A Case for futurism: Mt. 24:15 & Daniel 9:24-27

[Guest]

Sean,

I’m not quite sure where you are going by focusing on apparent contradictions. Are you pointing out that there are contradictions, therefore, Luke 21 doesn’t have to line up exactly to be synoptic? So far, I’ve only ever found apparent contradictions. Eventually an answer comes with further reflection, study and prayer.

For what its worth, there is a simple answer to your apparent contradiction. It’s not either or as you frequently put questions. It’s neither.

But it's you that made it either or by stating that Luke 21 may not be synoptic. In that sense it's either/or. Either the AOD is parallel or it's not. My point was to show that apparent contradictions can be resolved, just as you pointed out as well. The point being that just because their is a difference in language from one Gospel to another doesn't mean it's not the same event. As I pointed out, lining up the 3 Gospels, they are speaking about the same event. And it seems that Luke is the least veiled. As for Mark keeping with Matthew, what's wrong with that? I mean, if Matthew was all alone in the AOD passage, I don't think it would affect you view anyway.

Regarding your question on veiling His meaning. Sure. The Holy Spirit reveals as we are receptive to his teaching. This is the very purpose of parables and the whole reason why Jesus employed them.

My point was in response to your earlier claim that Matthew and Mark were given privately and Luke was public, making the former the "clearer". Like an explanation of a parable. Yet the fact that those two gospels say "let the reader understand" and Luke does not but actually makes a clearer statement argues for Luke being the clearest of the three.

The disciples on the other hand, at the end were sifted and didn’t understand the nature of the kingdom; the parenthesis that would become the Church Age.

You stated that you were not dispensational, yet you refer to the Church as a "parenthesis" age. This is a clearly dispensational idea, as well as the view of a 7 year tribulation coming from the final week of Daniel 9. Please explain how the Church is not the fulfillment of OT prophecy (As stated in Acts 3) but a "parenthesis".

Well, who do you think Mark was written to? Why does the end of Mark have a centurion declaring that Jesus the Son of God? Peter taught extensively in Rome and Mark recorded what he taught. Their audiences were the same audiences and yet Mark still uses the phrase “let the reader understand”.

And that's why Mark says "In saying this He declared all food clean" and I don't think the other gospels record this, but Mark does. My point is they are inconsistent, but that does not mean as in Luke 21, that they are not speaking of the same event, just because the wording is different and different explanations are given.

So what is obviously obsolete according to Hebrews 8-12 is not abolished, but fulfilled. I believe God still has plans for the physical offspring of Abraham just as He does the spiritual offspring. The covenant He made with Abe was unconditional and I don’t see that it has been fulfilled physically. And I know preterists don’t see it that way.

You believing that God still has plans is exactly the point that drives your interpretation. In your opening post you said lets exegete. Yet now you say that you can't interpret the OT prophecy like the apostles did because they only saw then spiritually fulfilled, leaving what you say must be yet a future physical/literal fulfillment. All I can say is that you are free to feel that way. But I can only follow the lead of the apostles. They saw these as fulfilled, not stating a yet another future fulfillment. They are fulfilled in the Church, the body of Christ. Made of both Jew and Gentile. The two are both one in Christ. And Paul said "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abrahams seed". He didn't say spiritually now but some day physically to non-Chistian fleshly descendands of Abraham.

Yet, these views still do not meet the logic test. Daniel’s 70 Seven clearly lay out a series of events each being fulfilled literally and physically. I understand and agree that some, not all Old Testament passages alluding to “millennial” and “end times/last days” were perceived to be spiritually fulfilled in the First Century. But this does not preclude them from being literally and physically fulfilled. The pattern, as I’ve pointed out, is the Christian life. We live a spiritual reality now. We know in part now. We have the down payment of the Holy Spirit now. In the future the spiritual reality will be a literal and physical reality.

So, yes, we can see spiritual fulfillemts in Daniel’s 6 promises of 9:24. But that does not preclude them from having a physical fulfillment. In fact, language mechanics require a physical fulfillment. God designed logic, I didn’t. If a series of events result in literal, physical fulfillments, then there is no other choice for there to be a physical fulfillment. God’s Word is coherent. It doesn’t require glossing over apparent contradictions. There are plain and reasonable answers.

