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

[Guest]

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

Futurism, the view that End Times, Last Days and Tribulation have future fulfillment can be seen by reading and understanding these passages in the usual and customary sense.
In an effort to achieve understanding between Christian brothers of differing viewpoints and doing so in a loving way, I’m trying to understand how preterists would deal with:

1) The consequence of logic and sequence in Daniel 9:24-27

2) What that means for the connection Jesus made between that sequence and Matthew 24. Let’s just stick to these two passages for now.

Matthew 24:15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),” (ESV)

Clearly, Jesus is asking us to correspond what Daniel taught to what He was privately explaining to four of His disciples (Andrew plus the inner three of Peter, James and John). In the broader context of Jesus’ teaching, He is explaining to the disciples that they “you” will be persecuted amidst apostasy and lawlessness as they spread the Gospel through out the world. The Gospel is that their Master, the Messiah, will be and was cut off from Israel, died for our sins and rose conquering death and offers His righteousness to all men who freely choose to accept.

Complementary to our understanding according to Jesus is what Daniel said. One of these passages in particular is Daniel 9:24-27.
V24 "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.
V25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
V26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
V27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (ESV)

Verse 27 mentions this abomination of desolation Jesus said to flee from. It is to occur in the middle of a final set of seven. This passage is an answer to Daniel by an angel after he had been praying for God to restore His relationship with Israel as Daniel had come to realize that the period of the punishment had been or was near completion.

This passage is also a barometer that exposes one’s hermeneutical principles (how one understand the Bible). These Seventy Sevens are purposefully divided up into three segments. The purpose of the three segments is so that Daniel and those following after him would be able to understand the nature of the fulfillment, literal or symbolic or some other. According to these three sets, the first set of 7 sevens, which lasted 49 years was to herald the completion the city squares and moats. The prayer is asking for literal reconciliation and it appears that Daniel getting literal responses each literally measurable. The first fulfillment, of literally completing the city square and moats sets the tone.

The second set of 62 sevens lasted another 434 years after which people would be able to see the Messiah cut off with no physical kingdom or physical offspring. Again, looking in history, we see that after this second set, Jesus was literally “cut-off” and left with nothing. The sense of fulfillment once again is “literal”.

Now if Daniel was asking for something literal and his answer is broken down into three segments and the first two were literal then doesn’t simple logic and communication dictate that when ever there is a series of events that are communicated as being fulfilled literally, the climax or consummation of that series must be just as literal? This is what I mean by having this passage expose what type of expositor you are; the eisegetical or exegetical kind; one who reads into the text a bias or one who reads out of the text for frame their perspective. Exegesis would simply be acknowledging the literal sequence and looking for a literal ultimate fulfillment.

For is the first two fulfillments were literal, then the last and crowning fulfillment of the last set of seven, must be just as literal. What is the literal fulfillment of the last Seven? What literally happens therein that Jesus is warning us about? In Matthew 24, Jesus is teaching the disciples, the nucleus of the Church. In Daniel, he is told in verse 24 that the literal fulfillment is for Daniel’s people and Jerusalem. The fulfillment is for both, literally. There’s a time for symbols and analogy, but this isn’t the time. Six promises are given for the Jews and Jerusalem that must be literally fulfilled at the end of the seventy sevens:

1. To finish the transgression
The word translated as “transgression” is peh-shah in Hebrew. In this context, it refers to the kind of transgression that transpires at a national level, such as a collective moral or religious revolt against God’s laws. Note: “peh-shah” is Strong’s Number H6588; see Leviticus 16:16, 21, Joshua 24:19, Jeremiah 5:6 for this type of use.

2. To make an end of sins
The word translated as “sins” is khat-tawth and refers to habitual sinfulness, which required the consequences of a penalty and the need for reconciliation and purification. This will be stopped. Note: khat-tawth is Strong’s Number H2403; see Genesis 18:20, Exodus 10:17 (habitual sin) and Exodus 29:36 (resulting in need for an offering or to have a punishment taken away as in the case with Pharaoh in Exodus 10:17).

3. To make reconciliation for iniquity
The iniquity referred to here describes moral evil and perverseness of a people group. The promise is to forgive and to reconcile with Daniel’s people and his city of Jerusalem. Note: Strong’s Number H5771 for iniquity is “awvone,” or perversity, that is (moral) evil; see Genesis 15:16 or 19:15 and Jeremiah 30:14 for its application to a nation or city.

