Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 177

Thread: Brief commentary on Matt 24

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    138

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    There's too much liberty taken by some scholars and modern speaker on what the early Church fathers believed about the 70 weeks of Daniel. I've seen quotes they use of the early Church fathers where it is not really clear what the Church fathers meant.

    Here's one such quote from the website "The Early Church Fathers and the Last Days of the Jewish Age".

    ORIGEN:
    “The weeks of years up to the time of Christ the leader that Daniel the prophet predicted were fulfilled” (TPR, IV:1:5)."

    How can one determine from that the whole period of Daniel's 70 weeks are meant by Origen??? The weeks up to the time of Christ being 'cut off' were fulfilled, but it was the 69th week when Christ was "cut off", and He had nothing more, leaving the final "one week", the 70th, still to be fulfilled.


    Again, another misteaching from that website:

    ATHANASIUS

    "Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria from 326 to 373 AD. Like the early Church fathers before him, he also taught that the 70 weeks of Daniel culminated and the Jewish Age ended in 70 AD: 'Jerusalem is to stand till His coming (Daniel’s reference to Messiah’s appearing in His First Advent), and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel (the end of the Old Covenant or Jewish Age). This is why Jerusalem stood till then…that they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality…but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and Temple taken' (INC, XXXIX:3-XV:8).

    Athanasius clearly reflects the view of the entire early Church: once the Messiah had come, the role of the Temple in Jerusalem would be ended. 'Things to be done which belonged to Jerusalem beneath…were fulfilled, and those which belonged to the shadows had passed away' (FEL, IV:3-4).

    This important early Church father clearly believed that the Jewish age ended in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple."

    What is most easily surmised by the quote from Athanasius there, is how the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple ended the old covenant, the Jews not able to worship per the old covenant requirements. To add to that a meaning that all the 70 weeks prophecy must then have been fulfilled is not what Athanasius said. That idea was added by the author of that website.


    So just like some so-called Pre-trib Rapture scholars today are doing revisions of the early Church father's writings, trying to push a pre-trib rapture idea into their writings, the same is happening with some on the Preterist boat who claim the 70th week of Daniel 9 was completed with Jesus' crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,125
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Please don't misrepresent my views! Others read what you say. I certainly believe in the Great Tribulation. I just define it differently than you apparently do.
    Your meaning of the GT is NOT a future one. Therefore what I am saying about you is correct.
    Do you perhaps mean there is ALSO a GT along with the present GT?
    Problem for you is that WHATEVER the GT is meaning in Matthew 24 is the greatest NEVER to be equalled in history.

    Since I've already addressed all of your points, there is nothing more I need to say. For anybody interested, I did post a number of quotes from the Church Fathers on this subject. The majority saw the fulfillment of the "temple desolation" as taking place in Jesus' generation, in the time period from Jesus' death to the destruction of the temple, roughly. And that's because they connected the prophecy of the 70 Weeks with the Olivet Discourse. Jesus died in the 70th Week, and there followed the destruction of the temple, the Abomination of Desolation. This happened in 70 AD. This is precisely how most of the Church Fathers viewed it, as anybody can see reading these quotes. Only Irenaeus and Hippolytus seemed to take it differently. Hippolytus followed what Irenaeus believed.
    You did indeed post a number of quotes which was helpful.
    It highlighted the paucity of your claim, but you were honest about giving them and should be commended for your honesty even though it doesn't support what you claim it does. No majority of the ECFs (only after Augustine was this true), saw the AoD as taking place in 70 AD, and NONE of them said it was in Jesus' generation.
    These who saw the AoD also connected it to the prophecy of Daniel - which is a natural connection.
    However there were not in agreement in HOW this was fulfilled, with some even connecting the 70 weeks to Jesus coming and NOT to the 70 AD destruction at all.
    ONLY ONE that you quoted had Jesus die in the 70th week, and that in the middle and then transferred the rest of the week to 66 AD.
    So this is NOT "precisely" how ANY of the ECFs viewed it. Rather this is how YOU have culled one part from one, and another form another to try and make a scenarion which works. Anybody can indeed see by reading your quotes.
    It is interesting, though you give no value to the point that Hippolytus followed Irenaeus who followed Polycarp who was a disciple of John.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,408

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I did *not* say that *all* men alive in the time of Jesus would be alive in 70 AD! Furthermore, this is not my "thesis." This is the view the majority of the Church Fathers took. It is also a common view among scholars today.

    On the other hand, there is a popular eschatology that wants to read back into these prophecies "eschatology for today." That's much more exciting than historical fulfillment!

