When was Jesus's Not One Stone Prophecy fully fulfilled?

You might think the answer to that is obvious and well known, but you'd be surprised.  First I'm going to quote the account of the Prophecy from Mark 13:1-2 since I think it's the most complete account of exactly what Jesus in this case.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" 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".

Notice that it isn't JUST about The Temple, it's about all the Buildings, plural.  

While Matthew and Luke's account of this in their main Olivet Discourse chapters downplay the inclusion of other buildings, Luke 19:44 also refers to not one stone being left, with The Temple not even being the focus, that Prophecy is about the entirety of Jerusalem.

The 9th of Av in AD 70 (presumed to be August 4th on the Roman Calendar) as recorded in Josephus Wars of The Jews Book VI Chapters 4-5 is the day The Temple was destroyed in the sense of not being able to be used as a Temple anymore.  Remember what happened to the Notre Dame Cathedral a few years ago?  The worst case scenario people were fearing that day is basically what happened to The Temple on the 9th of Av.  The next day however as recorded by Josephus in Wars Book VI Chapter 6 there are clearly still standing ruins.  

The beginning of Book VII is when Titus demolishes even those ruins and thus this is where most Christians talking about AD 70 via Josephus (both Preterists and Futurists) say the Not One Stone Prophecy was fulfilled.  Except Josephus tells us there were three towers that Titus left standing, in my view as long as those three towers were still standing this Prophecy of Jesus was incomplete.

In AD 131 Emperor Hadrian while visiting Jerusalem after ending his extended stay in Egypt announced his plans to rebuilt Jerusalem as a Greco-Roman City with a Temple to Zeus being built over the former site of The Temple.  I think the early stages of that project is when even those three remaining towers were torn down.  

Then after Hadrian left the Near East for Asia Minor in 132 the Bar Kokchba Revolt broke out.  That probably stalled the reconstruction project even though the Rebels never held Jerusalem during that war.  Then after the revolt was put down in 135 the project restarted.

Things that are NOT signs of the End (a partial Matthew 24 commentary)

[1] And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
[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.
[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 age?

I agree with Preterists that when The Disciples said "these things" they were thinking of what Jesus said in the prior verse and probably also what He said at the end of chapter 23.  And I suspect they assumed those things happen at the same time as what they asked about next, the sign of Jesus's Parousia and of the end of the Age.

However there is a theme throughout the Gospels of the Disciples being mistaken about certain things and Jesus then trying to correct them.  And that this is one of those is implied by what Jesus says next.

[4] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Assumptions are frequently key to how deceptions work.

Verses 5-7 are what verse 8 calls the beginning of sorrows.  They are also called the Non Signs by the late Chuck Missler because of the last part of verse 6  "see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet".  But I think it's particularly notable that the "wars and rumours of wars" was what directly preceded that statement.  

The Temple was destroyed because of a war, and it wasn't the only war going on at that time, there had recently been rebellion in Britain and then civil war broke out because of Galba overthrowing Nero starting the year of the four emperors.  The rumors of wars refers to wars that could have happened but were averted, like the tensions between Rome and Parthia at this time.

I'm still of the opinion that the fist proper false Christ was Bar Kochba, but still a more fluid definition of what it means to be a false Christ is applicable to many people both before and during the first Jewish-Roman War.

The verse that proclaims all of these to be not actually signs is rightly used often to make fun of the more sensationalist Futurists.  But it's 70 AD Preterism especially Full Preterism that it outright founded upon ignoring the ramifications of Jesus saying this, if the end was always a mere 40 years away max then it was never not nigh.

I think even the Persecution discussion is really part of the Non Signs, Roman Persecution started with Trajan but the first empire wide one was under Decius and the only really great one was the Diocletian Persecution.  But the end of Roman persecution ushered in Persian Persecution, and even today in many countries Christians are being persecuted.

I've also come to agree with Preterists that the word for "World" in verse 14 being neither Kosmos or Aion is one that can be interpreted as meaning the domain of the Roman Empire.  But even then The Gospel still hadn't reached all of the Roman world by 70 AD.  