I believe God has something to say to use specifically regarding these issues. And we should be talking about passages that are on the topic of the end times and are clear and details and provide some order and sequence. Did you know that both Matthew 24 and Daniel 9:24-27 are two such passages? There are only a precious few like them in the Bible.

Regarding the timing of the 70 Sevens you mentioned earlier. Do you dispute the 445/444 BC date for the declaration? In solar years the first 69 Sevens end around 39 AD. And Seven more to complete the 70 Sevens end around 46 AD. Seems to be off for Preterist. If you compensate for the lunar calendar that the Jews used, you shave off 7 years for the first 69 Sevens and end up at 32 AD. That works for when the Messiah was to be cut-off “after” the 69 Sevens. But the Jerusalem 70 AD destruction is in the future. Do preterists need a Gap or do they work backwards from what they already want to prove to be true? Let’s see:
70 AD subtract 490 solar years = 420 BC
70 AD subtract 483 (490 Jewish lunar years) = 413 BC
The 444/445 BC is accepted by all scholars that I know of. Or is there a special group of scholars that find a 420 or 413 BC date? I bet there is just as the book of Revelation just has to be written before 70 AD, because it just has to. Preterists make claim to internal evidence. But when that same method of “internal evidence” points in a non-preterist direction, it gets ignored or sidelined. Internal evidence from Luke is even more clear in pointing towards a separate earlier Temple Discourse than there is internal evidence in pointing to an early date for Revelation. Preterists claim that John would have written about 70 AD if Revelation was post-70AD. That’s another fallacious statement! The logic does not follow, nor does it align with the internal evidence. John wrote what Jesus told him to write, not what John wanted to write. The idea that John should have said something about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD in the book of Revelation is just plain silly.

Why don’t we discuss the “this generation” passages in Matthew in a new topic? Some people claim that Jesus would be a liar if he didn’t mean what they want him to have meant. I think there’s better answers from a first century Hebrew perspective. What do you think?

The final week of Daniel was fulfilled literally. The Messiah confirmed the covenant, and was cut-off (killed) but not for Himself. The destruction is not said to occur during the final week, but afterward. On the wing of Abominations will come one who makes desolate. Their were "Abominations" that began in the 70th week. Namely, the killing of the Messiah. These abominations continued until "the end", namely the destruction of the apostate Jews and defunct temple.

[Guest]

I also believe that you shouldn't seperate the 70 sevens. It doesn't make sense to do so unless your trying to make it fit into a futurist view.

Daniel 9:26 states: After the sixty-two sevens the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood. War will continue until the end and desolations have been decreed.

It seems to me that all of this happens after the 62 sevens with no set time frame as to when this will occur. I do tend to agree that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary happened in 70 AD.

In Daniel 9:27 we read: He wil confirm a covenant with many for one seven. In the middle of the seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.

This was done with the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ.

I have trouble with the last part of verse 27.

And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is pured out on him.

I would appreciate your views on this last part of verse 27

[Guest]

Jazik,
Futurism is a result of the sequential logic of the passage, not the other way around.
After 69 Sevens it says three things will happen:

1) Anointed One cut off / have nothing (32 AD)
2) Romans come to destroy city and Temple (70 AD) End like a flood (military invasion)
3) Wars will CONTINUE

I already see a Gap occurring.

Regarding the 70th Seven, I can understand how the language could be disturbing if you believe Jesus is the one doing this:

“And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." Daniel 9:27

Why would Jesus tell us to flee something that he is fulfilling?

Did Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? He started a new covenant but He never strengthened an existing covenant for seven years.

Only Luke explains the GAP as the Time of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24). It’s Jesus public proclamation to Israel that they will be withered just as He withered the fig tree a few days earlier (Mark 11:12-14). He came as king on a donkey but Israel had not fruit to go with the “leaves”. Mark records that Jesus actually went directly to the Temple that day (Mark 11:11). There was no national repentance. The six things of Daniel 9:24 were still “wanting”. It is no mistake that Jesus uses the very term Fig Tree a couple of days later in Luke 21:29 and then Matt. 24:32/ Mark 13:28 to show how we are to recognize the very times He is speaking about. Rather than withering, it will be budding and growing leaves again. This sign is applicable to all, Israel and the Christians (physical and spiritual offspring of Abraham).

