Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 97

Thread: Brief commentary on Matt 24

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,284
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    There's nothing in scripture that says the temple will be built for the Antichrist. Rather the Beast will appropriate it for himself. There's a difference.
    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.

    So this is really the next temple to be built

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,244

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace View Post
    If you treat the events in Dan.11 as fulfilled, then you are.
    You are playing loose with your facts. Since I haven't spent much time with you, I'll tell you what I tell others here. Preterism largely condenses NT prophecy into the 1st generation of the Church. That would include the Olivet Discourse, prophecy of Antichrist, Israel's restoration--all except the 2nd Coming. Partial Preterists retain a future 2nd Coming of Christ, and this Forum requires acceptance of this.

    Before Preterism even existed the Church Fathers, and Christians ever since, have accepted that many biblical prophecies were historically fulfilled. The greatest one of this type were the prophecies of Jesus' 1st Coming. Isa 53 talks about Jesus to come as a sacrificial atonement for sin--the result of his own death.

    So historically fulfilled prophecies, and belief in them, does not constitute Preterism, does not define Preterism. Those, like myself, who believe that Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse largely had to do with Jesus' 1st Coming, and yet retain belief in a continuing tribulation for the Jews, a continuing persecution for the Christians, a future Antichrist, and a future restoration of Israel, are *not,* by definition, Preterists!

    But I've found an absolute resistance to this point, with an accompanying psychological need, by some, to demand that I be called a "Preterist." You should ask yourself, Why is this so? Why do those who reject my position *need* to call me a Preterist? Clearly, there is some commonality with Preterism, but historical interpretation is definitely not Preterism! Please don't fall into the category of those who *need* to call me a Preterist. One brother has kindly accommodated me by toning down his conviction in this area. You should too, if indeed you want to act like a good Christian! The Scriptures say we should not put a stumbling black before our brother. And such accusations definitely provoke me to anger.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    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 believe there are 2 AoDs, and that Jesus referred to the one in Dan 9. That is different from the AoD in Dan 8 and 11-12.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    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.
    Since you're simply making assertions without proofs we must agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    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.
    Before you go "all emotional" on me, and start throwing around rude names, please try to understand that many good Christians down through the ages hold to the same positions I do. Would you want them throwing names at you, calling you "bewitched?" No.

    Many Christians, including some of the Church Fathers, if not most, saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the Anointed One who makes a covenant in the 70th Week. He is, tragically, "cut off," and in the midst of this Week offering and sacrifice are terminated. There is little explanation, except that with hindsight many Christians look back on this and recognize that Jesus was terminating, in his death, OT sacrifice and offering. This fulfilled the 70th Week, since Jesus died in the midst of this final 7 year period. It completed the 70 Week prophecy in a final half week.

    Dan 9.26 talks about the desolation of the city and the sanctuary, and then depicts this, in vs. 27, as the Abomination of Desolation. This is the desolation of the city and the sanctuary *following* the 70th Week, in which Christ dies, terminating the OT sacrificial system.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    No, it does not suggest He died in the 70th week. It suggest that He died with the ending of the 69th week.
    If you view Jesus as the Anointed One who makes a covenant in the final, 70th Week, then Jesus is "cut off" *in* the 70th Week! If the Anointed One is cut off *after* the 69 Weeks, then obviously he is cut off *in* the 70th Week! The assumption has to be made that after the 69 Weeks are completed, we are now in the 70th Week, at which time Christ is "cut off." That is, the cutting off of Christ has something to do with the 70th Week covenant that Christ makes.

    The whole prophecy, ie the 70 Weeks prophecy, has to do with bringing about the termination of the OT sacrificial system, and the entry into Israel of an "everlasting righteousness," associated with the Messiah. This has nothing at all to do with Antichrist or the end of the age.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    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
    No, as I said Dan 11 has to do with Antiochus 4. Jesus did confirm the covenant of atonement by saying that he came to bring salvation to Israel. He was consciously fulfilling the 70 Weeks of Daniel!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    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.
    I've had Bible School, but not seminary. My brother, however, was a pastor and is probably one class short of a Theological Degree. He has a great interest in the biblical languages. It is insulting to make the assumption that all seminaries are corrupt and despicable. We are to give double honor to those who pursue the ministry! Would you drive men and women out of Christian ministry?

    But to your point, Jesus did not quote, in his Olivet Discourse, Dan 11! He quoted Dan 9, which has to do with the earthly ministry of Messiah, his crucifixion, and with the accompanying desolation of Jerusalem and the temple. Dan 11 is all about Antiochus 4, which is very, very obvious from the context.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    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.
    Please try to tone down the rhetoric. We are among "friends" here! Not everything in the Church is black and white. Yes, there are false Christians and liberal Christians, and all kind of perversions in theology. But that's not what we're doing here.

    You're really jumping to conclusions. I'm not arguing your date--just the beginning date of the 70 Weeks prophecy. You may want to use one date, and I may choose to use another date. It's all arguable, among scholars and among Christians in general.

    I've chosen to use not the 20th year of Artaxerxes' reign, but rather, the 7th year of Artaxerxes' reign, which was 457-8 BC. You add 26 years to this and we get approx. 483 years, which represents the 69 Weeks, or 483 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    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.
    Luke 21 is not a "fabrication!" Jesus, there, said that armies would encircle Jerusalem, leading to a Jewish expulsion and diaspora lasting for the entire NT age! How is that a "fabrication?" That certainly required a "standing temple," and was a part of what Jesus meant by "abomination of desolation."