It was in the late Second Century that it first came to Gaul and Britannia, I'd been attracted to the various legends and fringe theories about New Testament characters coming to First Century Albion myself in the past, but they don't hold up as even Geoffrey of Monmouth says The British Church began with Lucius in the time of Eleutherius, around then is also when Tertullian first mentions Christians being in Brittan.  There are misleading legends tied even to that Lucius as I don't think he was a King but maybe was Lucius Ulpius Marcellus.  And The Church in Gaul started a little before then with Pothinus and Irenaeus who moved there from Ionia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Miletus).  With Britain you can try to make an excuse that it wasn't part of the Empire yet when Jesus made this Prophecy, but Gaul absolutely was.

Still while verse 14 can be interpreted as having that limited scale I'm inclined to think it's not.  That word translated world is a particularly fancy Greek word for Household.  While Greco-Romans did use if for the Imperium like in Luke 2:1's account of the Census decree.  I think Jesus means the Household of Adam, since Son of Man is the title for Himself that He likes to use when describing The Parousia.

Preterists will then try to prove this was fulfilled in the first century by taking certain things Paul said in Romans and Colossians out of context.  Paul is talking about what the mission of The Church during the Age of Grace is, in context he clearly does not see that mission as actually already accomplished or he wouldn't still be doing what he's doing.  When Preterists "Proof Text" like this it's just like the worst Futurist bad understanding of the concept of using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, just cause those verses use similar language doesn't mean they solve each other.

Verse 15 is where the actual signs of the end start, that is the fig tree showing it's leaves in verse 32, the Generation that sees that is the one that shall not pass away in verse 34.

I've already deconstructed the notion of that being applicable to anything in 70 AD.  I think the similar yet different description in Mark can be applicable to Hadrian's Abomination, but Matthew is different.  Getting into that here would distract from the main point at hand, I'm still not entirely decided on it myself.

Can every argument for applying The Olivite Discourse to 70 AD fit the Bar Kochkba Revolt even better?

My answer is not Luke 21 but definitely Mark 13 and Matthew 24 if they can be interpreted Preteristically at all.

First of all even the Preterist interpretation of "this generation", as I documented when arguing for my late date for Revelation there were indeed eyewitnesses to Jesus still around in the reign of Hadrian.

70 AD Preterists obsess over an argument that a Biblical Generation is 40 years because the wandering in the wilderness was to kill off a generation.  But not all of them actually died, that statement was hyperbole, it was mostly just about the 10 spies who gave the bad report.  Numbers 14:33-24 clarifies it was 40 years because the spy mission was 40 days.  Genesis 6 and the lifespan of Moses support making a Biblical generation up to 120 years.

Matthew 24 is the one I'm most strictly futurist on because of certain details completely unique to it, but rhetorically I shall  keep it in mind here.

With Luke 21 it's unique characteristics are what makes it most applicable to 70 AD.  Only Luke 21 actually uses the name of Jerusalem at all, when foretelling it's desolation which is language borrowed from Jeremiah about the fall to Nebuchadnezzar indicating what happened to Jerusalem then will happen again.

But Luke 21 does NOT contain a statement that this time of trouble is will never be surpassed.

The Bark Kochba revolt did not add anything to the destruction of Jerusalem since this time the Rebels never even had Jerusalem to begin with.  But for Judea as a whole that war was far more catastrophic and destructive then the 66-73 AD war and over a shorter period of time.   Many historians consider this the real beginning of the Diaspora.  It is only the fact that it doesn't have it's own Josephus that makes it less analyzed by historians and scholars and less romanticized by artists and poets.

Luke 21 is about things that happened before the "beginnings of sorrows", Matthew 24 about things that happen after, and Mark 13 about things that happen during.  Meanwhile the second time Matthew and Mark's discourses bring up the issue of False Christs has no parallel in Luke at all.

This is significant because contrary to popular opinion the era leading up to and during the 66-73 AD war was NOT filled with would be Messiahs.  Josephus only ever uses the word Christ when describing what Jesus was called. There were would be prophets, and secular revolutionaries, but no claimed Messiahs.  Jewish prophetic expectations of the time were generally that the Messiah can't come till after Rome has already fallen.