Futurism is the outcome of understanding Daniel 9:24-27 and Matthew 24:15 in its natural, most usual, plain sense meaning.

[Guest]

I have trouble with the last part of verse 27.

And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is pured out on him.

I would appreciate your views on this last part of verse 27

It helps to read the septuagint version, the one Jesus quoted from:

"And one week shall establish the covenant with many; and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drinkoffering shall be taken away; and upon the temple shall be the abomination of desolation; and at the end of the time (the age) an end shall be put to the desolation."

Jesus talked about the end of the age, describing "great tribulation" and Luke says: "There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people."

The end is the complete desolation of Jerusalem. Unlike Steve, I take Luke's statement of "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." as parallel to Revelation 11:1

"I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

...and fulfilled literally in 42 months (3.5 years) meaning the Jewish war ending in 70AD. Although I can sometimes lean to the view that the "times of the Gentiles" is the Church age but I'm not so sure. I don't view the Church age as a "Gentile" age but a "Messianic" age.

[Guest]

3) Wars will CONTINUE

I already see a Gap occurring.

Did Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? He started a new covenant but He never strengthened an existing covenant for seven years.

In the Septuagint, it talks about the war coming to an end.

Also, the covenant isn't made for one week. It's stating that the "one week" is the week the covenant will me confirmed. Meaning the last week, the final "seven" is the time period the covenant is confirmed. That's exactly when it happened, during the final "seven" of the seventy weeks.

Think about the futurist view. The antichrist comes to the Jews and says "I'll make a covenant with you for 7 years". Why would they make such a short covenant? Notice that even in the futurist view, the antichrist breaks the covenant ofter 3.5 years, meaning it wasn't a seven year covenant anyway, no matter how you cut it.

Regarding the 70th Seven, I can understand how the language could be disturbing if you believe Jesus is the one doing this:

“And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." Daniel 9:27

Why would Jesus tell us to flee something that he is fulfilling?

I think Rev 6:16 answers that:

They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!

Who's wrath is it? On who?

It sounds just like Luke 23:28:

"Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30 Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"
and to the hills, "Cover us!" '31 For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?"


I would recommend a book called "Seventy Weeks and The Great Tribulation" by Philip Mauro. It's free on line at: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/MAURO4.HTM

Read this page about the "one week" covenant. He sums it up well here: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/MAURO4-6.HTM

[Guest]

Sean,

My opinion is that you want to see Luke 21 as a parallel to Matthew 24 and Mark 13 and that because of a predetermined idea, you’re unwilling to consider that they are not because of the impact on your core position. To do so you must assume:

1) Even though Luke was meticulous in his investigation, he failed to mention something as obvious as a private teaching.

2) He “mindlessly” adds that Jesus taught in the Temple during the day just after Jesus had taught about and in the very context of the Temple just for the sake of giving a wrong impression since he omitted the fact that they were no longer in the Temple venue.

3) That Jesus’ words have been incorrectly transmitted in one of these texts. I don’t mean abbreviated or paraphrased as Peter did on some occasions and then the opposite in others when he provided quotes directly in Aramaic. I mean, that when Jesus spoke of the AOD or times of unequalled distress (also referred to by Jesus in Daniel in chp 9 and 12) that the clear meaning wasn’t such exaggerated. Jesus and Daniel must have exaggerated.
a. The time of distress was no different that that at the hands of Nebuchaddnezzar’s triple attack – in fact, his lingered longer. Daniel knew how bad king Nebbie’s was, for he apparently was castrated at a youth in the first attack. No one can really say which was worse or weather the 430 years of captivity in Egypt was worse. Presterists assumption are subjective at best … again pointing to a bias. On the other hand a case could be made for the holocaust to have been far worse of a trouble for Jacob’s children than any other these.
b. AOD and the desolation of Jerusalem are two different things. Again, bias assumes they are equal rather than logic. Jesus said when you see the AOD standing where it ought not…then flee. Well, hey, if they waited for that they would have all been dead. Besides no one really knows whether the Romans actually took time or even cared to set up an AOD. Why? History records they were more interested in the hidden gold than anything else. They burned the place to the ground to melt the precious metals.
c. The Romans nor their army were an AOD. They had been present since 63 BC. And seeing the Roman armies standing around the city and some how understanding that this means an abomination standing where it ought not is equivalent makes no sense. Only bias allows you to gloss over the language.

