The AntiChrists Covenant

[lambslave]

Praise God! Today is my birthday. I never thought I would live this long. Men in my family die young. I'm 64 years old. thank you all for looking forward with me to the blessed hope! LS

[lambslave]

Bob, Don't, don't you think it odd that Jesus would preface his remarks about his coming and the end of the age with the notification to his disciples that concerning the glorious physical temple they were looking at not one stone would be upon another? You would think that with all the hype we hear about the necessity of a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem we would be able to find at least one verse from one or more of his disciples that clearly says "watch, the temple will be rebuilt." Instead we find things like we find in Ephesians 2 explaining that the physical temple has been replaced by a living temple, made of saints. None of the passages you quoted to Pretz require the rebuilding of the temple. We are notified in Matt 24 to "understand," because something other than the temple is in view as "the holy place!" The O.T. references to "daily sacrifice" do not use the word for sacrifice AT ALL. Tamid is continual, continuity, regular. Probably a prohibition against the Sabbath. We must keep checking our text, translation, and hermaneutic. LS

[Abiding in His Word]

Hi Abiding!

Idol of Jealousy
Idol worship is the same as worshiping Satan.

Ezekiel 8:3-5
...the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the north gate of the inner court, where the seat of the idol of jealousy, which provokes to jealousy, was located.
And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, like the appearance which I saw in the plain.
Then He said to me, "Son of man, raise your eyes now toward the north " So I raised my eyes toward the north, and behold, to the north of the altar gate was this idol of jealousy at the entrance.

The chapter goes on and on and on about every abominable thing being worshiped by the elders of Jerusalem and the women of the temple. If that is not Satan, then what is? -and then, what would be the point of the chapter if it is not about Satan being worshiped in the house of God? This is a very straight-forward passage. Creepy as all get-out! Very easy to see it is Satan.

What is it you see there?

Ezekiel 8 is certainly a picture of the corruption and idolatry of the elders and people.

The Israelites had a long history of idolatry and scripture always refers to it as a practice of a stiffnecked, rebellious people who consciously chose to reject God in favor of one of their own desire; i.e. visible, tangible, sensual, etc. God warned them about idolatry of the heathen nations and always refers to idolatry as an abomination and it provokes Him to jealousy..

Paul tells us the origin of idolatry is the human heart and it's desires and says it's a choice made by individuals to worship the creation rather than the Creator.

This places the burden of the sin on each person who consciously, knowingly chooses idolatry rather than on satan. We are accountable to God for our choices and deliberate sins.

So....if scripture doesn't mention satan sitting at the gate, (but does mention elders) it's best to not insert him there imho. Rather, the focus is rightfully on the condition of their hearts and the rejection of God.

[lambslave]

Bob, In chapter 21 the gold reed isss being used specifically to produce a symbolic picture. The angel takes John to show Him the "bride the wife of the Lamb." And then he uses the symbols of the dead structures of the holy city to show John the living bride the wife. Either that or John is entitled to ask "where is the bride, this is just a lot of structure! In fact we are seeing what the anagel said he was showing John. The bride the wife of the Lamb. The measuring reports dimensions that reveal perfect symmetry in relationship between the members that make up the city. the fact that multiples of 12 are found is significant because 12 reports the reign or government of God. This is a community where God reigns. There is a wall with 3 entry points in each direction of the compass--the make up of this community is equally composed from all compass points on the earth. The street of gold, pure as glass--the street is the place where the community does its business--the busines of this community is pure, and valuable, glorious--not like the street of the past--greedy and corrupt. And so on. No there is not going to be a cube dropping out of the sky some day! But the bride, the community of the saints, now in perfect harmony and relationship, gloriously funtioning as God always meant them to function, will come as a product of heaven, God's finished work! The context indeed demands that we look for further meaning bedcause the plain sense does not make sense. LS

[The Orange Mailman]

Daniel said nothing about ending sacrifices with the AOD.
Daniel wrote of the end of sacrifices as part of THE covenant which speaks of Christ's blood.
Armies are what Daniel writes about the AOD. And that is how Luke records Jesus' words too.

Am I saying anyting about the word that is not true? If so, please love me enough to rebuke me so that I will not be deceived!

Hello Pretzelogical-

This is not a rebuke, but simply a point made concerning the background of the word "tamiyd". It enjoys a concomitant relationship with the sacrifices as described in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. When one spoke of "tamiyd", they were speaking of the nature of the sacrifices which occurred every day, or continually. Certainly the word has other associations as well, but this relationship should not be overlooked when translating the word in direct context with the temple. For example, look at Numbers 29 and see how this word represented how sacrifices were continually, or daily offered to the LORD. When additional sacrifices were offered, they were beside, above and beyond, the "tamiyd" sacrifices. In every single instance in the Torah except two, that is what tamiyd was referring to, whether it be the shewbread, the oil, the incense, the fire on the altar, the priesthood, or the sacrifices. BTW, those two exceptions refer to the pillar of fire continually over the children of Israel and the LORD continually watching over the promised land.

So when we look at these passages, what would the translators, with their extensive knowledge of the scriptures, think of?

Daniel 8:11 It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. 12 And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot? 14 And he said to me,For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.

Considering how many references are made here to the sanctuary, why wouldn't the translators see that tamiyd was referring to the continual offerings at the sanctuary? Whatever is happening, it must be connected with the sanctuary. Then there is this passage.

Daniel 11:30 For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant. 31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. 32 He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.

Notice here that the covenant and the temple are being profaned and violated. In connection with the covenant and temple being profaned, what "continual" element being taken away makes the most sense? The translators again see a reference to the regular, continual, or daily sacrifices made at the temple to be the best meaning here. Also considering what Antiochus Epiphanes did to fulfill these prophecies in part gives us clear scriptural precedent that the translators are seeing this correctly.

And now for the passage in Daniel 9 which everyone wants to debate. This passage does not contain the word "tamiyd", but instead, words for sacrifices and gifts.

27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.

Here there is a reference to sacrifices being put to a stop in conjunction with a desolation coming because of abominations. So here is a reference to sacrifices being stopped in conjunction with the abomination which brings desolation.

I would remind you, and our faithful readers here, that Luke 21 does not use the phrase "the abomination of desolation". Luke 21 is the Temple Discourse while Matthew 24 and Mark 13 contain the Olivet Discourse. They are two separate utterances by the LORD Jesus. So to say that Luke speaks of the abomination of desolation in terms of armies is just not the case.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[The Orange Mailman]

Orange mailman, Pretz, Walrus: I must intervene and say that what is being missed is the fact that the antichrist is doing things that amount to something else. Let me explain. Sometimes we say something while speaking publickly that are rediculous.It is at this moment that someone in the audience says, "he is making an a-- out of himself!" They do not really mean that the speaker has become such an animal, the term is just descriptive.

Hey Lambslave-

That's a good point. That antichrist will "make himself out to be" God. He won't actually be God. Now whether or not this occurs in a physical temple or through false Christianity is another matter. I myself believe that when Jesus spoke at the temple in Luke 21, He foretold the destruction of it. But later, the disciples wanted clarification. So they asked Him privately, but with a clearer focus on His coming which was only briefly touched on in His Temple Discourse.

When Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25, Mark 13), He spoke as a prophet condemning His own generation, but leaving the way open for future generations to receive instruction as well. This "tension" aspect is lost by so many who want to focus either completely on a Preterist viewpoint or completely on a Futurist viewpoint. If Jesus knew all things before hand and prophesied like a true prophet of God, there would be no problem with a far/near tension in His words with no contradiction.

If this tension is present, than wouldn't Jesus be prophesying of an abomination of desolation at a temple like the one that He prophesied would be destroyed? Certainly the temple would be destroyed, but future generations could still expect an "abomination of desolation" on par with Daniel's prophecies to occur in that exact fashion, at a physical temple. There was no need for Jesus to give a time linear discourse, which may have proved counterproductive to those which heard Him speak of the destruction of the temple but were not believers. That first century which heard Him speak needed to know that He was a prophet of God, and that by their rejection of Him they were bringing judgement upon themselves.

So in leaving the destruction and rebuilding of the temple out of the details, and simply pointing to the abomination of desolation, Jesus could speak apocalyptically, cryptically, but yet be understood by those who knew the prophecies. It would just be out of the understanding of those who were not His true followers. They would have no need to understand that the destruction of the temple would occur, but it would later be rebuilt. They needed to understand the judgement of God and that's why Jesus remained silent about any rebuilding.

From our vantage point, I see no reason not to expect an abomination of desolation like the one in the days of Antiochus. That of course requires a physical temple.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[Abiding in His Word]

If this tension is present, than wouldn't Jesus be prophesying of an abomination of desolation at a temple like the one that He prophesied would be destroyed? Certainly the temple would be destroyed, but future generations could still expect an "abomination of desolation" on par with Daniel's prophecies to occur in that exact fashion, at a physical temple. There was no need for Jesus to give a time linear discourse, which may have proved counterproductive to those which heard Him speak of the destruction of the temple but were not believers. That first century which heard Him speak needed to know that He was a prophet of God, and that by their rejection of Him they were bringing judgement upon themselves.

So in leaving the destruction and rebuilding of the temple out of the details, and simply pointing to the abomination of desolation, Jesus could speak apocalyptically, cryptically, but yet be understood by those who knew the prophecies. It would just be out of the understanding of those who were not His true followers. They would have no need to understand that the destruction of the temple would occur, but it would later be rebuilt. They needed to understand the judgement of God and that's why Jesus remained silent about any rebuilding.

That makes perfect sense! Thank you Orange Mailman!

[watching]

According to scripture the holy city is the bride of Christ, which is the church:
Revelation 21:9b-11
Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper.

Understanding the church as the holy city, gives meaning to the "great city" against her.
Otherwise, how are buildings now married to the Lamb, instead of us, his bride married to Him? Scripture says we are the temple of God, living stones, pillars, etc. What do you do with those verses when the above verses say the holy city is the bride and wife that comes down out of heaven with the Lamb just as other verses say the saints will do?

Hi Pretzelogical,

I didn't realize you were asking a question until I just reread your post. Sorry for the delay. Anyway to answer your question, in my original post I had stated that I prefer a literal interpretation unless a spiritual interpretation is implied by the context. It appears to me that the term bride whether it's referring to the holy city or the church is in and of itself an allegory because how could Jesus be married to the church or a city literally. It doesn't seem possible to me in my human wisdom. Therefore, I would assume that a spiritual interpretation must be implied. But when it's not implied by the context, then I lean more towards a literal interpretation.

[Pretzelogical]

Lambslave!

How grateful I am God has preserved you to continue His work!


Y'all...this thread has been fantastic to really dig and sort and rethink - thank you! I find it amazing that we came up with basically just two opposing viewpoints instead of one for each of us!

I find that encouraging! Am I seeing correctly that we are set us in either a literal camp vs. a metaphorical camp? With some leaving the door also open to both a literal fulfillment of the allegories? I am wanting to study the Salt Covenant more thoroughly as I see it as the Covenant confrimed in Daniel 9 that says the Messiah will come from David's lineage. We, as salt, are to be a part of Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God.

What concerns me is, if people are looking for a temple, and don't see it built, then they won't know the man of lawlessness is at hand. (I believe that could be a real possibilty at this time.) This is the same concern I have of those expecting a pre-trib rapture. They won't recognize the man of lawlessness because they thought they would be raptured out by then. (So glad to be able to say that in this pre-wrath, post-trib-tolerant forum!)

If Christians keep telling the lost that there will be a rebuilt temple before the AC, and then the AC reveals himself without a rebuilt temple, who will believe the Christains at that point? (Same with the pre-trib proclamation.)

If the deception is to be so clever that even the elect would be deceived ("if that were possible") having a rebuilt temple to signify things would alarm everyone and deceive few. That is why the aposasy is warned of repeatedly. Scripture would be clearly understood if it warned us of a rebuilt temple as a sign, but instead, scripture repeatedly warns of deception and apostasy.

I have grown weary of the the saved and lost alike saying they will begin to concern themselves with an anti-Christ when they see a temple/tabernacle somewhere on the temple mount. Is anyone else suffering this frustration? This just allows the leaven to keep festering and smothering the message to repent. While believers are in apostate churches that do not preach the word, nor look forward to Christ appearing, and when they do not see the rebuilt temple, and all goes on as always like in the time of Noah and Lot, they fall asleep. The salty church has lost its saltiness and soaks up the impurities of the surrounding world. The polluted church leaves a bitter taste in the world for the wrong reasons. We are to be persecuted for the message of the gospel! Yes, as salt, our words sting an open festering wound caused by disease. But the salt brings healing. Bad apostate salt makes sins grow worse. For me, that is the danger of saying there must be a rebuilt temple when there is such a strong solid case throughout the scriptures that the temple that is being defiled is the church!

Jesus said, "Remember, Lot's wife!" He didn't say, "Look for that tabernacle/temple!" For me today, that means I should not look back at the temple that was destroyed by God when he tore the curtain to the holy of holies. I won't follow Lot who asked God to allow him to just move to the next small evil town just like the Sodom he left. Lot, a man remembered for his righteousness in 2 Peter, ended up drunk when he finally made it to the mountains where God said he should go. The pre-trib teachings, and the rebuilt temple watching have kept me in the town next to Sodom when God said to go to the mountains. I am no longer teaching of a rebuilt temple. Instead, I am preaching repent, flee to the Rock, feed on the word to keep your body, the holy temple of God, pure and ready to be adorned as the bride of Christ, dressed in robes of righteousness, speaking the truth in love seasoned with salt. I am praying to not be deceived, create in me a clean heart, renew a right spirit within me, increase my knowlege and wisdom, and produce abundant fruits of the spirit in my life. I give thanks for mercy, grace and the fellowship of His sufferings, along with the brethren, as the Lord orders our steps. Like Lot, we are oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked having our souls tormented day to day seeing and hearing the lawlessness. (2 Peter 2:7-9) May the Lord deliever us from temptations!
AMEN!

Pass the salt!

