I go by the immediate context in Luke and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. Judah was under vassal kingship long before Zedekiah, first under the Egyptians and then under the Babylonians. Similarly, "seven times" is not the same as "Gentile times," again, different context, kingship vs. fate of Jerusalem, which served as capital of the nation (till the Romans destroyed it). From there the emphasis will be on Mount Zion of heavenly Jerusalem where Jesus will be made king. If you choose the Babylonian destruction, what date will you take, that of the Witnesses or that of historians? The Witnesses insist on 607 BCE, whereas the majority scolars prefer 587/586 BCE? The latter will bring you to 1934 CE, if I am not mistaken.
Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations until the Gentile Times are Fulfilled. — Luke 21:24
by Fisherman 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Linda14
Fisherman
When has the word "Jerusalem" been figuratively referred to as rulership? The WT is saying that they word "Jerusalem" in the Luke refers to Davidic line of rulers. Granted, that city is the capital where rulers sat, and those were said to seat on Jehovah's throne, but for the meaning the WT associates with that Book of Luke to make sense, there has to be a place in the bible where the word "Jerusalem" would figuratively mean rulership. If not, changing the word Jerusalem in Luke to mean davidic line of rulers would not make sense. There is simply no basis for that.
So Luke 21:24 is about the city Jerusalem. That it will be trampled on... Destroyed by the Nations. That statement makes sense since Jesus is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not by then in ruins, hence the foretold trampling/destruction.
-
Jeffro
Linda14:
Granted, that city is the capital where rulers sat, and those were said to seat on Jehovah's throne
Actually, only Solomon is described as ‘sitting on Jehovah’s throne’.
-
Sea Breeze
The is the basic Christian view. (Evangelical)
I think WT was basically on track here.... with the exception of the 607 / 1914 nonsense.
After Jesus takes care of the small matter of saving believers (mostly gentiles) and defeating the anti-christ with a single word at Armageddon, he then occupies the throne of King David which has been vacant since Zedekiah.
Jesus was promised the throne of David his forefather. There is no power in the universe that can stop it. It is going to happen. Like it or not, earth will be ruled by a Jewish King, the incarnate God, Jehovah.
Zechariah 14:9 ASV
And Jehovah shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall Jehovah be one, and his name one. -
peacefulpete
For what it's worth...The author of Luke's revisions/omissions are suggestive of his understanding of Mark and Matt.
First, the author of Luke clearly did not interpret Mark or Matt's expression of "tribulation" as referring to events thousands of years in the future. He revised his sources to say : There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. His understanding would not seem strange if it were not for the Adventist spin we are familiar with. Clearly, he understood the "tribulation" of Mark and "great tribulation" of Matt as referring to the Roman suppression of Jewish rebellion in Jerusalem.
Notably, he dropped entirely the lines that follow (Matt 24:21b,22) that said the days would be 'shortened' on account of 'the elect' (Christian Jews) as this clearly did no longer fit his time of writing, a generation later.
Another alteration he made was removing the "immediately after the tribulation of those days..." in Matt (24:29). Instead, he dropped the line entirely.
He also adds a new intertextual typology from Tobit not found in his sources Mark or Matt. He introduces a delay, an 'appointed time' needing to be fulfilled before the restoration. In Tobit the writer uses those words for the period between the return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple, which was decades long. Rather than see it as a weakness of faith he saw it as providential. The writer of Luke, it seems, saw a parallel in his day. Living decades after 70 he saw the Jerusalem largely resume as a city but the Temple still in ruins as well, but more importantly no Son of Man.
Luke also adds (21:27,28) the line that 'when you see the Son of Man coming, know your deliverance is near'. This is not in Mark or Matt. He seems at pains to temporally distance the Jerusalem events from the deliverance here again. He has introduced a delay "appointed time" and erased words that suggested the two were very near in time. Here he temporally links the Son of Man's coming with imminent deliverance.
Especially interesting is his seeming omission of Matts 24:10-12, 14. This is likely because his copy of Matt did not yet have those lines. They also speak to a later generation of Christians whose disappointment had made them grow cold. It also ends with the anachronistic prediction of the Gospel being preached in the whole world. These lines are almost certainly a later gloss, as they would have been useful for Luke if he had seen it, given his agenda of explaining the delay.
I guess that's enough for now.
-
menrov
Why would someone speak to another person or persons about something that will happen and how they (audience) should act if actually it will not happen to them? Would it not be fair to say that what I am about to say does not apply to you but to people that will live far in the future.....but I cannot guarantee that my words will be understood by then.
My point, if you write or speak to someone or some people, it is meant for the person(s) you speak to or write to. not for a future set of people, hundreds or thousands of years later.
-
Vidqun
Menrov, it's called "prophecy." Some believe in it, some don't. For example, the angel told Daniel: "And I have come to cause you to discern what will befall your people in the final part of the days, because it is a vision yet for the days [to come]." (Dan. 10:14 NW). According to John: "After these things I saw, and, look! an opened door in heaven, and the first voice that I heard was as of a trumpet, speaking with me, saying, Come on up here, and I shall show you the things that must take place. (Rev. 4:1 NW). Most modern scholars reject the concept. For example, these claim the book of Daniel was written ex eventu, i.e., after-the-fact. I, again, understand Jesus to have predicted what would happen to Israel in the near future with similar happenings characterizing the "end of the age."
