Luke's eschatology

[Stormcrow]

I've written this in several posts along the way, but I think it needs to be addressed in its very own thread. I don't have time to put everything that needs to be written in this OP, so will add as time permits.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is the most obvious: Luke was a Gentile, a Macedonian whom Paul converted on one of his missionary journeys (I'm "thumbnailing" this here. Feel free to explore further on your own).

Now some will disagree over the significance of this fact, but I think it's important when reading any of the synoptic gospels.

• Luke was not one of Christ's earthly disciples.
• He was not there on the Mount of Olives.
• His gospel was written after Matthew and Mark had written both of theirs.
• He was a physician: a man of learning, not a tax collector or any of the Gallilean fishermen Christ recruited.

He, therefore, would've had to receive his teaching on everything he wrote from Paul and the other apostles! For instance, if he had had any question at all about what Matthew and Mark were writing, he could've simply asked them what they meant!

So when we read Luke's gospel - especially those passages that deal with the "end times" - we need to keep these things in mind.

Luke was perfectly suited to make the gospels of Matthew and Mark clearly understandable to both Gentiles and us, living 2,000 years later.

So why is this important? Because there is so much confusion about what Christ said as recorded in Matthew 24 and reading Luke's account of the Olivet Discourse - gathered after the fact when learning what all the apostles might have had to say about it - can really lift the fog over Matthew's words!

This is nowhere better exemplified than in what Matthew wrote here:

{15} "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)... Matthew 24:15-21 (NASB)

Matthew - a Jew - was writing to an audience - other Jews - that would've understood this allusion to Daniel. The unfortunate truth is that when this passage from Matthew is read today, many people think they know to what Matthew is referring in Daniel. However, when we read Luke's version, we can really know!

{20} "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Luke 21:20 (NASB)

It's clear when reading the context of both Matthew 24 and Luke 21, they are referring to the same thing! The difference is that while Matthew assumes his readers know about what he's writing, Luke explains the allusion to Daniel in such a way that everyone gets it!

More later. Have to go. Don't take my word for it. Check it for yourself.

 

[Sinthesis]

Wait! You mean Jerusalem is the "holy place"? The "holy land" is the "holy place"? NOooooo!:

There just has to be a third temple, perhaps built by a third party contractor (Haliburton?) which God can defend/smite. But I'm thinking Disneyland style animatronic sacrifices so as to not offend the meek. Unless those count as graven images.unno

 

[Hitch]

Wait! You mean Jerusalem is the "holy place"? The "holy land" is the "holy place"? NOooooo!:

There just has to be a third temple, perhaps built by a third party contractor (Haliburton?) which God can defend/smite. But I'm thinking Disneyland style animatronic sacrifices so as to not offend the meek. Unless those count as graven images.unno

'Its a sacrifice after all...'

 

[Hitch]

Fine point Storm

 

[Stormcrow]

In my original post, I left you all with this passage from Luke 21:

{20} "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Luke 21:20 (NASB)

Verse 20 (above) explains Matthew's allusion to the "abomination of desolation" in Daniel and explains what it was. Here is that verse from Matthew 24 again:

{15} "Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)... Matthew 24:15 (NASB)

Luke interprets Matthew for us. But what is it in the book of Daniel that Luke could possibly be referring to as the precedent for Matthew's allusion to the "abomination of desolation?"

The answer is found in Daniel 11:

{29} "At the appointed time he will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before. {30} "For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. {31} "Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. Daniel 11:29-31 (NASB)

And here - in the history of the Jews during the 400 "silent years" - is what Daniel 11:29-31 is about. I'll break it down thought-by-thought:

At the appointed time he will return and come into the South...

The "he" in this sentence is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek king who ruled over the kingdom of Syria, which extended from central Turkey to Persia. The "South" in this sentence is Egypt which was ruled during the setting of these events by 6 year old Ptolemy Philometor and his mother.

...but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before.

Sensing the weakness of the Egyptian king, Antiochus sets out on yet another campaign against Egypt in an effort to conquer Egyptian territory once and for all. But something happened on his way to final victory in Egypt:

For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action...

"Kittim" is the Hebrew name for Cyprus. The ships that sailed from Cyprus against Antiochus carried a Roman ambassador with only one order: stop Antiochus from invading Egypt.

In 168 BC Antiochus led a second attack on Egypt and also sent a fleet to capture Cyprus. Before reaching Alexandria, his path was blocked by a single, old Roman ambassador named Gaius Popillius Laenas, who delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt and Cyprus, or consider themselves in a state of war with the Roman Republic. Antiochus said he would discuss it with his council, whereupon the Roman envoy drew a line in the sand around him and said, "Before you cross this circle I want you to give me a reply for the Roman Senate" – implying that Rome would declare war if the King stepped out of the circle without committing to leave Egypt immediately. Weighing his options, Antiochus decided to withdraw. Only then did Popillius agree to shake hands with him.[5]

...therefore he [Antiochus IV Epiphanes] will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant....

King Antiochus returning out of Egypt for fear of the Romans, made an expedition against the city Jerusalem; and when he was there, in the hundred and forty-third year of the kingdom of the Seleucidse, he took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gates to him. And when he had gotten possession of Jerusalem, he slew many of the opposite party; and when he had plundered it of a great deal of money, he returned to Antioch. The Works of Flavius Josephus.

Two years later, in year 145 of the Greek Empire (originally established by Alexander the Great), this happens:

Forces from him [Antiochus] will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.

And here is where we find Matthew's allusion to the abomination of desolation that Luke interprets for us:

Now it came to pass, after two years, in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the hundred and fifty-third olympiad, that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold, and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made.

So he [Antiochus] left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering]; and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation, for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law.

