The Dual Fulfilment Fallacy

I'm someone who is still at the core of my Eschatology a Premillennial Futurist, but who does interpret a good number of individual Prophecies in ways that fit how a Preterist and/or Historicist could interpret them.  

When I try to argue to a fellow Futurist that a certain Prophecy was clearly meant to be the near future of when the Prophecy was given, or even that at least how it begins was, that Prophets can't really be considered confirmed Prophets at all if nothing they predicted was fulfilled in their lifetime.  I occasionally get responses about the Dual Fulfilment concept, making it sound like it's an absolute that every prophecy has at least 2 fulfilments, near and far.  Understanding it this way makes it almsot impossible to definitively argue for anything.

Nathan's Prophecy about the Son of David building The Temple in 2 Samuel 7 is the core foundation upon which the dual fulfilment concept is based, and the reason why it can't even be called inherently Christian, every Jew who believes in a yet future Messiah Ben-David believes this Prophecy has a second fulfilment in addition to Solomon.

But the thing about this most undisputed case of a second fulfillment being needed, is that the first fulfilment failed.  Now make no mistake God always knew what was gonna happen, but the fact still remains that in theory Solomon alone could have been all this Prophecy needed, but he failed, the entire history of the divided kingdom is the legacy of Solomon's failure.  When you properly add that context it's not a dual fulfilment at all, it's only kind of applicable to Solomon at all because of what could have been.

That's why in my opinion dual fulfilments are possible and occasionally worth speculating on.  But to start building doctrine on some absolute expectation that no Prophecy is properly fulfilled till it's fulfilled twice is in my opinion foolish.

A lot of other almost undisputed examples of dual fulfilments are also ones where the second or final fulfilment is Jesus.  But in a lot of those cases it's typology, to Christians the applicability to Jesus is what matters most because we view everything through the lens of Jesus. But I would still call it wrong to act like that Prophecy wasn't actually fully fulfilled till Jesus.  The sense in which Jesus repeats it is a nice bonus for our Christian view of The Bible's metanarrative, but it often isn't at all what the original Prophet was concerned with.

Any Prophecy where I do feel that Prophecy was always chiefly about Jesus, I generally seek to, like with the failure of Solomon thesis, deconstruct the near fulfilment, which for example is how I currently treat Isaiah 7-8.  

However I no longer desire to treat the "antichrist" the same way.  I actually think we're bordering on Dualism heresy when we treat that figure like a mirror image.  So yes in a sense every Hero of The Hebrew Bible is a foreshadowing of Christ, but that doesn't make every villain a similar type of the "Antichrist".

And the thing about a lot of the Prophecies I do think are about the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in 70 AD. 70 AD was in a sense itself the second fulfilment, it was a repeat of the history of the fall to Nebuchadnezzar in 588 BC. so saying it must happen again in the future is arguing for a full on third fulfilment.

What I'm criticizing here is partly stuff I've been guilty of myself in the past on this very blog.  This is a product of how I feel I've grown wiser as a student of Prophecy.

In The Case of the Abomination of Desolation, Jesus tells us that an already fulfilled event will happen again.  However that doesn't mean every detail of Daniel 11-12 (or 9) is going to happen twice, the context of the next Abomination of Desolation could be very different.  I try to define what the AoD is based on the initial fulfilment of those prophecies, but that's it, everything leading up to and following it could and probably will be different.

On The Issue of The Seventieth Week of Daniel

There are some Christians out there who are Preterist in their understanding of the 70 Weeks of Daniel including the 70th.  But still Premillennial, and Futurist in their understanding of Revelation, Matthew 24 and other parts of Daniel.  They believe there is no gap between the 69th and 70th Week, and that the 70 Weeks prophecy has no connection to Revelation or the End Times.  They are all "Post-Trib" from what I've seen so far.

This belief itself can have different forms in how they believe the 70 Weeks are already fulfilled.  The point is they believe it is the great error of most Futurists to force a 7 year time period into their understanding of Revelation.  They insist Revelation and Daniel 12 all repeatedly define the time period of the End Times as 42 Months, 1260 days, Time Times and half a Time, ect.

That this time peirod happens to be half of seven years, and Daniel 9:27 happens to divide it's 70th week in half, and Daniel 12 again brings up the Abomination of Desolation in one of those time period references, is all just a coincidence.

Related to this is another view that there is a gap, but the gap is in the middle of the 70th week, not between the last two weeks.   That Jesus on the Cross marks the mid-Way point of the 70th Week, not the end of the 69th as a plain reading implies.