Bar Kochba was the first to ever claim to be the Messiah as a rebel leader, that was his innovation.  And he really was the second person after Jesus to ever truly claim that title at all.  Meanwhile since Preterists don't take literally the stuff involving the Sun, Moon and Stars, maybe Stars falling from heaven is also wordplay on the name of Bar Kochba?  Kukbe is the word used in the Peshita?

The Abomination of Desolation is a very specific phrase, that has connotations more specific then just the etymological meanings of the words used to construct it.  Of the two places where the phrase appears in Daniel the one in chapter 12 is probably what Jesus is revealing to still have at least one more yet future fulfillment.  But it's the context in Daniel 11 that defines it.

There are three or four different Hebrew words that get translated "Abomination" in the KJV, the one used in Daniel is not even related to the one used in Leviticus 18-20 and Ezekiel 40-48.  But more importantly to the topic at hand, the precise one used in Daniel is everywhere it appears a synonym for an Idol or False god, from Deuteronomy 29:17 to 1 Kings 11 to Jeremiah 32:34.

But what makes the Abomination of Desolation special is it's being placed inside The Temple (not near it) by a Pagan ruler who had outlawed their faith.  The history of the Hasmonean revolt was to first century Jews not just the reason behind Hanukkah, it was to them as the Revolutionary War or French Revolution is for modern America and France.  When Jesus used this phrase he knew exactly what imagery he was evoking and so did His audience.

Now I'm open to a more "creative" interpretation of what a Futurist fulfillment of this for Matthew 24 may look like, but that's about redefining what this would mean for the New Testament Church with the help of II Thessalonians 2 just as we redefine a number of Hebrew Bible concepts under the doctrine that now we are The Temple.  If you're going to insist this is about the Judea of that time, then you have to be specific to what that idea meant to those Judeans.

70 AD Preterists bend over backwards coming up with every excuse they can to apply that phrase to something that happened in 70 AD.  They take a passage from the Talmud claiming Titus had sex with a whore on a Torah scroll and sliced open the veil with his sword.  Leaving aside how I doubt Titus would have had the means, motive or opportunity to do that from what the actual eyewitness Historian tells us, even this Talmud passage doesn't call that an Abomination of Desolation or compare it to Antiochus Epiphanes in any way.

The timing is also wrong, by the time Titus was able to anything anywhere near The Temple it was already too late to run.  Jesus speaking of the Abomination of Desolation as an event that begins the time of trouble not occurring at the middle or end of it. That fit Hadrian who's said to have set up the initial Idol in 31 AD sparking the Rebellion even though the full Temple is built after.

Preterists aren't the only ones refusing to distinguish between the Olivet Discourses, there are also Futurists who want to use Luke 21 to say Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies again.

Yes the three discourses are "parallel" in a lot of ways, but the differences are there for a reason and ignoring them because you don't want to think Jesus was foretelling more then one thing is simply not respecting the text.  In the case of Luke it has to do with how this isn't even the only place that Gospel records Jesus talking about the fall of Jerusalem, that is a theme of the entire Gospel in a way it's not in the others.

So plenty of people want to argue that Luke 21:20 is about the same thing as The Abomination of Desolation because Jesus then advises basically the same reaction.  As if there can't be more then one good reason to get out of Dodge.

Remember the OG Abomination of Desolation preceded that Jewish revolt, and since they won that war the city was never surrounded by armies.

One of the oldest examples of Patristic support for viewing the Abomination of Desolation as already re-fulfilled is Jerome applying the term to the Statue of Hadrian set up where The Temple formally stood which was still standing when he wrote his commentary on Matthew.  Jerome may have been off on saying it was specifically over the Holy of Holies, in the Bordeaux Pilgrim the two Statues he saw were separate from the "stone" the Jews anointed which I think may have been where the Ark once rested.  Epiphanes' statue was on the Brazen Altar according to 1 Maccabees 1:54-59.

We even have a secular pagan gentile source on this happening, Cassius Dio.

[69.12.1] At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the [Jewish] god, he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, 

[69.12.2] for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there. So long, indeed, as Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposedly made of poor quality such weapons as they were called upon to furnish, in order that the Romans might reject them and they themselves might thus have the use of them. But when Hadrian went farther away, they openly revolted.