    The "stumbling block" seems to be, for some here, that the AoD must be the same as Antiochus 4? But that was a different prophecy. Again, there are 2 AoDs spoken of in Daniel, Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army. I didn't say there were only 2 *mentions* of the AoD! There was only 1 mention of the Roman AoD. The other references to an AoD had to do with Antiochus 4.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavePeace
    The rest of your post is just rambling.
    Brother, you're going to have to learn something called "kindness" and "diplomacy." Someone has told you I'm your enemy, and I'm not! I'm your *brother!*

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,871
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by DurbanDude View Post
    Actually the earth flees away at the end of the millennium, according to Rev 20:11. So this does require a new earth at the end of the millennium. Unless you have a strange manner of reading the order of events in Rev 20.
    Nope.
    I do get why you claim this.
    Some have a strange notion that Jesus has more than one throne.
    In Revelation there is one throne in the NJ.
    You have yet to clarify whether you accept the NJ is at the start of the MK with the NHNE.
    So Jesus sits on this throne (as Jesus says He would in Matt 25) and that is when the earth and sky have fled away (as it were from His presence).
    This occurs at the START of the MK. It is simply John notes it in relation to Jesus again sitting on His throne for judgement - this time the Final Judgement.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,871
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Well, I came to my conclusions before studying the Church Fathers on this. And I found the Church Fathers seemed to hold to the same position. I don't see how you *can't* see what the Church Fathers are saying on this? I can only provide the quotes! They viewed the 70 Weeks of Daniel as fulfilled in Jesus, his his NT sacrifice, and in the resulting destruction of Jerusalem. This is what Dan 9 says, and this is what the Church Fathers said. Even a number of the Jews BC believed that the 70 Weeks were fulfilled in Jesus' time (though not in Jesus himself).
    I can understand why you may have come to SOME of your conclusions as a superficial reading does support it.
    I can even understand why you claim the ECFs may support your view IF you cherry pick what they say and latch onto the idea of it happening in 70 AD.

    The problem is I can't see ANYONE holding onto this view once they work through EITHER the scriptures OR the ECFs in any detail.
    The quotes you provided do NOT support what you claim, I have read them and noted things which make them ALL at variance.
    NOT a SINGLE quote you gave has the ECFs state that the 70 weeks are fulfilled in Jesus. They either say it is NOT fulfilled, or they say with His coming, or they say the first half for His ministry and the 2nd half in 70 AD, or they place the 70 weeks ending in 70 AD. Yo however DENY 70 AD as being the time of the 70 weeks, placing you at odds with those you claim hold the most correct view.
    This means you are arguing against your own proofs.

    Once we see that the Church Fathers viewed the 70 Weeks as fulfilled in Jesus' time, it's a simple thing to recognize that the AoD of Dan 9 is what Jesus referred to in his Olivet Discourse. The AoD in Dan 9 is plainly about the resulting destruction of the temple and Jerusalem following the death of Christ. This is what Jesus said would happen in his own generation, that "all these things" would happen in "this generation." And this would precipitate a "Great Tribulation" for the Jewish People that would last until the end of the age, at which time Messiah would come, and Israel would be restored.
    As we don't see this... so we also don't see the other.
    Even were we to think the ECFs thought this, such as the 70 weeks ending in 70 AD, IF we disagree with 70 AD being the end of the 70 weeks then we are NOT agreeing with the ECFs and so do NOT have their view to support ours.

    You're right, that I see the Great Tribulation as a *Jewish* Tribulation! But this is as the OT always put it, as something focused on the Jewish People before the Gentile nations can be included together with them. What applied to the original Jewish Church does apply, in principle, to future generations of Gentile Christians. That is, the Jewish Tribulation in principle applies as a Gentile Tribulation as well.
    The GT is NOT part of the OT, it is part of the NT.
    It was NOT applied to the Jewish Church but to the Jews as a people. It CANNOT apply to people who are NOT then Jews.
    Your argument plays with words and changes the meanings en route.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,244

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    I can understand why you may have come to SOME of your conclusions as a superficial reading does support it.
    I can even understand why you claim the ECFs may support your view IF you cherry pick what they say and latch onto the idea of it happening in 70 AD.

    The problem is I can't see ANYONE holding onto this view once they work through EITHER the scriptures OR the ECFs in any detail.
    The quotes you provided do NOT support what you claim, I have read them and noted things which make them ALL at variance.
    NOT a SINGLE quote you gave has the ECFs state that the 70 weeks are fulfilled in Jesus. They either say it is NOT fulfilled, or they say with His coming, or they say the first half for His ministry and the 2nd half in 70 AD, or they place the 70 weeks ending in 70 AD. Yo however DENY 70 AD as being the time of the 70 weeks, placing you at odds with those you claim hold the most correct view.
    This means you are arguing against your own proofs.
    Yes, reading the Church Fathers and reading the Olivet Discourse is difficult, if we try to relate every detail. The Church Fathers were obviously not trying to answer questions we have today, and did not address issues as if they were. Quite simply put, if we read between the lines I find that the Church Fathers generally saw the 70 Weeks as being completed in the earthly ministry of Jesus. The 70 AD event was to *follow* the completion of the 70 Weeks prophecy. In other words, the 70 Weeks prophecy was completed at the death of Christ. The prophecy of the AoD *followed!*

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory
    As we don't see this... so we also don't see the other.
    Even were we to think the ECFs thought this, such as the 70 weeks ending in 70 AD, IF we disagree with 70 AD being the end of the 70 weeks then we are NOT agreeing with the ECFs and so do NOT have their view to support ours.

