Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are there two occasions when people must flee?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are there two occasions when people must flee?

    When harmonizing the Olivet Discourse, I used to include Luke chapter 17. Now, though, I am convinced that Luke purposely separated the subject matter from the Olivet Discourse, because the content contained in Luke 17 is strictly centered on the second coming of Jesus Christ.

    Apparently there are two different times when people are warned to flee the coming danger.

    Matthew 24:15-20 was fulfilled on 70AD.

    But

    Luke 17:31-33 is still in our future

    What do you think? Am I right?


    In order to illustrated my idea, I have created a new video.

    https://youtu.be/PoCQji5Q8QQ

    In this third episode of our three part series entitled, “Noah and Lot – a Retrospective” we expand our thinking with regard to Jesus' teaching concerning a time period he calls, "the days of the son of man." Jesus presses his strong counsel to remain alert at all times.



  • #2
    I haven't looked at the video yet, though I recommend your videos to anyone. Up front I have to admit I've spent a long time working on this question, and we would disagree, though the subject is very arguable. I personally have reviewed all of the versions of the Olivet Discourse, Matthew, Mark, and both chapters in Luke, 17 and 21. I've found them to be virtually the same information except that Luke almost inexplicably separates out ch. 17 from ch. 21.

    I don't find this to be overly problematic, however, since Luke, in ch. 17, appears to simply want to focus on one portion of the Olivet Discourse in the context of one group who had been asking about this subject. Luke wanted to explain Jesus' answer to his disciples in the context of how the Pharisees had been looking at it. But it was, in effect, the same Discourse that was brought forth as the answer.

    If both chapters in Luke are separated in this way this could argue for two separate occasions in which Jesus provided the exact same information. But this seems less likely than the notion that Luke simply addressed the same account in two separate places in his Gospel.

    What makes it particularly difficult in Luke 17 is the fact that the focus appears to be on the 2nd Coming, while introducing information that otherwise appears to do with the events of the 1st generation of the church--the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem. But again, I don't think this is overly problematic if we view the 2nd Coming as less a matter of predicting dates than simply characterizing what his Coming generally means, whether 1st Coming or 2nd Coming. If Jesus presents his 2nd Coming as a day of judgment, then it becomes clear that Jesus was warning his own generation of the same thing, rather than simply warning them about an event that would be 2000 plus years off into the future.

    He was warning them of the coming judgment in 70 AD, rather than exclusively focusing on the 2nd Coming, which would be far off into the future. Jesus made no claim to know the time of the 2nd Coming, and so was only sort of warning about that in terms of a time of final sentencing. But he could, in fact, warn about the certainly of the 70 AD judgment, since he explicitly indicated it would happen in his own generation.

    What do I mean by this? Jesus was, as I said, explaining the character of his 2nd Coming as a *coming in judgment.* By contrast, the Pharisees had expected that the Messiah would bring a Kingdom to Israel that would mean their national salvation and final deliverance from their enemies. But they had not truly repented, and would see, like their enemies, the wrath of God.

    Jesus, therefore, was not occupied with predicting precisely when he would come. Rather, he was predicting the character of his coming as a coming in judgment so as to relate that to his prediction about his own generation, that they also would see judgment. There was a need for the Pharisees to repent, not merely due to the eventuality of the 2nd Coming in judgment, but also because of the imminent danger of the Roman judgment.

    So when Jesus talks about the "days of the Son of Man," he is sort of simultaneously talking about his own time, ie his 1st Coming, as well as his 2nd Coming. If his 2nd Coming would be a coming in judgment like Noah's Flood, then his own generation should be on the look out for judgment as well, because the Romans--the Abomination of Desolation--would surround Jerusalem, penetrate the holy city, and destroy the temple. Then the Jews would be carried away in a "great tribulation" until final judgment is poured out on earth at the 2nd Coming.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
      When harmonizing the Olivet Discourse, I used to include Luke chapter 17. Now, though, I am convinced that Luke purposely separated the subject matter from the Olivet Discourse, because the content contained in Luke 17 is strictly centered on the second coming of Jesus Christ.

      Apparently there are two different times when people are warned to flee the coming danger.

      Matthew 24:15-20 was fulfilled on 70AD.

      But

      Luke 17:31-33 is still in our future

      What do you think? Am I right?


      In order to illustrated my idea, I have created a new video.

      https://youtu.be/PoCQji5Q8QQ

      In this third episode of our three part series entitled, “Noah and Lot – a Retrospective” we expand our thinking with regard to Jesus' teaching concerning a time period he calls, "the days of the son of man." Jesus presses his strong counsel to remain alert at all times.

      They are both the same. In the future

      Comment


      • #4
        Okay, I have looked at the video now, and though we disagree on some matters, I think some points are thoroughly biblical and properly helps us to understand important biblical principles involving the 2nd Coming and the Olivet Discourse. I do like your focus upon the way we prepare, not by knowing exactly when Jesus will return, but rather, by preparing ourselves spiritually, by walking in the light day by day.

        So here are the areas where we differ, and I share not to argue, but to simply give you food for thought. I discussed this last Monday with my brother--we don't agree at this point, either. But just conversing about it the subject matter brings us close to the issues, and for that reason is helpful.

        I currently believe the "one taken and one left" refers to Jewish unbelievers, who had not listened to Jesus' warning to flee. They obstinately continue to work in their jobs, as if nothing has changed, as if no judgment is coming.

        But Jesus had clearly said that the temple would be completely destroyed, that Jewish worship would be altered forever. The city of Jerusalem would be surrounded by the Romans in that very generation, and there would be no escape for those who had not fled previously.

        Those taken and those left simply ignored Jesus' words, or hadn't heard them. They went about their business as if no cataclysmic event would happen in their time. They were not prepared because they had either not heard or had not believed.

        Jesus' purpose in recounting this is, I believe, because the Disciples were concerned about the future of Israel. Jesus had just said that the Jewish People would be severely judged, and they had been taught that the Day of the Lord would bring Israel's Salvation--not eternal judgment!

        And so, Jesus assured them that despite the fact judgment was coming, and despite the fact many in Israel would not listen to him, some would be taken away, while others would be allowed to remain. Israel would not be destroyed completely. Both groups--the taken and the left--are judged. But some would be allowed to remain in Israel, to keep the fields. This is a solid principle of judgment in the OT Prophets, that despite horrendous judgment, Israel would survive. Some would be left.

        So I don't see any of this has having to do with the Rapture, nor do I see it as having anything to do with the 2nd Coming, except that the truths about the 2nd Coming served to warn Jesus' generation that he did not just come to bring Salvation, but to bring Judgment, as well. Jesus sort of compared and juxtaposed his 2 Comings to show that if he would come in judgment the 2nd time, then his more immediate coming would involve judgment, as well.

        I do agree that the focus of the Olivet Discourse is on the historical judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and on an age-long Great Tribulation of the Jewish People. This is, after all, still under the Old Covenant--a time in which only Israel was still God's exclusive people.

        But among the Jewish People would also be Jesus' own disciples, and they could flee the judgment coming in their generation. The judgment was not for them. And true to history, the initial Roman thrust against Jerusalem took place in 66 AD, with the general, Cestius Gallus, retreating and giving Jesus' disciples time to escape. They were able to flee to Pella where they actually did escape the horrors of the next phase of the Roman invasion in 70 AD, in which Jerusalem was breached and the temple completely destroyed.

        The warnings Jesus gave to his own disciples were literally touching on the issues. Those who did not flee were locked up inside Jerusalem, at the point where the Roman army arrived. At that point they could no longer escape. So those who had not escaped prior to 70 AD either had to escape the city for the hills, or be stuck inside the walls of the city, destined for annihilation. They would not have time to gather their belongings, but would have to flee for their lives. Obviously, those who fled earlier to Pella were in a better position to escape with material provisions.

        The picture of eagles gathering was given by Jesus to explain where the Jews would be taken and left. It was a picture of the Roman eagles, which were on their standards, gathering around the city of Jerusalem to hunt and to kill the Jews. Eagles were hunters, and after killing their prey would eat the carcass. The word may also refer to vultures, who tend to gather in groups. But I think the picture was deliberately given by Jesus to cryptically refer to the Romans, who worshiped eagles. And the Jews considered this "eagle god," displayed flagrantly by the Romans in the area around Jerusalem to be an "abomination."

        The greatest difficulty is shown by your focus on one aspect of the Olivet Discourse being about the 2nd Coming. You find some of these things having to do with the 2nd Coming because they are placed directly in that context.

        But I don't find that to be necessarily so. The taken and the left, the gathering of eagles, and the coming down from housetops to flee all were given in the various versions of the Olivet Discourse to take place in the generation of Jesus, when the Romans would destroy the temple. Why then did Jesus present these things in the context of his 2nd Coming?

        I believe it is because Jesus was more interested in presenting the *character* of his 2nd Coming, as opposed to claiming it would immediately take place. In one parable Jesus told it appeared he presented his Coming as "far off," as a king goes off on a distant journey, and will be some time before he returns. By contrast Jesus is telling the story of a more imminent destruction of Jerusalem, to take place in his own generation, and yet to be equally sudden.

        The fact that the 2nd Coming and the 70 AD judgment would be "sudden" renders them comparable, such that Jesus was able to characterize his 2nd Coming in such a way as to warn his own generation about the approaching 70 AD event.

        Just my thoughts... Thanks for taking the time to make your videos. I've watched them all, and enjoy not just the professionalism, but also the care to present important biblical facets. On some of the peripheral details we may disagree. But I'm not sure any of us has everything exactly right. Thanks again!
        Last edited by randyk; Feb 8th 2020, 10:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
          When harmonizing the Olivet Discourse, I used to include Luke chapter 17. Now, though, I am convinced that Luke purposely separated the subject matter from the Olivet Discourse, because the content contained in Luke 17 is strictly centered on the second coming of Jesus Christ.

          Apparently there are two different times when people are warned to flee the coming danger.

          Matthew 24:15-20 was fulfilled on 70AD.

          But

          Luke 17:31-33 is still in our future

          What do you think? Am I right?


          In order to illustrated my idea, I have created a new video.

          https://youtu.be/PoCQji5Q8QQ

          In this third episode of our three part series entitled, “Noah and Lot – a Retrospective” we expand our thinking with regard to Jesus' teaching concerning a time period he calls, "the days of the son of man." Jesus presses his strong counsel to remain alert at all times.

          Luke 17 is not the rapture or the second coming it is Jesus coming in judgement.

          Notice that the flood came and took them away as in the people were killed by the flood they were taken in judgement. So would it be the same as the ones taken away who were in the beds or grinding at the mill. In Noah's day it was better to be left behind than taken away

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
            When harmonizing the Olivet Discourse, I used to include Luke chapter 17. Now, though, I am convinced that Luke purposely separated the subject matter from the Olivet Discourse, because the content contained in Luke 17 is strictly centered on the second coming of Jesus Christ.

            Apparently there are two different times when people are warned to flee the coming danger.

            Matthew 24:15-20 was fulfilled on 70AD.

            But

            Luke 17:31-33 is still in our future

            What do you think? Am I right?


            In order to illustrated my idea, I have created a new video.

            https://youtu.be/PoCQji5Q8QQ

            In this third episode of our three part series entitled, “Noah and Lot – a Retrospective” we expand our thinking with regard to Jesus' teaching concerning a time period he calls, "the days of the son of man." Jesus presses his strong counsel to remain alert at all times.

            The Abomination of Desolation is an event predicted 3 years before the end of the seventieth SEVEN of Daniel 9. That is, Israel's recovery will be 3 years after the Abomination of Desolation. It is also the trigger for the Great Tribulation. Now, Israel's chastisement is not the Great Tribulation because; (i) this Tribulation is worse than anything that happened before, and (ii) it is upon ALL FLESH - that is, worldwide and on all men and animals. It is also an answer to Matthew 24:3 which asks about the second coming of Christ and the end of the age.

            Matthew 24:15-20 is about the end of the age when the Beast of 2nd Thessalonians 2:4 sets himself up in the Holy of Holies.

            Luke 17:31-33 has the following indicators:
            • Verse 26 speaks of the "days" of the Son of man. Verse 30 says which "day" - the apocalypse of Jesus from the clouds
            • Verse 26 gives a MORAL condition of men - violence and mixing sexually with angels marked Noah's day. Such will be the morality of men when our Lord comes
            • Verse 27 says that the "days" of the Son of man will contain a similar universal judgement
            • Verse 28 says that the MORAL condition of men on earth - sodomy and Christians in politics (Lot was in the "gates" - government)
            • Verse 28 says that men will be occupied with normal things - that is, no great warning will be sounded
            • Verse 29 says that these days will bring a judgement from heaven wherein "ALL" will be affected
            • Verse 30 says plainly at what time this MORALITY and this JUDGEMENT on all is scheduled - the apocalypse of Jesus
            • Verse 31 says that in and around these "days" of the Son of man whatever sets this judgement off must be heeded immediately
            • Verse 32 says that the example is, anybody whose heart is in his house, business, town or activity will end up like Lot's wife. It is this verse that needs to be opened up.

            Lot's wife ended up like she did because her other family members were in the city - a grievous matter for any mother. But it sharply underscores Matthew 10:37-38 which pertains to verse 33. Also, it must be noted that Lot's wife was not incinerated like the rest of Sodom. She escapes and becomes salt - a useful thing when strewn. But as a "pillar" she had only one small contact with the earth and is thus a picture of the Christians of Revelation 13:7 who are defeated but escape to a wilderness in Revelation 12. Lot's wife must, of necessity, introduce Lot into the same scene. He does not look back, but as the angel was about to take him to a "high place", he refuses and asks for Zoar. In Type, he was appointed to be raptured by angels to a high place, but selected Zoar, which means "insignificance". His testimony ends with drunkenness, incest and the producing of God's enemies.

            Lot in turn, by necessity, must introduce Abraham into the picture, since it was Abraham's intercession that saved Lot. So where was Abraham? He was in a "high place" near Hebron (which means fellowship). So Abraham, unlike Lot, was in a high place (Mamre is about 2,000 ft above sea level) in fellowship with God while Lot was in the Valley of Jordan (some 1,500 ft BELOW sea level - and the lowest point on earth). This is a type of ONE TAKEN to a high place and ONE LEFT in the lowest place. In its entirety it explains the next verses of ONE TAKEN and ONE LEFT

            Finally, the word "taken" in verses 34 to 36 is "Paralambano" in the Greek. It does not indicate judgement. It means; "taken as a well known companion".

            The whole picture of Luke 17:26 onward has to do with the apocalypse of Jesus from the clouds over Mount Olives. The events leading up to it will be, (i) a morality on earth like that of Noah's time, (ii) a morality on earth like that of Lot's time, (iii) a trigger that sets off universal judgment, (iv) SOME Christians "TAKEN as intimate companions" and SOME Christians LEFT on the earth to face disgrace and insignificance, (v) those TAKEN as intimate companions in FELLOWSHIP with God on "high", and (vi) those LEFT being LEFT in the area of universal judgment.

            *** The word "apocalypse" means "REVEALED"

            I leave the text below for quick reference.

            Luke 17:26-37 (KJV)
            26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
            27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
            28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
            29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
            30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
            31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
            32 Remember Lot's wife.
            33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
            34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
            35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
            36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
            37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by marty fox View Post

              Luke 17 is not the rapture or the second coming it is Jesus coming in judgement.

              Notice that the flood came and took them away as in the people were killed by the flood they were taken in judgement. So would it be the same as the ones taken away who were in the beds or grinding at the mill. In Noah's day it was better to be left behind than taken away
              No, you would want to be taken into the Ark and taken away by the Ark, not left behind outside of the Ark in the cities people stayed in until the flood killed them.

              The first new action is applied to the one taken because it happens first. This would be Noah entering the Ark, and Lot leaving Sodom, and the wise virgins being taken by the bridegroom. In each story the one taken are saved. It is the one left behind that is the one who dies, taken in judgment, not taken to the wedding etc. That's even what the word "left" means in Greek. Be taken like the wise virgins and don't be the foolish virgins that Christ left behind.

              Even in the OT and the plague of hail teaches the one taken from the field was taken to safety and the one left in the field died from the hail.

              Taken to safety is always first in the various examples and stories. It is always the second one which remains in the same place and wicked spiritual condition which suffers and dies.

              James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                Okay, I have looked at the video now, and though we disagree on some matters, I think some points are thoroughly biblical and properly helps us to understand important biblical principles involving the 2nd Coming and the Olivet Discourse. I do like your focus upon the way we prepare, not by knowing exactly when Jesus will return, but rather, by preparing ourselves spiritually, by walking in the light day by day.
                Yes, Jesus often repeats that we should always be on the alert.

                The greatest difficulty is shown by your focus on one aspect of the Olivet Discourse being about the 2nd Coming. You find some of these things having to do with the 2nd Coming because they are placed directly in that context.
                Yes, I noticed first of all that Luke decided to give special treatment to part of the Olivet discourse, placing it earlier in his gospel. Secondly, Unlike Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, here in Luke 17 Jesus has focused our attention almost exclusively on "the days of the son of man" when "the son of man is revealed." I've noticed that the phrase "son of man" is a technical term intended to designate the moment in time when Jesus is given full dominion over all the kingdoms of the earth.

                Just my thoughts... Thanks for taking the time to make your videos. I've watched them all, and enjoy not just the professionalism, but also the care to present important biblical facets. On some of the peripheral details we may disagree. But I'm not sure any of us has everything exactly right. Thanks again!
                Thanks for watching my videos. I'm glad you find them informative and helpful. And thanks for taking the time to write your thoughtful response.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ross3421 View Post

                  They are both the same. In the future
                  I think people conflate the, This, That and THOSE THINGS that Jesus spoke of in the body of textual response that Jesus said would happen as being the THINGS that answers their question(s). Let me rephrase that. The events [THINGS, AoD ,etc] of Jesus's answer, are not the THINGS that formed the basis of the apostles' question.

                  Notice verse 6,

                  Luk 21:6 KJV 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.

                  OR,

                  Mat 24:2 KJV 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.

                  OR,

                  Mar 13:2 KJV 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.

                  And so, the disciples posed their question based on "these things",

                  Luk 21:7 KJV And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall THESE THINGS be? and what sign will there be when THESE THINGS shall come to pass?

                  Mar 13:4 KJV Tell us, when shall THESE THINGS be? and what shall be the sign when all THESE THINGS shall be fulfilled?

                  Mat 24:3 KJV And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall THESE THINGS be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

                  "These things" that form the basis of the disciples question, was only one thing. And that one thing was to be when THESE buildings, (THESE things) would have not one stone left upon another. The plural (THINGS) is used to convey that THIS (lone) building of the temple IS NOT the point of reference, but it was these THINGS. It's not multiple events. But it's the multiple things within that event. "These buildings" are what is meant by "these things". I think that it is at this point that people get sidetracked here by equating the multiple events (found in Jesus's answer) with THESE THINGS, found in THEIR question. And so, people then look at the whole discourse as to when all of THOSE THINGS, (rather than "these things")shall take place. The result is multiple, OR extended timelines. It devolves into when those things found in Jesus's answer, shall take place, RATHER THAN when these buildings shall not be left standing one upon the other.

                  The resulting answer that Jesus gave can only mean that the phrases that Jesus used, like "this generation" and "all these things" can ONLY be referring to one conjoined period of time, whether that it be the 1st century or the endtimes. The body of material in Jesus's response (answer) constrains us to only one acceptable answer...In the last days!

                  Be Blessed
                  The PuP

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
                    Yes, Jesus often repeats that we should always be on the alert.



                    Yes, I noticed first of all that Luke decided to give special treatment to part of the Olivet discourse, placing it earlier in his gospel. Secondly, Unlike Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, here in Luke 17 Jesus has focused our attention almost exclusively on "the days of the son of man" when "the son of man is revealed." I've noticed that the phrase "son of man" is a technical term intended to designate the moment in time when Jesus is given full dominion over all the kingdoms of the earth.



                    Thanks for watching my videos. I'm glad you find them informative and helpful. And thanks for taking the time to write your thoughtful response.
                    They're enjoyable, and not burdensome to listen to. Even in areas where I may disagree I'm not offended. There is so much good in there that we agree on that I think they're very worthwhile on a broader platform. We don't have to have every "t" crossed and "i" dotted to get across some of the most important points. Thanks again!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CadyandZoe View Post
                      When harmonizing the Olivet Discourse, I used to include Luke chapter 17. Now, though, I am convinced that Luke purposely separated the subject matter from the Olivet Discourse, because the content contained in Luke 17 is strictly centered on the second coming of Jesus Christ.

                      Apparently there are two different times when people are warned to flee the coming danger.

                      Matthew 24:15-20 was fulfilled on 70AD.

                      But

                      Luke 17:31-33 is still in our future

                      What do you think? Am I right?


                      In order to illustrated my idea, I have created a new video.

                      https://youtu.be/PoCQji5Q8QQ

                      In this third episode of our three part series entitled, “Noah and Lot – a Retrospective” we expand our thinking with regard to Jesus' teaching concerning a time period he calls, "the days of the son of man." Jesus presses his strong counsel to remain alert at all times.

                      Yeah, multiple fulfillments can happen. It's just like the abomination of desolation.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X