-
Jeffro
It’s always funny watching believers trying to make the Bible fit their beliefs. Luke says the gentile times were future in Jesus’ time and Revelation says Jerusalem would be trampled by the nations for 3.5 years. But believers, desperate for it to be relevant now, ignore what the Bible actually says and make up all manner of nonsense.
-
Jeffro
Vidqun:
Daniel, a contemporary of Ezekiel,
Nope. Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE.
would predict a second destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, this time by the Romans:
Nope. The author of Daniel refers to oppression by Antiochus IV.
This fact Jesus would reiterate in his Olivet discourse:
Nope. The trope was reused in comments later attributed to Jesus, but it was not the original intent of Daniel.
So, the "times of the Gentiles" start in 70 CE.
Nope. The ‘times of the gentiles’ began with the Roman response to the Jewish revolt in 66CE and culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Revelation 11 explicitly gives the duration as 3.5 years.
The “appointed times of the nations” are to be fulfilled when Jesus, who has the legal right, receives his kingship, this time in a heavenly setting (cf. Dan. 7:13, 14; cf. Rev. 11:2, 15, 18).
Nope. As a descendant of Jeconiah, Jesus would not have the legal right to be king (Jeremiah 22:28-30).
-
Vidqun
Very interesting observations, Jeffro. As you have discovered we do differ as to interpretation. Here's why:
Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE.
The above is easy to refute, but this is not the time or place. Suffice to say, Ezekiel had a high regard for Daniel (cf. Ezek.14:14, 20; 28:3).
[Modern scholars view this Daniel as Ugartitic hero named Dan’el, whose life story is narrated in the legend of Aqḥat (dating from about the fifteenth century B.C.).” However, Dan’el was an idol-worshiper, a drunken party goer, contemplating murderous revenge. Ezekiel, a zealous prophet and the son of a priest, would never have used a Baal-worshiper as a paragon of righteousness and purity.]
The author of Daniel refers to oppression by Antiochus IV.
And all the way to the Prince of the army it put on great airs, and from him the constant [feature] was taken away, and the established place of his sanctuary was thrown down. (Dan. 8:11 NWT)
And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. (Dan. 9:26 ESV)
Would you be so kind as pointing me to a historical or reference work where Antiochus is responsible for destruction of the city and the sanctuary. If so, then I’ll also apply it to Antiochus. While you’re busy with that, apply the following to Antiochus’ life. As far as I know, such a battle never took place and Antiochus died of illness. Place: Fars Province, Iran, somewhat far removed from Israel (Wiki). That's why I exclude Antiochus here.
40 "At the time of the end, the king of the south shall attack him, but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships. And he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through.
41 He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites.
42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
43 He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Cushites shall follow in his train.
44 But news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction.
45 And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him. (Dan. 11:40-45 ESV)
The ‘times of the gentiles’ began with the Roman response to the Jewish revolt in 66CE and culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Revelation 11 explicitly gives the duration as 3.5 years.
The temple was destroyed by the Romans. At least we ca agree on that. In the NT interpretation of the the new temple is somewhat different to what many expect. The new temple, as well as courtyard, would consist of living stones, i.e., individuals belonging to the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15, 16; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21, 22).
As a descendant of Jeconiah, Jesus would not have the legal right to be king (Jeremiah 22:28-30)
There are three possible solutions to this difficulty. First, the “offspring” of Jeconiah mentioned in the curse could be a limited reference to the king’s own children—his immediate offspring, in other words. On a related note, the phrase “in his lifetime” could apply to the entire verse. The curse would only be in force while the king lived. This is exactly what happened, as Jeconiah was not successful as a king (he only reigned for three months before he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar’s forces), and none of his sons (he had seven of them, 1 Chron. 3:17, 18) reigned over Judah.
A second solution concerns the virgin birth. Jesus only had one human parent, Mary. His mother was of David’s line, but not through Jeconiah (Luke 3:31). Joseph was Jesus’ legal father, but not His physical one. Thus, Jesus was of royal blood through Mary, but the curse of Jeconiah stopped with Joseph and was not passed on to Jesus.
A third possible solution is that God reversed the curse on Jeconiah’s family. This is hinted at by the prophet Haggai, who told Zerubbabel, Jeconiah’s grandson, that God would make him a “signet ring” on God’s hand (Haggai 2:23). Zerubbabel was blessed by God as the governor of Judea, and he prospered in that role when the Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem. The “signet ring” imagery of Jeconiah’s curse is repeated in Zerubbabel’s blessing, which must be more than coincidence. Several rabbinic sources teach that Jeconiah repented in Babylon and that God forgave him and lifted the curse.“Jehoiachin’s sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).” Jewish Encyclopedia –Louis Ginzberg, “Jehoiachin,” vol. 7 p. 84.
The following article discusses the Jewish view and Rabbinical quotes, which I found to be interesting.