Where does Matthew 24:23-26 fit in relation to Matthew 24:15-22?

[Davidpt]

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.


Is this meaning during or after what Matthew 24:15-22 below is involving?

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.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.


One clue in determining that, is maybe verses 29-31.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It is not reasonable to argue that the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 is not involving great tribulation pertaining to verses 15-22. And since it obviously is involving those verses, it matters where one places verses 15-22 in history, whether that be in the past, or whether that be in the future, because immediately after the end of those days verses 29-31 have to be fulfilled.

The reason I bring up Matthew 24:23-26 in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 is because some interpreters are trying to get around verses 29-31 by insisting those verses are meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, but not immediately after what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, Matthew 24:23-26 is not meaning during verses 15-22 it is meaning after. And why do these particular interpreters do that to begin with?

It's because they are apparently interpreting verses 23-26 to be involving tribulation, just not the same tribulation verses 15-22 are involving. They are taking verses 15-22 to be involving the first century and 70 AD, while taking verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming. Therefore, they apparently have verse 29 meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, not immediately after what verses 15-22. IOW, they are somehow seeing two tribulations in Matthew 24 rather than one.

So where does Matthew 24:23-26 fit in relation to Matthew 24:15-22? That is the question. I tend to think it is meaning during verses 15-22 myself. Which means one can't insist that verses 15-22 are involving the first century and 70 AD if verses 23-26 fit during what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, verses 23-26 don't fit 70 AD events. 70 AD had nothing to do with what verses 23-26 are involving.

The way I deal with it then since I do take verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming, and that I take verses 23-26 to be meaning during what verses 15-22 are involving, is that verses 15-22 are not involving the first century and 70 AD. Problem solved.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have difficulty explaining this because my points keep getting hijacked by those who wish to turn this into a pro/anti Preterism debate. I've said many times, to little avail, that views on either side of this debate do not have to relate to the Preterism debate. It is rather an historicist/futurist kind of debate. In other words, is this Discourse addressing historically-fulfilled events, or future events?

It is as plain as the nose on my face that the primary focus of this Discourse is on historically-fulfilled events, the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. That is on its face exactly what Jesus said.

Matt 24.2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen...
34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

If you choose to ignore the obvious meaning of these things, you will *never* understand the Discourse! You will have to invent a way to get around them, and that will lead to an endless quagmire of unresolved questions.

So, if we are to begin with this as the foundation, that Jesus was predicting 70 AD, which was based on Dan 9.26-27 incidentally, then we can place all of the information appropriately and reasonably. Jesus was also asked how his Coming fit in, because Christ's Coming to save Israel seems inconsonant with his earthly Coming to bring judgment to Israel.

So Jesus put his 2nd Coming secondary in the Discourse, explaining that "times and seasons" are in the Father's hands, but that the destruction and judgment of Israel would indeed happen in his own generation. Things would begin with initial warning signs, a "beginning" as it were of "labor pains," indicating that this war was coming.

There would be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, and indicators of Israel's sins that would lead to her judgment, including the persecution of the righteous. Love would grow cold.

False prophets would arise, predicting success in the Kingdom of God within Israel. However, Jesus said that the Kingdom would be taken from Israel and given to another nation, likely the Roman nation which became Christian a few centuries later.

The Abomination of Desolation, as described in Dan 9. indicates that it was the "people of the ruler to come," ie an Army sent to destroy "the city and the sanctuary." It was the abominable, pagan Romans who would bring certain destruction to Israel, leading to an entire age of Jewish punishment for the Jewish People (the Diaspora).

This Jesus referred to this period following the "Abomination of Desolation" as the "Great Tribulation," or "Great Distress." I know this is currently unpopular, but in the early Church this was, I believe, the predominant view. They saw the Olivet Discourse as predicting the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which led to the exile of the Jewish People.

Futurists want everything to be about the future. So much for prophecy that Jesus gave which have been historically fulfilled!

Some Preterists want everything to be about the past. So much for prophecy that Jesus gave in the book of Revelation!

But in this case, I believe the Preterists are right, that this is largely about prophecy fulfilled in the past, and that future prophecy at that point was relegated to something less current, with the exception that it is designed to motivate us to righteous living.

 

[Davy]

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.


Is this meaning during or after what Matthew 24:15-22 below is involving?

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.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.


One clue in determining that, is maybe verses 29-31.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It is not reasonable to argue that the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 is not involving great tribulation pertaining to verses 15-22. And since it obviously is involving those verses, it matters where one places verses 15-22 in history, whether that be in the past, or whether that be in the future, because immediately after the end of those days verses 29-31 have to be fulfilled.

The reason I bring up Matthew 24:23-26 in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 is because some interpreters are trying to get around verses 29-31 by insisting those verses are meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, but not immediately after what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, Matthew 24:23-26 is not meaning during verses 15-22 it is meaning after. And why do these particular interpreters do that to begin with?

It's because they are apparently interpreting verses 23-26 to be involving tribulation, just not the same tribulation verses 15-22 are involving.

What timing is the 5th Seal of Revelation 6 for? Ah... maybe you didn't think about that 5th Seal involving the time of "great tribulation"? What about other Scriptures about the time of "great tribulation", like in Daniel 7, 8, 11, and 12? And what about the timing of Revelation 13:4-8?

My point is, especially with Daniel 12:1-2 linked with Matthew 24:21, the time of "great tribulation" is to be a time such as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be again. And those other Scriptures, like in Daniel 7 & 8, and Revelation 13:4-8 links to that "great tribulation" event of Matthew 24:21.