4. To bring in everlasting righteousness (justice)
A new era will come to pass for the Jews and Jerusalem, one that will never end. This word translated as “righteousness,” tseh-dek, encompasses the natural moral and legal order of things, resulting in perfect justice and equitable prosperity. I can’t help but think of Daniel’s vision in Chapter 2 in which God sets up a forever kingdom. Note: tseh-dek is Strong’s Number H6664; see Leviticus 19:15, 36 and Jeremiah 11:20.

5. To seal up the vision and prophecy
Our phrase “seal up” here is the same Hebrew word translated earlier as “make an end.” At the end of this time, God will “close the books” on outstanding visions, dreams, revelations, and prophecies that will be fulfilled, the transactions completed. Keep in mind the context: that Daniel had been praying for God to restore the relationship with Israel. Note: “make an end” is Strong’s Number H2856, “khaw-tham”; see Isaiah 29:11 and Jeremiah 32:10.

6. To anoint the most Holy
This word “anoint” is maw-shak in Hebrew (See Strong’s Number H4886; see Exodus 28:41 and 30:26). It is related to the word maw-shee-akh meaning “anointed one” or messiah (See Strong’s Number H4899; see Psalm 18:50, Leviticus 4:5). It refers to a consecrated king or priest. The “most Holy” refers to a thing, which can be a person, place, or thing (See Strong’s Number H6944, “Kodesh”; see Exodus 3:5 (place), Exodus 15:11 (God), Exodus 15:13 (God’s dwelling), Exodus 26:33-34 (the Holy of Holies in the tent tabernacle where the ark of the covenant is), Exodus 28:2 (things), Psalm 2:6 (Mt. Zion). One can anoint the Holy of holies in the Temple just as one can anoint a person such as the Holy One of God, the Messiah as in Exodus 40:9-13, Numbers 35:25, Psalm 89:20. Given the context of the list, either meaning (or even both together in an ultimate fulfillment) could be understood given the conclusion of a time period resulting in an eternal reality.”

(Excerpt from Prophecy’s Architecture: Building an End Time’s Doctrine, by Cameron Fultz, Strongtower Publishing. http://www.strongtowerpublishing.com/)

Only the literal and physical reign of Jesus through a literal and physical theocracy can bring the exact same literal type of fulfillment predicted in Daniel 9:24-27 and referred to by Jesus just before He describes His Second Coming. None of these six things have been literally fulfilled. Israel is still wayward, the Most Holy place has yet to be anointed after its defilement. Everlasting righteous and justice are still our desire for this physical world.

I know that many views would like to see the 70th Seven fulfilled by Jesus’ resurrection or Pentecost or the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, but don’t you have to change the type of fulfillment from literal to symbolic just to satisfy the perspective you with to prove in the first place?

According to my understanding and with all due respect and brotherly love, if we can’t recognize logical sequences or even agree to their existence then we might as well be debating the meaning of the word “is”. Is there anyone who will deny the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem or the literal crucifixion of our Lord?
How does a preterist or other non-futurist deal with these forms of communication?

[Guest]

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

Only the literal and physical reign of Jesus through a literal and physical theocracy can bring the exact same literal type of fulfillment predicted in Daniel 9:24-27 and referred to by Jesus just before He describes His Second Coming.

Really? How about just believing what the Apostles and NT writers recorded? Isn't that literal? Like:

Act 2:29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Act 2:30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne,
Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,
Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool.'
Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Notice that Peter refers to 2 Sam 7;

2Sa 7:10 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly,
2Sa 7:11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house.
2Sa 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
2Sa 7:14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.

Notice that this happends when David is dead, something that can't happen in a premil system, because in a premil system David would be resurrected at the beginning of the millenium and live on earth while Jesus is on earth ruling. But to take this literally, we see this can only happen while David is dead, which is why Peter points out this "condition" (Act 2:29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. )

None of these six things have been literally fulfilled. Israel is still wayward, the Most Holy place has yet to be anointed after its defilement. Everlasting righteous and justice are still our desire for this physical world.

Really? Again lets see what the inspired Apostles, whose understanding was opened so they could understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45)

-Like finish the transgression: (Rom 5:18, Heb 9:15)
-to make an end of sin (Heb 9:13-14, Heb 9:26, Heb 10:1-18, 1 John 3:4-6)
-make reconciliation for iniquity (2 Cor 5:17-20, Heb 2:17, 8:12-13 & Heb 9:14-15)
-bring in everlasting righteousness (Matt 3:13-15, 2 Cor 5:21, 2 Cor 9:8-9, Heb 1:8-9, Rom 3:21-22)
-seal up vision and prophecy (Isaiah 29:9-16 and Matt 13:10-16)
-anoint the most holy (Heb 1:8-9, Heb 9:23-28)

I know that many views would like to see the 70th Seven fulfilled by Jesus’ resurrection or Pentecost or the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, but don’t you have to change the type of fulfillment from literal to symbolic just to satisfy the perspective you with to prove in the first place?