4) The 70 Sevens that Jesus point to are about reconciliation with Israel (Dan’s people and the holy city) and Preterists turn that upside down and make it Christ’s wrath.

About dispensationalism: sorry poor choice of words. The church age as we men call it today will one day blossom/mature into a literal Millennium that I believe the Bible teaches regardless of labels for -isms. The “Church Age” as the Bride of Christ goes on forever with Israel finally grafted back in towards the end of the 70th Seven. There’s only one destiny for the redeemed. God will fulfill his design intent for mankind. We will exist with Him forever in the same intimate manor He walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day in the Garden of Eden. But I won’t deny that God still has unfinished business with Israel, which of course, can sound Dispensational. But yet change the facts resulting from Genesis 12-17. Unlike Dispies, I don’t see a radical difference between Israel and the Church – I see the Bride of Christ (Rev. 22:17). Christ is Jewish so in a sense it is the Church Age that is being grafted into Israel aligning with what Paul said in Ro. 11. So I do not believe we have inherited and become Israel, rather we are being grafted into Israel as branches of a larger tree and trunk. It’s a distinction that allows for the resurgence of literal Israel. However, the Jews still need to come to Yeshua (Jesus) to be part of the “tree”.

We do have an exegesis barrier to overcome. I have described (above) regarding the logic of sequence and comparison between Luke 21 and Matt 24/Mark 13. I’ve already explained, I guess it was in a different dialog) that it is the natural logic of the 70 Seven that results in a futuristic understanding, for even today. Clearly, you’re hermeneutical method allows for a healthy dose of spiritualization such as the literal promises given to Abe in Genesis 12-17. Steve Gregg has already given a list in the Zech 14 dialog that I looked over and responded to. I don’t need to write off sloppy communication to keep Prewrath consistent. Preterism, like Pretrib or Posttrib work off the wrong foundation. Not every one can be right.
The crux of the argument is order and sequence. If you really want to know how to get there, you first have to find the passages in the Bible that are:

1) On the topic of the End Times (that will weed out most, even 1 Cor 15:52 and James 5, because they are on other topics.
2) Have order and sequence
3) Clear and detailed.

Once you’ve found these core passages you should EXPECT them to corroborate and coordinate. If God’s Word is coherent and He has something to say, then by definition, these will align and parallel. Simple and plain. There are only 6 sections of Scripture that I have found to fit these qualifications.

In an effort to keep our bias minimized you simply find common points of connection. Jesus provides the example in Matthew 24:15. If you follow this and let the parallels be what they are and not redefine them, you will get a coherent picture of the End Times. It’s just there. That’s what my book is all about: the process and the results.

Our dialog is a perfect example of what I’ve pointed out in my book. We’re both talking about the Bible but we both can’t be right. So the problem is us. Hence the need to remove “us” as much as possible from the process. My book is written more towards a futurist audience because that is the result of the picture I discovered by doing what I described above. I don’t really see our conversation going any further unless we can agree on fundament logic and how it is recognized in the Bible and the points I’ve made earlier.

If you’d like to read it and find out more about why I say what I say and how I get there by taking this subject to the foundation you can get it off Amazon or from the publisher who includes free shipping: http://www.strongtowerpublishing.com/architecture.htm

[Guest]

Sean,

My opinion is that you want to see Luke 21 as a parallel to Matthew 24 and Mark 13 and that because of a predetermined idea, you’re unwilling to consider that they are not because of the impact on your core position. To do so you must assume:

Actually, Luke 21 doesn't even need to be considered to make the point. Matthew 24 and Daniel 9 are about the same event. You have spent a great deal of effort though, trying to debunk Luke's version though.

I just take it as parallel because I see no compelling reason that it isn't. They are both speaking about Judea and escaping from Judea into the mountains because of distress, wrath, tribulation, etc. Unless there is another hidden gap that needs to be brought to the text, so that this past event can be pressed into the future, I don't see why the distress of "Judea" would not have been fulfilled. Especially when we know that it happened during the Jewish war, resulting in the Jews being dispersed throughout the world and no temple for almost 2,000 years!

1) Even though Luke was meticulous in his investigation, he failed to mention something as obvious as a private teaching.