They wouldn't consider what I pointed out above a coincidence.  But they view the first half as having nothing to do with Revelation, and so would agree that all references to 3.5 years in Revelation are about the same time period.  There is no coming seven year period.

Problem is, the 42 months of Revelation 11:2 and 1260 days of Revelation 12:6 can't be the same time period.  In the former Israel controls The Temple, the Gentiles only have the Outer Court, but in the Latter they're hiding in The Wilderness.

There are two ways they would respond to this argument of mine.

Some would allegories 11:2, the Temple and Holy City there is The Church, not Jerusalem.  And the Outer Court being Trodden Under Foot refers to either 1. Persecution, or 2. fake Christians within the Church.  They argue this Holy City can't be the Same as terrestrial Jerusalem described latter as "Spiritually Sodom and Egypt".  But that is always the nature of Jerusalem in the Old Testament.  She constantly falls into a Sinful State , but God never ceases considering her his Holy City.

The alternative is to reject the The Woman being Israel, or at least National Israel, bringing replacement theology into it.  Saying she's The Church, or part of The Church.  Or keeping her as National Israel but only the believing Remnant.  Such views convolute things too much.

So yes, a Seven Year time peirod can be demonstrated from Revelation alone, without turning to Daniel.

I believe Revelation 11's 3.5 year references are the first half of the 70th Week.  The Seventh Trumpet marks the midway point and The Rapture, and then the 3.5 year references in Revelation 12 and 13 are the second half.

I've elaborated on this here.

The Olivite Discourse, Mark

Mark, also is distinct from the other two, and is generally set aside.

Starting again with the setting, Mark's more resembles Matthew's as it's a private teaching and not a public sermon. But while in Matthew all the Disciples are implied to be present, Mark 13:3 says "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately". So this is even more selective knowledge, at least at first.

Now for Mark's version of the core set of signs all 3 have in common.

Mr 13:5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am He; and shall deceive many.  And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

What I neglected to address here before is that the "be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet." And it's equivalent wording in the other accounts is basically saying these aren't signs at all. Chuck Missler likes to call them the "non signs". Their about conditions that exist all through the period of time between The Second and Third Temples. To a lesser extent they can apply to Pre-70 A.D. too, as students of the History know, and could continue into the 70th week also. But for Eschatological Doctrine building purposes this is defining of the Temple-less Diaspora period.

The account of the persecution is more like Luke's because it's defined as being Jewish in origin. But it does have a connection to Matthew's where it talks of the Gospel being preached to all nations. But Mark is saying not to worry for the Church can't be wiped out during this period because the Gospel must be preached to all nations and that hasn't happened yet. While Matthew says that at that time The Gospel will be Preached to all nations, and that is the last thing to happen before the Abomination of Desolation.

The timing distinction between the Non Signs and the Persecution that is so important to the Matthew-Luke distinction doesn't exist at all. As if in Mark this Persecution is during this period, not before or after.

After the Abomination of Desolation part it parallels Matthew's pretty well. But the core of my view of Mark 13 is in how the Abomination of Desolation is described differently in Mark. Matthew says it will happen in the Holy Place, in the Temple. But in Mark.

Mr 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

"Where it ought not", is a pretty interesting distinction. Mark's, unlike every other reference, does not require The Temple to be standing for it to be literally fulfilled. Just an Abomination placed on that same land area.

I think we are dealing with a double fulfillment in this verse. I know your thinking "but the near fulfillment of the Abomination of Desolation was Antiochus Epiphanes, already in the past". Some times the multiple fulfillment doctrine has even more then just two. Every key detail of Jesus's First Advent had an OT foreshadowing, and some of the First Advent has a Second Repeat, mainly the Triumphal Entry.

Something that could be viewed as "close enough" was already in the past even in Daniel's time. King Manasseh of Judah, son of Hezekiah, placed Idols in The Temple.

I think the double fulfillment applies only to to the Abomination verse here. I don't see any future Christian persecutions being chiefly Jewish in origin, so what's before it here is the past. But what's after strongly matches Matthew too much for me to see it as different. So this Abomination is a jump forward point. Like how Daniel 8 jumps forward at Antiochus Epiphanes persecution, and Daniel 11:35 at the Maccabees victory.