And what about the Revelation 13:4-8 time link of 42 months with Revelation 11:2 when the Gentiles are given to tread under foot the holy city?

Thus the whole... period of Matthew 24:15 to 28 is all "great tribulation" timing.

 

[Davidpt]

I have difficulty explaining this because my points keep getting hijacked by those who wish to turn this into a pro/anti Preterism debate. I've said many times, to little avail, that views on either side of this debate do not have to relate to the Preterism debate. It is rather an historicist/futurist kind of debate. In other words, is this Discourse addressing historically-fulfilled events, or future events?

It is as plain as the nose on my face that the primary focus of this Discourse is on historically-fulfilled events, the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. That is on its face exactly what Jesus said.

Matt 24.2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen...
34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

If you choose to ignore the obvious meaning of these things, you will *never* understand the Discourse! You will have to invent a way to get around them, and that will lead to an endless quagmire of unresolved questions.

So, if we are to begin with this as the foundation, that Jesus was predicting 70 AD, which was based on Dan 9.26-27 incidentally, then we can place all of the information appropriately and reasonably. Jesus was also asked how his Coming fit in, because Christ's Coming to save Israel seems inconsonant with his earthly Coming to bring judgment to Israel.

So Jesus put his 2nd Coming secondary in the Discourse, explaining that "times and seasons" are in the Father's hands, but that the destruction and judgment of Israel would indeed happen in his own generation. Things would begin with initial warning signs, a "beginning" as it were of "labor pains," indicating that this war was coming.

There would be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, famines, and indicators of Israel's sins that would lead to her judgment, including the persecution of the righteous. Love would grow cold.

False prophets would arise, predicting success in the Kingdom of God within Israel. However, Jesus said that the Kingdom would be taken from Israel and given to another nation, likely the Roman nation which became Christian a few centuries later.

The Abomination of Desolation, as described in Dan 9. indicates that it was the "people of the ruler to come," ie an Army sent to destroy "the city and the sanctuary." It was the abominable, pagan Romans who would bring certain destruction to Israel, leading to an entire age of Jewish punishment for the Jewish People (the Diaspora).

This Jesus referred to this period following the "Abomination of Desolation" as the "Great Tribulation," or "Great Distress." I know this is currently unpopular, but in the early Church this was, I believe, the predominant view. They saw the Olivet Discourse as predicting the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which led to the exile of the Jewish People.

Futurists want everything to be about the future. So much for prophecy that Jesus gave which have been historically fulfilled!

Some Preterists want everything to be about the past. So much for prophecy that Jesus gave in the book of Revelation!

But in this case, I believe the Preterists are right, that this is largely about prophecy fulfilled in the past, and that future prophecy at that point was relegated to something less current, with the exception that it is designed to motivate us to righteous living.

The way I interpret the Discourse is like such. The events involving it began in the first century post that of Christ's ascension and are involving events during His ascension through His return following His ascension. Per this view it allows for some of the Discourse to be involving what happened in 70 AD, yet 70 AD not being the main focus throughout. Jesus isn't stuck in limbo per the Discourse where He is unable to predict events beyond the first century and 70 AD.


What we need to consider is the following, and that it appears to be describing the entire great tribulation period. Meaning every single day of it from start to finish.

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.


It seems to me great tribulation is only involving a short period of time, not a long period of time, such as 2000 years and counting. Which could mean it pertained to 70 AD events only, or events still in our future. IMO, every single day pertaining to great tribulation has to match what is recorded in verse 21. And here we are 2000 years later and nothing that I've witnessed in my 66 years of living thus far fits what verse 21 records---such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Therefore, either it's a past event already fulfilled, or it's future still.

In my view great tribulation is connected with the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit. And that when John received the Revelation visions, be that before 70 AD, or be that after 70 AD, he indicated that the beast was currently in the pit and that it was to ascend out of it in the future. Thus, in my view when it does ascend in the future, it leads to what Matthew 24:21 is describing.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit(Revelation 17:8)

'And is not', appears to be meaning the present time John was living in, therefore, making this part future still---and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit.

In the meantime let's compare a few things here, where it should be obvious that the same events, same time period, is in view.

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Compared with...

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders

Compared with...

Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

Revelation 13:13 And he doeth great wonders , so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

And if Matthew 24:23-26 fits during Matthew 24:15-22, the following then in Revelation 13 fits what Matthew 24:21 is describing.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

42 months describe a short period of time, not something involving thousands of years. And that this 42 months can't even begin until after the beast ascends out of the pit first.

Revelation 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them : and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed


Thus, for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

 

[Davidpt]

What timing is the 5th Seal of Revelation 6 for? Ah... maybe you didn't think about that 5th Seal involving the time of "great tribulation"? What about other Scriptures about the time of "great tribulation", like in Daniel 7, 8, 11, and 12? And what about the timing of Revelation 13:4-8?

My point is, especially with Daniel 12:1-2 linked with Matthew 24:21, the time of "great tribulation" is to be a time such as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be again. And those other Scriptures, like in Daniel 7 & 8, and Revelation 13:4-8 links to that "great tribulation" event of Matthew 24:21.

And what about the Revelation 13:4-8 time link of 42 months with Revelation 11:2 when the Gentiles are given to tread under foot the holy city?

Thus the whole... period of Matthew 24:15 to 28 is all "great tribulation" timing.

Clearly, the 5th seal is involving great tribulation. Therefore, I'm fully in agreement with you about that, not in disagreement instead.