You just have to accept what the Apostles and new testament writers have said. If the Apostles quoted the old testament and applied those passages non-literally then who are we to question their interpretation? Like (Act 3:24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.) Proclaimed what days? As I read the OT prophets, I don't see much literal prophecy about the church but about the reign of the Messiah. Yet Peter says they we speaking about these days, the days of the Church.

According to my understanding and with all due respect and brotherly love, if we can’t recognize logical sequences or even agree to their existence then we might as well be debating the meaning of the word “is”. Is there anyone who will deny the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem or the literal crucifixion of our Lord?
How does a preterist or other non-futurist deal with these forms of communication?

It seems to me that to be be logical and literal, we must see that "seventy weeks" meaning 490 years have been decreed. Not 2490+ years, with a non-literal gap stuck in there. And it's 490 years beginning with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem ending with the description of it being destroyed. We know when this began (within a few years) so we know when 490 years ended, literally that is. If you stick a gap in there it isn't literal anymore and conveys no information. Now, what does Daniel 9 say is being destroyed? The temple and city that was rebuilt from the decree (Dan 9:25).

Matthew 24's Abomination of Desolation is the same as Luke's version of the same event: Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. " which is referring back to Daniel 9's Abomination of Desolation, speaking of the same event, the destruction of Jerusalem ("even until a complete destruction").

To take these events out of their original context and fulfillment is what I would call a non-literal approach.

[Guest]

Sean,
Thanks for your response. However, I get the idea you are confusing me with a pretribber / Dispensationalist. The reference from Acts 2 and 2 Sa. 7 is interesting but I don’t need to have David be alive as apparently other premill views do as you say. If I missed something, please layout it out for me more simply. I want to understand your argument.
Regarding your spiritual fulfillments for the six promises, I think they’re great in terms of the world, but they don’t address my point. I certainly agree with all the verses you’ve quoted but not one of them applies specifically to the Jews and Jerusalem in a physical sense. Even the verses you apply to each category don’t directly connect to each of these six items in Daniel 9:24. I might be more convinced, say if you could find the inspired Apostles quoting Daniel 9. But even then, the type of fulfillment would not follow logically. Let me rephrase that again: When we become Christians, a spiritual reality occurs. But the physical reality must wait until after death. You acknowledge that, I’m sure. So though it may be true there was some spiritual fulfillment of these things, their type was not the physical reality that the context demands.

Regarding the GAP, I’d like to discuss this further in a different topic some time. But I offer you other gaps, Jesus himself even models for us: See Isaiah 61:1-2 and cross-reference what Jesus did in Luke 4:18-21. Clearly there is a gap. Isaiah 9:6 and 7 offer another one just to name two. Additionally, it does say after the 69 weeks that the area will be war torn. When has it not ever been?

Regarding Luke 21, I’d like to also save that for another topic as well. Until then, read Luke 21 and ask yourself, is there any indication that Jesus ever left the Temple? Think of why Luke added verses 37 to 38. Who do you think Luke talked to when he went to verify if the things they had been told were true (Luke 1:-4)? Do you think Luke’s premise would seek to interview the disciples or others?

Can we just stick to these two passages?

[Guest]

Sean,
Thanks for your response. However, I get the idea you are confusing me with a pretribber / Dispensationalist. The reference from Acts 2 and 2 Sa. 7 is interesting but I don’t need to have David be alive as apparently other premill views do as you say. If I missed something, please layout it out for me more simply. I want to understand your argument.

My point was only to show that Peter saw this promise as fulfilled in Christ. He did not state a future fulfillment (about Jews and Jerusalem in a physical sense). So, I don't see one either.

Regarding your spiritual fulfillments for the six promises, I think they’re great in terms of the world, but they don’t address my point. I certainly agree with all the verses you’ve quoted but not one of them applies specifically to the Jews and Jerusalem in a physical sense. Even the verses you apply to each category don’t directly connect to each of these six items in Daniel 9:24.