I believe The Abomination of Desolation that is the near fulfillment here is The Equestrian Statue of Hadrian in the Jupiter Temple complex built over the Holy Mount after the Bar Kochba revolt was crushed. I discus that statue elsewhere, when I talk of my support for the Southern Conjecture or Al-Kas fountain view of The Temple's location.

The Bar Kochba revolt's importance to not just Jewish but Christian History is sadly overlooked. To me it's vital, and I also believe it was Bar Kochba not The Beast Yeshua meant in John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." Though I also consider that a verse not to build Doctrine on at all, least not Prophetic Doctrine, as the "if" makes it purely hypothetical. Like the imagined Psalm 83 War, or the hypothetical Assyrian attack in Micah 5.

What more people need to understand about the schism between Judaism and Christianity, is that it didn't simply go from bad to worse consistently from Stephen to Hitler.

The Jewish-Christian conflicts you see in Acts (and foretold in Luke 21) actually ceased after 70 A.D. Because the sects of Judaism most hostile to Christians, (Sadducees, Zelots, and Shammai following Pharisees) were completely wiped out in the 66-73 A.D. War. And the sect most tolerant of Christians, the Pharisees who followed Hillel The Elder (Hillel's grandson was the Gamaliel of Acts 4) became the sole surviving sect, until it eventually broke up among themselves. So from 75ish on into Hadrian's reign Christians and Jews not only got along, but were the same to outsiders, as historical references linked to Domitian's persecution of both demonstrates.

But in 132 A.D. Simon Bar Kochba started another Jewish revolt,in response to Hadrian's plans to built a Temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount. Christians might have been supportive, but because he proclaimed himself The Messiah, Christians were naturally not wiling to follow him. So he started a vicious persecution of Christians. And resentment towards this Persecution is what Christian Anti-Semitism was born from, we failed this time to follow the example of Stephen's dying words. "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."

I tend to agree with those Prophecy teachers who say that to some extend all of Israel's history has been laid out in advance by God. The Bar Kochba period is definitely of vital importance.

Perhaps to a lesser extent even what happens after the Abomination verse could have a type fulfillment in this period. Bar Kochba certainly was a False Christ(False Messiah) and the Rabbi who wrote the Sedar Olam to try and make the 70 week Prophecy point to him was indeed a False Prophet and/or False Teacher. And them in Judea did flee, many scholars consider this the real beginning of the Diaspora rather then 70 A.D. Indeed in 70 A.D. it was mostly Jews being taken as slaves to Rome, which Luke's Discourse references but not Mark, Hadrian kicked all the Jews out of Jerusalem, and many out of Judea.

Do the three different contexts color the differences in how the Non Signs are expressed? I will address only one. Contrary to what the many Translations say, the Greek text used Christos after "Many shall come in my name, saying, I am....." only in Matthew.

First though does the "in my name" really mean literally claiming to be Jesus? Not really, it can just mean someone usurping his status. Revelation 19 says both "and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself." and "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

You might at first think this usage of the word Christ/Messiah is the opposite of what you'd expect. The two in the contexts of Jewish in origin persecution, and Jewish revolts that involved Messianic claimants. But I think the key is who's being warned not to be deceived. Matthew the most has a Jewish context in mind. While the other two are for more general predominantly Gentile Christians, they weren't vulnerable to thinking Bar Kochba was The Messiah.

Luke's is the one taught publicly because that was the one nearest to be fulfilled, the word needed to spread fast. Matthew and Mark quickly wrote down what future generations needed to know.

Matthew's was heard by all 12 Disciples, so Matthew was again recording something he was an eye witness too, he tends to write down the longest speeches, being trained in short hand as a Roman customs official gave him an advantage there. I believe the statements of the Early Fathers that Mark was writing down what Peter preached in the 40s A.D. is correct, and has possible Biblical support in Peter's referring to Mark in his Epistle. I also believe subtleties of the text in Acts 13 imply Mark's Gospel was already written by the time those events took place. So we have Peter's eye witness account in Mark 13.

The Olivite Discourse, Matthew and Luke

Mark 13 may be a separate matter altogether.

First off, the setting.

Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? ____________________________________ Lu 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 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.  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?

Matthew's is a private conference with the Disciples where some time has passed since his "not one stone left" statement. And said statement is not really what the Disciples asked, they asked about his coming and the time of the end. Maybe they assumed they'd be the same thing, but the Answer Yeshua gave made no illusion to The Temple's destruction.

