luke 21:20-24 and Matthew 24:15-21 are completely different events which is a completely unreasonable argument. It requires you to believe that, despite the preceding verses in each account referring to the same things, somehow those passages are not about the same things. Your reasoning for doing that is completely unconvincing. To try to say that they can't be the same because one refers to tribulation and hte other refers to wrath is the weakest argument I've ever seen. Tribulation can refer to wrath. That is a fact. Also, Luke 21:23 refers to "great distress". Clearly, "great tribulation" and "great distress" can be the same thing.

You think you get around them, except you don't, the fact to defy logic in order to get around something does not equal having gotten around something.

LOL. Which one of us blatantly twists the text of Matthew 24:21 to get it to say what we need it to say to support our doctrine? You or me? I'll give you a hint. It's not me.

Only in your world it might mean that, not in mine. You defy logic per your interpretation by having something involving local being greater than something involving global.

LOL. Explain to me how a future event can be greater than the flood in Noah's day.

You defy logic by having something involving local having no equal nor can't be surpassed in greatness. That would be like arguing that a local flood can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness. That not even Noah's flood can surpass it in greatness.

That is not my argument! Good grief. You are the one saying it can't be surpassed in greatness, not me. That is NOT what the text says. What is the name of the straw man you're arguing with?

Funny though how your mind works at times, you would never argue that, yet turn right around, per your interpretation of the Discourse, argue that a local event can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness. Not even by global events. Who reasons in that manner? Where they are being perfectly reasonable by insisting a local event, such as a flood, can't equal nor surpass in greatness a global event, such as Noah's flood. Then insist the exact opposite when it comes to the Discourse per their interpretation of some of it. That a local event can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness by global events. These problems go away entirely once one admits that Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 is involving the same era of time. Keeping in mind that Jesus plainly, thus undeniably tells us that great tribulation per Matthew 24:21 can't be equaled nor surpassed in greatness ever, the fact he said this--no, nor ever shall be.

LOL. You undeniably twist the text of the verse to fit your doctrine rather than accepting what it actually says.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Are you sure you want to claim that it wasn't?

I have complete confidence and certainty that God's Empowerment of His Early Church was more than abundant to enable them to preach His Gospel to "all nations" before 60 AD, as defined and declared by Christ and Paul in Matthew 24:14 and Romans 16:26.

You'll have to decide for yourself.

Yes, I'm sure. I can't find any evidence anywhere to indicate that the gospel was preached in China, Japan, the Americas, and most nations in Africa. Those nations were not part of the known world at that time that was ruled by the Roman empire. And, it's questionable whether the gospel being preached in just one area of a big country like India really counts in the context of the gospel being preached "in all the world" (Matt 24:14) as Jesus talked about. To me, that means the gospel would be preached not only in all nations, but everywhere within all nations, and then the end would come.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, I'm sure. I can't find any evidence anywhere to indicate that the gospel was preached in China, Japan, the Americas, and most nations in Africa. Those nations were not part of the known world at that time that was ruled by the Roman empire. And, it's questionable whether the gospel being preached in just one area of a big country like India really counts in the context of the gospel being preached "in all the world" (Matt 24:14) as Jesus talked about. To me, that means the gospel would be preached not only in all nations, but everywhere within all nations, and then the end would come.

Thankfully, I don't share your doubt and denial.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. Why wouldn't you agree with him? It's not like some of us are surprised by that. After all, your interpretation of some of the Discourse also defies logic.

Are you upset that he agreed with me or something? He can't say he agrees with me without you chiming in? This comes across that you are jealous and that you wish someone here would agree with your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. And, no, someone agreeing with your interpretation of Matthew 24 doesn't count since that same person would probably disagree with your interpretation of Luke 21:20-24. They would not agree with the logic defying notion that during the Olivet Discourse Jesus twice said "When you see..." something related to the desolation of Jerusalem, "then let those in Judea flee to the mountains" and "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!" during a time of great tribulation/distress.

What matters is, is not your view nor @Spiritual Israelite view of Matthew 24:21. What matters is, what is Jesus' view of it? That's the view we have to agree with and not contradict. Jesus' view is that this great tribulation will be the greatest tribulation that has ever occurred on this planet since the beginning of time.

No, it was not. Show me where He said that it would be the greatest tribulation ever rather than a great tribulation unlike any other? He was saying it would be even greater in scope than the flood in Noah's day? Really? No. Talk about defying logic!

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The phrase "such as was not" does not mean "greater than any", it means "unlike any".

The idea is to interpret Scripture with Scripture when possible.

So, why don't you do that by using Luke 21:20-24 to help you interpret Matthew 24:15-21?

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to interpret Matthew 24:21 in light of Revelation 7:9, 14..

Revelation 7:9,14 has absolutely nothing to do with Matthew 24:21. That relates to all believers from all-time. It's silly to think that a great multitude that no one can count from all nations will be saved during a future great tribulation before Christ returns when scripture talks about many falling away from the faith and increased deception and wickedness during a future time before Christ returns. That type of scenario does not line up with the idea of a great multitude that no one can count being saved.

You, OTOH, don't have Scripture to interpret Scripture with, pertaining to Matthew 24:21.

LOL! You have to be kidding me. As if Luke 21:20-24 isn't scripture?