[watching]

Hi Pretzological,

I just wanted to clarify my position. In the case of 2 Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 24:1-27, I do not see any hint of allegory, so I personally expect a literal fulfillment of those verses. BTW, I do not see anything about a seven year agreement as a sign of the times in Matthew 24:1-27, so I for one am not looking for that as a sign. As far as the temple is concerned, I'm not sure if it will be an elaborate temple or just an altar of some sort but I do believe regardless of the size of the temple, that it will be in the most Holy Place, which to the best of my understanding must be the Mount of Olives/The Temple Mount.

Where I differ with most, is that I am not sure is if the abomination will occur exactly at the mid point of a seven year period or immediately upon the beginning of the 42 month reign of the AC although it does seem likely that it may, I just don't feel certain of it. So, if the abomination of desolation does not occur when most people expect it to, I for one will not be discouraged that the scriptures are not being fulfilled because I do believe that it will happen eventually.

In regard to my rapture view, I am not opposed to the pre-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib view because I just don't know when Jesus will come back for me. All I can do is pray that it will be sooner rather than later.

[IamtheWalrus]

Luke 21 is the Temple Discourse while Matthew 24 and Mark 13 contain the Olivet Discourse. They are two separate utterances by the LORD Jesus. So to say that Luke speaks of the abomination of desolation in terms of armies is just not the case.

OM, before we proceed, what scriptural evidence do you have to back this up? Forgive me if you have already said.

[lambslave]

O.M. No. He would not prophecy about a future temple like the one that stood at the time he spoke to His disciples. This is apparent from John 2:18-21. "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up...but He was speaking of the temple of His body." LS

[The Orange Mailman]

No Walrus, I haven't mentioned the backup for that view on this forum. Those who follow my blog may have read it though. Smackbucket also has blogged about it.

To give you the condensed version, Luke's Temple Discourse is actually given first in the chronology. If you notice in Luke 21:1:9, there were people adoring the temple. Jesus says it will be torn down. "They" ask when it will happen and if there will be a sign. There is no mention that there is a departure here to another place. Jesus addresses the same group that he has been addressing at the temple.

So Jesus gives a sketch of events to the crowd concerning the temple, how there are many things that will occur, but in the midst of persecution for the name of Jesus, these things will be a testimony. Then He gives the sign. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you know that the desolation has come near. So Jesus advertantly places the desolation of Jerusalem with the destruction of the temple. Then after this destruction, the city of Jerusalem will be continually trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled. Then Jesus flashes to the distant end when He comes in power and glory.

Later, as Luke 21:37 records, Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives. It is there in private that the four disciples closest to Him asked for clarification. Matthew and Mark cut out the Temple Discourse and go right for the events that Jesus gives when He clarifies things on the Mount of Olives. Here in the Olivet Discourse is a distinctly different set of events. Here Jerusalem is not surrounded by armies, there is no mention of Jerusalem being trampled down by the Gentiles, instead the focus is almost completely on His coming in power and glory.

There are many similarities as we should expect. Jesus re-explains some things, but with a different goal in mind. Now He is talking to the inner circle and not to the crowds. The crowd heard Him speak that the temple will be destroyed. Now He is giving the signs of His coming and of the end of the age to His faithful followers. Jesus distances the end of the age from things like earthquakes, wars, and even persecution. But when you see the abomination of desolation, there's your sign, Bill Engval. After that is the great tribulation, followed by the cosmic signs, followed by the coming of the Son of Man in power and glory. Notice that the Great Tribulation and the Abomination of Desolation are new phrases that Jesus did not mention at the Temple.

The parables in Matthew 24:32 - 25:46 and Mark 13:28 - 37 are completely about the coming of the LORD Jesus. This shows that the main emphasis in the Olivet Discourse (as opposed to the Temple Discourse) was the coming of the Son of Man in power and glory.

That should get you started. For more info you can read these posts here.

http://theorangemailman.spaces.live.com ... !447.entry

http://theorangemailman.spaces.live.com ... !448.entry

Or if Smackbucket would get in here and post some links, that would be nice too.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[The Orange Mailman]

But Lambslave, it is obvious that Jesus did not always speak in figurative terms. When He spoke about the stones of the temple being thrown down and not one left upon another, He was not speaking figuratively, but He was speaking literally. So when Jesus spoke of an abomination of desolation after the way that Daniel prophesied of it, we need to examine Daniel to determine if there would be a figurative abomination at the temple which would lead to desolation, or if Daniel was prophesying figuratively.

40 At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through. 41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites. 42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train. 44 But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction. 45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

It would be quite difficult for me to read Daniel 11:40-45 figuratively. What would it be symbolic of? There will be a king who comes into the glorious land. What is that symbolic of? Three nations escape his grasp. What would that be symbolic of? He shall set up His palace between the sea and the Holy Mountain. What would that be symbolic of?

You see, there are passages which are to be interpreted symbolically because it is clear that they were meant to be symbolic. Then there are other passages which were meant to be taken literally. When Jesus spoke of the destruction of a literal temple, He was not speaking figuratively. When He spoke about the abomination of desolation, He was referencing Daniel who had prophesied of an abomination at the physical temple which would lead to a desolation at the physical temple.

So the reference to Jesus speaking symbolically on one occasion does not mean that He always did so.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[lambslave]

O.M. This is not a rebuke but the unique use of evening-morning in the Daniel 8 passage and Genesis 2 compels us to understand that Sabbaths will be excluded--2300 evening mornings= 1150 work days, and every 6 work days demands a Sabbath (never referrred to as an evening-morning). Added together you get 3 1/2 years plus the additional time mentioned by Daniel in Dan 12. The length of the Great Trib is never measured in so many weeks but is measured in "times" and "days". Just as Antochus forbade the Sabbath, so will the antichrist. But his way will be frustrated by the Returning Christ.LS

[lambslave]

O.M. Here is the ststement you made.
If this tension is present, than wouldn't Jesus be prophesying of an abomination of desolation at a temple like the one that He prophesied would be destroyed? Certainly the temple would be destroyed, but future generations could still expect an "abomination of desolation" on par with Daniel's prophecies to occur in that exact fashion, at a physical temple.
And my reply is:
There is every reason to believe that Jesus means the temple, the place where God's spirit dwells, the body of Christ. Once a building. Now a people--the church. Acts 2,-Eph 2, 1Cor 13, 1 Peter 2, etc! The AofD will be an attack against the church.LS

[IamtheWalrus]

OM,

I agree that it does appear that way, however the first two appear in almost identical terms, yet I believe were copied from Matthew into Luke, however the last presents different features, that it has been generally treated as two distinct utterances. The similarities, which can hardly be deemed accidental, have led you and others to regard them as different records of the same discourse.

Let's look at some others:
The Prayer of Jesus in which Matthew 11: 25-27 assigns to a special place, shortly after John the Baptist; is then conceived by Luke 10: 21, 22 to have been prompted by the triumphant return of the seventy disciples.
The scribes seeking a sign are both in Matthew 12: 38-42 and Luke 11: 29-32 in the same relative position, being placed directly after the discourse on casting out the demons; although Luke aims at variety by changing the character of the audience.