And when he had pillaged the whole city, some of the inhabitants he slew, and some he carried captive, together with their wives and children, so that the multitude of those captives that were taken alive amounted to about ten thousand.

He also burnt down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians.

And when the king had built an idol altar upon God's altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction. The Works of Flavius Josephus.

(I realize this post is long, but I'm almost done!)

So Antiochus stationed a garrison of Macedonian troops in Jerusalem's lower city whereby they could oversee the Temple. The first "abomination of desolation" mentioned in this passage is not the sacrificing of swine upon God's altar: it's the presence of hostile, Gentile armies stationed inside the holy land and holy city of Jerusalem itself.

This situation was repeated by the Romans almost 200 years later. It's this condition - the presence of Gentile armies in the holy land surrounding the holy city - to which Matthew alludes in Daniel and which Luke interprets for us.

Matthew 24:15 is NOT about an antichrist. It's a prophecy of Roman military activity in the holy land based on precedent set by the Macedonian armies of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

 

[Stormcrow]

Wait! You mean Jerusalem is the "holy place"? The "holy land" is the "holy place"? NOooooo!

Isn't it ironic that while we continue to call the entire land of Israel the "Holy Land" today, when pastors and teachers read Matthew 24:15, suddenly it's only the Temple that's "holy?"

OY! :eeeekkk

 

[Sinthesis]

Isn't it ironic that while we continue to call the entire land of Israel the "Holy Land" today, when pastors and teachers read Matthew 24:15, suddenly it's only the Temple that's "holy?"

OY! :eeeekkk

Wait! Are we talking about the temple Jesus left unto them "desolate"? Or are we talking about a temple that doesn't even exist today? Given a Christian world view, how today could anyone construct a physical building for ritual animal sacrifice that God would ever consider 'holy'?

 

[Asyncritus]

Wait! Are we talking about the temple Jesus left unto them "desolate"? Or are we talking about a temple that doesn't even exist today? Given a Christian world view, how today could anyone construct a physical building for ritual animal sacrifice that God would ever consider 'holy'?

I rather suspect that a temple will be rebuilt by the Jews.

That's only a suspicion, but one hears things, like the sanhedrin being reconvened after centuries, the priests - the cohens - being trained in the rituals, and other such items of either news or gossip, one can't tell.

I very much doubt if God will view it as holy, but the Jews certainly will.

If the temple IS rebuilt, then you can immediately see how Mt 24 and Lk21 are going to be fulfilled a second time.

Israel will be invaded, defeated, one third exiled, and then the Lord will roar out of Zion (Zechariah 14).

 

[Stormcrow]

Wait! Are we talking about the temple Jesus left unto them "desolate"? Or are we talking about a temple that doesn't even exist today?

In the view of the "Third Temple crowd", I suspect it would be the latter based on the preeminence of the former. (Yeah, I'll try to make it make sense, too!)

The traditional, Dispensationalist interpretation of Matthew 24:15 is that when "THE ANTICHRIST" comes, he will enter the fantastic, new Holy of Holies in the modern, new Temple and declare himself God, thus profaning this modern Temple the way Antiochus did when he entered it to sacrifice a pig to Zeus in the old one, and the way Titus did when he entered it to try and save it from being burned down when his Roman legions entered the Temple grounds and set fire to it.

This is not, however, what Luke tells us when he interprets Matthew 24:15 for his Gentile readers.

Given a Christian world view, how today could anyone construct a physical building for ritual animal sacrifice that God would ever consider 'holy'?

And - of course - therein lies the irony. How can Dispensationalist/Fundamentalist preachers and teachers teach, on the one hand, that we -the body of Christ - are God's temple, yet continue to proclaim that a new Temple will be built wherein the glory of God will once again reside in this new "Holy of Holies", setting up the scenario whereby this new Temple can be profaned?

(And thank you for setting me up with all these softballs, Sinthesis!)

I would just like those who hold to this Dispy/Fundy/Futurist view try to reconcile the following statements:

The Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem is the intersection between Heaven and Earth, the dwelling place of the Lord among His peoples.

http://jameswassermanbooks.com/Solomon.html

The temple was a physical replica of God’s heavenly abode…The temple represented God’s home on earth.

http://www.askelm.com/temple/t040301.htm

The Temple was the House of God, where God's presence was readily available to all those who sought Him...The Temple was the terrestrial place of the Almighty, with His presence more concentrated there than anywhere in the world. It was in essence the embassy of Heaven on Earth.

http://www.cohen-levi.org/temple_stu...the_temple.htm

With these statements:

{16} Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? {17} If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (NASB)

{16} Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 2 Corinthians 6:16 (NASB)

{19} So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, {20} having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, {21} in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, {22} in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22 (NASB)

God's glory - the presence and indwelling of His Spirit - no longer rests in a Temple "built by human hands."

(Scales falling off anyone's eyes yet? )

Happy Thanksgiving! :chicken

 

[jasoncran]

thats the biggest problem for them. i am not as to the amil/partial preterist position as some here. but that is kinda what they imply.

i was taught the jews will reach god via the temple and the ac will proclaim himself. the problem is that the temple must be holy for him to be that type of abonomation so to speak.

 

[smaller]

I would just like those who hold to this Dispy/Fundy/Futurist view try to reconcile the following statements:

With these statements:

God's glory - the presence and indwelling of His Spirit - no longer rests in a Temple "built by human hands."

(Scales falling off anyone's eyes yet? )

Happy Thanksgiving! :chicken

Yet you insist on seeing physical armies surrounding Israel in 70 a.d. and miss these armies:

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against fleshand blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

oh yeah, those were only in the soldiers of 70 a.d. that destroyed the physical temple

lol

s

 

[Stormcrow]

It seems some people make a virtue of pulling a single verse out of context and applying it to things where it simply doesn't fit.

Why they would willingly do that is quite beyond me. 2