    The GT is NOT part of the OT, it is part of the NT.
    It was NOT applied to the Jewish Church but to the Jews as a people. It CANNOT apply to people who are NOT then Jews.
    Your argument plays with words and changes the meanings en route.
    I agree that the GT is the NT Jewish Diaspora. But I do believe this includes the Jewish church. The Jewish believers in particular suffered as believers, rejected by their Jewish brethren, and also by the pagan nations. But the Jewish People as a whole suffered deportation from their land and inheritance.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,380
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ross3421 View Post
    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.

    So this is really the next temple to be built
    The text you quoted didn't say that the image is the temple.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    6,380
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    Nope.
    I do get why you claim this.
    Some have a strange notion that Jesus has more than one throne.
    In Revelation there is one throne in the NJ.
    You have yet to clarify whether you accept the NJ is at the start of the MK with the NHNE.
    So Jesus sits on this throne (as Jesus says He would in Matt 25) and that is when the earth and sky have fled away (as it were from His presence).
    This occurs at the START of the MK. It is simply John notes it in relation to Jesus again sitting on His throne for judgment - this time the Final Judgement.
    Jesus indeed has only one Throne. But the difference is what he does at the end of the MK. For then he SITS in final judgment in contrast to the period of the millennium.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,284
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The text you quoted didn't say that the image is the temple.
    This is why I added the event of the fire called down from heaven entering into the temple and a voice coming then from within the throne AKA God.

    In addition we now see them worshipping.....they need a temple.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Clanton Alabama
    Posts
    827

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is not your conventional view of the Olivet Discourse, but it is, I believe, essential if you are to understand it completely. This view is pretty much what the Church Fathers believed, and so is not heterodox teaching. But the original view in the Church was corrupted by many years of influences that were the product of common human misconceptions. This is just my best effort to explain it.


    Matt 24.Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 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, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”


    Comment: The primary purpose of this Discourse is to announce the imminent destruction of the temple. However, inasmuch as this pronouncement brought conflicts in the minds of Jesus' disciples he had to address concerns outside of the issue of the temple destruction alone. The thought from the 70 Weeks prophecy of Dan 9 was that Messiah would come in roughly the time that Jesus came. And the disciples naturally thought that this should bring final atonement for Israel's sins.


    However, the prophecy in Dan 9 indicated that following the 70th Week there would be an Abomination of Desolation causing the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. And so, Jesus' disciples asked him about the restoration of Israel at the coming of Messiah's Kingdom, in the light of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.


    The question the disciples asked regarding the temple desolation is the primary issue. But of secondary importance is the issue of when Christ would come with his Kingdom, to save Israel.
    The Jews thought that since Rome was the Fourth Beast, the Little Horn would show up at any moment, and IF Israel had of repented I am positive that is the way it would have went down, but God knowing the beginning from the end of all things knew that Israel would not repent at this time thus He turned His back on Israel for 2000 years and inserted the "Church Age". Thus the Church has to be Raptured, then the Beast System can arise again, the Church can't be overcome by the gates of hell, but the world can.

    So the Temples destruction was deemed by the Disciples to be the End, thus Jesus had to explain that it would not be the end, and that the end would be BY AND BY... So Jesus had to explain all of this unto them, and he had to incorporate the coming 2000 year Church Age into this teaching.

    4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.


    Comment: These signs leading up to the temple's destruction were not intended to lead to immediate salvation at the coming of Messiah's Kingdom. They were actually the "beginning" of troubles that would last for a long time until the Son of Man comes. The thought that all of these troubles would be concentrated in a single generation is therefore cast aside by Jesus, since he indicated that signs leading up to the temple's destruction would be but the beginning of a long period of Jewish Diaspora.
    You have placed two verses here that shouldn't be here as per the timing. Verses 7 and 8 don't go with verses 5 and 6. Jesus says many will come in my name, this fulfills the John 5:43 prophecy Jesus spoke unto/about the Pharisees not accepting him, but accepting others who came in their OWN NAMES, the Pharisees, knowing that Rome was the Fourth Beast put forth messiah's because they feared the Little Horn would be upon them shortly, little did they know that was 2000 years away. The wars and rumors of wars was Jesus telling the Disciples, HEY........you will hear about this, but this IS NOT the Zechariah ch. 14 event......that will come BY AND BY........LATER but NOT YET.....then in verse 7 he starts giving them the 2000 year Church Age Period.

    Nation will arise against nation (2000 years of wars, pestilence/Black Plague) and there will be earthquakes, famines and pestilence. These are the beginning of sorrows or the beginning of BIRTH-PANGS which will take us unto the birth of the Tribulation Period. These are NOT the Tribulation in verses 7-14 like many people believe, it is the 2000 year Church Age. So verses 7 and 8 have zero to do with the Temple's destruction per se, but I agree, they last for 2000 years and BIRTH the End Times Troubles spoken of by Daniel.