First, their not my spiritual fulfillments, their the new testament writers. So for me, what they say goes. Again, they never stated a future, physical, Jewish and Jerusalem fulfillment. As a matter of fact, Paul painstakingly explains this in Romans 1-11. A Jew is not a Jew by physical descent, a Jew is a Jew when it's circumcision of the heart. Paul said that "we" (Christians) are the true circumcision. Paul also said that the Jerusalem above is "our" mother, and the physical Jerusalem is in bondage to the law and sin and would not be heir with the "free woman". And Paul said that if you belong to Christ then you are Abrahams seed.

All of these are old testament concepts that the inspired apostle spiritualized. Why would I then look for a fulfillment of the Jews and Jerusalem in a physical sense when Paul never did?

Anyway, Daniel 9 speaks about 490 years of God's dealing with Israel. That's what happened, no Gentile was converted until Peter received his vision and Paul was converted, after the 70 weeks ran out.

I guess when Daniel 9 lists 6 things that were to occur within the decreed 70 weeks, and Jesus just happends to come along when predicted and do these very things that were predicted to occur, I just take it as it reads. I mean, if they didn't occur, then it's a false prophecy.

Think about it this way, when Jesus came forth he said "the time is fulfilled". What "time" was He talking about? Their was only one place that predicted when the Messiah would come, and that time was fulfilled, as per Jesus' own statement. And the statement: "The law and the prophets were until John but now the Kingdom of God is preached" refers to Daniel 2.

I might be more convinced, say if you could find the inspired Apostles quoting Daniel 9. But even then, the type of fulfillment would not follow logically.

Then it doesn't sound like anything can convince you. Your mind is made up already. That's ok.

Like I posted already, Jesus said, "The time is fulfilled".

Let me rephrase that again: When we become Christians, a spiritual reality occurs. But the physical reality must wait until after death. You acknowledge that, I’m sure. So though it may be true there was some spiritual fulfillment of these things, their type was not the physical reality that the context demands.

Actually, that's were we disagree. I don't see the context demanding it anymore than the Abrahamic covenant being only to physical Jews, Paul disagreed, even though it sounded like the "context demanded it".

I just accept what the Apostles and Jesus stated. If they spiritualized prophecy and didn't ever indicate a "physical reality" then why would I look for something the Apostles never told me to look for?

Regarding the GAP, I’d like to discuss this further in a different topic some time. But I offer you other gaps, Jesus himself even models for us: See Isaiah 61:1-2 and cross-reference what Jesus did in Luke 4:18-21. Clearly there is a gap. Isaiah 9:6 and 7 offer another one just to name two. Additionally, it does say after the 69 weeks that the area will be war torn. When has it not ever been?

I don't see a gap there. Not of thousands of years anyway. Jesus did what Isaiah said. He "proclaimed liberty to captives" and the other things listed and He also taught about "the day of vengeance of our God" in Luke 21:22 speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and in Daniel. The destruction of the very temple discussed in Daniel. The destruction fell upon those who rejected Christ, who called themseves Jews but were not.

Actually it says: Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary . When was this done? 66-70AD.

I don't see a gap in Isaiah 9:6 and 7. Jesus is reign is now. (1 Cor 15:25)

Regarding Luke 21, I’d like to also save that for another topic as well. Until then, read Luke 21 and ask yourself, is there any indication that Jesus ever left the Temple? Think of why Luke added verses 37 to 38. Who do you think Luke talked to when he went to verify if the things they had been told were true (Luke 1:-4)? Do you think Luke’s premise would seek to interview the disciples or others?

Don't know what your getting at with that? I mean, He didn't predict it would happen that day, He predicted it would happen within that generation. So, I would say He certainly left the temple very shortly after that, because they crucified Him soon after.

Can we just stick to these two passages?

I'll try but how can we talk about one passage without cross-referencing?

Luke gives us insight into what the "abomination of desolation" was. And so does Daniel 9. It's the Romans coming in, surrounding the city and the ultimate destruction of the temple.

So I guess I don't see how this makes a case for a futurist view of Matt 24 and Daniel 9. It was future when it was spoken but not anymore.

[Guest]

Sean,
Thanks for trying to stick with Daniel 9 and Matthew 24. I bring up Luke because you cited it as a parallel to Matthew 24. I asked the questions to show that Luke never says Jesus left the Temple when He spoke about Jesus being surrounded by armies. You only get that if you choose to say it is synoptic with Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Luke 21:37’s explanation is just as important as Matthew and Mark’s declaration that they were part to a “private” teaching. This is a pattern repeated throughout the Gospels. Public teaching to those who have an ear and a private explanation by Jesus. This is why I would like to stick to Matthew 24 because I believe there is a good case for seeing Luke 21 as a public Temple Discourse given during the day as Luke 21:37 points to. But perhaps this an issue we should first resolve.