But in Luke he's asked to elaborate on what he said immediately, and is clearly in context something he preached publicly. The introduction to Luke's Gospel if you know the Greek implies Luke interviewed eye witnesses, he wrote down I think reports he got from many, not just the Disciples with whom his contact was limited if he knew them at all, cause he joins Paul in Acts 16, after his last meeting with the Disciples.

The very set up tells us their different. See I'm going to argue that the Preterists are mostly right about Luke 21, but not at all about Matthew 24. Luke's context is to explain the Destruction of The Temple, but Matthew's is The End Times and his Second Coming

Mt 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.  And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. __________________________________________ Lu 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am He; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.  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. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

These have difference in details but I won't dispute he's talking about the same thing. This is the section constantly interpreted to be parallel to the Four Horsemen, I'll explain my issues with that in a future study, but for my purpose here that's irrelevant.

The key distinction is the timing of what comes next. Persecution of believers is what's being described in both, in some similar terms because persecution are often similar, Satan isn't that creative. but how their timed with what he just described is distinct.

Mt 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, _______________________________________________ Lu 21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you,

In Matthew he speaks of a persecution that follows the prior signs he just described. But in Luke the Persecution comes first. In Luke it's the persecutions inflicted by Jews that Luke latter records in Acts, as starting with Stephen. Specifically Jewish references exit in Luke like Synagogues. No references to False Prophets here, meaning no falling away within the Church, because they were prepared for this persecution.

In Matthew no specific Jewish references like Synagogues exist, but we are hated of All Nations for his name's sake. False Prophets do arise to deceive many, and iniquity abounds. The believers were not prepared for this Persecution. Even though I'm against Pre-Trib I'm not gonna blame people being Pre-Trib on this, cause lots of Pre-Tribbers like Chuck Missler believe a Pre-Trib persecution. Regardless of their Rapture views all Western Christians have become complacent by having it too easy for so long now. But Matthew also says during this time The Gospel shall reach all kingdoms of the world, and then the time of the End shall come.

I'm not gonna quote the Persecution accounts here, read them for yourselves. My next point is what follows Persecution. The centerpiece of both accounts are different.

Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: _______________________________________________ Lu 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains

No reference to Daniel in Luke, no Armies surrounding the city in Matthew. No Abomination or Holy Place in Luke. Also Jerusalem is only named in Luke but that's not significant both clearly mean Jerusalem.

Only the word "Desolation" and a warning to Flee to Mountains gives any basis for thinking their the same.

Desolation only refers to "The Abomination of Desolation" when both words are used together. The Hebrew Scriptures often uses "Desolations of Jerusalem" to refer to Jerusalem being desolate after the destruction in 588 B.C. Like in Daniel 9 setting up the 70 Weeks prophecy. In Luke Yeshua is foretelling that that shall happen again.

Some trying to insist a preterist interpretation doesn't work even for Luke's insist the word Desolation should make us think only of the Abomination, and that he's clearly directed people to the 70 Weeks prophecy. But the second to last verse of Daniel 9, in the same sentence that foretells the Second Temple's destruction says "and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." Same word that's translated "desolation" in the next verse.

It shouldn't surprise us both these events would be followed by people fleeing, possibly to mountainous regions, and some similar poetic language used. Josephus records how the problems of succession in Rome following Nero's death, the Romans Armies surrounded Jerusalem for a year before the siege really started. The Early Church fathers like Eusebius of Caesarea record how the Christians of the Jerusalem Church under their second "Bishop" Simon (possibly the half Brother of Jesus) fled Judea heeding Jesus warnings and so no Christians were killed in the 70 A.D. siege.

Some criticizing this view of Luke 21 insist things seem to happen to quickly in the description here to match 70 AD.  This is not the only time that how much time passes can seem shorter in divine Prophecy.  Remember Preterist base their whole argument on  things like "I Am coming quickly".  I don't think it's good idea for Futurists to fall into the same trap when it suits us.  Unless a amount of time is given, I feel it's unwise to build Doctrine to strongly on things seeming to happen quickly.

The big problem with making Luke 21:20-14 End Times is Jerusalem will NOT be successfully sieged in the End Times.  Zachariah 12-14 make clear that siege will fail because Jesus will return to defend Jerusalem.  When people Flee Jerusalem in the End Times it's after the Abomination of Desolation, something that doesn't happen until the Wars of the first half of the 70th Week are over.

But also only Luke refers to

Lu 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The "times of the Gentiles" is further explained in Romans 9-11. It's an idiom of the Church Age. After this the materiel again matches Matthew's, in a very broad sense at least, lots of details are missing.