    9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.


    Comment: Jesus said the Gospel Mission would begin in his own generation, and would be involved along with the signs leading up to the temple's destruction. False prophecy consisted of those who advocated for war against the Romans, as well as false messiahs who claimed to be leaders in Israel. This clearly was something to be experienced by the apostles in their own generation. They would be persecuted and martyred, which is precisely what happened to many of them.
    These verses actually have nothing to do with the Temple's destruction, however I agree, the Church Age began when the Holy Spirit was given to the Disciples, and even though Jesus has already told about the false christs the Pharisees would try and put forth to "SAVE THEMSELVES" from the Romans/Fourth Beast, these false teachers/preachers and Rabbis mentioned in verse 11 are about the 2000 year Church Age period/Jewish Diaspora, not the temple per se. And this was about the Disciples fate or being Martyred, but verse 11 is about the 2000 years of Christendom and the Jews being lied to for 2000 years, and heeding those lies. The ones that ENDURE until the end [of one's life] will be saved, then when the Gospel is Preached unto ALL THE WORLD, the End will come [End time tribulation period].

    15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.


    Comment: The Abomination of Desolation is a reference to Dan 9 and the 70 Weeks prophecy. It is *after* the 70th Week that the AoD brings about the desolation of the temple and the city of Jerusalem. And that abomination was the Roman Army led by Titus. This is what most of the Church Fathers believed. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and modern futurists have hijacked this historical interpretation. They have insisted that the AoD is the Antichrist, rather than the Roman Army under Titus. But these signs were specifically for the apostles' generation, and they were to lead up to the desolation of the temple. The AoD cannot have been the Antichrist!
    This is an END TIME EVENT, it has nothing to do with 70 AD. The Gospel has to be preached unto all the world first should tell you this !! The Anti-Christ/Little Horn will Conquer Jerusalem, thus he will rule for 42 Months. The AoD can be nothing else, we are told about it in Daniel 12 as an end time event when the Saints are RAISED UP, at the end. Rev. 12 tells us the same thing as does Matt. 24.

    22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.


    Comment: The Great Tribulation associated with the fall of the temple would eventually be "cut short," meaning that this distress would last a very long time. To cut it short is to end an interminable length of time. The distress associated with it would affect believers in the apostles' generation, as well as at the time just before the coming of the Kingdom.

    This Great Tribulation is the Jewish Diaspora of the NT era. It initially involved both believers and unbelievers in Israel, since all Jews were expelled by the Romans from the Holy Land. The believers formed the Early Church, and were persecuted, as well, by Jewish unbelievers.
    Nothing is cut short in the way you are thinking. All it means is that God's original plan of 7 Years, 1260 days of Peace followed by 1260 days of Judgment, is designed to get Israel to Repent during this he 70th Week, then to bring Judgment upon this evil world, then Jesus returns (and thus cuts the Anti-Christs rule out) and TAKES OVER after the Beast has ruled 1260 days, nothing is cut short as per the Prophecies we have been given, God's PROPHETIC PLANS cuts short the plans of the Beast who would kill every Jew if allowed to stay in power longer than his 1260 Days !! God being ALL KNOWING, knew this and PLANNED AHEAD, only giving him 1260 days, not 2000 days !!

    26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.


    Comment: The Coming of the Son of Man is described as a sudden judgment, and as such, is something that can only be prepared for by maintaining vigil. To prepare for the Kingdom at an unknown time in the future Christians must maintain righteousness at all times, and not grow weary of doing right. It is to be expected that unbelievers will be gathered together, in order to be judged. And then judgment will suddenly strike them, without warning. This happened, in a sense, in 70 AD. But it is also an indication of what Christ's 2nd Coming will be like, at the Battle of Armageddon.
    This is speaking about the END TIMES, and about THE Anti-Christ and False Prophet. The CARCASS means the Church is at Armageddon.

    29 “Immediately after the distress of those days


    “‘the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
    the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’


    Comment: The Great Tribulation of the Jewish People, and of the Church, will end with the end of the times of the Gentiles. The darkening of the heavenly bodies indicates the end of time in the age, since the heavenly bodies were signs for times and seasons. Daniel indicated that the Kingdom of God would begin with a rock, who is Christ, and then become a mountain, which is the Church. And this Kingdom would come to destroy the powers of the pagan kingdoms of the world.
    This is speaking about the END TIME PERIOD.

    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.


    Comment: The remnant of Jewish believers, as well as Christians throughout the earth, will be gathered as though in a great national restoration. Angels gathering men indicates a resurrection from the dead, and a gathering for glorification in heaven, both of which are for the Church. This will be prerequisite for the establishment of God's Kingdom on the earth. The righteous must be given authority to govern the earth properly.
    The Christians are in Heaven with Christ and thus must return from Heaven after the Marriage. The Jews who repent are in Petra.

    32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.