The post after this one of yours, I posted that before I saw your post here. Maybe some of that post makes my view a bit clearer? Where it then seems to me that you and I are likely on the same page in regards to some of the Discourse, if not all of it. Where we might differ is that, though I take Matthew 24:15 to be future still, I don't take it be involving a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem in the future. It's involving a temple though, the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving, except that verse is not involving a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Not one thing in all of 2 Thessalonians 2 supports that verse 4 is involving a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Davy]

Where we might differ is that, though I take Matthew 24:15 to be future still, I don't take it be involving a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem in the future. It's involving a temple though, the same temple 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving, except that verse is not involving a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Not one thing in all of 2 Thessalonians 2 supports that verse 4 is involving a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

I do recognize the 2 Thessalonians 2:4 "temple of God" being about a literal 3rd temple built in Jerusalem for the very end, in prep for the time of "great tribulation".

A standing temple in Jerusalem is what Jesus was pointing to in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 with the placing of the "abomination of desolation" idol.

A pop doctrine of men about that "temple of God" phrase instead tries to make that about the Spiritual Temple in Christ Jesus. But that idea is false, simply it would mean the Temple of The Spirit could be corrupted, which is impossible since its foundation is made up of the Apostles and prophets, and Jesus Christ as its Cornerstone (see Ephesians 2). Thus claiming the Spiritual Temple can be corrupted is like saying Jesus Christ can be corrupted. It's a silly idea that many that are deceived have bought into, and it stinks as an idea that the false Jews have planted in some Churches today.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thus, for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

I take this to refer to the *entire NT age,* characterized by Jewish wandering in exile. That "tribulation" has been the worst "punishment" in Israel's history--far worse than the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity.

The suffering of Christians has been exemplified by Israel's initial rejection of Christians among their own people. That rejection of Christianity has been taking place in Israel and ultimately in every country ever since.

It will only be when Christ comes back that a Christian Kingdom will be established permanently. I have no problem with you having your own interpretation. God speed...

 

[covenantee]

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.


Is this meaning during or after what Matthew 24:15-22 below is involving?

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.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.


One clue in determining that, is maybe verses 29-31.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It is not reasonable to argue that the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 is not involving great tribulation pertaining to verses 15-22. And since it obviously is involving those verses, it matters where one places verses 15-22 in history, whether that be in the past, or whether that be in the future, because immediately after the end of those days verses 29-31 have to be fulfilled.

The reason I bring up Matthew 24:23-26 in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 is because some interpreters are trying to get around verses 29-31 by insisting those verses are meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, but not immediately after what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, Matthew 24:23-26 is not meaning during verses 15-22 it is meaning after. And why do these particular interpreters do that to begin with?

It's because they are apparently interpreting verses 23-26 to be involving tribulation, just not the same tribulation verses 15-22 are involving. They are taking verses 15-22 to be involving the first century and 70 AD, while taking verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming. Therefore, they apparently have verse 29 meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, not immediately after what verses 15-22. IOW, they are somehow seeing two tribulations in Matthew 24 rather than one.

So where does Matthew 24:23-26 fit in relation to Matthew 24:15-22? That is the question. I tend to think it is meaning during verses 15-22 myself. Which means one can't insist that verses 15-22 are involving the first century and 70 AD if verses 23-26 fit during what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, verses 23-26 don't fit 70 AD events. 70 AD had nothing to do with what verses 23-26 are involving.

The way I deal with it then since I do take verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming, and that I take verses 23-26 to be meaning during what verses 15-22 are involving, is that verses 15-22 are not involving the first century and 70 AD. Problem solved.

Scriptural and historical evidences of deceivers.

DECEIVERS

Matthew: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you, For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (24:4,5).
Mark: “And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you; For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (13:5,6).
Luke: “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and the time draweth near; go ye not therefore after them” (21:8).

We notice that all three accounts warn about deceivers. But Luke’s account explains WHEN these things would happen. Jesus Said: “And the time DRAWETH NEAR: go ye not therefore after them.” Jesus was not talking about something that would take place hundreds or thousands of years later. Jesus was warning his disciples about something that was drawing near in their time. This is plain.

Did such deceivers or false Christs arise and deceive many in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem? Yes.

According to Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, twelve years after our Saviour’s death, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded a great multitude to follow him to the river Jordan which he claimed would divide for their passage. At the time of Felix (who is mentioned in the book of Acts), the country of the Jews was filled with impostors who Felix had put to death EVERY DAY — a statement which indicates that there were many of such in those days.

An Egyptian who “pretended to be a prophet” gathered 30,000 men, claiming that he would show “how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.”

Another deceiver was Simon, a sorcerer, who led people to believe he was the great power of God (See Acts 8). According to Irenaeus, Simon claimed to be the Son of God and creator of angels. Jerome says that he claimed to be the Word of God, the Almighty. Justin relates that he went to Rome and was acclaimed as a god by his magical powers.

Origen mentions a certain wonder-worker, Dositheus, who claimed he was the Christ foretold by Moses. Another deceiver in those days was Barchochebas who, according to Jerome, claimed to vomit flames. Bar-jesus is mentioned in Acts 13:6 as a sorcerer and false prophet.

These are examples of the deceivers of whom history says there were a great number, and of whom Jesus had prophesied that there would be “many.”

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

 

[Davidpt]

Scriptural and historical evidences of deceivers.

DECEIVERS

Matthew: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you, For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (24:4,5).
Mark: “And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you; For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (13:5,6).
Luke: “And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and the time draweth near; go ye not therefore after them” (21:8).