Te disciples asked the Lord three questions and in Matthew 24 that He only answered the last two of that book. And it's Luke's answer to their first question that confirms the whole message in its entirety. Generally, when a prophet revealed events that would take place beyond the lifetimes of the people he was speaking to, the Lord in this case, or prophets in other cases, often provided a short term partial fulfillment to validate the distant prophecy. This is because He had told the people that if what a prophet said didn't come true, then the people were not to fear him, for he hadn't spoken for the Lord. Deut 18:21-22

Also one must take into account that Luke, a Gentile, was directing the Greek audience. Abominaiton of Desolation would mean nothing to a Greek, but looking from outside in, or even from inside out, a Greek audience would understand when it was "surrounded by armies" in Jerusalem.

Luke 21:5-36 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God But Jesus said, "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
Luke 21:6 [As for] these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Luke 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign [will there be] when these things shall come to pass?

According to Mark 13:3, it was Peter, James, John and Andrew who asked, And in Matt. 24:3 we can read their complete question. "When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

This is our first hint that things will be different in Luke's account. He only has the disciples asking the first question.

It's important to understand that none of the gospel writers thought of themselves strictly as historians. Had the Lord only wanted to document history, one gospel account would have been sufficient. Instead, each writer was assigned a different audience, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tailored his account to meet the needs of that audience. Each also portrayed Jesus a little differently to show a particular side of Him. Matthew wrote to the Jews showing them that Jesus was their Messiah-King, the Lion of Judah. Mark wrote to the Romans, describing Jesus as the humble Servant of the Lord. Luke wrote to the Greeks, portraying Jesus as the Son of Man, and John wrote to the Church identifying Jesus as the Son of God.

Among other things, this was the fulfillment of four Old Testament prophecies of a figure God called “The Branch,” a messianic reference. In Jeremiah 23:5 the Branch is called the King. In Zechariah 3:8 He's the Servant. In Zechariah 6:12 He's the Man and in Isaiah 4:2 He's the Branch of the Lord.

Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am [Christ]; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end [is] not by and by.
Luke 21:10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
Luke 21:11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

His answer sounds a lot like those in Matthew and Mark, but that changes here:

Luk 21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute [you], delivering [you] up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
Luk 21:13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
Luk 21:14 Settle [it] therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
Luk 21:15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
Luk 21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and [some] of you shall they cause to be put to death.
Luk 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake.
Luk 21:18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
Luk 21:19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

This chain of events clearly describes the lives of the Apostles in the earliest days of the Church. Peter and John testified before the Sanhedrin. Paul was on both sides of this prophecy, first attacking Christians with a vengeance and after his conversion bearing witness to leaders like Felix, Festus, and Herod Agrippa. Of the original disciples, only John died of natural causes, and all of them suffered through the most terrifying forms of torture without ever recanting a single word of their testimony.

While Matthew's ends with the 2nd Coming and is world wide in its focus, Luke's describes the Jewish diaspora and the ensuing control the city by the Gentiles. In short Luke's account has so far been confined to describing events concerning the fall of Jerusalem. He was describing the short term partial fulfillment within the lifetimes of the Lord's audience that validates the total fulfillment at the End of the Age. While I do agree, there are possible future fulfilments to this prophecy, people must come to terms that what had happened in the ending years of the eartphly Jewish religious system, will be mirrored, or fulfilled in the same typed manner it did for the early Christian church living under the aposate Jewish system, in that the church will become so corrupt once again, that it will accept one/group of religious leader(s) representing Christ falsely and lead many astray, and those that remain faithful such as the disciple and early church apostles, will be persecuted in may ways, mostly as we see in Revelation, is beheading.

[lambslave]

Ken, you are doing some good work. Keep it up. LS

[Pretzelogical]

Ken Walrus wrote:

shortly after John the Baptist, is then conceived by Luke

My point...CONTEXT!
Mailman, your argument works much like what I just did to the writings of Ken, in my opinion.

[IamtheWalrus]

Ken, you are doing some good work. Keep it up. LS

Thanks Stephen, most times though,I feel I get rambling on, and can't get my thoughts flowing properly.
My brain begins to overload.

TMI - Too much information

[lambslave]

OxBob, Walrus, O.M., Pretz, K.A., et al...What would you think if we had just one day of the year that we took time out to just praise God, and bless eeach other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We necessarily spend a lot of time contending for a position--it might be really a refreshing experience to worship together as one. I hope I haven't 0verstepped myself here. Lambslave.

[WallDoctor]

The thing is, such a party would have been laughed out of the water a year ago,but now people are begining to take it seriously.After what you stated about a christian type antichrist, this could be a way of it coming about.what says ye.

I found the idea intriguing of someone claiming to be a Christian and that this would be the Covenant but as Orange Mailman, Nike and others have pointed out, I think using the Covenant as the basis is incorrect. I do agree with you though that the Antichrist might very well appear to be a Christian at first and many Christians might be at first deceived. If you pay attention to American politics at all and see how many Christians voted for Obama thinking that he would be a better leader for Christian values you will see what I mean. It's not hard to imagine the Antichrist arising who will be attractive to even Christians at first. I don't think they'll be deceived for long, but then again, I am still waiting for my Christian friends who voted for Obama to admit they made a mistake.

Of course, for all I know, my candidate who I thought was awesome was Mike Huckabee and it might be someone like him who ends up being the Antichrist.

[IamtheWalrus]

You see, there are passages which are to be interpreted symbolically because it is clear that they were meant to be symbolic. Then there are other passages which were meant to be taken literally. When Jesus spoke of the destruction of a literal temple, He was not speaking figuratively. When He spoke about the abomination of desolation, He was referencing Daniel who had prophesied of an abomination at the physical temple which would lead to a desolation at the physical temple.

Let me bud in a minute. Orange, What I think you are missing here is the replacement, or renewal of the covenant, and how it affected the imagery and symbolism of the temple from Old Testament to New Testament. What saints prophesied about the temple(s) in the OT, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the church. The mere factor that the apostles like Paul, Peter, and James compounded the doctrine of "the temple is in us" through the minds of the early church alone should be sufficient, so as to many hearing the gospels, mostly Gentiles, understood it with ease. It was and is the Jews who had not come to Christ, that continue to look for this rebuilt temple,in which Christ Himself had torn away. The End of Age has already come, this short term in the Jewish system in 70 AD, and the end times, since the church replaced the Levitical system in the NT, it so will be like what happened in the first century. The Jewish system had gone apostate, numerous times, including 160's BC with Antiochus Epiphanes, considering this reference from Christ, the same will occur with the church, the NT temple. The system we know of today, will get worse, and will persecute its own, much more than it has in the past, unlike other factions and faiths persecuting Christians such as Muslims and Marxists do now, this coming time it will be from their own kind, people we go to work with that claim to be a Jesus lovers but accept other faiths in the path to God, yet followers and professers of the faith in Christ.

This is what Paul means, speaking to Gentiles mind you, and taken into consideration his teachings on the new temple in the Church and Christ, that he utters the notion of "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

This was apparent then as it is now. At this time the gnostic church was well under way, and were bringing a new doctirne, false it was, in Christ. The antichrist movement already began, and has gotten stronger, and stronger and will get even more stronger as time goes by, inevitably producing the most sickest, harlot-like, drunk from the blood of the saints, apostate system in the church, that the original truth doctrine of the Christ, will have faded away. Washed in the river of blood from folks like you and I.