    Comment: "This generation" has to do with the apostles' generation, in which Christ was crucified and the apostles martyred. This was the generation to see the signs leading up to and including the desolation of the temple. Excluded from "all these things" are events that transcend the desolation of the temple, which includes the things to take place during the Great Tribulation of the Jewish People and of the Church.
    THIS GENERATION means those that see the last Signs, because ONLY THOSE can have lived through every sign via having knowledge or being a WITNESS to all the signs.
    Last edited by Revelation Man; Nov 11th 2018 at 08:11 AM.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,244

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man View Post
    The Jews thought that since Rome was the Fourth Beast, the Little Horn would show up at any moment, and IF Israel had of repented I am positive that is the way it would have went down, but God knowing the beginning from the end of all things knew that Israel would not repent at this time thus He turned His back on Israel for 2000 years and inserted the "Church Age". Thus the Church has to be Raptured, then the Beast System can arise again, the Church can't be overcome by the gates of hell, but the world can.

    So the Temples destruction was deemed by the Disciples to be the End, thus Jesus had to explain that it would not be the end, and that the end would be BY AND BY... So Jesus had to explain all of this unto them, and he had to incorporate the coming 2000 year Church Age int this teaching.
    I don't know what you base your "certainty" on, with respect to how soon God would've produced "the little horn" had Israel repented at Christ's 1st coming? At any rate, it just didn't happen that way. I can see how some Jews might've anticipated the revelation of the "little horn" at some time during the ancient Roman Empire, however.

    I don't share your view that the Church age is a kind of "parenthesis" in the linear history of Israel. I believe that it was God's purpose, all along, to de-paganize the Gentile nations, after 1st de-paganizing Israel. The plan of God for the Christian mission was the original blueprint, in my opinion, although it wasn't initially apparent that this was the way it was supposed to go down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    You have placed two verses here that shouldn't be here. Verses 7 and 8 don't go with verses 5 and 6. Jesus says many will come in my name, this fulfills the John 5:43 prophecy Jesus spoke unto/about the Pharisees not accepting him, but accepting others who came n their OWN NAMES, the Pharisees, knowing that Rome was the Fourth Beast put forth Messiah's because they feared the Little Horn would be upon them shortly, little did they know that was 2000 years away. The wars and rumors of wars was Jesus telling the Disciples, HEY........you will hear about this, but this IS NOT the Zechariah ch. 14 event, that will come BY AND BY........LATER but NOT YET.....then in verse 7 he starts giving them the 2000 year Church Age Period.
    I don't really know how adept the Pharisees were at understanding biblical prophecy, but I don't doubt they had a pretty extensive knowledge. I'm not sure how certain they were of prophetic interpretation, but they may very well have understood that the war was coming between God's Kingdom and the Roman Kingdom. Who it was that took upon themselves "Jesus' name" I'm not sure--perhaps cultic Christian leaders who sponsored zealotry or elitism of some kind? It did happen, apparently, in Jesus' time, after his death. I don't know why you would separate these verses, which appear together?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    Nation will arise against nation (2000 years of wars, pestilence/Black Plague) and there will be earthquakes, famines and pestilence. These are the beginning of sorrows or the beginning of BIRTH-PANGS which will take us unto the birth of the Tribulation Period. These are NOT the Tribulation in verses 7-24 like many people believe, it is the 2000 year Church Age. So verses 7 and 8 have zero to do with the Temple's destruction per se, but I agree, they last for 2000 years and BIRTH the End Times Troubles spoken of by Daniel.
    That's how I used to look at it, but no longer. I see the majority of signs leading up to the AoD as preparatory for the AoD, which was the 66-70 AD war. Some of these initial signs continue on throughout the Church age, such as the preaching of the gospel and the tribulation of the Jews in their Diaspora. But the "birth pains" had to do with the 70 AD destruction of the temple, I believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    These verses actually have nothing to do with the Temple's destruction, however I agree, the Church Age began when the Holy Spirit was given to the Disciples, and even though Jesus has already told about the false christs the Pharisees would try and put forth to "SAVE THEMSELVES" from the Romans/Fourth Beast, these false teachers/preachers and Rabbis mentioned in verse 11 are about the 2000 year Church Age period/Jewish Diaspora, not the temple per se. And this was about the Disciples fate or being Martyred, but verse 11 is about the 2000 years of Christendom and the Jews being lied to for 2000 years, and heeding those lies. The ones that ENDURE until the end [of one's life] will be saved, then when the Gospel is Preached unto ALL THE WORLD, the End will come [End time tribulation period].
    The Great Tribulation period follows, I believe, the initial signs that lead up to the AoD, the destruction of the temple. The Great Tribulation consists of a. the Jewish deportation from the Promised Land, and b. the Jewish Christians suffering from both the Jewish Diaspora and the persecution of unbelievers. Since this prediction preceded the birth of the Church, the focus was initially on Israel. Later, the concept of Christian suffering can be applied to Christians among other peoples as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    This is an END TIME EVENT, it has nothing to do with 70 AD. The Gospel has to be preached unto all the world first should tell you this !! The Anti-Christ/Little Horn will Conquer Jerusalem, thus he will rule for 42 Months.
    The AoD can be nothing else, we are told about it in Daniel 12 as an end time event when the Saints are RAISED UP, at the end. Rev. 12 tells us the same thing as does Matt. 24.
    I disagree. The main purpose of the Discourse was to predict the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles! The preaching of the gospel was to *begin* in the generation of the apostles, but would continue on until the end of the age. The AoD was fulfilled, however, in the 1st generation of the Church. That was the purpose of the Discourse. Answering questions about the 2nd Coming was secondary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    Nothing is cut short in the way you are thinking. All it means is that God's original plan of 7 Years, 1260 days of Peace followed by 1260 days of Judgment, is designed to get Israel to Repent during this he 70th Week, then to bring Judgment upon this evil world, then Jesus returns (and thus cuts the Anti-Christs rule out) and TAKES OVER after the Beast has ruled 1260 days, nothing is cut short as per the Prophecies we have been given, God's PROPHETIC PLANS cuts short the plans of the Beast who would kill every Jew if allowed to stay in power longer than his 1260 Days !! God being ALL KNOWING, knew this and PLANNED AHEAD, only giving him 1260 days, not 2000 days !!
    In my view, a very long tribulation period for the Jewish People is finally cut short, before the Jews are exterminated from history. This takes place when Christ returns to save the Jews from extinction. I don't believe that Daniel's 70th Week is fulfilled at the end of the age. Rather, it was fulfilled in the time of Christ's earthly ministry. Therefore, there are no twin periods of 3.5 years each in the book of Revelation. They are all the same 3.5 year reign of Antichrist, prior to Christ's 2nd Coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    This is speaking about the END TIMES, and about THE Anti-Christ and False Prophet. The CARCASS means the Church is at Armageddon.
    Though I don't really go for "dual prophecy" I do think Jesus' used his 2nd Coming by analogy of what would happen in his own generation. As the 2nd Coming would be, so it would happen in "this generation." Thus, if Christ's 2nd Coming is to bring sudden, unexpected judgment, so sudden, unexpected judgment will come upon the Jews in his own generation. And sudden, unexpected judgment did come in his own generation, in 70 AD, when Jerusalem fell to the Romans. It was certainly like a gathering of eagles to a carcass!