Meanwhile somewhat less reliable sources like the Historia Augusta say Hadrian also banned Circumcision and sacrificed Pigs to this Idol making it echo Antiochus Epiphanes even more.  And like then this caused the war rather then being caused by it.  It seem Pigs were depicted on Coins minted in Aelia Capitolina.

And like in 70 AD the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem did as Jesus advised and fled, becoming the Nazarenes of later generations, some may have went to Mesopotamia and also became among the ancestors of the "Nestorians" or other Syraic Rite sects.

The Sign of The Son of Man in Heaven

One of the arguments Pre-Tribbers have for separating Matthew 24's Parusia from the Parusia of Paul in I Thessalonians 4, I Corinthians 15 and II Thessalonians 2 is that the Resurrection isn't in Matthew 24.

Now my main response to this in the past had been that none of the Rapture passages include everything that happens at that time.  1 Corinthians 15 is agreed to be a Rapture passage by most Pre-Tribbers and yet it technically doesn't mention the Rapture (us being gathered in the clouds) at all.

However a chief argument of those of us who definitely see them as the same Parusia is that Matthew 24 is the focal point of this doctrine.  Jesus here brings together Hebrew Bible themes that weren't obviously directly connected before, and then Paul and Revelation are building on Jesus when they are referring to these same ideas.

Separately I've been unsure what to think of "The Sign of the Son of Man in Heaven".  Does it correlate to the Ark being seen in the Temple in heaven after the Seventh Trumpet?  Is it the Wonders that open Revelation 12 which I also connect to the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars of Luke 21?  I'm willing to bet someone in history has tried to apply to it Constantine's claimed Milvian Bridge vision.

Then I decided to see if studying how Jesus spoke of signs elsewhere could be helpful.  And indeed earlier in this same Gospel in chapter 12 Jesus makes clear the ONLY sign that will be given to a wicked and adulteress generation is the Sign of the Prophet Jonah.  For as Jonah was in the Ketos three days and three nights so shall the Son of Man be in the Heart of The Earth three days and three nights.

Now every Christian agrees the Resurrection is implicitly the point here, someone being dead for three days isn't unusual, it's them not being dead anymore that is the Sign.  Jesus' Resurrection was the Sign given to that generation.  But the generation that sees the Parousia will also be a wicked and adulteress generation.

It should also be understood that no Jews see the Son of Man in Daniel 7 as a specifically Messianic Title, they see Him as being Humanity as a whole in our restored state.  In my view this does not contradict the New Testament's usage of it as a title for Jesus, it is in Jesus that Humanity's Redemption from the fall is achieved, it is in Him that The Resurrection began, The Parousia is when it expands to include all of The Church after the Millennium it will expand further to include all of Humanity.

So The Sign of The Son of Man in Heaven is the Bodily Risen Saints ascending into Heaven/The Sky.

Victorious Eschatology

My past posts on preterism have typically had Full Preterism in mind.  Patrial Preterism I assume comes in a variety of forms, in theory so could Full Preterism.  I had been struggling to even find information on Partial Preterism even though one Futurist website I visited said most preterists are partial preterists.

Then I heard about the book Victorious Eschatology and found some YouTube videos from one of it's authors.  This form of Partial Preterism is, as I expected, basically Post Millennialism in terms of Revelation, but with an odd detail I'll get to later.

On Matthew 24, verse 34 is his cut off point, by 70 AD the first 34 verses are fulfilled and what's after is yet future.  This is a nonsensical cut off point, it is obvious to any unbiased observer that what follows this verse is about the same thing that proceeded it.  In fact after verse 34 it's mostly poetic idioms and parables.

When talking about "this generation shall not pass" he mentioned some futurists argue "generation" means "race" or "tribe".  I kind of assumed that was a straw man especially as he refuted it with how this Greek word is never used that way.  I've generally gone with how the Greek Grammar of "this" is clearly meant to be understood in the context of those who see the signs he just talked about.  But then I noticed how the Aramaic Peshita says Sharbtha, a word that absolutely means tribe or family and only very rarely means "generation".  I am possibly going to make a post on my other blog where I'll argue for Peshita Primacy for Matthew.  But what Jesus was actually speaking was certainly a Semitic language not Greek.  Now the ecclesialogical implications of what "tribe" is meant I don't wanna get into here, but either way it hasn't passed away yet.