We notice that all three accounts warn about deceivers. But Luke’s account explains WHEN these things would happen. Jesus Said: “And the time DRAWETH NEAR: go ye not therefore after them.” Jesus was not talking about something that would take place hundreds or thousands of years later. Jesus was warning his disciples about something that was drawing near in their time. This is plain.

Did such deceivers or false Christs arise and deceive many in those years before the destruction of Jerusalem? Yes.

According to Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, twelve years after our Saviour’s death, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded a great multitude to follow him to the river Jordan which he claimed would divide for their passage. At the time of Felix (who is mentioned in the book of Acts), the country of the Jews was filled with impostors who Felix had put to death EVERY DAY — a statement which indicates that there were many of such in those days.

An Egyptian who “pretended to be a prophet” gathered 30,000 men, claiming that he would show “how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.”

Another deceiver was Simon, a sorcerer, who led people to believe he was the great power of God (See Acts 8). According to Irenaeus, Simon claimed to be the Son of God and creator of angels. Jerome says that he claimed to be the Word of God, the Almighty. Justin relates that he went to Rome and was acclaimed as a god by his magical powers.

Origen mentions a certain wonder-worker, Dositheus, who claimed he was the Christ foretold by Moses. Another deceiver in those days was Barchochebas who, according to Jerome, claimed to vomit flames. Bar-jesus is mentioned in Acts 13:6 as a sorcerer and false prophet.

These are examples of the deceivers of whom history says there were a great number, and of whom Jesus had prophesied that there would be “many.”

Great Prophecies of the Bible
Ralph Woodrow

I'm not necessarily disputing that deceivers were already present 2000 years ago. What I'm trying to determine specifically is where Matthew 24:23-26 fits in relation to Matthew 24:15-22, since some interpreters I have encountered in the past insist it is meaning after what verses 15-22 are involving, and that they take verses 15-22 to be involving the first century and 70 AD, while taking verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming.

We then end up with the following per that proposed interpretation.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Immediately after the tribulation of what days?? According to the above interpretation it would not be immediately after the trib involving verses 15-22 if the interpreter insists that already occurred 2000 years earlier. What tribulation of days could it possibly be meaning if not those? IOW, where is there ever another tribulation of days recorded in Matthew 24 that follow the tribulation of days pertaining to verses 15-22, thus two tribulation of days?

IMO, since this thread is involving where does Matthew 24:23-26 fit, one clue in determining that would be per 2 Thessalonian 2. Not only does that involve a temple, verse 4, it also involves the working of satan with with all power and signs and lying wonders, verse 9.

Obviously, or at least to me anyway, verse 9 is meaning during verse 4, thus is involving that particular temple. If we take verse 4 to mean the 2nd temple before it was destroyed though, there is then no connection with verse 9 per that interpretation whatsoever. Therefore, verse 4 has zero to do with the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, yet appears to have everything to do with the holy place meant per Matthew 24:15, though.

 

[Davidpt]

I take this to refer to the *entire NT age,* characterized by Jewish wandering in exile. That "tribulation" has been the worst "punishment" in Israel's history--far worse than the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity.

The suffering of Christians has been exemplified by Israel's initial rejection of Christians among their own people. That rejection of Christianity has been taking place in Israel and ultimately in every country ever since.

It will only be when Christ comes back that a Christian Kingdom will be established permanently. I have no problem with you having your own interpretation. God speed...

Randy, why would you or any interpreter want to interpret the Discourse in a such a manner where it has Jesus totally ignorant of the fact that what is recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 4 in particular, that this has to fit somewhere before He can return? Why would Jesus leave that out of the Discourse altogether when He never left His 2nd coming out of the Discourse, Matthew 24:30 for one?

Clearly, at least to me anyway, 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 4 and verse 9 in particular, fit Matthew 24:15-26, and that nothing recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2 is remotely involving events pertaining to the first century, especially 70 AD.

We have two options here then. The temple meant per 2 Thessalonians 2:4 will be involving a rebuilt one in the future. Option 2, the temple meant in verse 4 is not meaning in a literal sense, as in a literal brick and mortar temple. I reject option 1 altogether since there is not one single thing per the contexts outside of verse 4 in 2 Thessalonians 2 that supports verse 4 is involving a literal temple in Jerusalem. Where does it even mention Jerusalem anywhere in 2 Thessalonians 2? Nowhere, that is where.

Since I don't recall off hand your interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, maybe you already agree verse 4 is not involving a literal temple. And if so, how do you see it being reasonable that Jesus was ignorant of the fact that 2 Thessalonians 2:4, thus something major not something minor and insignificant, has to fit something and somewhere before He can return, but even so, He left it out of the Discourse entirely, regardless?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy, why would you or any interpreter want to interpret the Discourse in a such a manner where it has Jesus totally ignorant of the fact that what is recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 4 in particular, that this has to fit somewhere before He can return? Why would Jesus leave that out of the Discourse altogether when He never left His 2nd coming out of the Discourse, Matthew 24:30 for one?

1st, I wouldn't say that Jesus is ignorant that 2 Thes 2.4 "fits" before his Return! He full well knew the connection between what Paul said in this verse and what Daniel said in ch. 7.

2 Thes 2.4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Dan 7.8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully...
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven."

The reason Jesus left this reference to Antichrist, before the Return of Christ, out in the Olivet Discourse is simply because the Olivet Discourse was primarily concerned with the judgment about to take place against national Israel. That was a very big deal! When Israel was judged by Babylon in former times, the Prophets made a very big deal out of it!