That's why I talked about apparent contradictions in the Bible. Just because all the information isn't present, doesn't mean it's a different event. We both agree, until we look at Luke. It can be a different event, but it's an argument from silence to say that since Luke didn't record a phrase or two, it must be a different discorse (Look how short Mark's is). Which, of course doesn't seem to help the discussion either way. If Jesus did speak it publically, it doesn't mean it's a different event, that's your presupposition. For you to say that since details are missing so it must be a different event, is an assumption. Even you must admit that. So it seems like your going down a slippery slope.

2) He “mindlessly” adds that Jesus taught in the Temple during the day just after Jesus had taught about and in the very context of the Temple just for the sake of giving a wrong impression since he omitted the fact that they were no longer in the Temple venue.

Actually, He stated that Jesus taught in the temple, period. For you to attach it to the previous verses is an assumption, since it doesn't say that that particular discourse was uttered at the temple. We should exegete and only take out what the text says, right?

3) That Jesus’ words have been incorrectly transmitted in one of these texts. I don’t mean abbreviated or paraphrased as Peter did on some occasions and then the opposite in others when he provided quotes directly in Aramaic. I mean, that when Jesus spoke of the AOD or times of unequalled distress (also referred to by Jesus in Daniel in chp 9 and 12) that the clear meaning wasn’t such exaggerated. Jesus and Daniel must have exaggerated.

Are you saying you know what the AOD is? Can you show me by exegesis of Daniel 9 and Matthew 24 alone what the AOD is exactly? Please quote scripture to make your case.

a. The time of distress was no different that that at the hands of Nebuchaddnezzar’s triple attack – in fact, his lingered longer. Daniel knew how bad king Nebbie’s was, for he apparently was castrated at a youth in the first attack. No one can really say which was worse or weather the 430 years of captivity in Egypt was worse. Presterists assumption are subjective at best … again pointing to a bias. On the other hand a case could be made for the holocaust to have been far worse of a trouble for Jacob’s children than any other these.

What were you saying here? Are you saying that since it didn't happen the way you thought it should have (70AD) it can't be the fulfillment. Again a presupposition. They you follow that up with a caricature about Preterists.
Why don't you make your case Biblically, lay it out without taking pot-shots at the whole of Preterists. I would agree with this part though "assumption are subjective at best … again pointing to a bias."

I made may points in previous posts and you have responded the very few of them. I was hoping for a more exegetical debate.

b. AOD and the desolation of Jerusalem are two different things. Again, bias assumes they are equal rather than logic. Jesus said when you see the AOD standing where it ought not…then flee. Well, hey, if they waited for that they would have all been dead. Besides no one really knows whether the Romans actually took time or even cared to set up an AOD. Why? History records they were more interested in the hidden gold than anything else. They burned the place to the ground to melt the precious metals.

I guess it all depends on what the AOD is. Show me from Daniel 9 and Matthew 24 alone what the AOD is. The rest is speculation, we both can do that. The one thing I know for sure is that once it happends then those who are in Judea should flee to the mountians (just like Luke said too). So even if the AOD is different in Matthew than Luke, they are still both speaking about those in Judea fleeing once they see "it".

c. The Romans nor their army were an AOD. They had been present since 63 BC. And seeing the Roman armies standing around the city and some how understanding that this means an abomination standing where it ought not is equivalent makes no sense. Only bias allows you to gloss over the language.

You said "The Romans nor their army were an AOD" and "Only bias allows you to gloss over the language."

Well, again you've got your mind made up. Please show me from Daniel 9 and Matthew 24 what you think the AOD is.

Actually Matthew says "standing in the holy place".

4) The 70 Sevens that Jesus point to are about reconciliation with Israel (Dan’s people and the holy city) and Preterists turn that upside down and make it Christ’s wrath.

"Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. "

That's what they are about. I've already stated that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD does not have to fit into the 70 weeks because (listed above) only 6 specific things were said to occur within this time frame. So now you are misrepresenting my case. Earlier, I posted the six things predicted to occur and the new testament's case that they have been fulfilled. Please show me where I said "Christ's wrath" occurs in the 70 weeks, or said that's what the 70 weeks are about and I'll correct it.

We do have an exegesis barrier to overcome. I have described (above) regarding the logic of sequence and comparison between Luke 21 and Matt 24/Mark 13. I’ve already explained, I guess it was in a different dialog) that it is the natural logic of the 70 Seven that results in a futuristic understanding, for even today.

Honestly, I'm still waiting to be convinced

Clearly, you’re hermeneutical method allows for a healthy dose of spiritualization such as the literal promises given to Abe in Genesis 12-17.

I'm puzzled about this one.

Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.

I'll go with Paul on this one.

Those literal promises don't go to physical Jerusalem (Gal 4:22-31, Rom 11:1-2) They go only to those circumcised by the Spirit of God by faith, not to the physical descendants. This group is called "Christians" and constitute the Church (Eph 1-3) and consist of both Jew and Gentile.

[Guest]

Cameron,

You should go over to http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/index.php? and debate. There are many preterists there. I just don't have a whole lot of time to debate. But over at theologyweb, there are more people and they have more time. You might enjoy it more than just talking to me.

[Guest]

Sean,
Thanks for the tip. I’ll check it out. But like you I’m of limited time but I have definitely enjoyed our discussion and look forward to more interactions in other topics. The great thing about being Christians is we can debate this and still grill burgers in the BBQ.

I did want to make one final response to your items.

Yes they are all about Judea – no they are not directed at the same people. The private Olivet Discourse is directed to “you” the disciples (actually 4 men), the core of the Christian Church. Daniel 9 is for Dan’s people and Jerusalem. If “you” means these four men only then that is hyper-literal. If “you” refers to Israel, then that’s a total read-in to Matt 24 and Mark 13 because that equation is not explicit to the texts. If “you” refers to the Christian Church (in the Mat 28:19-20 tense) then it must mean all the Church to today unless you are willing to suggest the Great Commission was over in 70AD. Of these options, the most natural understanding is the Church in extension. So it is Jesus who is connecting Daniel 9 to Matthew 24 on the point of the AOD.

Living Greeks and Jews of the area were no doubt aware of the previous AOD that occurred in 168 AD or so with Antichious Epiphanes. So to assume that this AOD is any different is another read-into the text. Daniel 8 and 11:31 speak of that AOD we know historically what it was and it was not armies surrounding the city. (see note below on Dan. 9) Making Luke 21, what I believe can be demonstrated through internal evidence to be an earlier Temple Discourse in the day, to be parallel is where the confusion comes in. I’m just trying to get at honest answers like you. But there is no compelling reason to see Luke 21 as a parallel to Matt 24 or Mark 13. I’ve done the parallel comparisons. I’m not willing to gloss over apparent contradictions such as Matt 24:9 vs. Luke 21:12.

You suggest that even if Luke 21 was public that that doesn’t change anything. I think it does. The crowds were constantly thronging around to hear Jesus. Mark is probably the best at explaining this in describing the thousands of people who followed Him around. When He spoke publicly in the Temple He spoke to all who could hear just as He did in all His public teachings. Pharisees and fishermen and scribes and tax collectors heard together. But Jesus always took time to privately explain the meaning to His disciples and clearly this context is indicated the best in Mark as well. Even Luke acknowledges this private type of teaching in Luke 10:23. But rather than highlight on this extensive teaching or be as meticulous as he has been before, he mentions Luke 21:37-38 instead giving the contextual note to the who previous teaching that Luke 21 was during the day in the Temple. So we can’t detach Luke 21:37 from the rest since it is part of the context. It’s not an assumption, rather it’s letting the text speak for itself.

(Note on Dan 9.) Dan. 9 needs to be seen in context of Daniel. There are a few AOD descriptions. Comparing Daniel 8 and 7 demonstrates that the concept of foreshadow and ultimate fulfillment regarding the little horn. In Dan. 7 the little horn comes out of 4th empire we identify as Rome extended past 10 horns. In Dan. 8 the “little horn comes out of Greece, which we know is the 3rd empire. We know what the little horn did: AOD. It’s a historical fact. Hanukkah is the resulting festival when God overturned it all. It’s huge leap of imagination to adjust this formula form this:

Dan. 8’s “little horn” results in AOD of statue in holy place = Dan. 7 “little horn” results in ________

…to filling in surrounding armies in the blank.

You ask how can we know that Dan. 9 is the same? Dan. 9:27 is about the holy place? It takes a statue like that of Antich. Epiph. to create a like AOD or else you read into the text.

Thanks again for the discussion.