    As to proving your position wrong, I prefer to see this as an attempt to direct you back to what the Church Fathers believed, rather than put myself out there and "prove you wrong." I've been wrong countless times. I'm trying to get us all to where God would have us to be.
    OK. I take your posting in good faith. So let e answer that. We have, on one hand the opinions of men. Some with very good arguments and some with not so good arguments. Then we have the inspired record - the Bible. It is the duty of each man to;
    • "receive the word spoken by men with all readiness of mind"
    • "and search the scriptures daily, whether those things are so"

    Now, the Church at Thessaloniki was an exemplary Church (see 1st Thessalonians Chapters 1 & 3. But the Holy Spirit deems a man, "more noble" than those in Thessaloniki, if he does the above (Acts 17:11). We surely stand on the shoulders of many good expositors, and we even thank those brothers who were proved wrong because they forced us to study the Word diligently. But this Forum is NOT; "Which Church father do we adhere to". It is a Forum for US to TALK Bible. Thus, while certain expositors are of interest for research, the main thrust of our postings must be OUR appreciation of the inspired text under discussion. We must study the words, their context, their grammar and their place in the whole scheme of things, and we must come up with a thesis. If it is flawed, somebody will point this out. And hopefully the corrected brother or sister will see the superiority of the other argument and amend his/her thinking.

    Let us set forth OUR understanding, with scripture references attached, and let another agree or tear it apart, at the same time giving the correct understanding. It is easy to just brand another's exposition "wrong", and it is easy to discredit a man by putting him in a labelled box. But the the objector should give all the benefit of his deeper understanding by setting forth his own exegesis.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Your meaning of the GT is NOT a future one. Therefore what I am saying about you is correct.
    Do you perhaps mean there is ALSO a GT along with the present GT?
    Problem for you is that WHATEVER the GT is meaning in Matthew 24 is the greatest NEVER to be equalled in history.
    I don't blame you for getting my position wrong--I can't remember everybody's positions on everything either. My view of the GT is that it is the *NT Jewish Diaspora.* And it is indeed the worst tribulation in Israel's history in terms of its *duration*--not its severity. I don't know how anybody can compare the Holocaust, for example, with Antichrist beheading people? They are equally horrible!

    But for *duration,* the NT Jewish Diaspora is Israel's worst Tribulation in history--longer than the 70 years in Babylon, longer than the 490 years waiting for another king, and longer than the 400 years Israel was in Egypt. 2000 years is the worst, by far, Tribulation among all of the timed Tribulations Israel has experienced in history.

    This definition, of course, means that the Great Tribulation of Israel's Diaspora encompasses today, as well, along with the future era of Antichrist. It is all part of Israel's Premillennial experience of not having full control of their land, along with their promised Messiah-King.

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    You did indeed post a number of quotes which was helpful.
    It highlighted the paucity of your claim, but you were honest about giving them and should be commended for your honesty even though it doesn't support what you claim it does. No majority of the ECFs (only after Augustine was this true), saw the AoD as taking place in 70 AD, and NONE of them said it was in Jesus' generation.
    These who saw the AoD also connected it to the prophecy of Daniel - which is a natural connection.
    However there were not in agreement in HOW this was fulfilled, with some even connecting the 70 weeks to Jesus coming and NOT to the 70 AD destruction at all.
    ONLY ONE that you quoted had Jesus die in the 70th week, and that in the middle and then transferred the rest of the week to 66 AD.
    So this is NOT "precisely" how ANY of the ECFs viewed it. Rather this is how YOU have culled one part from one, and another form another to try and make a scenarion which works. Anybody can indeed see by reading your quotes.
    It is interesting, though you give no value to the point that Hippolytus followed Irenaeus who followed Polycarp who was a disciple of John.
    Actually, at some point I did say to someone or to the group as a whole that I was sad that Hippolytus, in the train of Premil thought, turned to Irenaeus' false futurism. I also am a Premil, and embrace the line from the Apostle John to Hippolytus. However, I do believe that Irenaeus got off course on this one, viewing the AoD as the future Antichrist. And I do believe the vast majority of the Church Fathers believed the AoD to have been fulfilled historically, in the time period from Jesus' death to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

    You're right that there are a variety of positions on precisely what the AoD was. However, my argument is that they generally saw the AoD as fulfilled in the generation of the Apostles, and that is my major point.

    I also like source material to determine for myself what they may have been saying. Thanks for sharing my sentiment on that!

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace View Post
    There's too much liberty taken by some scholars and modern speaker on what the early Church fathers believed about the 70 weeks of Daniel. I've seen quotes they use of the early Church fathers where it is not really clear what the Church fathers meant.