[IamtheWalrus]

OxBob, Walrus, O.M., Pretz, K.A., et al...What would you think if we had just one day of the year that we took time out to just praise God, and bless eeach other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We necessarily spend a lot of time contending for a position--it might be really a refreshing experience to worship together as one. I hope I haven't 0verstepped myself here. Lambslave.

I think that's a great idea.

[The Orange Mailman]

And my reply is:
There is every reason to believe that Jesus means the temple, the place where God's spirit dwells, the body of Christ. Once a building. Now a people--the church. Acts 2,-Eph 2, 1Cor 13, 1 Peter 2, etc! The AofD will be an attack against the church.LS

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!"

So Lambslave, when Jesus said these words:

"Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here on stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

You believe that Jesus was speaking of the church being torn down, is that correct? Just for clarification.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[IamtheWalrus]

That isn't what LS said, or Jesus....Jesus says:

"See these great buildings.." or "all these things..."

Mar 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Luk 21:6 [As for] these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

He did not say temple. That was in Him and in us.

[IamtheWalrus]

You believe that Jesus was speaking of the church being torn down, is that correct?

You're onto something. Explains Revelation now doesn't? Type happened in 70AD. Symbols within the type.
Will be fulfilled in the end, with the church, pitted against the virgin saints.

Mystery Babylon...but isn't that another thread?

[lambslave]

OM, No. I do not. I believe that He was speaking about the temple. And indeed it is in ruins today and has been replaced. It is holy, and it will be desecrated, when the abomination of desolation takes place. LS

[The Orange Mailman]

So Lambslave, you concede that Jesus spoke of the physical temple, but you maintain that the abomination of desolation in a discourse which concerns the physical temple could not be about the physical temple? Is that correct?

[IamtheWalrus]

So Lambslave, you concede that Jesus spoke of the physical temple, but you maintain that the abomination of desolation in a discourse which concerns the physical temple could not be about the physical temple? Is that correct?

I do too. The AOD occurred in 167-68 BC, 67-70 AD, and will again occur, with the church as a temple, in the end.
Plus he already did...in the previous post...why the fuss?

[The Orange Mailman]

Hey Walrus-

Generally, when a prophet revealed events that would take place beyond the lifetimes of the people he was speaking to, the Lord in this case, or prophets in other cases, often provided a short term partial fulfillment to validate the distant prophecy. This is because He had told the people that if what a prophet said didn't come true, then the people were not to fear him, for he hadn't spoken for the Lord. Deut 18:21-22

This is a great point. Prophetic tension was certainly at work in Jesus' statements.

Concerning the construct of Luke's gospel, there are other factors beside what you have presented. Not that everything you have mentioned is wrong, there's just more to it. Luke prefaces his gospel with his understanding of the events which were delivered to "us" (meaning the church) by the eyewitnesses of the events. Luke is sort of like a reporter putting together all the facts from those who actually saw and heard the LORD Jesus. Theophilus was most likely a government official, and Luke probably had a Greek audience in mind. But there is so much to Luke that is simply absent from Matthew and Mark. We usually term Matthew, Mark, and Luke the synoptic gospels because they have the same basic structure, but do they really? Luke is the only one which records anything by the mother of Jesus. I can't find any parallels for Luke 15-17 except for one small passage. Where do we get the parable of the good Samaritan?

I think it would be important to understand how vast the three years of ministry were. The twelve followed Jesus around for three years memorizing every word He would teach them. So rather than a Q document, I ascribe to more of an established oral tradition. Some sayings of Jesus He may have taught to them on differing occasions, hence perhaps a slight difference. The LORD's prayer is one example Matthew 6:9-13, Luke 11:1-4. The beatitudes are another Matthew 5:1-12, Luke 6:20-22. Couldn't the beatitudes have been in the sermon on the mount and in the sermon on the plain? So rather than say that one gospel writer borrowed from another, I believe they all took from the established oral tradition as taught by the twelve at the temple and house to house. There was certainly much to choose from. John makes note that if everything were written down that the entire world would not be able to contain the books that should be written, John 21:25.

Luke decided to use the Temple Discourse and notes it by showing that the speech Jesus gave was given AT THE TEMPLE. Matthew and Mark decided to use the clarifyer and they noted that the speech was given ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. The things that Jesus stated at the temple, He would restate but with a slightly different framework on the Mount of Olives.

While Matthew's ends with the 2nd Coming and is world wide in its focus, Luke's describes the Jewish diaspora and the ensuing control the city by the Gentiles. In short Luke's account has so far been confined to describing events concerning the fall of Jerusalem. He was describing the short term partial fulfillment within the lifetimes of the Lord's audience that validates the total fulfillment at the End of the Age. While I do agree, there are possible future fulfilments to this prophecy,

Here's the part that I completely agree with. This is exactly my point in understand the difference between the Temple Discourse and the Olivet Discourse. Luke had a goal in mind concerning the city of Jerusalem in his gospel. See note below. ** When we come to Mark and Matthew, we must take the setting and audience into consideration. So cross referencing the abomination of desolation with Jerusalem being surrounded with armies simply does not work. They are two different phrases with two different meanings.

people must come to terms that what had happened in the ending years of the eartphly Jewish religious system, will be mirrored, or fulfilled in the same typed manner it did for the early Christian church living under the aposate Jewish system, in that the church will become so corrupt once again, that it will accept one/group of religious leader(s) representing Christ falsely and lead many astray, and those that remain faithful such as the disciple and early church apostles, will be persecuted in may ways, mostly as we see in Revelation, is beheading.

While there may be truth to this, and there may very well be a parallel as you describe (this is popular in Historic Pre-Mill position), a spiritual application or parallel does not negate physical aspects of a prophecy. If there were prophecies that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, would we automatically assume that He would be born of someone spiritually pure, or a real physical literal virgin? You see how both can be true? In the same way, when I debate with A-Millennialists (not saying you are one), they always point to the spiritual implications of NT prophecy completely overriding any physical literal aspects there may be to unfulfilled prophecy. There is a spiritual explanation for everything in their minds. So I really don't see anything that I've read concerning the church being a spiritual temple negating prophecies concerning a literal temple in the future.

Orange, What I think you are missing here is the replacement, or renewal of the covenant, and how it affected the imagery and symbolism of the temple from Old Testament to New Testament. What saints prophesied about the temple(s) in the OT, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the church.

As far as replacement theology, you would have to prove your point because the church did not replace Israel. That's all for now.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

**The difference in the arrangement of each gospel is something we may never fully understand. Each gospel writer was free to choose events or leave them out depending on what themes he was highlighting. It seems that Luke had an affixation with Jerusalem and its fate. Luke alone includes Mary and Joseph presenting Jesus as an infant at the temple in Jerusalem. Luke alone records the discussion during the transfiguration concerning the death of Christ which must happen at Jerusalem. Luke alone records the time when Jesus "set His face toward Jerusalem". Luke records the hauntingly strange phrase, "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." In Luke, Jesus anticipates those who believe that the Kingdom of God would immediately appear simply because He was going to Jerusalem. Luke alone records the address to the daughters of Jerusalem. Luke alone records the instructions to wait in Jerusalem until they received power from on high.