And so, in his Olivet Discourse Jesus would've been remiss if he hadn't dealt with the coming judgment against Jerusalem in the very same way as the earlier Prophets had dealt with the Babylonian Judgment! Jesus was not here speaking primarily about eschatological scenarios, but rather, about the fate of national Israel in the NT era, prior to his Return.

The warning about persecution against the saints in Jesus' day was primarily a warning about persecution coming from the Jews and from the pagan Romans. It was not, in this instance, primarily about the endtimes persecution of the saints by the Antichrist. Nevertheless, I think it was understood that the Roman Kingdom would ultimate yield a final Antichrist, and this was dealt with in detail in the book of Revelation.

Clearly, at least to me anyway, 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 4 and verse 9 in particular, fit Matthew 24:15-26, and that nothing recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2 is remotely involving events pertaining to the first century, especially 70 AD.

From my perspective it is "clear" that this is *all* about Jesus' generation. So one cannot "fit" 2 Thes 2.4 and 9 into Matt 24.15-26. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus is here describing the Great Tribulation, which again refers to the Roman dispersal of the Jewish People following the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

It encompasses the entire NT age, which is the longest period of judgment that Israel has ever had to endure in history! That is why Jesus called it the "Great Tribulation." It is a period in which not only the Jews remain unfulfilled, but also a period in which the pagan and unbelieving world rejects and persecutes Christianity.

Regarding the application of the Olivet Discourse applying primarily to the generation of Jesus' Disciples...
1) Jesus said it would take place in "this generation."
2) Jesus addressed his Disciples in describing what specifically would happen to *them.*
3) The things Jesus described about the Abomination of Desolation was indicated in Dan 9 to refer to the "people of the ruler to come" who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary." This happened in 70 AD by the Romans.
4) The signs Jesus referred to for his Disciples to see were said to only be beginning in their time, and would lead directly to the fall of Jerusalem. This is in more detail in Luke 21. All of these early signs were in evidence in the generation of Jesus' Disciples, including the Fall of Jerusalem, and the exile of the Jews into other nations.

We have two options here then. The temple meant per 2 Thessalonians 2:4 will be involving a rebuilt one in the future. Option 2, the temple meant in verse 4 is not meaning in a literal sense, as in a literal brick and mortar temple. I reject option 1 altogether since there is not one single thing per the contexts outside of verse 4 in 2 Thessalonians 2 that supports verse 4 is involving a literal temple in Jerusalem. Where does it even mention Jerusalem anywhere in 2 Thessalonians 2? Nowhere, that is where.

I reject Option 1, as well, for the same reason.

1) There is no Biblical Prophecy of a restored Temple of the kind that attended to the building of Moses' Tabernacle or the building of Solomon's Temple.
2) NT Theology renders the Temple of the Law obsolete, and Jesus the new and final Temple of God.
3) Ezekiel's Temple was never intended to be anything other than a vision, and was never meant to be built as an OT structure of Law. It was intended to reflect NT eschatological truth using the then-current language of OT Law. References to the Temple in the book of Revelation was purely intended to be symbolic.

Since I don't recall off hand your interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:4, maybe you already agree verse 4 is not involving a literal temple. And if so, how do you see it being reasonable that Jesus was ignorant of the fact that 2 Thessalonians 2:4, thus something major not something minor and insignificant, has to fit something and somewhere become He can return, but even so, He left it out of the Discourse entirely, regardless?

See above.

I see the AoD standing in the Temple being a reference to Dan 9, where an Army stands around Jerusalem in a siege. That is how Luke 21 interprets it.

The AoD of Antiochus 4 had to do the the abominable Syrian Army desolating the orthodox Jews and not with reflecting an idolatrous image placed in the Temple by the Antichrist. Antiochus' AoD and his Temple sacrilege thus presages Roman persecutors of Christians and the razing of the Jewish Temple.

The image of an AoD is not applied to Antichrist, biblically, although it may be used as a kind of foreshadowing of Antichristian persecution of Jews and Christians.

 

[Davidpt]

1st, I wouldn't say that Jesus is ignorant that 2 Thes 2.4 "fits" before his Return! He full well knew the connection between what Paul said in this verse and what Daniel said in ch. 7.

2 Thes 2.4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Dan 7.8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully...
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven."

The reason Jesus left this reference to Antichrist, before the Return of Christ, out in the Olivet Discourse is simply because the Olivet Discourse was primarily concerned with the judgment about to take place against national Israel. That was a very big deal! When Israel was judged by Babylon in former times, the Prophets made a very big deal out of it!

And so, in his Olivet Discourse Jesus would've been remiss if he hadn't dealt with the coming judgment against Jerusalem in the very same way as the earlier Prophets had dealt with the Babylonian Judgment! Jesus was not here speaking primarily about eschatological scenarios, but rather, about the fate of national Israel in the NT era, prior to his Return.

The warning about persecution against the saints in Jesus' day was primarily a warning about persecution coming from the Jews and from the pagan Romans. It was not, in this instance, primarily about the endtimes persecution of the saints by the Antichrist. Nevertheless, I think it was understood that the Roman Kingdom would ultimate yield a final Antichrist, and this was dealt with in detail in the book of Revelation.