    Here's one such quote from the website "The Early Church Fathers and the Last Days of the Jewish Age".

    ORIGEN:
    “The weeks of years up to the time of Christ the leader that Daniel the prophet predicted were fulfilled” (TPR, IV:1:5)."

    How can one determine from that the whole period of Daniel's 70 weeks are meant by Origen??? The weeks up to the time of Christ being 'cut off' were fulfilled, but it was the 69th week when Christ was "cut off", and He had nothing more, leaving the final "one week", the 70th, still to be fulfilled.
    I do understand that some believe it to be as you say. But most would, I should think, find that the Anointed One is "cut off" in the midst of the 70th Week, when sacrifice and offering are terminated? It is true that 69 weeks are said to be before the Messiah is cut off. But then in the 70th Week offering is brought to an end. Many of the Church Fathers, and I as well, believe that Messiah was cut off at the same time the offering was terminated--in the middle of the 70th Week.

    If so, then Origen likely saw the fulfillment of the sum total of all 70 Weeks as consisting of the death of Christ, the replacement of OT sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christ, and in the accompanying destruction of the old temple by the Romans.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    Again, another misteaching from that website:

    ATHANASIUS

    "Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria from 326 to 373 AD. Like the early Church fathers before him, he also taught that the 70 weeks of Daniel culminated and the Jewish Age ended in 70 AD: 'Jerusalem is to stand till His coming (Daniel’s reference to Messiah’s appearing in His First Advent), and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel (the end of the Old Covenant or Jewish Age). This is why Jerusalem stood till then…that they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality…but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and Temple taken' (INC, XXXIX:3-XV:8).

    Athanasius clearly reflects the view of the entire early Church: once the Messiah had come, the role of the Temple in Jerusalem would be ended. 'Things to be done which belonged to Jerusalem beneath…were fulfilled, and those which belonged to the shadows had passed away' (FEL, IV:3-4).

    This important early Church father clearly believed that the Jewish age ended in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple."

    What is most easily surmised by the quote from Athanasius there, is how the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple ended the old covenant, the Jews not able to worship per the old covenant requirements. To add to that a meaning that all the 70 weeks prophecy must then have been fulfilled is not what Athanasius said. That idea was added by the author of that website.
    I don't know? It seems pretty clear to me!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    So just like some so-called Pre-trib Rapture scholars today are doing revisions of the early Church father's writings, trying to push a pre-trib rapture idea into their writings, the same is happening with some on the Preterist boat who claim the 70th week of Daniel 9 was completed with Jesus' crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
    The Early Church Fathers did in fact see Daniel's 70 Weeks fulfilled in the death of Christ and the end of the Old Covenant, including the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It was all fulfilled in *Jesus' generation.*

    This is *not* preterism! This is the original historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse by the Church, as well as the original interpretation of Daniel's 70 Weeks. In fact, these Church Fathers based their view of the Olivet Discourse on their historical view of the 70 Weeks!

    This is not Preterism, because Preterism tends to find all biblical prophecy fulfilled in the 1st generation of the Church, excluding a future Antichrist, a future restoration of Israel, etc. They do accept a future return of Christ, if they are partial Preterists.

    No, this is not Preterism, but the original historical interpretation of Daniel's 70 Weeks and the Olivet Discourse. The AoD was fulfilled in Jesus' generation. And yet there will be a future Antichrist, and a future restoration of Israel. The Great Tribulation is the age-long dispersion of the Jewish People, along with particular Christian suffering among those who are believers.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    138

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I do understand that some believe it to be as you say. But most would, I should think, find that the Anointed One is "cut off" in the midst of the 70th Week, when sacrifice and offering are terminated? It is true that 69 weeks are said to be before the Messiah is cut off. But then in the 70th Week offering is brought to an end. Many of the Church Fathers, and I as well, believe that Messiah was cut off at the same time the offering was terminated--in the middle of the 70th Week.
    That's not what the Daniel 9 Scripture is actually showing. And the details in Dan.11:23-31 must be included to interpret the Dan.9:27 verse.

    Most do not push Jesus' crucifixion into the 70th week. Men's doctrine of Preterism does that, so let's be honest, that's the doctrine you're pushing in this.

    The events of the 70th week are different than the event of Jesus' crucifixion.

    First mention of the 70th week begins in Dan.9:27, not in verse 26.