Can you concede that Jesus taught publicly and then explained things privately to His disciples? (Mark 4:11)
Can you concede that both Mathew and Mark clearly state that they hade a private discussion with Jesus? (Matt 24:3, Mark 13:3)
Can you concede that Luke omits any reference of a private discussion and does not even allude to them leaving the Temple?
Can you concede that Luke, at least aware of this potential conflict due to differing teachings between his account and that of Matthews and Mark’s could have added 21:37-38 to explain why there was a difference?

This is a critical issue, especially for preterists. Because if Luke is recording a public teaching to Israel, then it does not necessarily follow that the abomination of desolation is the abomination of Jerusalem. Does this logic make any sense? Can you allow for the possibility based on internal evidence alone that Luke 21 may, in fact, be a public discourse?

[Guest]

Well....I think that it's literal and also not literal. I think that history repeats itself as well as history cutting a new form, but it appears that there is much repetition of history in the O.T. & N.T. such as the plagues of Egypt are almost "literally" the same plagues as in Revelation and as well God hid the Jews in Goshen and under the "blood" of Passover as God will hide them in the future during the Judgments. There is a Elisha in the O.T. and there is the Elisha in the form of John the Baptist in the N.T. but as well, I agree with the gentleman who started this particular "thread" that there IS GOING TO BE a terrible tribulation in the future. Yes there was a terrible tribulation of AD 70 that started the NT tribulations, and also those apostles that were asking the questions to Jesus at Olivet discourse were gong to undergo the AD 70 stuff and then all of Nero's outrageous behaviours....but it also stands to reason that there is YET ANOTHER tribulation to be underwent...

I see proof of this when Jesus talks about the abomination of desolation....the first abomination happened by Antiochus Ephiphanes in 175-163 BC, and since Jesus was addressing these guys in the "here and now" telling them about a future event....we can only deduce that He is speaking about a "repeat" of history in a literal event. Also, what do ya do with Mat 24:29...

"But immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give it's light and the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and then all the tribes of the earth will mournk, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory and vs 31 - He will gather together His elect from the four winds...."

Weather you believe the sun and the moon to be symbolic or not when on earth have we experienced the Son of Man coming to gather us?????

I do not believe in a pre-trib rapture thing...I think that there is yet a generation of Christian's who will go through it in the future. I also don't think we're in the tribulation now...thats ridiculous...everyone has their own hardships and tribulations but I think that the upcoming one will be the worst one because the entire modernized world will be persecuting Christians and Jews alike and probably anyone else who will not bow the knee to this beast....antichrist....false prophet...whatever he will manifest himself to be. It will be bad because there will be no place of refuge - no America to protect anyone - it will be a time of cleansing of the church to prepare her to Jesus.

Well, anyhow....thats what I think. I truly think it's a bit of history, bit of futurist, bit of preterest and some in between. For what it's worth. Things that are literal such as 24 hours in one day...are to be taken literally unless there is something else obviously there. To make everything else non literal when the text is obviously meant to be taken literal is ...... not normal.

[Guest]

Sean,
Thanks for trying to stick with Daniel 9 and Matthew 24. I bring up Luke because you cited it as a parallel to Matthew 24. I asked the questions to show that Luke never says Jesus left the Temple when He spoke about Jesus being surrounded by armies. You only get that if you choose to say it is synoptic with Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Luke 21:37’s explanation is just as important as Matthew and Mark’s declaration that they were part to a “private” teaching. This is a pattern repeated throughout the Gospels. Public teaching to those who have an ear and a private explanation by Jesus. This is why I would like to stick to Matthew 24 because I believe there is a good case for seeing Luke 21 as a public Temple Discourse given during the day as Luke 21:37 points to. But perhaps this an issue we should first resolve.

Can you concede that Jesus taught publicly and then explained things privately to His disciples? (Mark 4:11)
Can you concede that both Mathew and Mark clearly state that they hade a private discussion with Jesus? (Matt 24:3, Mark 13:3)
Can you concede that Luke omits any reference of a private discussion and does not even allude to them leaving the Temple?
Can you concede that Luke, at least aware of this potential conflict due to differing teachings between his account and that of Matthews and Mark’s could have added 21:37-38 to explain why there was a difference?

This is a critical issue, especially for preterists. Because if Luke is recording a public teaching to Israel, then it does not necessarily follow that the abomination of desolation is the abomination of Jerusalem. Does this logic make any sense? Can you allow for the possibility based on internal evidence alone that Luke 21 may, in fact, be a public discourse?

I guess I don't know why anyone would see Luke 21 as not synoptic with Matthew 24 and Mark 13. It seems like the only reason to disconnect it is to change the meaning of the event(s) described. But your free to think that way. What I have done is line up Matthew 24 Mark 13 and Luke 21 side by side and compare them. They are talking about the same thing.

It's like taking the resurrection accounts, poking holes in them for how they aren't exactly alike, and how they don't seem to conform well. Yet they are speaking of one singular event, one resurrection. Even though they vary. I see it the same way in Luke 21.

You make some good observations about what is not said in Luke 21, but you can't then make a arguement from silence that this proves it was a different explanation to different people. It seems to me that in Matthew, it's the disciples that remark about the buildings, and Jesus response back to them that make up the discorse. Since I have no clear evidence (yet) to the contrary, I understand Luke to be explaining the same thing as Matthew and Mark are explaining. Just like with the resurrection accounts.

About Luke 37;
Now during the day He was teaching in the temple, but at evening He would go out and spend the night on the mount that is called Olivet.
And all the people would get up early in the morning to come to Him in the temple to listen to Him.

This doesn't say that the discorse was public at all. It's a general statement about what Jesus did. Not a description of were or who the discorse was given.

Anyway, Even sticking to Matthew 24 and Daniel 9, I don't see how the point is made about it being future. My reasons I gave in a previous post. I believe the Abomination of Desolation is the same in both.
So if Daniel 9 is fulfilled literally (490 years from the decree), then so is Matthew 24, since they are speaking about the same event.

[Guest]

Sean,
Thanks again for your reply. It sounds like we’re doing the same thing: lining up the passages and seeing of they work. Yes, I did this many years ago and could not reconcile the passages. Please reconcile Matthew 24:9 with Luke 21:12. Did the disciples forget the tense that Jesus meant?

Mat 24:9 Then5119 shall they deliver you up… (Strong’s Greek 5119”tote”= is used 155 times in the N.T. and always refers to the “then after” idea.

Luke 21:12 But before4253 all these, they shall lay their hands on you,… (Strong’s Greek 4253 “pro” is used 46 times in the N.T. and means in front of or prior to.

Are you OK with the apparent contradiction?

There are many more differences including the types of abomination, the severity of the distress, etc. You’ve really got to make an eisegetical leap to equate the abomination of Jerusalem with the abomination of desolation. Here’s another consideration to compare when the texts are side-by-side:

If the two are synoptic, then the Disciples were supposed to flee when they saw the abomination of desolation in the holy place in Matthew 24:15. Pretty clear language is it not? But Luke 21:20-21 says that when you see the Roman armies encompassing the city you can see that its (the city) desolation is near and then you are to flee. Again, this is a huge difference in meaning in words supposedly coming form the Lord. We just can’t gloss over these apparent contradictions. One must ask whether they are synoptic, especially with the internal evidence present was I’ve shown above.

My view doesn’t die even if these passages are synoptic. But preterism is severely impaired on this one issue and I can understand why this would want to be ignored. Listen, as Christian bothers, its best to think of our dialog as two guys talking and praying with each other at a Bible Study. I can only ask you, to examine your method of understanding. It seems to me, lovingly, that you’d rather hold on to you’re view without honestly letting it be challenged. It’s not easy to do that; to accept flaws. I think Steve Gregg does a good job of it from what I’ve heard from him and I can only attempt to be as accepting and willing to study further and take on challenges to what I believe God has shown me. We would all rather be right. But I don’t want this to be about me. It should be about what is true and makes sense. I’ve laid out some pretty convincing points. I welcome others to chime in. But it does none of us good to ignore these points. It’s best to keep the arguments narrow make concessions when they are due. We both can agree that pretribbers are misguided at best. But just because of that we don’t need to chuck futurism out the window. Most people don’t even understand what Prewrath is before they leave the futurist world view. Anyone who has come into the preterist camp from the pretrib world is a thinker. That is not the issue. The question is whether you’re willing to move on or consider alternatives rather than ignoring them or discounting them. I’m always willing to entertain issues you may have with Prewrath / Historic Premill thinking. I would also love to talk about those items and other preterist issues such as the “this generation” passages in Matthew in another topic sometime. There are honestly other ways to understand them in a first century, Hebrew context.

Regarding the Resurrection I’ve done the same; lining them up and thinking about their order and sequence. I know there are a few different ways of understanding the exact order and sequence. I don’t think we should allow anyone to try and poke holes at it. We should not let a challenge like that to our faith slide when good answers are available.

I’d like to get back to the Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 9 discussion once we resolve the Luke 21 issue.

[Guest]

Sean,
Thanks again for your reply. It sounds like we’re doing the same thing: lining up the passages and seeing of they work. Yes, I did this many years ago and could not reconcile the passages. Please reconcile Matthew 24:9 with Luke 21:12. Did the disciples forget the tense that Jesus meant?

Mat 24:9 Then5119 shall they deliver you up… (Strong’s Greek 5119”tote”= is used 155 times in the N.T. and always refers to the “then after” idea.

Luke 21:12 But before4253 all these, they shall lay their hands on you,… (Strong’s Greek 4253 “pro” is used 46 times in the N.T. and means in front of or prior to.

Are you OK with the apparent contradiction?

Like I said, We can do the same thing with the resurrection accounts. They don't line up very well either but they are talking about the same event. Did the disciples forget what happened? So how many seperate resurrections were there? We know their was only one, even though the accounts make it seem like the details don't fit well into a single event.

What about these:
Joh 1:31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."
Joh 1:32 And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.
Joh 1:33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

and...

Mat 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
Mat 3:14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
Mat 3:15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented.
Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

So which is it. Did John recognize Jesus before the Spirit descended on Him or not? In John it says "I did not know Him" but Matthew records that John knew Him when they met, prompting John to ask Jesus to baptize him.

Yet we believe this was one event, unless Jesus was baptized twice.

There are many more differences including the types of abomination, the severity of the distress, etc. You’ve really got to make an eisegetical leap to equate the abomination of Jerusalem with the abomination of desolation. Here’s another consideration to compare when the texts are side-by-side:

If the two are synoptic, then the Disciples were supposed to flee when they saw the abomination of desolation in the holy place in Matthew 24:15. Pretty clear language is it not? But Luke 21:20-21 says that when you see the Roman armies encompassing the city you can see that its (the city) desolation is near and then you are to flee. Again, this is a huge difference in meaning in words supposedly coming form the Lord. We just can’t gloss over these apparent contradictions. One must ask whether they are synoptic, especially with the internal evidence present was I’ve shown above.

My view doesn’t die even if these passages are synoptic. But preterism is severely impaired on this one issue and I can understand why this would want to be ignored. Listen, as Christian bothers, its best to think of our dialog as two guys talking and praying with each other at a Bible Study. I can only ask you, to examine your method of understanding. It seems to me, lovingly, that you’d rather hold on to you’re view without honestly letting it be challenged. It’s not easy to do that; to accept flaws. I think Steve Gregg does a good job of it from what I’ve heard from him and I can only attempt to be as accepting and willing to study further and take on challenges to what I believe God has shown me. We would all rather be right. But I don’t want this to be about me. It should be about what is true and makes sense. I’ve laid out some pretty convincing points. I welcome others to chime in. But it does none of us good to ignore these points. It’s best to keep the arguments narrow make concessions when they are due. We both can agree that pretribbers are misguided at best. But just because of that we don’t need to chuck futurism out the window. Most people don’t even understand what Prewrath is before they leave the futurist world view. Anyone who has come into the preterist camp from the pretrib world is a thinker. That is not the issue. The question is whether you’re willing to move on or consider alternatives rather than ignoring them or discounting them. I’m always willing to entertain issues you may have with Prewrath / Historic Premill thinking. I would also love to talk about those items and other preterist issues such as the “this generation” passages in Matthew in another topic sometime. There are honestly other ways to understand them in a first century, Hebrew context.

Regarding the Resurrection I’ve done the same; lining them up and thinking about their order and sequence. I know there are a few different ways of understanding the exact order and sequence. I don’t think we should allow anyone to try and poke holes at it. We should not let a challenge like that to our faith slide when good answers are available.

I’d like to get back to the Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 9 discussion once we resolve the Luke 21 issue.

(Going back to my previeous post) You made the statement that sometimes Jesus speaks in a veiled sense, later explaining it personally to the disciples in a clear sense.

One problem with that is when Jesus repeatedly spoke about dying and rising again, it says they did not understand until after His resurrection. It seems that it was veiled even to them, even with clear and private explanation.

Another problem is that Matthew and Mark say "when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)"

Do you think Jesus actually said "let the reader understand"? If He did or did not, Matthew and Mark certainly did. But why? If this was the private interpretation that was suppose to be "clearer" why is it veiled by saying "let the reader understand". Notice Luke doesn't have that phrase. Instead he defines it for us. Since Luke wrote to Gentile(s) who would not know who Daniel was or what he meant, Luke explained it. That or Luke got it wrong.

And they both end with "let them in Judea flee to the mountains". In other words both the AOD and Jerusalem surrounded by armies were reson(s) for those who are in Judea to flee to the mountians. Are you trying to say that one is past and one is still future? How can a future temple ever be desecrated? It would be defunct the moment it was built because the Sinaiatic covenant is defunct. It couldn't be desectrated because it couldn't ever be sanctified to begin with. The building of a temple to offer blood sacrifices to God would be in direct rebellion against God, Jesus and the new covenant. It would in itself constitute an "abomination". It seems like trying to place Matt 24 into the future only causes more problems than it solves.

[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.

Your answer is Luke 1:41-44
Luk 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
Luk 1:42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
Luk 1:43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luk 1:44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

Being in Christ’s very presence was enough for John even as a fetus to recognize Him without sight. This is the missing key to understanding this apparent contradiction. John does not say that he didn’t recognize Him, just that John the Baptist did not know Him or collude with Jesus. They didn’t plan it out beforehand. This is the context to point out that John bore witness (John 1:7).

Also see John 1:15 “John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'"

Remember John the Baptist was under the scrutiny of the Pharisees and they were questioning who he was and it was important for the Apostle John to explain that no collusion existed. Since the Apostle John outlived all the other disciples he must have dealt with such questions from the growing Christian population. When we read Matthew, he just simply records, what I believe to be the collective memory of the remaining disciples, probably after the death of Stephen or at least after the death of James.


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. He sought to test the spiritual receptivity of those who heard. Jesus obviously saw more receptivity in the simple fishermen and honest sinners like Peter and Matthew. That’s the idea behind the parable of the talents. If you understand, more will be given you. Hiding Jesus’ message gets a person nowhere. Some things were definitely concealed due to their lack of receptivity especially at the end of Jesus’ ministry. Just think of how deluded James and John were to convince their mother to approach Jesus and ask for them to sit at His right and left hand when he comes into His kingdom (Matt. 20:21). Thousands of people followed Jesus day in and out. The rumor was out all across Judea at the very end of His ministry that Jesus was the Son of David, the king of the Jews. Even the blind recognized this, for they had hearts to see (Mark 10:47-48). 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. - - - This is one of the greatest point and proof for the Resurrection by the way. The Disciples were in a state of “amnesia” and had no understanding during the crucifixion and burial to try any covert action against the Roman guards and fake a Resurrection. Besides, they were “innocent” of any charges. These are key to an acrostic I use with unbelievers called: D.R.A.S.T.I.C.S, which I’d be glad to explain sometime.


Your next point presumably showing how things can appear contradictory but are somehow not is in the phrase “Let the reader understand”. It could be an admonition by Matthew and the disciples at large, including Peter and hence appears in Mark………… Although I can still see Jesus saying it too as an emphasis to the four Disciples to write it down. The last one is also quite plausible and perhaps even more understandable considering that some of the most important instructions that people give occur just at the end of their ministry or visit. I think one or two days before death might qualify for that.

You continue this thought by bring up the apparent parallel in Luke: “then know that its desolation has come near.” You say that Luke is simply rephrasing it for his Greco-Roman audience. 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 besides ALL of these Gospels are in Greek. But I’ll grant you that Matthew was definitely directed more an audience familiar with Jewish customs.

Can a future Temple be built and actually be an object of an Abomination of Desolation if what Jesus has done has made it defunct? What a great question! Though I think I’ve got an answer for this, I promise you that I will continue to think about this question long after this dialogue.

You assume that because their system is obsolete, as Hebrews 8-12 clearly says, that they can not resanctify their Holy of Holies. I can’t say that your logic follows. Perhaps if we focused only one Hebrews 8-12 you could make a case. But the wonder of developing a doctrine is to look at the larger picture. (And it would be best if we found the clearest and most detailed passages on the topic).

For instance Jesus said this:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

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. Evangelical Preterists and Roman Catholics don’t know what to do with them. According to their thinking their nation was supposed to be gone and the Church the true Israel. It took the Roman Catholics over 50 years to even recognize present day Israel as a nation due to theological bias. So I can appreciate your perspective.

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?