Back on topic.  Preterists and Futurists both like to talk about the "three fold question" of Matthew 24:3.  Thing is the grammatical structure of that verse is clearly presenting it as only two questions, so yes the Disciples may have had what Jesus recently said about The Temple in their mind when they said "Tell us when these things will be", but when they said "and what is the sign of Your coming, and the end of the age", the Parusia and the end of the age are clearly the same thing, the expression is one sign or set of signs that herald both.  The Parusia is by definition the end of the Age of Grace.  The Age of the Law had already ended with John The Baptist.

So if you're going to hinge your "partial" Preterism on saying two of these happen at the same time but the other is separated, those two are the inseparable ones.

Now what I think in regards to Matthew's Olvite Discourse is that the Disciples were assuming all of this will happen at the same time when they asked this question, or at least hoping they will.  The "beginning of sorrows" comment is not in Luke 21's discourse (which wasn't on the mount of olives) even though it describes the circumstances associated with that term.

So the Beginnings of Sorrows are events that can be associated with 66-73 AD (though not unique to then), but Jesus is saying that when that happens the end is not yet.  Matthew 24 talks about persecutions that are not Jewish in origin and clearly says not till The Gospel is proclaimed to the whole world.  This author abuses verses from Romans and Colossians to say Paul was saying the Gospel had reached the entire world, Paul's intent in each of those (however flawed the translation) is about this being a process he is a part of.

They have a tendency to act like Futurists don't think 70 AD was predicted at all.  I indeed see 70 AD in more Prophecies then most Futurists do, Luke in particular records multiple prophecies Jesus made on that destruction.

Now we get to the clincher, which is the real divergence from Full Preterism.  He says Matthew 24 isn't about the Second Coming, as in it isn't the same thing as the Parusia of 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4.  This is the Pre-Tribulationist argument all over again.  Everything Paul says about eschatology in the Thessalonian Epistles is his commentary on the Olivite Discourse, Matthew's Gospel was the first written down and I believe it and Mark's were both written down before the events of Acts 13.

When Paul is talking about Him Coming in the Clouds and Gathering His people after a heavenly Trumpet sounds, he is referring back to this teaching of Jesus that every Christian knew about whether it was written down already or not.  Matthew 24 seemingly doesn't explicitly refer to the Resurrection of the dead, but Jesus is basically quoting Old Testament passages about the in-gathering of the Tribes of Israel and Ezekiel 37 already told us to associate that with the Bodily Resurrection of dead Israelites, and Isaiah 26 told us to associate The Resurrection with The Rapture.

I then watched another Partial Preterist talk about Revelation 20.  He says that John didn't mention The Rapture, but if he did it would have to happen before fire comes down from Heaven.  He believes we're currently between verses 6 and 7 and that what first starts happening in verse 7 is mostly spiritual realm stuff not noticeable on Earth.  This makes them functionally the same as the Pre-Trib Imminence Doctrine, no prophesied events between now and The Rapture.

A Post Millennial Rapture is just as incompatible with that nonsense as a Pre Millennial one.  If it's in Revelation 20 but Post-Mil then it obviously happens at the Bodily Resurrection of The Dead.  I made a post before about how Full Preterists are like Pre-Trib in terms of it being a Secret Rapture.  But this Patrial Preterism is what's truly teaching literally the same idea in terms of what The Church should expect to happen next.

Now back to the Author of Victorious Eschatology, the title of the book reflects how he really wants to promote this as an Optimistic view.  Yes all Christians think Jesus wins in the end but since he isn't predicting things to get worse before Jesus comes back he's telling believers to stop being so fearful.  He seems to not know Pre-Trib exists and that most American Futurists are Pre-Trib.

I don't want Christians to live in constant fear, but Jesus warns us to be prepared for tribulation, we still live a fallen world and sometimes things will go bad whether it's a specific fulfillment of Bible Prophecy or not.  What I as a Mid-Tirbber think must happen before the Parousia/Rapture may not from a secular material point of view need to even be that much worse then right now, the point is something very specific has to happen first.  Great Tribulation as a technical term I view as referring to what's been going on since Stephen was stoned, most of the Body of Christ is living in countries where they are not the mainstream majority religion.  And the "Falling away" is arguably similarly already covered.