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    This is speaking about the END TIME PERIOD.
    That's exactly what I said, that the darkening of the heavenly bodies represents the termination of time in the age, since the heavenly bodies were created as measures of time in history. It is, indeed, the end of the age, when the Son of Man descends from heaven, to bring judgment to the earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    The Christians are in Heaven with Christ and thus must return from Heaven after the Marriage. The Jews who repent are in Petra.
    The believing Jews were in Petra at the time of the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. In the endtimes Christ will return *with* his Church to establish Christian judgment upon the earth. I'm Postrib, however. I do believe Christians will suffer through the reign of Antichrist. I believe God preserved the believing Jews at the beginning of the Christian mission to preserve the agents who kicked off that mission. But at the end of the age, Christians will suffer under the reign of Antichrist, and will have to endure the best they can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revelation Man
    THIS GENERATION means those that see the last Signs, because ONLY THOSE can have lived through every sign via having knowledge or being a WITNESS to all the signs.
    I believe "this generation" refers to the generation of Jesus and his apostles, ie those alive in the same time they are alive. It was at the extreme end of this generation that judgment fell upon Jerusalem in 70 AD.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,871
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Jesus indeed has only one Throne. But the difference is what he does at the end of the MK. For then he SITS in final judgment in contrast to the period of the millennium.
    It is indeed Final Judgement at the END.
    However He also sits in judgement at the START.

    Two judgements occur at the START - the first is our works are burned up, and only the gold remains. If you prefer the parable of the servants, then that is fine too. The second is the judgement of the nations based upon HOW they treated Jesus' brothers, as read in Matt 25.

    The SIMPLE truth is that 2 Peter 3 also mentions this time and you have to decide upon three choices:
    1) The view I present which has the NHNE starting with Jesus' return and the change happening then.
    2) The view of the PostMil which also has the NHNE start with Jesus' return, but they have His final judgement also at that time.
    3) The view DurbanDude presents which is TWO NHNEs.

    The 4 which is what you are clinging to, doesn't actually fit with scripture. It is a compromise for PreMil who throw out the PostMil baby with the bath water.
    Isaiah 65 IS very clearly an NHNE and I challenge you to state WHEN that NHNE starts according to Isaiah.
    Your evasion has been it is general prophecy - which doesn't mean anything. It is like those who claim it is symbolism. A prophecy has a meaning and so the question is what is the MEANING that we need to give to the prophecy.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,871
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Yes, reading the Church Fathers and reading the Olivet Discourse is difficult, if we try to relate every detail. The Church Fathers were obviously not trying to answer questions we have today, and did not address issues as if they were. Quite simply put, if we read between the lines I find that the Church Fathers generally saw the 70 Weeks as being completed in the earthly ministry of Jesus. The 70 AD event was to *follow* the completion of the 70 Weeks prophecy. In other words, the 70 Weeks prophecy was completed at the death of Christ. The prophecy of the AoD *followed!*
    When you read "between the lines" you can insert whatever you want.
    Please state WHICH ECF stated the 70 weeks was completed at the death of Jesus? Not a SINGLE ECF you quoted has said that.
    ONLY one had the middle of the 70 weeks as being the death of Jesus, and then put the other half as 70 AD.
    The rest EITHER had Jesus connected with the AFTER 62 weeks, OR simply connected with 70 AD.
    Your claim doesn't match what your quotes say.