Where the Preterists stumble is that that reference is were it jumps forward. As long as Jerusalem is still trampled by Gentiles (is even now with the Muslim shrines there) this Prophecy isn't done.

 Some insist the "Times of the Gentiles" refer to here must be only the Three and Half Years Revelation 11 speaks of the Outer Curt being trodden under.  That view however makes that Three and half years the Second half of the 70th week.  Revelation 11 as I've argued elsewhere must be the first half.  I do believe Revelation 11 marks the end of that period though, which is why I believe it ends as it appears to, when The Rapture is to happen, Mid-Trib.

Harmonizing The Gospels, The Disciples who were likely present when this Pubic sermon in Luke was given, may have at first drew the same false conclusion from this public speech Preterists take, that the End Times signs immediately follow Jerusalem's destruction, and sought more details on the subject.

The statement that prompts The Olivet Discourse occurs in all 3 Synoptic Gospels. But Luke uniquely seems interested in recording Jesus predictions of the Coming fall of Jerusalem even outside this Chapter. After the Triumphal entry Luke 19:41-44 records that Jesus.

And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying.  "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

And then the cleansing of The Temple follows this.

As Jesus is bearing his Cross on to his Crucifixion Luke 23:27-

And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.  But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.  For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.  Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.  For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

Where he speaks of Judgment that will come upon them in the lifetime of their small Children, when they've become full grown adults. Some people want to add an End Times context here because of "say to the mountains, Fall on us" but such idioms of distress are not limited to the actual End Times.

What's interesting is Matthew and Mark were written way before Luke, The Gospels were written in the order we place them in according to all early Church sources. Mark was written based on what Peter taught in Rome in the Second year of Claudius. So the discourse(s) given more privately were written down first. Logical since people already knew what he taught publicly, only the bare essentials of that were of high priority to write down at first, mainly the Sermon on the Mount. which Matthew has the most complete account of

Luke was written right when it's narrative ended I believe, two years after Paul's first arrival in Rome. 62 A.D. about the latest possible date. So Luke was inspired to write down these Prophecies Yeshua gave of The Temple's destruction when it was less then a decade away.

In terms of the intent Audience wise, is the usual Pre-Triber view that Matthew's is to Israel and Luke's The Church accurate?

Matthew's is a Gospel that is in some ways the most Jewish as it was written in Hebrew first, and is the first Gospel written, Paul said "The Gospel is for the Jews first and then the Gentiles". But Matthew's is also kind of very Church specific, being the most themed on Discipleship.

Luke was a Gentile, who's audience was over all Gentiles ultimately. But that ironically results in Luke spending the most time explaining Jewish things.

The Church and Israel are separate Covenants, but they do overlap, all Jewish believers, the remnant not under the Spiritual Blindness Paul spoke of, are heirs to both Covenants. That begins with the 12, promised to rule over the 12 Tribes, and goes don to any present at the Rapture. I'm still unsure if I view the 144,000 as part of The Church.

If either Discourse was only for the Church it would be Matthew which was given, like the Kingdom parables, to only the Disciples. While Luke's account is a Public speech all of the Jews, whether they became saved or not, in Jerusalem during that Passover season heard. But in fact I view both as being equally for both, in terms of 70 A.D. only Christians heeded the warning, but he gave it to all.

But in terms of what the Disciples were told about the End Times, it's supposed to be what those of us who already know the content of this warning are proclaiming to the people of Israel who's time of Trouble is at hand, and I think chiefly the 144,000 will be doing just that, as well as the Two Witnesses. So that when it happens, they will know at that moment the New Testament was right, and their national salvation won't happen all at once here , but it begins in this moment. The persecution Matthew records before the Abomination of Desolation however is a Christian persecution not Jewish. The Disciples listening (representing the Church) are refereed to inclusively with those who are persecuted, but not with those who flee Judea.

Some have minimized the significance of the Sabbath reference in the fleeing part of Matthew's account. Saying that on the Sabbath it's difficult to travel for anyone in the region. Those usual traffic patterns of Israel however will be mot when this very Public Earth shattering event happens. The Sabbath isn't part of the Luke warning.

My interpretation of the Sabbath reference making it a warning for the Jews doesn't mean that I think they should delay fleeing when this happens if it's the Sabbath. Just to hope that it isn't an issue.