The "Antichrist" will become the worst tyrant ever, but the phase of his career that precedes the Abomination will I think possibly be beneficial to "The Church" from terrestrial eyes.  And what happens in Revelation 9 believers are promised protection from.

I'm promising neither the worst or the best in terms of what will happen between now and the Parousia, my advice is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Believe it or not I try not to get into my Soterology too much on this blog, I want what I talk about here to be potentially appealing to people who will never agree with it.  I mentioned it perhaps unnecessarily in "why was Jesus rejected" and on one Facebook group that indeed became a distraction from the post's main point.

But if the Optimism of your view is the selling point, and you're repeatedly criticizing Futurism as inherently Pessimistic.  Then with me you don't have a leg to stand on if in your view Death and Hades win even one single soul.

The Timing of The Rapture is not The Point of the Olivte discourse Parables

In Matthew 24's Olivite Discourse Verse 31 is the end of the straight forwards description of future events  Then verse 32 onto the end of chapter 25 is a series of figures of speech and parables, some have parallels in the others Gospels but most do not.

Pre-Tribbers and Post-Tribers and Pre-Wrathers all talk about MOST of these parables as if the timing of the Rapture is their point, and both sides of the "Imminence" debate will try to argue these parables support their position.

I don't believe the timing of the Rapture is the point.  I do believe they are about the Parusia in a sense, but whether the people involved were or should be expecting prior events or not isn't the point.

I should remind everyone that building doctrine on Parables is always sketchy.

Here is the thing, I'm Anti Pre-Trib, early in this blog's history I made a trilogy of posts debunking Imminence (both Pre-Trib and Pre-Wrath versions of it).  But if the timing of the Rapture was the point of these parables I'd have to agree they support Pre-Trib more.  I know Chris White keeps saying "what's the point of watching if there is nothing to watch for" but Pre-Tribbers view it as you're not watching for the return if you're instead watching for prior events.

In these parables the narratives in question have no prior events, the Bridegroom or Thief or whoever just shows up.  If the point is about timing then the point is the bad servants and foolish virgins seemed to think they had more time then they actually did.

And these are warnings given specifically to believers, most appear only in Matthew who's version was a speech given ONLY to the 12.  So the common Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath explanation that it's the World who it comes on like a Thief doesn't hold up in this context, maybe when 1 Thessalonians 5 uses that idiom but not here.

The problem with applying the Pre-Trib interpretations of the Parrables to the actual Doctrine of the Rapture is that they imply you won't be Raptured if you weren't properly watching for it.  And that's not how the Rapture will actually work. when it's directly described all believers regardless of what they are doing get Raptured.

I said most up above, but you see the Sheeps and Goats parable that ends chapter 25 is treated differently, no one thinks that one's point is the timing of The Rapture, it's usually viewed as either a Post-Armageddon judgment Revelation doesn't mention or as the White Throne Judgment.  But the opening of the parable is just as explicitly about the coming of the Son of Man as all the others, so separating it so it's about something different isn't justified.  Revelation 11 refers to a Judgment of the Saints after the Seventh Trumpet.

The moral point of the Sheeps and Goats Judgment is that we should act as if Jesus is already here regardless.  And I think the other parables are the same.

I think the best modern expositor on the Parables is Peter Hiett, even though I don't agree with his basic views on Revelation and Genesis.

Revelation Chapter 6 and the Non Signs

I apologize that this post shall in some sense be repeating some stuff I covered early in the Blog's history, but it shall also reflect some things I've changed my mind on and is a good reintroduction to how to refute the "Pre-Wrath" view of Chris White.

The basic error of their view is identifying The Parousia in Revelation using the characteristics of it from the Olivte Discourse that are the least unique to the Parousia and also least important to defining what the Parousia is.

The thesis of this post is that all of Revelation Chapter 6 (the first 6 seals) correlates to the "Non Signs" or "Beginnings of Sorrows" portion of the Olivite Discourse.