[WallDoctor]

As far as replacement theology, you would have to prove your point because the church did not replace Israel. That's all for now.

I agree with most of what you are saying OM. But I do contest this. One thing I hate is being defined by other peoples terms and not by my own terms. I always prefer to call people by what they themselves want to be called -- especially when it comes to theological labels. I used to go to a Covenant Theology Church and we never referred to ourselves as holding to Replacement Theology. It also isn't accurate. We never felt that the Church had replaced Israel, we always taught that we were joined to Israel, we became spiritual Israel, and that we were now one with Christian Jews. I understand what you mean by it but Replacement Theology has a very disrespectful tone to it. Whether we agree with it or not, there are passages which at least on the surface show that the church evolved and grew out of Israel and is the fulfillment of Israel. That is a far cry from the church replacing Israel as if some axe chopped one part off and an oddly shaped and not necessarily preferred appendage were quickly attached in its place.

Those who hold to Covenant Theology for the most part are our strong allies because they unlike Pretribulation Dispensationalist understand that the Church must face satanic persecutions before Christ returns for his church. We will disagree on the details but at least they can say that if it all happens literally they are as equally prepared as if it all happens a lot more figuratively.

Anyway that's all I got to say on that topic. As one formerly in that camp, I have great sympathies towards it and very much despise the term "replacement theology".

[Pretzelogical]

to just praise God, and bless eeach other with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Count me in!
How/where?

Early in His ministry, Jesus was making it clear that He knew the leaders would destroy Him, and that His body is the the true temple. We are the body of Christ.
John 2:18 The Jews then said to Him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.

[IamtheWalrus]

OM,

You are right about the church not replacing Israel. It became Israel. You and I are part of Israel.
The Jews that do NOT worship Christ, are pagan, just like everyone else.
The Jews that do worship Christ, are Christian, just like us.
This isnt about the Jews that don't worship Christ, it is about the Jews that do.
The Remnant.
You are very close.

[lambslave]

OM, You wrote,
"So Lambslave, you concede that Jesus spoke of the physical temple, but you maintain that the abomination of desolation in a discourse which concerns the physical temple could not be about the physical temple? Is that correct?

No. Jesus spoke of the physical temple when he referred to the physical temple, "see these buildings..." and he spoke of an act that was not going to be done in a physical (dead) temple "let the reader understand" when he spoke of the AofD. LS

[IamtheWalrus]

.....let the reader, discern this....in light that all He has taught us.

[The Orange Mailman]

Hi Lambslave-

This is interesting. You concede the physical nature of the temple at which Jesus spoke. You concede that part of Jesus' speech meant the physical temple, but the other part does not concern the physical temple. How can you make the distinction? If Jesus spoke about the physical temple in one part of His discourse, why can't the reference be to the physical temple in the other part? Where at in Jesus' discourse does He state that He is no longer speaking literally, but is now speaking figuratively? If He was speaking figuratively during the second portion, why couldn't He have been speaking figuratively in the first portion?

Here is where you seems to be saying that it will be future, but NOT at a physical temple, but in the church.

The AofD will be an attack against the church.LS

Where in Daniel or the Olivet Discourse do you see the A of D as a reference to an attack on the church? I'd rather not read the same things about the church being a spiritual house, I'd like to read from Daniel or the Olivet Discourse something which clearly states that this is the church being spoken of.

My point is that a simple reading of the Olivet Discourse, along with a study of Daniel would conclude that the abomination of desolation includes taking away sacrifices and setting up a form of worship which the LORD did not intend at the physical temple in Jerusalem. To say that the intent of the prophet Daniel and Jesus was to convey some truth about the church is to read into their intentions something that was not there.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[The Orange Mailman]

Hi Wall Doctor-

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Walrus used the word "replacement" in his post, so I left the door open for a conversation about that by using the term "replacement theology". If Walrus meant what he said, then he believes in a replacement in the covenants.

Now you seem familiar with the whole debate, so I'll just state my position up front. I don't ascribe to dispensationalism at all. I read Progressive Dispensationalism and found many good things in it, but I still can't call myself a dispensationalist. Covenant Theology however, I can't ascribe to it as it's been presented to me thus far. But I believe there are different strands within Covenant Theology as well. Some affirm the future state of the physical nation of Israel, some do not. So while I don't call myself a Covenant Theologian, I've only read the mainstream views on it, particularly Dr. Waldron over at Illumination.

My position is officially Historic Pre-Millennialism. I closely follow Ladd's theology, who is constantly quoted by Covenant Theologians as being in their camp. Although having studied Ladd, he did not completely ascribe to CT, but he came pretty close. Ladd was a devout Pre-Millennialist. I think some people have dubbed him Covenant Pre-Mill, although I don't know if he called himself that.

There must be continuity between Israel and the church, although they remain different as far as entities go. Gentiles are saved without having to become Israelites as Acts 15 shows. But the book of Romans affirms a future place for the nation of Israel, Romans 11. The kingdom pictures Gentiles being saved alongside the nation of Israel, see Romans 15:8-12. And Paul believes that there is much value in circumcision, Romans 3:1-2, which is actually a synonym for being a physical Israelite.

But the church is the entity through which God will work throughout all ages, Ephesians 3:21. So I have concluded that when Israel comes to repentance as a nation, that the nation of Israel will actually enter the church. So I see continuity at the second coming as well. I don't see God being done with the church as we enter the Messianic Age.

I've come up with a name for my own position. I ascribe to Messianic Kingdom theology. We as believers in Messiah have repented in advance of the judgement that will immediately precede His earthly rule. We submit to His kingdom rule now, even though the physical aspect of it remains in the future. We show non-believers what the kingdom will look like by acting out His ways in the present. It's the Presence of the Future (blatant ripoff of Ladd).

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[Pretzelogical]

OM said:

How can you make the distinction?

Because scripture makes that distinction.
John 2:21
But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

It is called an Object Lesson. Jesus used whatever objects were at hand and understood by all to make comparisons to spiritual truths. The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, a pearl of great price...

*See this temple? Let me tell you about a spritual temple, my body. Do you not know you are the body, the temple! You are a living sacrifice. You are poured out like a drink offering. Offer up a sacrifice of praise. Do good works as a spiritual sacrifice, because you are the temple now. Worship in spirit and in truth.*

Daniel 8:13
Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, " How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?"

Who is the host of the holy place that is trampled by the transgression that causes horror (abomination of desolation)?

[IamtheWalrus]

OM,

Your stance is interesting, and very well termed. I just like to think of myself as a Christian. Every modification and interpretation out there has flaws, even yours, and most likely mine. So, how about Biblical Purist?

[lambslave]

OM, You may be aware that the apostle Paul quotes part of Daniel 11:36, obviously referring to verses 36-37 in 2Thess2:3-4.
Daniel 11:36 "And he will exhalt and magnify himself above above every God..." compare:
2Thess 2:4 "who opposes and exhalts himself above every so-called God or object of worship..."

We are dealing with the same guy in both passages Daniel 11:36 and 2Thess 2:4. In neither place does he build or go into a temple. But he is called the man of lawlessness and son of destruction. He acts during a time of apostacy 2Thess 2:3 which asgrees with what Jesus said in Matthew 24:10.