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: ) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

I'm using Luke 21:20-24, which is scripture, to interpret Matthew 24:21. The similarities between these passages are very obvious. It's not reasonable to think they are not about the same thing. That defies all logic. Your whole argument that they are not about the same event is that tribulation and wrath can't be the same thing, but that is not true. Tribulation can be wrath. And Luke 21:23 does refer to "great distress", which is the same as "great tribulation". The only other basis you have for differentiating between the two passages is to try to say Matthew 24:21 says it's the greatest tribulation ever rather than being unlke any tribulation ever. A local tribulation can be unlike any other tribulation that has happened.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thankfully, I don't share your doubt and denial.

Denial? What am I denying? Have you proven that the gospel was preached literally everywhere in the world before 60 AD? Do you have evidence of the gospel being preached in those places I mentioned before 60 AD? I'm denying that there is any evidence of that, not denying that possibility. All I'm seeing in my research is that the gospel was not preached in those areas until some time after the first century and, in some cases, not until hundreds of years after that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL. No one is going to take a lecture from you on anything. Sorry. You twist Scripture after Scripture in post after post and avoid arguments after argument and think we should take your rhetoric seriously. no! You also think you are exempt from the demand of God to fellowship much more as you see the day approaching. No! You are totally unteachable and unaccountable to anyone.

Look at what he does with Matthew 24:21.

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

He claims this is talking about great tribulation that would be the greatest tribulation ever. Where does it say that? Nowhere. Here is how he interprets the verse...

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, greater than has been since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

How do the words "such as was not" turn into "greater than has been"? That's not what "such as was not" means.

Here is what the verse is actually saying:

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, unlike any other great tribulation since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

For something great to be such as not something else that is great, it doesn't have to be greater than the other great thing, it just has to be unlike the other great thing. In this case, the great tribulation that occurred in 70 AD in Jerusalem was indeed unlike any other great tribuation that has ever occurred anywhere in the world. At no other time in history did an army surround a city while desecrating that city's religious culture with abominable acts in and around its temple and then proceeding to kill most of its people while also destroying the city itself and its temple buildings. Never has anything like that ever happened anywhere except in 70 AD in Jerusalem.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The religious Jews of Jerusalem were about to witness the destruction of their temple. Moreover, that ruination would remain in place from its demolition right up until the second coming of the Lord.

Matthew 24:1-2 records, “And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 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.”

Christ was specifically speaking here of “the buildings of the temple” not the city.

Mark 13:1-2 records, “And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here. And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

In this parallel account, Mark corroborates the thought of Matthew.

Luke 21:5-6 records, “And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

The disciples then asked two questions in Matthew 24 in response to our Lord’s words.

Matthew 24:3 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

Mark 13:4 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled (finished or ended)?”

Luke 21:7 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?”

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the second coming.

In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-22, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying, “When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Mark 13:14-20 says, “when ye (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”

This can only refer to the wrath of God being poured out on Jerusalem that destroyed the existing socio-political/cultural/religious system of Judaism, which was an offence to God. This people were decimated. Their religious system was effectively brought to nought. Nothing before AD 70, or after it, could compare in regard to the extent of its demise. Luke 21:20-24 reinforces that we are looking at AD 70.

Luke’s parallel passage, in Luke 21:20-24, records, “when ye (the disciples) shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

Hello!

Compare these passages that are expressly speaking about "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not" that are clearly describing the coming of the Roman soldiers in AD70. To the objective Bible study, this is contextually, hermeneutically and historically watertight and crystal clear. There is no other conclusion here if you let the sacred text speak for itself. There is no other conclusion here if you do not have to justify false teaching. There is no other conclusion here when you compare Scripture with Scripture. It is as a result of this "sign," that God's people fled Jerusalem and skipped the destruction of the city at that time. This was their sign to go.

Agree. It's completely unreasonable to claim that Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 are not parallel passages. As if He said those things separately in the same discourse? Imagine how confused the disciples would have been if He did that!

Imagine Him saying "when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains..." and then shortly after saying "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains....".

Surely, they would have said "Wait, Lord. Didn't you just say this a minute ago? Why are you telling us this again?".

No, that's completely unreasonable. The only reason there are slight differences between Matthew 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24 along with several similarities is because Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience that would have been familiar with Daniel's prophecy while Luke was writing to Gentiles who would not have been familiar with Daniel's prophecy. So, it would have made no sense for Luke to write "When you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel" and "let the reader understand" when the Gentiles reading his gospel would have had no idea of what he was talking about the way the Jews who were familiar with the Old Testament prophecies would have been.

 

[covenantee]

Denial? What am I denying? Have you proven that the gospel was preached literally everywhere in the world before 60 AD? Do you have evidence of the gospel being preached in those places I mentioned before 60 AD? I'm denying that there is any evidence of that, not denying that possibility. All I'm seeing in my research is that the gospel was not preached in those areas until some time after the first century and, in some cases, not until hundreds of years after that.

Denial of the evangelization of "all nations" as described by Paul.

When Paul says "all nations" in Romans 16:26, what do you think is his definition of "all nations"?

If God could evangelize faraway Britain and India, do you think that maybe, just maybe, He could evangelize all nations even though there's not sufficient evidence to suit you?

I do.

But not maybe.

Certainly.