Matthew 24:4-8, Mark 13:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 is what Chuck Missler liked to call the "Non Signs" portion of the Olivite discourse.  Jesus specifically said "that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet."  Chris White however continues to obsess over insisting these are End Times specific events (he specifically argues they are the first half of the "70th Week").  But that is willful disregard of what Jesus specifically told us.

In Matthew 24 the persecution refereed to happens after the era of these non signs, in Luke 21 it is said to happen before them (Luke's I believe is about the Jewish in origin persecutions depicted in Acts) and in Mark 13 this persecution seems to be happening at the same time.  Mark is about the many persecutions Christians have faced in the last 2000s years, (even after the West became Christian in other regions persecution continued, especially for the "Nestorian" Church.)  Only Matthew is about a specifically End Times global persecution that might be carried out by the "Antichrist" but it might be the "Antichrist" will present himself as "saving" Christians from it.  And that is how I feel the Fifth Seal factors in.

I used to disagree with associating the Non Signs with the Four Horsemen because I understood this fact and I used to believe the Four Horsemen are specifically end times.  But I have come to take what can be considered a Historicist view of Revelation 6.  My overall view of Revelation remains Futurist because, well I'm open minded on the first 4 Trumpets (chapter 8 is more plausible to interpret histrionically then chapter 9) but the Seventh is definitely yet Future, the Seventh Trumpet is the Last Trump, that I still strongly believe.  But one element of the Non Signs is missing when you make them just the Four Horsemen, the Earthquakes.

The "Pre-Wrath" view of Chris White and some other views I've seem argued for, insist the Sixth Seal is the Rapture because Matthew 24:29 refers to an Earthquake and the Sun being darkened and stars falling from heaven.  In Revelation the Sixth Seal is the first time those three things happen but it's not the last.  And in Matthew 24 this is NOT the first reference to Earthquakes.  Also The Sixth Seal doesn't talk about lighting or thunder.

The Earthquake of Matthew 24:29 I view as the Earthquake of the Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11:19, and maybe the Ark being seen in Heaven is the Sign of the Son of Man of Matthew 24:30.  The stars falling from Heaven is what the Dragon's tail does in Chapter 12, the start of Chapter 12 is also what I believe Luke's "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" refers to.  And the Sun and Moon were already darkened in the 4th Trumpet.

Actually I have now realized Matthew 24:29 does NOT even refer to an Earthquake, that word is in the three Olivte Discourse passages only during the Beginnings of Sorrows.  At the Parousia it's the powers in heaven that are shaken, which I think is an allusion to Revelation 12's War in Heaven.  I do believe an Earthquake happens at the time of the Parousia because of where I place it in Revelation, but there is in fact no Olivte Discourse basis for that.

Revelation 11 also clearly tells us that Wrath does NOT come till after the Seventh Trumpet.  So when the Kings of the Earth think Wrath has arrived in Revelation 6:15-17 they are wrong and mistaken and indeed not heeding what Jesus said about the Non Signs.

No account of the Olvite Disocurse refers to the Moon becoming Blood, Blood is a BRIGHT shade of Red so the Moon being darkened CANNOT be the same thing.  Only three verses of Scripture refer to the Moon becoming like Blood, the Sixth Seal, Joel 2 and Acts 2 when Peter quotes Joel 2.

Joel 2 says the Sun will be darkened and the Moon become like Blood BEFORE the Day of the LORD, not on or during but BEFORE.  And Peter is referring to this prophecy as having already been fulfilled in some way by Pentecost, presumably by the Earthquake and Darkening of the Sun associated with the Crucifixion.

So I don't think the Sixth Seal is about a singular event, it's a Prophecy of every-time people mistakenly think the End is Nigh because of perfectly common events like Earthquakes, shooting stars and Eclipses.  Earthquakes are often accompanied by volcanoes and there are accounts of volcanic eruptions making the Sun look dark and the Moon look red.

I've seen an argument that these kings of the Earth saying "hide us from the face of Him that sits on the Throne" is proof they are seeing the Parousia right now.  But again Jesus warns of there being people who will think the Parousia has happened or is happening but it isn't.  The fact that a lot Christian are forgetting to factor into all this is that now over half the world's population believes in the Biblical God and Jesus in some capacity at least nominally.