Now some hold the view that the people in Judea being told to flee here must be Christians because it must be understood in the context of the earlier persecution where they are hated "for my Name's sake. That doesn't fit grammatically or contextually at all. These people flee in response to the Abomination event, the victims of the earlier persecution are obviously all ready on the run, they did not need to see this event to become frighted. In fact Christians in this period should be relived, we should know his coming is imminent.

Who are the Elect. Elect means Chosen, 7 times the same Greek word is rendered Chosen. It can mean either the Church or Israel, or maybe even sometimes both. And once is used of Yeshua's Messianic claim in Luke 23:35. And of Angels in I Thessalonians 5:21. Those who want to assume it always refers to the exact same Elect are not paying close enough attention.

Thinking it means only The Church or The Saved is chiefly a Calvinist heresy to support their twisted take on Predestination. 1 Peter 1:2 makes clear we're Elect/Chosen because of the foreknowledge of God. God is outside time, so when we accept Yehsua as our Savior he writes our names in the Lamb's Book of Life before the Foundation of the World.

But some Pre-Tirbers insist it always means Israel to support their desire to claim Matthew 24:31 isn't the Rapture. Yet this part of Matthew resembles Paul's two definitive Rapture accounts in Corinthians and I Thessalonians more definitively then any other supposed Rapture reference.

The Elect in Matthew 24:31 are gathered from "all the winds of Heaven" Israel at he the end of the 70th week is in Edom, not scattered in different regions. And we know from Comparing John 19 and Isaiah 63 Yeshua returns to them, gathering is only a part of the Rapture.

Sadly, many fellow Mid-Trib or Pre-Wrath supporters (like Chris White) state definitively "Elect" NEVER means Israel in their zeal to refute the Pre-Trib view here. I don't know if he is Calvinist, or just ignoring the Calvinist implication of this very dangerous conclusion.

He cites John's Second Epistle's "Elect Lady" as a proof it means The Church always. This one is the least clear to me, first off I believe the individual woman being written to may well be like many others suspect Mary the Mother of Christ, who is the individual Woman in whom the core purpose of the Revelation 12 Woman was fulfilled, birthing The Seed of The Woman. And who Jesus entrusted John to take care of from The Cross.

To those who insist there is no individual in mind in 3 John,and it's simply to The Church, she has specific relatives refereed to in verse 4 and 13. Why not use this phrase in all three epistles if it simply means the Church?

Verses like "For many are called, but few are chosen." can't meant the Church unless you support the Calvinist heresy. This refers to Israel being God's Chosen people. It doesn't meant their Salvation works any differently, but they have an Election for a special status in Eternity if they accept Yeshua. Some of the Parables elaborate on this.

Eklegomai (ek-leg'-om-ahee) is a related but different word also rendered Chosen. On many occasions this and not Elect is used to refer to the 12 Disciples, that might help confuse people, it clearly includes Judas who was not saved. John's Gospel always uses this word, not Elect. He may have meant the same thing by the word. Either way, using it of Judas proves you don't need to be saved to qualify for that word.

The 12 are part of the overlap between Israel and the Church remember, they will rule over the 12 Tribes in Eternity.

Paul in Romans 8-11 uses another Greek word related to Elect, translated Election, clearly refers to the same concept, the verb form. 9-11 is all about refuting replacement theology. Those of us who are saved are saved by the "Election of Grace" Israel's covenant is a different Election, but is an Election. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." enemies of the Gospel only because of a temporary Spiritual Blindness.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 is absolutely using Elect of Israel, not the Church, because he wants them to become Saved, so their clearly not saved believers already in The Church.

Back to The Olivet Discourses' usage of the word. Luke's doesn't use it at all. In addition to the key Rapture reference. The reference to "deceive if possible even the Elect" is probably also The Church, I'm not sure what exactly this means, if it means we can't be deceived, or that we could be if we're not paying close enough attention. But I know it's related to having The Holy Ghost, being biologically of Israel gives no special resistance to Deception. All the Unsaved will accept The Mark.

The first usage of the word is Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." And Mark 13:20 "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.". Must be chronologically after the rest, regardless of what you think Elect means or when the Rapture is, this is referring to the days in question, and what follows is talking about what leads to that.

In this Context I feel it means Israel, because their people at risk of being killed if those days aren't shortened. Saved here clearly doesn't mean Eternal Salvation, but being saved from death and destruction, because it speaks of the flesh. But why even in the same discussion mean something different with each usage? Because the Rapture helps bring about the Spiritual Salvation of Israel.