    I agree that the GT is the NT Jewish Diaspora. But I do believe this includes the Jewish church. The Jewish believers in particular suffered as believers, rejected by their Jewish brethren, and also by the pagan nations. But the Jewish People as a whole suffered deportation from their land and inheritance.
    I don;t agree the GT is the Jewish Diaspora. That is simply the GD. Two different words which do NOT have the SAME meaning. You will have Distress when you face Tribulation, and when you are Distressed you can feel you are undergoing Tribulation. However they are TWO separate things.
    It is IMMATERIAL if it affects the Jewish Church IF the reason it affects them is because they are Jews.
    It still remains that ONLY Jews are affected by the GD, NOT a SINGLE Gentile was distressed because of the Jewish Diaspora.

    You CANNOT transfer meaning as you try to, simply because one group is in two camps, it does NOT make the two camps the same.
    A Venn diagram should help you if you draw two circles, one of Jews and one of Gentiles, they do NOT overlap at all.
    Then draw a third circle which goes into part of the Jewish circle and partly into the Gentile circle and call it Christians.
    If the GD is against Jews then it ONLY affects those in the Jewish circle.
    If the GT is against Christians then it affects those in BOTH circles.

    You want to claim the GD, which is spoken of affecting Jews as actually a GT affecting all Christians, yet also being a GD affecting Jews who are NOT Christians.
    Logic shows you are wrong.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Outside of the box. Where else?
    Posts
    17,749

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The main purpose of the Discourse was to predict the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles!

    Let's test this against the texts involved.


    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.
    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.

    All of the above have absolutely zero to do with the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles. The destruction of the temple can't be found anywhere in the contexts above. So far we have at least 11 verses having nothing to do with the destruction of the temple, yet you are claiming.."The main purpose of the Discourse was to predict the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles!"

    Since it is debatable as to whether or not Matthew 24:15-22 have to do with the destruction of the temple, and even if it does, though this is not meaning I'm agreeing it does, that would be only 7 verses thusfar that might have to do with the destruction of the temple, meaning since verse 4.


    Instead of me pasting all of the verses left, there is then Matthew 24:23-51 to consider. That's around 28 verses, and not a single one of these have to do with the destruction of the temple either.

    So from verse 4 to verse 51, only 7 of those verses might possibly be connected with the destruction of the temple. That leaves 39 that aren't about the destruction of the temple. You therefore would have us to believe, that even though only 7 verses might possibly have to do with the destruction of the temple, and that 39 verses wouldn't, this somehow equals..."The main purpose of the Discourse was to predict the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles!" That sounds somewhat unreasonable, given that the math clearly proves otherwise.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    8,871
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by divaD View Post
    So from verse 4 to verse 51, only 7 of those verses might possibly be connected with the destruction of the temple. That leaves 39 that aren't about the destruction of the temple. You therefore would have us to believe, that even though only 7 verses might possibly have to do with the destruction of the temple, and that 39 verses wouldn't, this somehow equals..."The main purpose of the Discourse was to predict the destruction of the temple in the generation of the apostles!" That sounds somewhat unreasonable, given that the math clearly proves otherwise.
    I highlighted a similar thing on another thread before where I used Luke, which is the one which speaks the most about the temple's destruction:
    Luk 21:5* And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said,*
    Luk 21:6* “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”*
    Luk 21:7* And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”*
    Luk 21:8* And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.*
    Luk 21:9* And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified, for these things must first take place, but the end will not be at once.”*
    Luk 21:10* Then he said to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.*
    Luk 21:11* There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.*
    Luk 21:12* But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake.*
    Luk 21:13* This will be your opportunity to bear witness.*
    Luk 21:14* Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer,*
    Luk 21:15* for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.*
    Luk 21:16* You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death.*
    Luk 21:17* You will be hated by all for my name's sake.*
    Luk 21:18* But not a hair of your head will perish.*
    Luk 21:19* By your endurance you will gain your lives.

    Here are 15 verses and directly only 1 verse is about that destruction (v 6) and indirectly 2 verses (v 5 and 7)
    Then we have 5 verses 21:20 - 24 which are about that event.

    Then we have verses 25 - 36 of which randyk claims verse 32 is about that event, though none of the verses around it are.
    So going by randyk's counting we have a maximum of 9 verses out of 32 or less than one third.
    There is far more in Luke about the persecution believers will face and the tumult that will occur on the earth and His return.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,244

    Re: Brief commentary on Matt 24

    Quote Originally Posted by ForHisglory View Post
    When you read "between the lines" you can insert whatever you want.
    Please state WHICH ECF stated the 70 weeks was completed at the death of Jesus? Not a SINGLE ECF you quoted has said that.
    ONLY one had the middle of the 70 weeks as being the death of Jesus, and then put the other half as 70 AD.
    The rest EITHER had Jesus connected with the AFTER 62 weeks, OR simply connected with 70 AD.
    Your claim doesn't match what your quotes say.


    I don;t agree the GT is the Jewish Diaspora. That is simply the GD. Two different words which do NOT have the SAME meaning. You will have Distress when you face Tribulation, and when you are Distressed you can feel you are undergoing Tribulation. However they are TWO separate things.
    It is IMMATERIAL if it affects the Jewish Church IF the reason it affects them is because they are Jews.
    It still remains that ONLY Jews are affected by the GD, NOT a SINGLE Gentile was distressed because of the Jewish Diaspora.