Daniel 8:11 says, "the place of His saanctuary was thrown down" it does not say temple as such.

The following is crucial---please be as objective as possible--the angel speaking to Daniel first prophesies then he explains. Verses 9-13 are explained in 21-26. Here is the point, when the angel explains he says nothing about the destruction of a temple, or Jerusalem, but he does say that the shrewd and deceitfful one will destroy the mighty and holy people (LXX) and oppose the Prince of princes.

Then concerning the 2300 evening-mornings, he says simply they are true---what he has alerady said needs no further explanation. the 2300 evening mornings are as in Genesis, 1150 days--each evening-morning being a work day for God, Sabbaths never being so designated--and Sabbaths having been forbidden as the tamid or continuity was stopped.Lambslave

[The Orange Mailman]

Hi Lambslave-

Because scripture makes that distinction.
John 2:21
But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Scripture makes that distinction in John 2, but not in Matthew 24. You even concede yourself that the destruction of the temple which Jesus spoke of was the physical destruction. At what point in Matthew 24 does Jesus clearly show where He ceases speaking of the physical temple and begin speaking of a figurative temple?

It is called an Object Lesson. Jesus used whatever objects were at hand and understood by all to make comparisons to spiritual truths. The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, a pearl of great price...

*See this temple? Let me tell you about a spritual temple, my body. Do you not know you are the body, the temple! You are a living sacrifice. You are poured out like a drink offering. Offer up a sacrifice of praise. Do good works as a spiritual sacrifice, because you are the temple now. Worship in spirit and in truth.*

The problem is that Jesus never said those things in Matthew 24 or Mark 13. In fact, He didn't say them at all. There is no place where He used a parable to state that it was all an allegory concerning the body of Messiah. His parables which follow clearly center the prophecy around His second coming. Even if this spiritual application is the case, it does not negate a future literal fulfillment.

We are dealing with the same guy in both passages Daniel 11:36 and 2Thess 2:4. In neither place does he build or go into a temple.

What about Daniel 11:31? Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.

Is Daniel 11:45 to be taken as symbolic, or as an allegory? And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.

Daniel 8:11 says, "the place of His saanctuary was thrown down" it does not say temple as such.

It does not need to say "temple". The sanctuary was the holy place within the temple. Besides, it wouldn't make sense for the word "temple" to appear here. The prophecy is given during the reign of Belshazzar. It had not yet been revealed that the temple would be rebuilt. Daniel receieved that vision next in the first year of Darius after the Babylonian Empire had been overthrown. Once Gabriel revealed to Daniel that the temple would be rebuilt, the sanctuary would then be the correct terminology to convey that the temple would be defiled.

Who is the host of the holy place that is trampled by the transgression that causes horror (abomination of desolation)?

Aha! A point worth considering. My initial response would be that this is primarily speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes. The host of Daniel 8:10-11 would be the people of Israel, specifically the believers within the nation of Israel. Then in Daniel 8:12, the people (the host) are given over to him. The sanctuary means the sanctuary (or temple) while the host means the people. I don't see where the sanctuary means the host.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[lambslave]

Orange Mailman, Interesting response to whomever wrote you. I think it was Walrus. But it wasn't me. I am anxious to have your reaction to my posts. Lambslave.

[lambslave]

O.M. On second read, there is kind of a mixture here of things I sasid and others have said. Let me see if I can sort this reply out--The place you quote, "Because scripture makes that distinction" and "It is an object lesson" is simply not mine. So, I do not follow your answer. Sorry not trying to be difficult.
Then in the midst of your answer to the above remarks you quote my statement from a different post, where I compare Daniel 11 with 2 Thess 4.
You reply to my use of these passages by quoting Daniel 11:31, usually regarded as referring to Antiochus IV, while 11:36 is acknowledged as looking at the distant future because of the change of wording, which distinguishes the "time of the end" still to come. (v.35)
I would have the same answer to your question about sanctuary in Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31. You are mixing apples and oranges (no pun intended). Dan 11:31 is Antiochus 8:11 is th AC.
When the angel speaks about the end time future and uses the words 'place of His sanctuary,' and we know that as a matter of fact there is more than one place that has been the place of the sanctuary of God, reason leads us to look for other indicators of which sanctuary the prophet is speaking about. And is it entirely unexpected that prophets of the Old Testament would speak about the church of the New Testament? If they did how would they refefr to it?
Hope any of this helps. Keep questioning. It's important. Lambslave

[The Orange Mailman]

Sorry Lambslave. I was pulling from Pretzelogical's post and yours intertwined in one response. No wonder you are confused. Because I was. Thanks for trying to sort it out.

[WallDoctor]

Hi Wall Doctor-

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Walrus used the word "replacement."

I should have read the entire posting more thoroughly. I missed that from Walrus. I have just seen too many times those in the Dispensational camp scoff with a very uncharitable attitude Covenant Theology and for them, they use the term replacement theology as an insult. I now understand where you are coming from and I apologize for over-reacting.

But I believe there are different strands within Covenant Theology as well.

There definitely are. For example, we were CT Baptists. We did not take Baptism to be the New Covenant
circumcision as paedobaptists do. We taught that just as a person was born into the nation of Israel (born into the covenant) on the 8th day they were circumcised to acknowledge the covenant already made with them. In the same manner, we taught that we come to faith (are spiritually born) and afterward receive the outward sign of the covenant. Of course, for a strict dispensationalist this would be a foreign concept because they would not see/acknowledge that parallel. And of course, many strict CT's did not accept that we were CT because we did believe in believer baptism. Go figure!

Some affirm the future state of the physical nation of Israel, some do not.

We taught in general one of the signs of the end of the age would be a large revival of Jews coming to faith in Christ. They didn't emphasis Israel as a physical nation though. So we were probably in the middle somewhere.

My position is officially Historic Pre-Millennialism."

Our church was Amillenial and when I started attending the same church as Nike and Slick I was still strongly so. Over the years I have come to accept a Historic Pre-Millenial position but the problem is I am not sure there is any true agreement of what that means. In our old church we would say "Covenant/Historic Pre-Millenial" believing Historic was synonymous with Covenant. Others would be more dispensational but could either be Prewrath or Post Trib. And you yourself have defined a slightly different definition.

There must be continuity between Israel and the church, although they remain different as far as entities go. Gentiles are saved without having to become Israelites as Acts 15 shows. But the book of Romans affirms a future place for the nation of Israel, Romans 11. The kingdom pictures Gentiles being saved alongside the nation of Israel, see Romans 15:8-12. And Paul believes that there is much value in circumcision, Romans 3:1-2, which is actually a synonym for being a physical Israelite.

This is a big area where I still struggle in throwing off my CT background. I am not saying that Israel as a nation isn't important, but what I am saying is that I've never been able to see it provable from Romans 11. Romans 11 seems to me to be talking about spiritual restoration and not national restoration. Even in Romans 3:9 it says, "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin." To me, the entire context is this idea that God has made a level playing field spiritually and that he calls his Elect out of both jews and gentiles. The advantage spoken of in Romans 3:1-2 is not that they were a nation (which was an advantage) but that they had the oracles of God. Their advantage is that they had the Scriptures and knew them and had seen God working within their midst. Something that the gentiles never had to that point. In the same way our children have an advantage growing up in a christian home even though they are no better off if they reject that blessing.