    The 49 year period and the 434 year period for the first 69 weeks ended with the time of the cross, 29 A.D. That's the year it comes to with the command to rebuild Jerusalem in 454 B.C. in Nehemiah 2 to the time of Messiah (Jesus' birth was actually 4 B.C. determined long ago).



    Per Dan.11, it's the "vile person" that will cause sacrifices to end and will place the "abomination that maketh desolate".

    We even have an ensample in the past for that still future event. Antiochus IV in 165-170 B.C. took Jerusalem with an army, ended the daily sacrifices, went inside the 2nd temple, sacrificed swine upon the altar, and placed an idol abomination for Zeus worship. That is what the Dan.9:27 subject of the 70th week is. Our Lord Jesus did no such thing. The "covenant" mentioned in Dan.9:27 is the "league" mentioned in Dan.11:23 the "vile person" makes in Jerusalem with a small group. It is not the New Covenant, which should be easy to figure out.

    Jesus warned His saints about the "abomination of desolation" in Jerusalem for the end, even while Antiochus IV had been dead close to 200 years. That shows we are to look for another, in some time future to His 1st coming. It's wasn't the Romans, because the temple burned down before the Romans could get control of it. No abomination idol was setup inside the temple by the Romans. Instead, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, and scattered the Jews (see Jewish historian Josephus who lived around 100 A.D.).

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,498

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace View Post
    That's not what the Daniel 9 Scripture is actually showing. And the details in Dan.11:23-31 must be included to interpret the Dan.9:27 verse.
    We get into trouble when we cross reference without a clear justification for doing so! No, I don't believe Dan 11 relates to Dan 9 at all! Dan 9 is about the 70 Weeks leading up to Christ's death, and to the destruction of Jerusalem. And Dan 11--the latter part--refers to Antiochus 4. These are 2 very different prophecies! You just can't do proper exegesis cross referencing and then making these kinds of assumptions. The text does not justify the comparison!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    Most do not push Jesus' crucifixion into the 70th week. Men's doctrine of Preterism does that, so let's be honest, that's the doctrine you're pushing in this.
    No, let's really, really be honest. I'm *not* pushing Preterism at all. Preterism simply agrees with one aspect of the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and the 70th Week.

    I have to disagree with you, though. I think the Church Fathers tended to push Christ's Coming to the end of the 70th Week in the sense that they saw all 70 Weeks fulfilled with the 1st Advent of Christ, and in the following destruction of Jerusalem. They did not see any future 70th Week after that, with the exception of Irenaeus and Hippolytus, as far as I know. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the Church Fathers, however. It's a lot of material to read!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    The events of the 70th week are different than the event of Jesus' crucifixion.
    I don't think so because the 70 Weeks as a whole are designed to bring Israel to the 1st Coming of Christ, and to the judgment that followed. So the 70th Week and the 1st Coming of Christ were actually simultaneous, one designed for the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    First mention of the 70th week begins in Dan.9:27, not in verse 26.
    I'm aware. Christ is cut off *after* the 69 weeks. That suggests he dies in the 70th Week, when the offering is terminated. Christ makes a covenant in the 70th Week to terminate offering. He does this, as we now understand, by replacing OT sacrifice with his own bodily sacrifice. One replaced the other. This is the covenant of forgiveness, fulfilling atoning sacrifice for all time, on behalf of Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    The 49 year period and the 434 year period for the first 69 weeks ended with the time of the cross, 29 A.D. That's the year it comes to with the command to rebuild Jerusalem in 454 B.C. in Nehemiah 2 to the time of Messiah (Jesus' birth was actually 4 B.C. determined long ago).
    My preferred timeline is from the 7th year of Artaxerxes in 457-8 BC to 26 AD, the beginning of Christ's ministry. This left 3.5 years of Jesus' earthly ministry until he died, fulfilling the New Covenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    Per Dan.11, it's the "vile person" that will cause sacrifices to end and will place the "abomination that maketh desolate".
    That was Antiochus 4 in approx. 168 BC. There are 2 AoDs in Daniel, Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army. Antiochus is in Dan 8 and 11-12, and the Roman Army is in Dan 9.26-27.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    We even have an ensample in the past for that still future event. Antiochus IV in 165-170 B.C. took Jerusalem with an army, ended the daily sacrifices, went inside the 2nd temple, sacrificed swine upon the altar, and placed an idol abomination for Zeus worship. That is what the Dan.9:27 subject of the 70th week is. Our Lord Jesus did no such thing. The "covenant" mentioned in Dan.9:27 is the "league" mentioned in Dan.11:23 the "vile person" makes in Jerusalem with a small group. It is not the New Covenant, which should be easy to figure out.
    Some Jews believed that Dan 9 had to do with Antiochus. Other Jews saw the 70 Weeks as ending in roughly Jesus' time (they certainly did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, though).