From my perspective it is "clear" that this is *all* about Jesus' generation. So one cannot "fit" 2 Thes 2.4 and 9 into Matt 24.15-26. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus is here describing the Great Tribulation, which again refers to the Roman dispersal of the Jewish People following the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

It encompasses the entire NT age, which is the longest period of judgment that Israel has ever had to endure in history! That is why Jesus called it the "Great Tribulation." It is a period in which not only the Jews remain unfulfilled, but also a period in which the pagan and unbelieving world rejects and persecutes Christianity.

Regarding the application of the Olivet Discourse applying primarily to the generation of Jesus' Disciples...
1) Jesus said it would take place in "this generation."
2) Jesus addressed his Disciples in describing what specifically would happen to *them.*
3) The things Jesus described about the Abomination of Desolation was indicated in Dan 9 to refer to the "people of the ruler to come" who would "destroy the city and the sanctuary." This happened in 70 AD by the Romans.
4) The signs Jesus referred to for his Disciples to see were said to only be beginning in their time, and would lead directly to the fall of Jerusalem. This is in more detail in Luke 21. All of these early signs were evidence in the generation of Jesus' Disciples, including the Fall of Jerusalem, and the exile of the Jews into other nations.

I reject Option 1, as well, for the same reason.

1) There is no Biblical Prophecy of a restored Temple of the kind that attended to the building of Moses' Tabernacle or the building of Solomon's Temple.
2) NT Theology renders the Temple of the Law obsolete, and Jesus the new and final Temple of God.
3) Ezekiel's Temple was never intended to be anything other than a vision, and was never meant to be built as an OT structure of Law. It was intended to reflect NT eschatological truth using the then-current language of OT Law. References to the Temple in the book of Revelation was purely intended to be symbolic.

See above.

I see the AoD standing in the Temple being a reference to Dan 9, where an Army stands around Jerusalem in a siege. That is how Luke 21 interprets it.

The AoD of Antiochus 4 had to do the the abominable Syrian Army desolating the orthodox Jews and not with reflecting an idolatrous image placed in the Temple by the Antichrist. Antiochus' AoD and his Temple sacrilege thus presages Roman persecutors of Christians and the razing of the Jewish Temple.

The image of an AoD is not applied to Antichrist, biblically, although it may be used as a kind of foreshadowing of Antichristian persecution of Jews and Christians.

Unless you disagree that Matthew 24:30 is pertaining to His 2nd coming in the end of this age, why do you assume Jesus saw that as relevant, the fact He brings it up, but sees zero pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 relevant as well, thus He ignores that subject altogether?

When I say something like Jesus being ignorant of something, I'm not meaning that as if He actually was. The way I am applying that is, that one's interpretation gives the impression Jesus must have been ignorant of these facts, otherwise He would have zero reason to not bring it up if it something involving a temple(2 Thessalonians 2:4) that must be fulfilled before He can return, and that in the Discourse, Matthew 24:15 in this case, there is indeed something involving a temple except a lot of interpreters, such as you, insist it is involving the 2nd temple leading up to it's destruction in 70 AD.

Apparently, some of us have different ideas as to how Scripture interprets Scripture is supposed to work. Speaking for myself, thus IMO, I don't see it being possible to interpret Matthew 24:15 correctly if one is disregarding 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in the process by applying verse 15 to events involving 70 AD instead.

 

[Davidpt]

Some examples of how some interpretations give the impression Jesus must have been confused throughout the Discourse, where one minute He is talking about events involving the end of this age, the next minute He is again referring to first century events, then the next minute He is once again talking about events involving the end of this age. So on and so on.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.


Clearly, the end meant here has zero to do with the first century the fact the end meant here hasn't even happened yet. Thus Jesus is not focusing on 1st century events here, obviously.

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: )

But when we get to this verse, now all of a sudden, for no reason at all, this according to some interpretations, Jesus switches gears and is once again talking about events pertaining to the first century even though He wasn't doing so in verse 14, speaking about things involving the first century.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Then when we get to these verses, now all of sudden Jesus has switched gears yet again. He is once again talking about events involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming.

And another example is this one.

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Per this verse according to some interpretations, this is involving the first century and 70 AD. But then look what Jesus does next though, He switches gears yet again, the verses below. Now He is no longer speaking of first century events, He is speaking of the end of this age events. Thus once again giving the impression He must have been confused throughout the Discourse if some of these interpretations are to be believed.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

And this entire time I have been thinking the following is true of God in general, so why is He trying to confuse us throughout the Discourse if we are to believe some of these interpretations pertaining to the Discourse?

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

[covenantee]

I'm not necessarily disputing that deceivers were already present 2000 years ago. What I'm trying to determine specifically is where Matthew 24:23-26 fits in relation to Matthew 24:15-22, since some interpreters I have encountered in the past insist it is meaning after what verses 15-22 are involving, and that they take verses 15-22 to be involving the first century and 70 AD, while taking verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming.

We then end up with the following per that proposed interpretation.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Immediately after the tribulation of what days?? According to the above interpretation it would not be immediately after the trib involving verses 15-22 if the interpreter insists that already occurred 2000 years earlier. What tribulation of days could it possibly be meaning if not those? IOW, where is there ever another tribulation of days recorded in Matthew 24 that follow the tribulation of days pertaining to verses 15-22, thus two tribulation of days?

IMO, since this thread is involving where does Matthew 24:23-26 fit, one clue in determining that would be per 2 Thessalonian 2. Not only does that involve a temple, verse 4, it also involves the working of satan with with all power and signs and lying wonders, verse 9.