Again, I am not denying the need of the nation of Israel for end times purposes, I speak only of saying I don't see it in the passages of Romans you brought up.

But the church is the entity through which God will work throughout all ages, Ephesians 3:21. So I have concluded that when Israel comes to repentance as a nation, that the nation of Israel will actually enter the church. So I see continuity at the second coming as well. I don't see God being done with the church as we enter the Messianic Age.

AND HERE I AGREE 100%!!!!! (I know we are not to use caps but sometimes they are so cool. I like to "yell" when I can)

To me this is not inconsistent with CT. It still teaches that the church and Israel are one. It also is a rejection of most forms of dispensationalism. It is not replacement theology. It is far less messy in my mind with the loose ends which both sides have tied up.

We as believers in Messiah have repented in advance of the judgement that will immediately precede His earthly rule. We submit to His kingdom rule now, even though the physical aspect of it remains in the future. We show non-believers what the kingdom will look like by acting out His ways in the present. It's the Presence of the Future.

I agree with this! It is what our former church taught. Sometimes I think though that we divide spiritual and physical reign too much. Christ has a physical body and is in heaven right now reigning -- the only difference will be in the physical kingdom he will be visible. So if we take our faith seriously, we should recognize that our King is reigning now. We are to be faithful citizens awaiting our King to take back his territory which has been temporarily relinquished to the enemy.

I've come up with a name for my own position. I ascribe to Messianic Kingdom theology.

I will have to think about this term. Not really sure if it demonstrates what you mean. Afterall, even dispensationalists and CT'ers believe in the "Messianic Kingdom". Both sides just define it differently.


WallDoctor

[IamtheWalrus]

Wall Doctor you and I agree, and OM, for the most part. I as well see Israel as very important, remember the two sons of Abraham...older serving the younger, the same went for Isaac and Essau, Isaac's sons and so on, then we get to the Jews and Gentiles...the same motif again. Older serving the younger. They are defintiely two separate entities, and their salvation is the focus, not their pagan, beastial sacrifices. They too once again, will be grafted in, namely because of the blessing to the Gentiles, who kept the light lit, for them to eventually come back to God...to see the message and the light many faithful Christians have for them. The real question is:

Is the Woman on the beast the Sovereign Jewish entity, or is it the Christian?
Both are guilty of spiritual genocide, both have the blood of God's ordained on their hands.

[WallDoctor]

Is the Woman on the beast the Sovereign Jewish entity, or is it the Christian?
Both are guilty of spiritual genocide, both have the blood of God's ordained on their hands.

I will have to think about this one. I personally do not think it is the church. The biggest difference between the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the Church today is that there was a physical and spiritual covenant made with Israel while there is only a spiritual covenant made with the church. So Israel could as a nation be spiritually dead except for a Remnant of spiritually alive believers. It's this spiritual Israel that passes on into the Church. But we have no physical covenant with God so the church isn't what we see in our congregations but only those true believers of all churches (and including OT saints).

So Israel can be apostate because it was a physical and spiritual entity (promise of land and promise of salvation) but the Church never can be because it is only a spiritual entity.

But that is just my personal opinion and if the Woman on the Beast is only speaking of what goes by the name christian including everything from Roman Catholic, Episcopalianism, or even mormanism.....I guess it could be. I am no theologian. Just my thought without studying it. Not really even sure the point of the question or what prewrath teaches the woman is actually. So I am only speaking in general terms of what I see Israel and the Church to be and not specifically what this passage refers to. (Disclaimer)

[The Orange Mailman]

Hi Wall Dr.-

Thanks for the response concerning Covenant Theology. I'd throw in there that paedobaptism is a big hindering in CT being accepted in many circles. It's nice to see that some just leave it out altogether. You are correct that the term "Historic Pre-Millennialism has a very broad base. I am currently reading through A Case For Historic Pre-Millennialism and find this to be the case. It is not even one position laid out, it is actually a collection of essays by different Pre-Millennial authors. There is some cohesion to it, but it's a far cry from what I'd like to see in a book. I guess I'll just have to write one myself, probably after I retire. LORD willing.

This is a big area where I still struggle in throwing off my CT background. I am not saying that Israel as a nation isn't important, but what I am saying is that I've never been able to see it provable from Romans 11. Romans 11 seems to me to be talking about spiritual restoration and not national restoration. Even in Romans 3:9 it says, "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin." To me, the entire context is this idea that God has made a level playing field spiritually and that he calls his Elect out of both jews and gentiles. The advantage spoken of in Romans 3:1-2 is not that they were a nation (which was an advantage) but that they had the oracles of God.

If I may respond to this, I'd like to point out the main reason for my belief that Romans 11 points to the physical nation of Israel. First off, the passage actually begins in Romans 9. Romans 9-11 contains the theme of the salvation of the nation of Israel. Paul begins by speaking to those who are of the physical nation of Israel, but not of the spiritual. He quotes OT scripture after scripture which all were directed at the physical nation of Israel. It is a hermeneutic, but I believe it's better than spiritualizing and simply saying that all those OT passages no longer apply to the nation of Israel. At the end of chapter 10, Paul is quoting Moses from Deuteronomy 32:21 concerning how the nation of Israel will be provoked to jealousy. Surprise, it's by Gentile believers and it was prophesied way back as Israel was first becoming a nation. Paul reiterates this in Romans 11:11, mentioning Gentiles provoking Israel to jealousy once again. Then to top it off, Paul quotes Isaiah 59:20-21 stating that "all Israel shall be saved." The original context of Isaiah 59:20-21 was that Israel would come into a covenant relationship with the LORD as a nation by the Holy Spirit being poured out upon them. This relationship would extend through Israel's offspring as she exists before the LORD as a nation forever. It all happens when the Redeemer (Jesus) comes to Zion. So the phrase "all Israel shall be saved" is a NT interpretation of Isaiah 59:20-21. But Isaiah 59:20-21 will come to pass exactly like Isaiah prophesied. Hope that makes sense.

As far as personal salvation goes, that's slightly different. Each person must have faith to be saved, but the nation of Israel as a whole will experience God's salvation in a way that I don't completely understand yet. But this salvation will not be for Israel alone, the OT is rife with the Gentile nations coming to faith in the LORD. Israel will be the first, but not the last to experience national salvation.

We are to be faithful citizens awaiting our King to take back his territory which has been temporarily relinquished to the enemy.

EXACTLY!!!! Now I'm excited and typing in caps. It's nice to see that we have a lot in common with our theology. I do realize that Messianic Kingdom is a broad term. My niche is that I like to emphasize the original descriptions of the Messianic Kingdom from the psalms and show that it's going to happen just like they described it would happen. Sometimes I feel like people just aren't catching on, but when I read those psalms, they are so full of imagery that is often overlooked, I feel like it's my job to point it out.

Thanks for the conversation.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[revelation12eleven]

Please allow me to jump in here and encourage anyone who has never visited Orange's blog to do so. I've been following his Psalm posts. You will be tremendously blessed if you drop on by and read Darrin's insights into the Psalms. All his posts are great!

http://theorangemailman.spaces.live.com/