    I don't at all see Antiochus 4 as being in Dan 9. And I don't believe most of the Church Fathers did either.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    Jesus warned His saints about the "abomination of desolation" in Jerusalem for the end, even while Antiochus IV had been dead close to 200 years. That shows we are to look for another, in some time future to His 1st coming. It's wasn't the Romans, because the temple burned down before the Romans could get control of it. No abomination idol was setup inside the temple by the Romans. Instead, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, and scattered the Jews (see Jewish historian Josephus who lived around 100 A.D.).
    I believe the mistake you're making is in claiming the AoD of the Olivet Discourse has to be the *exact same* kind of thing as happened in 168 BC when Antiochus defiled the temple and massacred the Jews. I don't believe that to be accurate, but feel instead that there are 2 very separate kinds of AoDs.

    Both AoDs, however, had to do with a pagan army challenging God's place in His temple. Antiochus challenged God by defiling His temple, and by trying to get the Jews to abandon God's Law.

    On the other hand, the Romans tried to challenge God by destroying the place of His dwelling, and by massacring His people, the Jews. Both Antiochus and the Romans were therefore different kinds of AoDs, but they were in fact AoDs!

    I don't think how the temple burned down has anything to do with removing the fact the Romans challenged God's place in His temple when they stood outside the city gates in 66 AD! They declared themselves owners of Jerusalem, and owners of God's temple. And they proceeded to prove their claim by destroying the temple in 70 AD, and ultimately sending the Jews packing after 135 AD.

    No, there is *absolutely no question* that Jesus referred to the Roman Army, with respect to the AoD in the Olivet Discourse. Jesus said plainly in Luke 21 that armies would encircle Jerusalem *in his own generation,* until the temple was destroyed, or desolated. This is how the term "abomination of desolation* is meant to be applied! It was a pagan army challenging God and *desolating* the temple.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,125
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't blame you for getting my position wrong--I can't remember everybody's positions on everything either. My view of the GT is that it is the *NT Jewish Diaspora.* And it is indeed the worst tribulation in Israel's history in terms of its *duration*--not its severity. I don't know how anybody can compare the Holocaust, for example, with Antichrist beheading people? They are equally horrible!
    I can.
    Imagine the Holocaust on steroids - that is the just the one Day of the AC.
    In the Holocaust over a period of many years around 6 million Jews were killed.
    Imagine more than that number killed on one day.
    All are horrible on the individual level. One person's death may be more painful than another's but the tragedy remains true for all.
    However God states it will be the worst, so I'll go with God's view.

    But for *duration,* the NT Jewish Diaspora is Israel's worst Tribulation in history--longer than the 70 years in Babylon, longer than the 490 years waiting for another king, and longer than the 400 years Israel was in Egypt. 2000 years is the worst, by far, Tribulation among all of the timed Tribulations Israel has experienced in history.
    You see when you make it about the Jews ONLY then you have the Great Distress of the Jews as stated in Luke 21 and this I agree with you on.

    This definition, of course, means that the Great Tribulation of Israel's Diaspora encompasses today, as well, along with the future era of Antichrist. It is all part of Israel's Premillennial experience of not having full control of their land, along with their promised Messiah-King.
    Nope, it doesn't encompass now and neither does it encompass Christians who are NOT Jews.

    Actually, at some point I did say to someone or to the group as a whole that I was sad that Hippolytus, in the train of Premil thought, turned to Irenaeus' false futurism. I also am a Premil, and embrace the line from the Apostle John to Hippolytus. However, I do believe that Irenaeus got off course on this one, viewing the AoD as the future Antichrist. And I do believe the vast majority of the Church Fathers believed the AoD to have been fulfilled historically, in the time period from Jesus' death to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
    I have absolutely NO idea why you think Irenaeus is off course.
    I can clearly see you are so far from the truth that you change meanings to try to get things to fit. This is actually very sad.
    Further I don;t see from what you provided any reason to think that any ECFs thought like you.

    You're right that there are a variety of positions on precisely what the AoD was. However, my argument is that they generally saw the AoD as fulfilled in the generation of the Apostles, and that is my major point.
    I also like source material to determine for myself what they may have been saying. Thanks for sharing my sentiment on that!
    I just don't get how from the source material you come to your position.. It almost makes your source material irrelevant if you don;t get to grips with it.
    This is why I can't get with your major point or pretty much most of your take on the OD.
    You seem to ignore the main source, the gospels, veer into "generation" thinking and then come to a conclusion, all of your own.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,827
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Allegation: [Within the context of Matthew 24:15,] It is *after* the 70th Week that the AoD [Abomination of Desolation] brings about the desolation of the temple and the city of Jerusalem. And that abomination was the Roman Army led by Titus.