Obviously, or at least to me anyway, verse 9 is meaning during verse 4, thus is involving that particular temple. If we take verse 4 to mean the 2nd temple before it was destroyed though, there is then no connection with verse 9 per that interpretation whatsoever. Therefore, verse 4 has zero to do with the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, yet appears to have everything to do with the holy place meant per Matthew 24:15, though.

Matthew 24:23-26 are a reiteration of verses 4,5,11. The deceptions they describe all appeared historically prior to verses 15-22.

The days of the tribulation were the days of the destruction of Jerusalem, which were days, tribulation, and destruction unsurpassed before or since. (verse 21)

 

[covenantee]

Clearly, the end meant here has zero to do with the first century the fact the end meant here hasn't even happened yet. Thus Jesus is not focusing on 1st century events here, obviously.

It has everything to do with the first century.

Matthew 24
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Deceivers, wars, and rumors of wars all came to pass after Calvary and before 70AD; thus "end" in verse 6 refers to 70AD.

Similarly:

Matthew 24
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The gospel was preached in all the world after Calvary (Romans 1:8; 16:26; Colossians 1:6,23), and before 70AD, thus "end" in verse 14 refers to 70AD.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Unless you disagree that Matthew 24:30 is pertaining to His 2nd coming in the end of this age, why do you assume Jesus saw that as relevant, the fact He brings it up, but sees zero pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 relevant as well, thus He ignores that subject altogether?

I agree that Jesus in the Olivet Discourse was talking about his 2nd Coming in Matt 24.30.

Matt 24.30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

That directly references Dan 7 where the Son of Man is viewed as coming with the clouds of heaven, ultimately establishing his Kingdom on earth in place of the Antichristian Kingdom.

Dan 7.13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven... His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed....
25 The holy people will be delivered into [the Antichrist's] hands for a time, times and half a time.
26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever."

But Jesus also indicated his initial/1st Coming would have repercussions with Israel, leading to their judgment in 70 AD. It appears to be a kind of comingling of both Comings into a kind of judgment, affecting 1st Israel and then the whole world.

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. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

This event mentioned in Luke 17.30 actually has reference to the 70 AD event, which Jesus appears to apply his 2nd Coming to in principle, though not chronologically. It will be "like this" on the day the Son of Man is revealed. In other words, The day the Son of Man is revealed will be chronologically different, but a similar day will take place in 70 AD. Christ's actual 2nd Coming will be "like" the event in 70 AD.

So once again, the Olivet Discourse was in the OT era still, and still under the era of Law, focused primarily upon Israel. As such, it was a prophecy about Israel, concerned with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and continuing throughout the NT age with the Jewish Diaspora.

There was no need to speak about Antichrist when the question for Jewish believers concerned the fate of their unbelieving Jewish brethren. Their unbelieving brethren would have little concern about the Antichrist, but much concern about the Romans who would invade their country and destroy their capital city.

When I say something like Jesus being ignorant of something, I'm not meaning that as if He actually was. The way I am applying that is, that one's interpretation gives the impression Jesus must have been ignorant of these facts, otherwise He would have zero reason to not bring it up...

Understood.

if it something involving a temple(2 Thessalonians 2:4) that must be fulfilled before He can return, and that in the Discourse, Matthew 24:15 in this case, there is indeed something involving a temple except a lot of interpreters, such as you, insist it is involving the 2nd temple leading up to it's destruction in 70 AD.

I do not believe a literal Temple is to be rebuilt.

Apparently, some of us have different ideas as to how Scripture interprets Scripture is supposed to work. Speaking for myself, thus IMO, I don't see it being possible to interpret Matthew 24:15 correctly if one is disregarding 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in the process by applying verse 15 to events involving 70 AD instead.

If Jesus meant to produce a chronology of endtime events in the Olivet Discourse I would agree with you--Jesus would be remiss in neglecting to mention the Antichrist "taking his seat in the temple of God." But I don't think Jesus was speaking to the endtimes, but to his own time. "Times and seasons" are in the domain of God, after all.

Jesus dealt with the subject of antiChristian persecution and the delusions of unbelievers in this Discourse, and that was all his immediate Disciples had to understand. The Antichrist was so far off in future history that they had little need for a chronology of history leading to that time period.

Antichrist will not, I think, take a seat in a literal Temple of Law. On the contrary, he will attack any so-called "god" outside of himself. He wants the worship for himself. Taking his seat in "God's Temple" is a figurative way of saying that he's trying to take God's place on earth. It is perhaps a reflection upon how Antiochus 4 tried to displace God by putting an idol of himself or of his religion in the Temple.

 

[Davy]

Christ's Olivet discourse is about 7 main SIGNS of the 'end' Jesus commanded His Church to be 'watching' leading up to His future coming. They are the SEALS of Revelation 6.

Jesus' first warning was to not allow any man to deceive us. That's the 1st Seal, about the false rider coming on a white horse to conquer, imitating Jesus' future coming on a white horse of Rev.19. This is paralleled also later in the Matt.24:23-26 about the coming of the pseudo-Christ that will work the signs and wonders that IF possible, would deceive even Christ's very elect.

Next, He warned that we would hear of wars and rumors of wars, which is the 2nd Seal.

Then the kingdom against kingdom, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, etc., is about the black horse of the 3rd Seal, and controls over the earth in the 4th Seal.

Then the delivering up of saints to give a Testimony for Jesus is about those of the 5th Seal.

Then the events given about Jesus' future coming after the tribulation is about the 6th Seal.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.


Is this meaning during or after what Matthew 24:15-22 below is involving?

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.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.