    You CANNOT transfer meaning as you try to, simply because one group is in two camps, it does NOT make the two camps the same.
    A Venn diagram should help you if you draw two circles, one of Jews and one of Gentiles, they do NOT overlap at all.
    Then draw a third circle which goes into part of the Jewish circle and partly into the Gentile circle and call it Christians.
    If the GD is against Jews then it ONLY affects those in the Jewish circle.
    If the GT is against Christians then it affects those in BOTH circles.

    You want to claim the GD, which is spoken of affecting Jews as actually a GT affecting all Christians, yet also being a GD affecting Jews who are NOT Christians.
    Logic shows you are wrong.
    I will quote my sources again, following this post, which are certainly not exhaustive. They are just quick references. But they are sufficient to prove my point, that there is this connection between the 70th Week of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse of Jesus. Jesus not only made an explicit reference to it, but he interpreted it. He made himself to be the Messiah of the 70th Week, to be followed by the AoD within his own generation, following his death.

    As to your claim that I'm "illogical," I would say you're not representing my position properly. I'm saying that the Great Tribulation is synonymous with the Great Distress--they mean the same thing. They're synonyms. And they represent a specifically *Jewish* Tribulation, a deportation from the Promised Land following a siege by the Romans in 70 AD.

    This developing Jewish Diaspora was to last throughout the entire NT age until the return of Christ, and would be the worst in history for *duration.* That is, it would be the *longest* Jewish tribulation in all of their history. It would have to be "cut short" to preserve the Jews from extermination, or extinction.

    Inasmuch as this was a *Jewish* Tribulation it affects all Jews, believers and unbelievers. All would be deported from the Promised Land. But the Christians would suffer a unique kind of tribulation, including persecution from their fellow Jews as well as persecution from pagan Gentiles.

    This was a *Jewish prophecy,* and related primarily to the Jews. However, in principle the prophecy speaks to Christians everywhere who go through the same kind of experience within their own nations. The prophecy wasn't directly dealing with Gentile Christians, but it is a teaching that certainly instructs Christians from all nations.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    We know the Church Fathers focused on Daniel's 70 Weeks. And we know they related this to the Olivet Discourse. We know that because Jesus, in his Olivet Discourse, related the 70 Weeks prophecy to himself and to the fall of Jerusalem in his own generation.


    Irenaeus (180 AD) quotes Matthew 24.15 and discusses the Antichrist, and links him to Daniel 9:27 stating:
    Against Heresies Book 5.25.4
    “And then he [Daniel] points out the time that his [Antichrist’s] tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.”




    Clement of Alexandria (150-215) views Daniel's 70th Week as the actual setting for the reign of Nero and the AoD, which of course was right after the time of Christ. Again, there is this connection between Daniel's 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse, in which Jerusalem is desolated in the generation of Christ. Unlike Irenaeus, the AoD is not viewed as the Antichrist, but rather as the historic desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, both Irenaeus and Clement saw the connection between the AoD of Daniel's 70th Week and the AoD of the Olivet Discourse.

    Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 1, chapter 21 http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ata-book1.html
    In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.




    Origen also referred to the 70 Weeks of Daniel, and in accord with the Olivet Discourse saw it completely fulfilled in the time of Christ.


    Origen (184-253)
    DE PRINCIPIIS
    BOOK IV.1.5
    "And according to Daniel, seventy weeks were fulfilled until (the coming of) Christ the Ruler."




    Tertullian also looks at Daniel's 70 Weeks, and sees them, like the Olivet Discourse, completed in the time of Christ, ie in the literal generation of Christ, when Jerusalem was devastated by the Romans.


    http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian08.html
    Tertullian (155-240)
    AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS.
    CHAP. VIII.--OF THE TIMES OF CHRIST'S BIRTH AND PASSION, AND OF JERUSALEM'S DESTRUCTION.


    "Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin." And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His.
    ...Vespasian, in the first year of his empire, subdues the Jews in war; and there are made lii years, vi months. For he reigned xi years. And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the lxx hebdomads predicted in Daniel."




    The following are extracts from Sextes Julius Africanus, which also refers to the 70 Weeks of Daniel, as related to the earthly ministry of Christ, which is how Jesus related it in his Olivet Discourse.


    https://www.biblestudytools.com/hist...africanus.html
    Sextes Julius Africanus (180-250)
    The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus.16


    "It is by calculating from Artaxerxes, therefore, up to the time of Christ that the seventy weeks are made up, according to the numeration of the Jews."


    I'm connecting the dots, which we must do if these Church Fathers are not dealing with the same questions we're now trying to answer. It isn't a matter of just filling in the blanks with whatever position we want to hold. Rather, it is common sense.


    These Church Fathers focused on the 70 Weeks of Daniel, and connected it to the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, whether this is by seeing it as fulfilled in the time of Jesus or by comparing the AoD of the 70 Weeks prophecy with the AoD of Jesus' prophecy.


    There is an obvious connection these Church Fathers are making between the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse of Jesus because elements of both are dealt with together, and all see the 70th Week fulfilled with Jesus' earthly ministry.


    My point is that we must see the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel together with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus, in which Jesus saw himself fulfilling the 70th Week, to be followed by a destruction of Jerusalem in his own generation.

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
  •