    A) Jesus was clearly speaking of the event as notated in the Book of Daniel, which is called the “Abomination of desolation” or variants of this wording.

    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

    1) Jesus specifically noted the Abomination was spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

    2) There are many instances in Daniel where he noted the event as either the “transgression of desolation”, “for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate”, and specifically THE “abomination that maketh desolate”.

    3) The Abomination of Desolation is said to Specifically “stand in the holy place”. The reader is to understand this specifically (whoso readeth, let him understand). So we should expect to see words in Daniel that indicate the Abomination in in a holy place.

    B) Throughout the book of Daniel, he records a few specific events that surround the event and exact timing of the Abomination of Desolation. The primary verse that sets the Abomination of Desolation timing is in Daniel 9:27:

    Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

    1) Clearly, according to Daniel 9:27, the Sacrifices are ceased at the Midpoint of the 70th week. There are six instances of this event recorded in the book of Daniel. Some may refute they are the same event, but I will show how they are all the same.



    Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.



    Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?



    a. The Sacrifice’s ending is linked in time with the event of the sanctuary (that is the temple of God) being cast down.

    b. If the Sacrifice happens exactly at the midpoint of the 70th week, then so does the casting down of the Sanctuary. Clearly in Daniel 8:13, a timer is started as both these events start together.



    2) The sacrifice happens at the Midpoint of the 70th week according to Daniel 9:27. But apparently according to Daniel 8:13, so does the “transgression of desolation”.

    Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.



    Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.



    a. Notice how in all three of these verses, the Sacrifices’ ending which happen at the exact midpoint of the 70th week are parallel in time to the Abomination or Transgression of Desolation.

    b. Again, a timer is introduced which brings all listed events that must occur into sync. If the ending of the DAILY (sacrifices) are indeed at the Midpoint of the 70th week, so must the Abomination be.


    3) At the time of the ending of the Sacrifices (the midpoint of the 70th week), the host will be trodden under foot. This ending of sacrifice appears to be the START of that event.


    Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

    It is absolutely amazing to see the following events in Matt 24 directly after the Abomination of Desolation:

    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.

    That certainly looks like the people running from Judaea believe they are going to be trodden down. That time of trodding underfoot is considered the “Great Tribulation” in Matthew 24:21. And then there is more New Testament proof of this:

    Revelation 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

    a. 42 months is a clear link to the time, times and half a time in Daniel’s 70th week. 12 months in a year times 3.5 years is 42 months.

    b. Notice that in Rev 11:1, it appears the outer courts of the temple complex (also part of the temple proper) have been or are defiled by the gentiles. The next verse starts a countdown of treading down under foot (interesting terminology-look familiar?)

    c. The start of the 42 months can only be at the Midpoint of the 70th week. The temple will be “cast down” at that point. The definition of “cast down” does not have to mean a literal casting down, but CAN mean that. It is more likely according to Daniel 11:31, that “casting down” indicates “polluting the sanctuary of strength”, which is indeed a Desolation.



    Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.



    4) The Abomination of Desolation is something SET UP or STANIDNG IN the holy place according to Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 12:11.



    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



    Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.



    a. Clearly these two verses are parallel. We have the exact same term “abomination of Desolation” (maketh is similar to of, as both indicate the abomination makes something desolate.) They both relate to the abomination in a holy place, as the sanctuary was considered very holy.

    b. Both of these verses speak of a placing of something that stands in a place. But then we have a confirmation that not only is something PLACED, it is actually “Set Up”.

    Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.



    So in conclusion, there is no way that “the AoD is *AFTER* the 70th week.” According to scripture is it abundantly clear that the AoD is at the Midpoint of the 70th week.

    Thus, it is also abundantly clear that the Abomination of Desolation CAN NOT be the “Roman Army led by Titus”. It is an event that has yet to happen, and will be happening very soon in our near future.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    138

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    We get into trouble when we cross reference without a clear justification for doing so! No, I don't believe Dan 11 relates to Dan 9 at all! Dan 9 is about the 70 Weeks leading up to Christ's death, and to the destruction of Jerusalem. And Dan 11--the latter part--refers to Antiochus 4. These are 2 very different prophecies! You just can't do proper exegesis cross referencing and then making these kinds of assumptions. The text does not justify the comparison!
    There is no trouble with Biblical cross referencing, that is how we are to establish truth per Scripture, getting two or more witnesses (2 Cor.13). By you saying that's not how to study and interpret God's Word, you go against the Scripture itself with your idea.