One clue in determining that, is maybe verses 29-31.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It is not reasonable to argue that the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 is not involving great tribulation pertaining to verses 15-22. And since it obviously is involving those verses, it matters where one places verses 15-22 in history, whether that be in the past, or whether that be in the future, because immediately after the end of those days verses 29-31 have to be fulfilled.

The reason I bring up Matthew 24:23-26 in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 is because some interpreters are trying to get around verses 29-31 by insisting those verses are meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, but not immediately after what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, Matthew 24:23-26 is not meaning during verses 15-22 it is meaning after. And why do these particular interpreters do that to begin with?

It's because they are apparently interpreting verses 23-26 to be involving tribulation, just not the same tribulation verses 15-22 are involving. They are taking verses 15-22 to be involving the first century and 70 AD, while taking verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming. Therefore, they apparently have verse 29 meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, not immediately after what verses 15-22. IOW, they are somehow seeing two tribulations in Matthew 24 rather than one.

So where does Matthew 24:23-26 fit in relation to Matthew 24:15-22? That is the question. I tend to think it is meaning during verses 15-22 myself. Which means one can't insist that verses 15-22 are involving the first century and 70 AD if verses 23-26 fit during what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, verses 23-26 don't fit 70 AD events. 70 AD had nothing to do with what verses 23-26 are involving.

The way I deal with it then since I do take verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming, and that I take verses 23-26 to be meaning during what verses 15-22 are involving, is that verses 15-22 are not involving the first century and 70 AD. Problem solved.

I agree. But the easier solution is to examine vs. 21. Was the tribulation in 70 AD, suffered by a million Jews greater than the Flood ( which probably killed tens of millions) or the coming Judgement Day on the world of 8 billion? No.

 

[Davy]

I agree. But the easier solution is to examine vs. 21. Was the tribulation in 70 AD, suffered by a million Jews greater than the Flood ( which probably killed tens of millions) or the coming Judgement Day on the world of 8 billion? No.

The "great tribulation" event is explained in the Matthew 24 chapter for when it will be, as also in the Daniel 12:1 Scripture.

Dan 12:1
12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
KJV

All one need do is simply read that simple Scripture.

Since Jesus' 2nd coming is still yet to happen today, that means no tribulation in the past qualifies as that above time in 'red'. Why?

Because per the above "at that time" is also when those will be delivered, that is, those in Christ whose names will be found written in that book of life. And per the Matthew 24:29-31 version of Christ's coming to gather His saints, that deliverance will happen AFTER... that tribulation.

So really, that Dan.12:1 verse explains what kind of time the "great tribulation" will be, and when, and when Christ's people will be delivered from it. Oh, and that verse links directly... with the following verses...

Matt 24:15-21
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.
KJV

That "great tribulation" begins when that "abomination of desolation" IDOL is setup in a new 3rd temple built in Jerusalem for the END. Per Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 9:27, that "abomination of desolation" event requires... a standing Jewish temple in Jerusalem with animal sacrifices per the old covenant going on. Since Antiochus had already been dead for about 200 years when Jesus gave the above prophecy, it means look for that "abomination of desolation" to happen at the END of this world just prior to His future return.

 

[Zao is life]

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.


Is this meaning during or after what Matthew 24:15-22 below is involving?

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.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.


One clue in determining that, is maybe verses 29-31.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It is not reasonable to argue that the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 is not involving great tribulation pertaining to verses 15-22. And since it obviously is involving those verses, it matters where one places verses 15-22 in history, whether that be in the past, or whether that be in the future, because immediately after the end of those days verses 29-31 have to be fulfilled.

The reason I bring up Matthew 24:23-26 in relation to Matthew 24:15-22 is because some interpreters are trying to get around verses 29-31 by insisting those verses are meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, but not immediately after what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, Matthew 24:23-26 is not meaning during verses 15-22 it is meaning after. And why do these particular interpreters do that to begin with?

It's because they are apparently interpreting verses 23-26 to be involving tribulation, just not the same tribulation verses 15-22 are involving. They are taking verses 15-22 to be involving the first century and 70 AD, while taking verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming. Therefore, they apparently have verse 29 meaning immediately after what verses 23-26 are involving, not immediately after what verses 15-22. IOW, they are somehow seeing two tribulations in Matthew 24 rather than one.

So where does Matthew 24:23-26 fit in relation to Matthew 24:15-22? That is the question. I tend to think it is meaning during verses 15-22 myself. Which means one can't insist that verses 15-22 are involving the first century and 70 AD if verses 23-26 fit during what verses 15-22 are involving. IOW, verses 23-26 don't fit 70 AD events. 70 AD had nothing to do with what verses 23-26 are involving.

The way I deal with it then since I do take verses 29-31 to be involving the end of this age and the 2nd coming, and that I take verses 23-26 to be meaning during what verses 15-22 are involving, is that verses 15-22 are not involving the first century and 70 AD. Problem solved.

There is only one tribulation being spoken of in Matthew 24, and Jesus first mentions it in verse 9. Not one English teacher anywhere in the world will tell you that the word THEREFORE in verse 15 does not link what follows the word to what precedes the word - and the word is a correct translation from the Greek word used. The passage is joined together from verse 9 onward by the words "and", "therefore", "but", and "for" etc.

Christians love throwing out all sensible and obvious grammatical rules and making the text speak English like a South-East Asian on vacation who only got basic English phrases tucked into his vocab before arriving in the USA, and Christians love doing this especially when it comes to Matthew 24.