So again we can't build doctrine on the testimony of fallible mortals.

A Problem with some Preterist views of Matthew 24

This argument won't effect the standard more well known 70 AD preterism, I've dealt with that elsewhere.  At least not as obviously relevant anyway, depends on how you define "yet".

I have seen people argue that everything Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 was fulfilled only three and a half or seven years after the Crucifixion.

I can sympathize with aspects of that view, I am now convinced the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled from 30-37 AD.  But what Matthew 24 describes is clearly End Times and clearly has not yet already happened.

Now to the point of this post.

I want to remind people what Jesus said in verse 6, during what I and Chuck Missler like to call the non signs.

"see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."

That is why I disagree with trying to use these things as End Times signs at all.

But there was no point in Jesus saying that if the end He meant was going to happen in only a few years.

There is no point in telling people not to consider something a sign the end is near, if the end is already near when you're talking to them.

Are The Rapture and Second Coming separate events?

This is a question that has been important to the Rapture debate for awhile.  It's not a simple yes or no.

I Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 19 are definitely about different events.  Problem is the term "Second Coming" isn't actually in The Bible at all.  The word "Coming" in the Greek Parusia, is used in I Thessalonians 4 not Revelation 19.  Revelation never uses "Coming" in reference to Jesus at all.  I prefer to refer to his Second Advent which includes both events just as his first Advent had more then one "coming".

Pre-Tribbers agree those two chapters of The Bible are separate events, and make their argument against Post-Trib dependent on that to an extent.  Problem is, here is how one Pre-Trib website defines them.

The Bible must see the Rapture (Jn. 14:1-4; I Cor. 15:51-58; 1 Thes. 4:13-18) and the Second Coming (Zech. 14:1-21; Matt. 24:29-31; Mk. 13:24-27; Lk. 21:25-27; Rev. 19) as separate events, because when the verses are compared they describe two very different scenarios:

The excerpts from the Olivte Discourse they listed by any standard resemble I Thessalonians 4 way more then Revelation 19.   And of course the Rapture has to be not in Revelation at all for them.

Here is some of how they break it down.

Rapture — believers meet Christ in the air
Second Coming — Christ returns to the Mount of Olives to meet the believers on earth

The Mount of Olives is only identified as relevant in Zechariah, but we know form Isaiah 63 that Jesus is in Edom first when he comes on a White Horse. Zechariah is consistent with this.  Jesus is in fact back already in the prior Chapters (12-14 are all one prophecy), Israel has already "Looked upon me whom they pierced".  The Mount of Olives is merely where he starts his second Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.

Christians want to see the Mount of Olives as relevant to his return because it gives symmetry to the Ascension where he left from there.  But I'm afraid there is no solid Biblical basis for it.

Rapture — living believers obtain glorified bodies
Second Coming — living believers remain in same bodies

Good so far I guess.  Nothing said about the Revelation 19 event precludes change however.

Rapture — believers go to heaven
Second Coming — glorified believers come from heaven, earthly believers stay on earth

This is where the problem really begins.  Because Matthew 24 and Mark 13 clearly describes Jesus taking his people from the Earth to Heaven.

Rapture — no signs precede it
Second Coming — many signs precede it

This is the reason they need Matthew 24 to not be about The Rapture.  At any rate Paul in II Thessalonians 2 refers back to what he talked about in 1 Thessalonians 4 and clarifies that signs will proceed it.

Rapture — revealed only in New Testament
Second Coming — revealed in both Old and New Testaments

I believe there are at least two maybe three Rapture passages in the Old Testament, and even Pre-Tirbbers are beginning to accept this.

Matthew 24 uses the word Parusia which Paul also does in I Thessalonians 4.   Revelation doesn't use it at all.

Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 4 refer to Jesus coming in the Clouds, in Revelation 19 and Isaiah 63 he comes on a White Horse.  But the Son of Man is on a Cloud in Revelation 14.

Matthew 24 and II Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a Trumpet, Revelation 19 does not,  Revelation's Last Trumpet was the 7th in Chapter 11, which alludes to the Bema Judgment and the Resurrection of the Dead.

The word Harpazto from which via Latin we get Rapture from I Thessalonians 4 is used in Revelation in Chapter 12.

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.