    So of course those on men's doctrine of Preterism do not care to include the events of the "vile person" in Dan.11 as another witness to the events in Dan.9:27, showing their method of interpretation is corrupt, and not seeking to follow the Biblical example of two or more witnesses. It proves they are more interested in following man's doctrines. Doing that in The Gospels would be like accepting only one witness of Christ's crucifixion in one Gospel Book while denying the same event written in the other Gospel Books.

    The very "abomination of desolation" phrase Jesus quoted from the Book of Daniel in His Olivet discourse is from Daniel 11, where the phrase is "abomination that maketh desolate" (KJV).

    And YES! You are pushing doctrines of Preterism with you assigning the latter Dan.9 events to Jesus while denying the connection in Dan.11 about the "abomination of desolation."

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,125
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier_of_Faith View Post
    Allegation: [Within the context of Matthew 24:15,] It is *after* the 70th Week that the AoD [Abomination of Desolation] brings about the desolation of the temple and the city of Jerusalem. And that abomination was the Roman Army led by Titus.

    So in conclusion, there is no way that “the AoD is *AFTER* the 70th week.” According to scripture is it abundantly clear that the AoD is at the Midpoint of the 70th week.

    Thus, it is also abundantly clear that the Abomination of Desolation CAN NOT be the “Roman Army led by Titus”. It is an event that has yet to happen, and will be happening very soon in our near future.
    I agree with your conclusion.
    I arrived at it simply by noting this:
    Dan 9:27* And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”*

    This verse speaks of the 70th week. It is DURING that week that the desolation occurs.
    Therefore ANY claim about the desolation MUST put it in the 70th week.

    This is why one ECF split the 70th week into 2 parts.
    Half during the life of Jesus and the other starting with Nero until 70 AD.

    NONE of the other ECFs that have been quoted made that split. They ALL had the 70th week occurring in 70 AD IF they believed it fulfilled.
    We can clearly see that 70 AD is NOT part of the 70 weeks, which then means it is also NOT the AoD spoken of by Daniel.

    Therefore ANYONE claiming that the ECFs held a certain view need to deal with this issue.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,334
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Very brief and simple

    The rise of the beast kingdom upon the earth

    7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
    8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
    9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
    10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
    11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
    12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
    13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
    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.

    Day 1290 - 7 Vials wrath of God

    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.
    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.

    Day 1335

    27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
    28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

    Day of the Lord wrath of the Lamb

    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.

    Resurrection / Judgement

    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.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    138

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post

    No, let's really, really be honest. I'm *not* pushing Preterism at all. Preterism simply agrees with one aspect of the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and the 70th Week.
    If you treat the events in Dan.11 as fulfilled, then you are. Antiochus IV did not fulfill all those Dan.11 events; he served as a blueprint only. You should have gathered that when you read Jesus quoting in Matthew 24 from the Book of Daniel with the phrase "abomination of desolation", especially since Antiochus IV had been dead for almost 200 years when Jesus forewarned about it.


    I have to disagree with you, though. I think the Church Fathers tended to push Christ's Coming to the end of the 70th Week in the sense that they saw all 70 Weeks fulfilled with the 1st Advent of Christ, and in the following destruction of Jerusalem. They did not see any future 70th Week after that, with the exception of Irenaeus and Hippolytus, as far as I know. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the Church Fathers, however. It's a lot of material to read!
    And it's easy to do revisions of what the Church fathers said, and make it seem like they said something else, as in examples I gave. It's what God's Word reveals about the events that matter. And Dan.11 with the "vile person" is most relevant to Dan.9:27.

    I don't think so because the 70 Weeks as a whole are designed to bring Israel to the 1st Coming of Christ, and to the judgment that followed. So the 70th Week and the 1st Coming of Christ were actually simultaneous, one designed for the other.
    Not if you had understood what all the 70 weeks are to accomplish per the Dan.9:24 verse. Still today, those things are not yet fulfilled in Jerusalem and with the orthodox Jews. The prophecy is about Jerusalem and her people, not us Christians. Nor did Jesus make any seven year covenant that was broken after three and a half years. He offered the New Covenant, and that is an everlasting Covenant that will never be broken. And the Dan.9:27 events include the placing of an idol abomination on a wing of the temple, and you want to assign that to Jesus??? Men's doctrines you are on teaching that are madness. Those accepting such mad doctrines have been bewitched.

    I'm aware. Christ is cut off *after* the 69 weeks. That suggests he dies in the 70th Week, when the offering is terminated. Christ makes a covenant in the 70th Week to terminate offering. He does this, as we now understand, by replacing OT sacrifice with his own bodily sacrifice. One replaced the other. This is the covenant of forgiveness, fulfilling atoning sacrifice for all time, on behalf of Israel.
    No, it does not suggest He died in the 70th week. It suggest that He died with the ending of the 69th week.

    Jesus made no 7 year covenant and broke it after 3.5 years. That's a doctrine of man, and not what the Dan.9 Scripture is pointing to. It instead is pointing to this:

    Dan 11:23
    23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
    KJV

    Dan 11:31
    31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
    KJV


    If that was history, then whey did Jesus quote it 200 years later in His Olivet discourse of Matthew 24 and Mark 13? The doctrine of men you follow instead tells you to deny that direct Scripture in Dan.11, even as you have already said, showing you are not following the Scriptures, but a seminary doctrine of men.

    My preferred timeline is from the 7th year of Artaxerxes in 457-8 BC to 26 AD, the beginning of Christ's ministry. This left 3.5 years of Jesus' earthly ministry until he died, fulfilling the New Covenant.
    The timeline I use, which has been understood by scholars for a long time now, is from Bishop Ussher's account (A.M. 3531 for the beginning reign of Artaxerxes which equals 474 B.C. So the "twentieth year" of Artaxerxes' reign per Nehemiah 2 was 454 B.C.). But men today are doing revisions, which is why your numbers conveniently fit the doctrine you are on.

    That was Antiochus 4 in approx. 168 BC. There are 2 AoDs in Daniel, Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army. Antiochus is in Dan 8 and 11-12, and the Roman Army is in Dan 9.26-27.
    There are more mentions of the AOD concept than two in the Book of Daniel (Dan.8:11-14; Dan.9:27; Dan.11:31; Dan.12:11). Your Roman army idea is a fabrication. The Romans under Titus did not place an abomination idol inside the temple in 70 A.D., because the temple burned down. The AOD requires a standing temple, even as Jesus showed in His Olivet discourse. The final Antichrist of our future is who will fulfill the Dan.9:27 events of the 70th week, not Jesus.

    Some Jews believed that Dan 9 had to do with Antiochus. Other Jews saw the 70 Weeks as ending in roughly Jesus' time (they certainly did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, though).

    I don't at all see Antiochus 4 as being in Dan 9. And I don't believe most of the Church Fathers did either.
    The rest of your post is just rambling.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Central Iowa, USA
    Posts
    227

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Correct. The Roman Army or Titus or the guy that sweep up behind the chariots, none of them put a AOD in the Temple. The Temple was set on fire and then taken apart stone by stone to retrieve the gold and silver that had melted. So 70AD is out as a viable candidate for what Yeshua (referring to Daniel) was talking about regarding the AOD.

    And it happened roughly 38-40 years after Yeshua's death ("cut off" per Daniel 9:26). The 69 weeks were not ended until Yeshua's death, not the beginning of His ministry. No matter how one looks at things, there is an implied gap between the 69th and 70th week. And all the weeks are viewed in context as weeks of years.
    Israel.... the Believer's insurance policy!

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,334
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    Correct. The Roman Army or Titus or the guy that sweep up behind the chariots, none of them put a AOD in the Temple. The Temple was set on fire and then taken apart stone by stone to retrieve the gold and silver that had melted. So 70AD is out as a viable candidate for what Yeshua (referring to Daniel) was talking about regarding the AOD.

    And it happened roughly 38-40 years after Yeshua's death ("cut off" per Daniel 9:26). The 69 weeks were not ended until Yeshua's death, not the beginning of His ministry. No matter how one looks at things, there is an implied gap between the 69th and 70th week. And all the weeks are viewed in context as weeks of years.
    the AOD is not "something" being placed in the temple it is "someone". The someone being the beast claiming to be the Christ. Thus the abomination nothing to do with 70AD of therin.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Need Advice: Commentary's on Revelation
    By matthewhenry in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Feb 14th 2016, 08:45 AM
  2. Commentary?
    By michael b in forum Bible studies - archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sep 9th 2013, 03:34 AM
  3. Commentary on Romans
    By drmerillat in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul 20th 2010, 02:44 AM
  4. commentary for Psalms only
    By *Living~By~Faith* in forum Christian Fellowship
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Nov 16th 2008, 08:02 AM
  5. Commentary of Romans 9
    By Diolectic in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Nov 15th 2008, 04:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •