Lucas 21
Bruce Hurt · Citado em PreceptAustin
Lucas 21
From Jensen's Survey of the NT by permission John MacArthur's Introduction to the Gospel of Luke Charles Swindoll's Introduction to Luke Luke Overview Chart by Charles Swindoll Click chart to enlarge LIFE OF CHRIST IN GOSPEL OF LUKE (See Shaded Areas) Chart from recommended resource Jensen's Survey of the NT - used by permission Ryrie Study Bible -Borrow Source: ESV Global Study Bible Luke 21:1 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. KJV Luke 21:1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. and saw Mark 7:11-13; Mark 12:41-44 the treasury Joshua 6:19,24; 1 Kings 14:26; 2 Kings 24:13; 2 Chronicles 36:18; Nehemiah 13:13; Mt 27:6; John 8:20 Luke 21 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 21:1-4 Abusing the Poor - John MacArthur Luke 21:1-4 Giving That Pleases the Lord - Steven Cole Related Passage: Mark 12:41-44+ And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. 43 Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; 44for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.” (Copyright 2014 Faithlife / Logos Bible Software) Let me say at the outset that Luke 21:1-4 is a VERY DIFFICULT passage for me to interpret. This statement may surprise you as this seems to be such a simple straightforward teaching on giving. But even more surprising to you is the thought that this passage may not teach principles of giving as is commonly thought! And frankly, at this point you may want to skip past the comments and go on to Luke 21:5 and consult other commentaries which use this passage as a segue to move smoothly from the widow's example to a sermon on teaching the principles of giving. If you are a pastor, this passage has been considered "rich fodder" to discuss the sometimes touchy topic of giving, because everyone is convicted by the example of this poor widow. While I have previously considered this passage to be about giving generously, John MacArthur's sermon (and commentary) argue that the thrust of the message is not teaching principles of giving but is a continuation of the theme of Jesus' condemnation against the corrupt Jewish religious system. So while almost every commentary (and I have read many, both old and new) focuses on this poor widow's giving in a positive light, John MacArthur takes the approach that this is a negative example, an additional warning of judgment to come. I have personally wrestled with MacArthur's interpretation, initially becoming very disturbed at his analysis to the point that I did not feel comfortable placing a link to his sermon on this passage. I have asked God to give me clarity and honesty because it is difficult to jettison an interpretation that almost universally interprets the widow's example in a positive light, which is what one has heard all their life. MacArthur feels Luke 21:1-4 is a continuation of the theme of judgment begun in Lk 20:47+ (and the parallel diatribe against the Scribes and Pharisees in Mt 23:1-36) which continues into the pericope in Lk 21:5-36. He makes the point (which is difficult to argue with given that they had turned the Temple into a robbers' den - Lk 19:46+ - and the Pharisees were lovers of money - Lk 16:14+) that this woman was giving to an apostate religious system that was set up to bilk people out of their money, explaining that she was not giving to God but to a religious system that had distorted God's Word by adding men's traditions. Geoffrey Smith a Presbyterian pastor writing in the Journal of Evangelical Theology has a somewhat "hybrid interpretation" (this article deals with the parallel account of the widow in the Gospel of Mark) on one hand giving a classic interpretation of the widow's giving but adding that it also speaks of the "coming judgment upon the nation of Israel"... "The story of the widow’s offering as found in Mark 12:41–44 has long provided the Church with an example of humble devotion to the Lord. Further, it speaks to the people of God about the true nature of giving. Calvin considered this account as providing “a highly useful doctrine, that whatever men offer to God ought to be estimated not by its apparent value, but only by the feeling of the heart, and that the holy affection of him who, according to his small means, offers to God the little that he has, is more worthy of esteem than that of him who offers a hundred times more out of his abundance.” (ED: THE HIGHLY ESTEEMED REFORMER JOHN CALVIN READS INTO THE TEXT THAT THE WOMAN'S GIVING REFLECTED THE FEELING OF HER HEART, BUT THE TEXT IS COMPLETELY SILENT ON HER HEART MOTIVE! THIS POINTS OUT THAT EVEN THE MOST ESTEEMED EXEGETE CAN BE GUILTY OF MAKING INCORRECT OBSERVATIONS AND THEN INCORRECT INTERPRETATIONS! SEE IMPORTANCE OF CAREFUL, ACCURATE, UNBIASED OBSERVATION OF THE BIBLE!) The careful observer, however, will note a second theme in this account of the widow that intersects with the standard interpretation of the text. The second theme is the coming judgment upon the nation of Israel. It is an underlying theme throughout Mark’s gospel: The days of covenant-breaking Israel are numbered, and all that remains for what is left of the theocracy is covenant curse. As the gospel narrative moves forward, evidence for God’s lawsuit against his people accumulates (culminating in Israel’s leaders mocking and insulting the Messiah during his agony on the cross [Mk 15:31–32+; cf. Mk 12:1–12+]). Simultaneously Mark has sprinkled a variety of hints (in the form of non-Israelites approaching Jesus with only their faith) that anticipate the saving reign of God transcending Israel’s frontiers into the world of the Gentiles (culminating in the [Gentile] centurion’s confession at the foot of the cross [Mk 15:39+])...Thus the brief account of the widow’s offering is strategically inserted between the condemnation of the scribes (ED: SEE JESUS LAST WORDS IN LUKE = Luke 20:47+ AND HIS NEXT WORDS AFTER THE WIDOW'S MITES - Lk 21:6 = "not be left one stone upon another...") and Jesus’ announcement of the temple’s destruction. We are able to see a thematic bridge between scribal avarice and the pronouncement of ultimate curse on the nation.(A Closer Look at the Widow's Offering) Remember that in inductive Bible study, the most important step and the one usually given the least attention is the step of careful OBSERVATION of the text, letting it say what it says without adding words we "think" it says. Pure observation also takes great care to lay aside one's pre-conceived impressions of the passage (as much as is possible in such a well known story as the widow's mites). I have tried to study Luke 21:1-4 with that approach before I read the commentaries and I would advise you to do the same. If you do this (of course you are already biased by these notes!), I think you may be surprised at the "observations" that many of the commentaries make on this famous text. Specifically, I think you will find frequent comments that, while at first hearing they sound good (and they are Biblically true in other passages) and may sound like they are representative of a true interpretation of the text, but if we are completely honest many of the commentators seem to draw conclusions that are not based on a literal, normative reading of the text, but base their conclusion more on what they "think" or "suppose" that the text means. This is always a potential problem in study of passages that we have heard taught such as the passage in question. Even those who do not read the Bible much have heard about the "widow's mite." Here are some examples from Pastor Steven Cole's message (and he is one of the most literal and careful expositors of Scripture I have ever read) in which he draws conclusions that are not are not based on what the text states. "She didn’t know Jesus was watching her until she got to heaven, where she was richly rewarded." WHAT IS COLE IMPLYING? CLEARLY HE IS SAYING SHE WAS SAVED. BUT IS THERE ANY INDICATION FROM THE TEXT SHE WAS SAVED? NONE. THUS THIS CONCLUSION IS CLEARLY NOT FOUND IN THIS STORY. WILL SHE BE IN HEAVEN? POSSIBLY, BUT WE SIMPLY CANNOT SAY. AND CLEARLY SACRIFICIAL GIVING IS NOT MERITORIOUS AND EARNS NO ONE ENTRANCE INTO HEAVEN. COLE WAS NOT IMPLYING THE LATTER, BUT PRESUMABLY IMPLIED THAT HER GIVING WAS REFLECTION THAT SHE HAD FIRST GIVEN HERSELF TO CHRIST, WHICH IS POSSIBLE, BUT AGAIN IS DRAWING MORE FROM THE TEXT THAN IS LITERALLY STATED. "I don’t know for sure why this widow gave those two coins that day; the text does not say. (AMEN! WE CANNOT KNOW HER MOTIVE OR HER HEART BECAUSE THE TEXT DOES NOT TELL US). But I think that Luke wants us to see a contrast between her and the scribes whom Jesus has just denounced. (AMEN! COLE IS "SPOT ON" BECAUSE Lk 21:4 HAS A "BUT," WHICH IS A TERM OF CONTRAST SO CLEARLY JESUS IS CONTRASTING THE GIVING OF THE RICH OUT OF THEIR SURPLUS AND THIS WOMAN OUT OF HER POVERTY. AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRETENTIOUS PIETY JUST DESCRIBED IN Lk 20:46-47, COLE'S NEXT STATEMENT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN ACCURATE INTERPRETATION.). They were doing their religion to impress others with how spiritual they were. She was quiet, unknown, and not trying to impress anyone. They were giving out of pride, for selfish recognition. She was giving in worship, out of love for God." (YES, FROM THE CONTEXT THEY WERE UNDOUBTEDLY GIVING FOR "SHOW," OUT OF PRIDE, BUT COLE IS ASSUMING HER MOTIVE WAS WORSHIP AND MOTIVATED BY LOVE. WHILE POSSIBLE, THIS IS NOT CLEARLY STATED. THE FACT SIMPLY IS THAT SHE PROPORTIONATELY GAVE MUCH MORE, BUT WHY SHE GAVE MUCH MORE IS NOT STATED.) "she gave out of routine faithfulness. When she went to worship at the temple, she gave as a matter of “holy habit.” NOTE THE ASSUMPTIONS "ROUTINE FAITHFULNESS...HOLY HABIT." AGAIN THE TEXT IS SIMPLY SILENT. WHILE IT IS ADMIRABLE TO ASCRIBE THESE GODLY ATTRIBUTES TO THIS WIDOW, THIS IS SIMPLY GOING BEYOND WHAT THE TEXT PLAINLY STATES. "When the Lord exclaimed, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them,” He was evaluating their gifts. Pile up all the gifts of the rich combined on one side and hers on the other. Hers weighs more in God’s sight." CLEARLY THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE TEXT STATES. "I’ve already touched on this. I’m inferring it from the context of this story. The Lord knew the selfish motives of the religious leaders who gave large amounts to the temple, but they did it to be honored by men (Matt. 6:1-4). Jesus condemned them for their hypocrisy. But He commended this poor widow, who didn’t even know that He saw her give. Jesus knew her motives. She gave to express her devotion to God. It was an act of worship." COLE IS SURELY CORRECT IN HIS THOUGHT ON THE MOTIVES OF THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS. BUT THE MOTIVES OF THE WIDOW ARE NOT STATED. With this background, there are three considerations that we need to consider which might give us pause to reconsider how we have always interpreted this famous story, so let's look at them briefly. (1) The Context - Context as you know is "king in interpretation." Recall that when the Bible was originally written there were no chapter breaks or verses. A chapter break at Luke 21 makes it easy to read Lk 21:1-4 and forget the preceding context. Below is the preceding context which is clearly a warning against the religious leaders, the Scribes (and Pharisees), who exercised considerable authority over the way the Jewish religion was practiced and how things were "run" in the Temple. So these men represent a corrupt, apostate religious system which no longer honors God but exalts men (the leaders) and takes advantage of widows. Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.” (Lk 20:46-47+) Here are the passages that follow the story of the widow's giving: And while some were talking about the Temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.” (Lk 21:5-6) Notice that Lk 21:5 in Greek begins with the coordinating conjunction "kai" which is translated "and" which clearly links Jesus' condemnation of the Temple with His description of the widow in the Temple Court of the Gentiles. So what is the point? From the passages before and after Luke 21:1-4, it is clear that these sections deal with condemnation of the self-righteousness leaders and the corrupt religion in the Temple itself. The upshot is that the before and after passages (context) clearly speak of God's judgment on a religious system which no longer honors Him and benefits His people, but which instead dishonors Him and takes advantage of the people (such as poor widows, Lk 20:47). To summarize: Lk 20:45-47 = Condemnation of religious leaders of the Temple Lk 21:1-4 = Story of giving in the Temple Lk 21:5-36 = Condemnation of the Temple Another way to look at Luke 21:1-4 is to note what I would call the "spatial context." In other words, as you compare Lk 19:45-46+, Lk 21:1-4 and Lk 21:5-36, it is as if Jesus is moving from outer portion of the temple complex inward. Recall that on the previous day Jesus cleansed the money changers out of the Court of the Gentiles (the outermost court) condemning them for making a "House of prayer" into a "robber's den." (Lk 19:45-46-note) Now on the following day Jesus is again in the Temple in Lk 21:1-4, but instead of addressing the money changers in the Court of the Gentiles, He is now addressing money giving in the Court of the Women the court which is between the outer court Jesus had just judged and the inner courtyard (Israelites' Courtyard = #4 on diagram and Priest's Courtyard = #3 on diagram - see also diagram on verse 2) and Temple proper which Jesus predicted in Lk 21:5-36 would soon be judged (this occurred about 40 years later in 70 A D). Below is a summary of the "spatial context" and once again we note that the location of the widow's giving is situated between the outer area that has been judged and the inner area which will soon be judged. Outermost Court - Money matters in the Court of the Gentiles - Judgment Demonstrated Next Inner Court - Money matters in the Court of the Women Innermost court and the Holy Temple - Judgment Decreed (2) The Religious System to which the widow is giving - This point is alluded to above, but to reiterate, are the funds given by the people in the Court of the Women being used to honor God and bring Him glory? Those questions are rhetorical, because the truth is that the Jewish religion in Jesus' day had become a corrupt "system," emphasizing works righteousness instead of emphasizing faith in Messiah, the only way to obtain true righteousness. It follows that it would be easy for the populace (including a poor widow) to fall prey to the false teaching of the highly respected religious leaders. Jesus had just "scorched" the leaders declaring "What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! (WHY? WHAT WERE THEY DOING?) For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people's faces. You won't go in yourselves, and you don't let others enter either." (Mt 23:13NLT - READ THE ENTIRE SCATHING DIATRIBE - Mt 23:1-39) As Arnold Fruchtenbaum (Messianic Jewish commentator) says the Scribes and Pharisees "were condemned because they were rejecting Jesus' Messianic claims and leading the nation to reject them as well." It would be easy for a poor widow to have the door of the Kingdom shut in her face, being deceived into the trap that the more she gave to the Temple coffers, the more "right standing" she would have before God! You might respond that the widow was giving of her own free will, which is possible, but there is another consideration. She may have felt an obligation to give, because several of the offerings were mandatory or compulsory. This type of giving flies in the face of giving which pleases God, for God first wants us to give ourselves to Jesus (2 Cor 8:5+) and then, from our love for Him, will flow Spirit initiated and enabled generous, joyful giving (2 Cor 8:3+). As Paul wrote "Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor 9:7+) Commenting on Mark 12:41-44 Justin Comber writes "Mark seems to be suggesting that her gift is not quite a commendation, but that it is a sign of Jesus’ abandonment of the temple that robbed her of everything that she had (cf. Malbon, “Poor Widow in Mark,” 589–604; cf. Wright, “Widow’s Mite,” 256–65). What follows is Jesus’ pronunciation of judgment on the temple. It will be destroyed with no hope of restoration (Mark 13:1–2)." (3) What is Jesus' Assessment of this Scene? Does He truly commend the woman for giving everything she had to live on? Does He chastise the rich for not giving all they had, but only giving out of their surplus? Does God demand that we give everything we have to live on? Is that giving really sacrificial or is it foolish? Why would she give everything? Why not hold back one mite? What did she think giving both coins would accomplish? Would she obtain greater blessing? These are a few of the questions that MacArthur's sermon on this section have raised in my mind. And again I admit that initially I strongly reacted to MacArthur's interpretation. Let's face it, no one likes to be wrong, especially when it comes to God's Word and especially if one has held a particular belief for several decades! (4) She may have been guilty of practicing corban (this is supposition, but it is a way the Scribes "devoured" widow's houses). See explanation of corban below followed by MacArthur's comments. The IVP Women's Bible Commentary (see here) has this comment on the story of the "Widow's Mite" (keep in mind this comment was even written by a woman!) noting that the interpretation is "problematic In Mark 12:38-40 Jesus has condemned the scribes who "devour widows' houses." Is Mark 12:44 praise for the widow or lament over a system that would lead her to give away her security? (ED: DOES THIS REMIND YOU OF SOME OF THE "TELEVANGELISTS WHO PREY ON WIDOWS TO ENRICH THEMSELVES? WOE TO THEM FOR THEY WILL SUFFER A "HOTTER HELL" FOR THEIR EVIL!) Shouldn't the religious establishment be supporting the widow? (ED: SEE WHAT JAMES SAYS ABOUT PURE AND UNDEFILED RELIGION! James 1:27+) In the narrative, the next words of Jesus (Mk 13:2+) predict the destruction of the Temple (ED: THE "FACE" OF THEIR CORRUPT RELIGIOUS SYSTEM!)....while Jesus may have been moved (NOTE "MAY HAVE") by the widow's offering, He can hardly have approved of a religious system that explicitly or implicitly asked if of her!" Stein has some interesting comments in the New American Commentary on Luke (MY COMMENTS IN ALL CAPS) as he sets the context for Luke 21:1-4 - In Luke the contrast is between the rich and the poor. The exact point of the story, however, is not as clear as first appears. Several suggestions have been made: (1) the measure of one’s gift does not involve how much one gives but how much remains, i.e., how much one keeps; (2) a gift is measured by the spirit in which it is given (ED: BUT WHERE DOES THE TEXT DESCRIBE THE WIDOW'S SPIRIT? JESUS SIMPLY SAYS SHE GAVE EVERYTHING. THAT MIGHT INDICATE "SELF-DENIAL" BUT IT MIGHT ALSO INDICATE FOOLISHNESS); (3) one’s giving should be commensurate with one’s means; and (4) true giving involves giving all one has. The question has even been raised about whether or not Jesus was commending the widow for what she had done. Some have suggested that Jesus was not praising but lamenting what the widow had done. According to this interpretation, the widow had been so indoctrinated by the religious leaders that she brought about voluntarily the devouring of a widow’s house, which is condemned in Luke 20:46. This interpretation, however, does not explain the present form of the account, for Luke 21:3 is clearly a commendation (ED: IS IT REALLY A COMMENDATION OR SIMPLY A STATEMENT OF FACT?). The widow’s having given more to God than the rich would have been interpreted as a positive action by Luke’s readers (THAT IS PROBABLY A VALID CONCLUSION). His readers would have understood the widow as an example of one who was rich toward God (Lk 12:21) (ED: THAT ASSUMES SHE WAS STORING UP FOR HERSELF TREASURE IN HEAVEN, NOT JUST UNDER COMPULSION BY THE LEADERS TO PUT HER COINS IN THE TREASURY IN THE TEMPLE), who was not anxious about this life, but who sought first God’s kingdom (Lk 12:22–31) (THIS IS ALL SUPPOSITION - WHERE DOES LUKE SAY SHE IS SEEKING THE KINGDOM OF GOD? REMEMBER THAT IN Mt 23:13 JESUS SAYS THE LEADERS ACTUALLY SHUT THE DOOR OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BY THEIR NON-BIBLICAL, LEGALISTIC TEACHING! CLEARLY STEIN IS MAKING AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE WIDOW'S HEART ATTITUDE WHICH THE TEXT DOES NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS). She, like Jesus’ other followers, was willing to sell everything (Lk 12:22) and leave everything (Lk 5:11, 28) in her love for God (NB: AGAIN STEIN PRESUPPOSES THAT SHE WAS DOING WHAT SHE WAS DOING BECAUSE OF "HER LOVE FOR GOD." THAT IS ADDING TO THE TEXT WHAT IS NOT CLEARLY STATED. WHILE ONE MIGHT THINK GIVING ALL SHE HAD TO LIVE ON WAS TANTAMOUNT TO HER GREAT LOVE FOR GOD, ALTERNATIVELY AND ESPECIALLY BASED ON THE WORKS BASED RIGHTEOUSNESS RELIGION THAT SHE BEEN TAUGHT, ONE COULD POSTULATE THAT HER "SACRIFICIAL GIVING" WAS TO ACHIEVE AN EVEN GREATER DEGREE OF MERIT WITH GOD THAN THE RICH WHO PUT IN MUCH BUT NOT PROPORTIONATELY AS MUCH AS SHE HAD PUT IN. SHE COULD REASON THAT SHE PUT IT ALL IN AND THEREFORE WAS WORTHY OF A GREATER DEGREE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS THAN THE RICH WHO ONLY PUT IN OUT OF THEIR SURPLUS). Practical concerns for the widow (What reputable pastor or evangelist would recommend a parishioner to do so?) should not blind us to the point Jesus was making. Nothing is made of the inner spirit of the widow (ED: I AGREE, BUT WHY DID STEIN JUST CONCLUDE THAT HER GIVING SHOWED SHE HAD A GREAT LOVE FOR GOD. HE IS CORRECT THAT THE TEXT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HER INNER SPIRIT AND IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HER MOTIVE FOR GIVING), and the widow’s gift was clearly not commensurate with her means since she had nothing left. Thus the main point appears to be that God measures the gifts of his people not on the basis of their size but on the basis of how much remains. (THIS IS SUPPOSITION - IS THAT REALLY AN ACCURATE CONCLUSION? I WOULD SUBMIT THAT GOD MEASURES OUR GIFTS BY LOOKING AT OUR HEART AND OUR MOTIVES, WHETHER WE GIVE ONE MITE OR ONE MILLION.) (New American Commentary - Luke). Now for the biggest shock of all - Probably one of the most honest interpretations I have found in all my reading on the widow's mite is from (of all places) Wikipedia! Here is the full comment from that source (click here for the footnote explanations): The traditional interpretation of this story tends to view it as contrasting the conduct of the scribes with that of the widow, and encouraging generous giving; often read with 2 Corinthians 9:7, "...for God loves a cheerful giver." However, Addison Wright observes that there is no indication given of the widow's demeanor or frame of mind. He points out that earlier, in Mark 7:10-13, Jesus takes to task the scribes and Pharisees for an hypocrisy that would impoverish parents.[4] For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.' Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is korban (see note)"'(meaning, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things." In the passage immediately prior to Jesus taking a seat opposite the Temple treasury, he is portrayed as condemning religious leaders who feign piety, accept honor from people, and steal from widows. "Beware of the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces, seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets. They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation."[5] The same religious leaders who would reduce widows to poverty also encourage them to make pious donations beyond their means. In Wright's opinion, rather than commending the widow's generosity, Jesus is condemning both the social system that renders her poor, and "...the value system that motivates her action, and he condemns the people who conditioned her to do it."[4] Quentin Quesnell sees in this account "...a rebuke and rejection of the wrongdoers."[6] Quesnell notes that if Jesus' statement was to be seen as an endorsement of the widow's action, it bears none of the usual comments, such as "Go, and do likewise." (ED: IF WE ARE HONEST, WE HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIS COMMENT. E.G., SEE Luke 10:37+). The account of the Widow's Mite is followed by, "As he was making his way out of the temple area one of his disciples said to him, "Look, teacher, what stones and what buildings!" Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down."[7] Wright notes the irony that as the Temple was destroyed in the year 70, the widow's gift was not only misguided, but for nothing.[4] (Bold Font added by me for emphasis) (click here for the footnote explanations): Well, now that I have really "ruffled your feathers" and thrown you a "theological curve ball," let's look at where the scene of Luke 21:1-4 most likely takes place. Extra-Biblical sources describe 13 offering jars were in the Court of the Women. From the diagram above (or perhaps better seen in the one below), notice that the outermost court is called the Court of the Gentiles - which was a vast area the size of 10 football fields. This is where the money changing took place which Jesus had cleansed the previous day. Surrounding the Court of the Gentiles were a series of "porches" or cloisters through which ran double rows of Corinthian pillars, each cut from marble and measuring 37 feet in height and covered by a flat roof. The entire court was paved with marble. The southern porch was known as "Solomon’s Porch" ("Portico") (Acts 3:11). Gentiles were permitted into this area provided they conducted themselves in a reverent manner. A low wall ran completely around the Temple structure (Temple Balustrade) beyond which Gentiles could not venture on penalty of death (In the diagram, it is immediately around the main Temple area, but somewhat difficult to see). This Temple Balustrade had periodic gates and a stone inscription located at each gate. In 1871 archaeologists discovered a "Temple Warning Inscription" (another note) which read "No Foreigner Is To Go Beyond The Balustrade And The Plaza Of The Temple Zone Whoever Is Caught Doing So Will Have Himself To Blame For His Death Which Will Follow"). Beyond the Temple Balustrade or Dividing Wall was a flight of 14 steps that led up to a terrace on which stood the inner wall of the Temple. This inner wall had a number of gates, but the main gate was located on the eastern side. This was the "Beautiful Gate" (Acts 3:2). There were 12 steps leading up to this gate. The doors of the gate were made of Corinthian brass and mounted on massive hinges. Entering through this gate brought one into the Court of the Women. (#9 on diagram) was as far within the Temple as women were permitted to enter. The Court of Women was surrounded by colonnades. Along the walls there were thirteen jars which served as receptacles for various offerings where the people would drop their offerings. Each jar had an inscription that stated it's purpose. Nine of the offering jars were for mandatory or compulsory offerings and four were for voluntary offerings (See tabular summary below). Edersheim - Court of the Women. The Court of the Women obtained its name, not from its appropriation to the exclusive use of women, but because they were not allowed to proceed farther, except for sacrificial purposes. Indeed, this was probably the common place for worship, the females occupying, according to Jewish tradition, only a raised gallery along three sides of the court. This court covered a space upwards of 200 feet square. All around ran a simple colonnade, and within it, against the wall, the thirteen chests, or 'trumpets,' for charitable contributions were placed. (See Alfred Edersheim - The Temple: Its Ministry and Services - Chapter 2 - Within the Holy Place) So Luke opens with Jesus in the Court of the Women which contained the thirteen Treasury-chests or 'trumpets'. He was watching the offerings. The Scribes and Pharisees made a great show strutting around like peacocks to attract men's attention. Jesus focuses on the contrast of a poor woman who is presenting her offering in the Temple. He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury - If He looked up that means he was sitting down (which Mark attests - Mk 12:41). There is another consideration for why He may have looked up. While we need to be cautious in speculating on what was in Jesus' mind at this time, when we compare the account in Matthew's Gospel in which Jesus had just rebuked the religious leaders (Read Mt 23:1-36) with 8 blistering Woes (ouai), then He follows up with some of the saddest words of His entire three year ministry... Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. “Behold, your house (THE TEMPLE) is being left to you desolate! (Mt 23:37-38) So it is at least a reasonable possibility that Jesus was very, very sad and as people do when they are sad, His head may have been looking down. And so Luke says "He looked up." Looked up (308)(anablepo from ana = up, again + blepo = to look, to perceive and so discern) means to look up or direct one's vision upward. Anablepo - 23v in the NT - Matt. 11:5; Matt. 14:19; Matt. 20:34; Mk. 6:41; Mk. 7:34; Mk. 8:24; Mk. 10:51; Mk. 10:52; Mk. 16:4; Lk. 7:22; Lk. 9:16; Lk. 18:41; Lk. 18:42; Lk. 18:43; Lk. 19:5; Lk. 21:1; Jn. 9:11; Jn. 9:15; Jn. 9:18; Acts 9:12; Acts 9:17; Acts 9:18; Acts 22:13 Mark's parallel gives us more background explaining that Jesus "sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing (theoreo = observing with sustained attention - imperfect tense = vivid picture = over and over - one would toss in their coins, then another and another) how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums" (Luke adds the key qualifying phrase - "all out of their surplus.") (Mk 12:42+) Jesus does not say He was impressed by the large sums tossed in by the rich, but neither does He condemn them. He is just making a statement of fact at this time, without giving a commentary pro or con. How did He know they were large sums? Perhaps it was not that He heard just "clink, clink," but "clink, clink, clink, clink, clink, etc" as the rich tossed in many coins into the jars. Of course, Jesus could also have known what they were giving from His omniscience. While He makes no comment pro or con, the clinking of the shekels which could be heard by all when the rich cast their many coins into the coffers reminds one of His Sermon on the Mount in which He contrasted radical righteousness with rotten righteousness. I realize He did not condemn them here but His words in Matthew 6 should ring in all of ears as a warning against even subtle forms of self righteousness... "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. "When therefore you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. (Mt 6:1-4+)
Lucas 21:20-24
LUKE 21:20-24 COMMENTARY Note: These link to the full commentary on Luke 21 to help you establish the context because this page has comments only on Luke 21:20-24. Luke 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand: Hotan de idete kukloumenen (PPPFSA) hupo stratopedon Ierousalem tote gnote (2PAAM) hoti eggiken (3SRAI) he eremos autes . Lu 21:7 Lk 19:43 Da 9:27 Mt 24:15 Mk 13:14 THE SIGN OF COMING DESOLATION: SURROUNDED BY ARMIES Introduction - Luke 21 is frequently referenced in commentaries on Matthew 24, especially to buttress the interpretation that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24:15-22-note was fulfilled in 70AD at the time of the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem by the Roman armies commanded by Titus. The following commentary will attempt to highlight the significant differences between Luke 21 and Matthew 24, differences which are problematic (constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty) when one seeks to use the Luke discourse to support interpretation of Mt 24:15-22 as fulfilled in the past. But (term of contrast) - What is Jesus contrasting? He has just stated "By your endurance you will gain your lives (literally "your souls")." (Lk 21:19) Clearly Jesus has just issued a call to remain faithful, for trusting in Him is the means to eternal (spiritual) life. Now however Jesus describes a danger to their physical lives and He will explain how they can preserve their physical lives. When (hote) means at that time, and in context Jesus explains it is at the "time" of the visible sign. Recall that after Jesus had predicted the Temple would be razed (Lk 21:6), the disciples did not question His prediction, but they did ask when this would occur, specifically asking "What will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Lk 21:7) When you see (horao) (cf Mt 24:15-note = "therefore when you see") - The verb horao (aorist tense and active voice = the subject carries out the action) means literally to see with one's eyes. Jesus is saying that this event will be easily visible and clearly discernible. To keep this statement in context, recall that Luke records that while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." (cf Mt 24:1-2) And they questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things be? And what will be the sign when these things are about (Notice "about" means almost, nearly or very close to doing something and thus is also a "time sensitive" word) to take place?" (Lk 21:5-7) So the disciples asked when and what? They wanted to know the timing and the sign. Jesus responds by linking the when with the what, giving the Jews a specific sign that marks when these things were going to take place. The sign in Luke 21:20+ is Jerusalem surrounded by armies. Contrast this sign with the sign in Matthew 24:15+ of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. A simple reading of the text leaves little doubt that these are two different signs, one dealing with the city and the other with the Temple (holy place). To argue that this is not really what these verses are saying is in essence to argue with the plain sense of Jesus' description of these strategic signs! Ipso facto (because of that fact), they are INDISPUTABLY NOT THE SAME (IDENTICAL) SIGN! Surrounded (encircled) (2944)(kukloo related to kuklos = a ring, a cycle) means to encircle. In Lk 21:20 kukloo is in the present tense and passive voice, which could be translated "being surrounded." This tense pictures Jerusalem as "being surrounded" which in other words would mean the city was in the process of being encircled but that the enemy forces had not yet completely encircled the city. Obviously if the encirclement were complete, Jesus' warnings could not be obeyed. It follows that there may have been a "window of opportunity" for the inhabitants of the city to escape once they saw this "sign." There is a historical record of Jewish believers who escaped when an initial Roman siege was then withdrawn prior to the final siege by Titus (see discussion below by Fruchtenbaum) Kukloo - 4 NT uses in NAS: encircled(1), gathered around(1), stood around(1), surrounded(1). Note - KJV has kukloo in Rev 20:9 but NAS has the verb kukleuo = to encircle, to wind around, to surround, to compass. Luke 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. John 10:24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Acts 14:20 But while the disciples stood around him, he got up and entered the city. The next day he went away with Barnabas to Derbe. Hebrews 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. Rev 20:9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded (Kukloo in the KJV but kukleuo in the NAS) the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. Kukloo - 73 verses in NAS in the Septuagint - Gen 2:11, 13 ("flows around"); Ex 13:18 ("God led the people around"); Nu 34:4-5; Dt 2:1 ("circled Mount Seir for many days"), Dt 2:3; 32:10; Josh 6:7; Jdg 11:18; 16:2; 19:22; 20:5; 1Sa 7:16; 2Sa 18:15; 22:6; 24:6; 1Ki 5:3; 7:15, 23f; 22:32; 2Ki 3:9; 6:15; 8:21; 11:8; 2Chr 4:3; 18:31; 21:9; 23:2, 7; Job 1:17; 16:13; 19:12; 22:10; Ps 7:7; 22:16; 26:6; 27:6; 32:7, 10; 48:12; 49:5; 55:10; 59:6, 14; 88:17; 91:4; 109:3; 118:10ff; Eccl 1:6; 7:25; 9:14; 12:5; Song 3:2f; 5:7; Isa 29:3; 37:33; Lam 3:5; Ezek 43:17; Hos 7:2; 11:12; Jonah 2:3, 5; Hab 2:16; Zech 14:10. Below are some uses of kukloo in the OT... Psalm 7:7 Let the assembly of the peoples encompass You, And over them return on high. Psalm 22:16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. Psalm 32:7 You are my hiding place; You preserve me from trouble; You surround me with songs of deliverance. Selah. Psalm 32:10 Many are the sorrows of the wicked, But he who trusts in the LORD, lovingkindness shall surround him. Psalm 49:5 Why should I fear in days of adversity, When the iniquity of my foes surrounds me, Isaiah 29:3 And I will camp against you encircling (Heb = dur; Lxx = kukloo) you, And I will set siege works against you, And I will raise up battle towers against you. Comment: Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled by Sennacherib in about 701BC (2Ki 18:17, cf Isa 37:33) and later by Nebuchadnezzar when the Babylonians surrounded Jerusalem (2Ki 24:11) with the final siege in 588BC lasting for 18 months (2Ki 25:1-4). Jesus made a similar prediction in Lk 19:43-44 and here in Lk 21:20. Then (5119)(tote) is an adverb that functions as an expression of time. Tote means at that time or a point of time subsequent to another point of time. Tote is used with when (hote) and translated "when...then" as here in Luke 21:20 (cp other examples of "when...then" = Mt 9:15, 13:26, 21:1, Mt 25:31, Lk 5:35, 14:10, Jn 7:10, 8:28, 11:6, 12:15 Acts 13:12 [inverted order], Acts 28:1, 1Cor 15:28, 54, 2Cor 12:10, Col 3:4). In short Jesus' warning is crystal clear = "WHEN you SEE, THEN you KNOW...THEN you FLEE!" (Lk 21:21) Recognize ( 1097)(ginosko) means to know by experience. Ginosko is in the aorist imperative which is a command that conveys a sense of urgency! Jesus is saying in essence "Do not miss this sign!" The implication is that "your life depends on your recognition!" It follows that the sign will not be ambiguous! The Jews in Israel were to know by experiencing (ginosko) the sight of the Roman armies laying siege to the city of Jerusalem. That was the sign they were to flee and not enter the city. This sign is clearly different from the sign in Mt 24:15+ because in that passage the sign to flee is when the abomination of desolation is standing in the holy place, the Temple. If the abomination that causes desolation is the Roman army as so many ancient and modern commentators propose, you can see the absurdity of this interpretation, for once the Romans had scaled the defense walls (thus enabling them to be "standing in the holy place"), it would have been too late to flee to safety! Furthermore, Josephus records that Titus had set up a perimeter fence to capture any Jews who might attempt to escape (See Josephus' record). And so the fact that Jesus gave very specific and different signs in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 is one of several reasons for stating that Mt 24:15-22 is not referring to the past destruction of Jerusalem (as Lk 21:20-24 clearly does) but to the future destruction of the Temple. Yes, I know what you are saying -- "There is no Temple in Jerusalem (as of April, 2016)." But if God can regenerate a nation as He did with Israel in May, 1948, surely He can rebuild a Temple in the city of Jerusalem! (See "The Tribulation Temple") As Paul Harvey used to say "And now you know the rest of the story!" (Read Jeremiah declaration [Jer 32:17-note] and God's rhetorical question [Jer 32:27-note]). Her - This refers to Jerusalem which is a feminine noun in Greek. Even resources that interpret Mt 24:15 are forced to acknowledge the difficulty of their proposed interpretation. Thus A L Williams in the Pulpit Commentary on Matthew favors the identity of the abomination as the Roman army and as with most similar commentaries, appeals to Jesus' "sign" in Lk 21:20+ to support his interpretation of Mt 24:15. And yet Williams admits that the presence of the Latin forces would be no new sign to the Jewish people, as they had been familiar with such a sight for many years. If the Temple itself is meant (referring to the phrase "holy place"), it is plain that it would be too late to fly from that doomed city when the Roman eagles were already in the hallowed courts. I agree with Williams on this point. It would be TOO LATE TO FLEE! In addition Williams records that Josephus states that Titus had a wall constructed which encompassed the entire city of Jerusalem to guard against the Jews' coming out....So all hope of escaping was now cut off from the Jews, together with their liberty of going out of the city Here is Josephus' record of Roman General Titus building a "retaining" wall around Jerusalem to remove all hope of escape... That therefore his opinion was, that if they aimed at quickness, joined with security, they must build a wall round about the whole city. Which was, he thought, the only way to prevent the Jews from coming out any way. And that then they would either entirely despair of saving the city, and so would surrender it up to him; or be still the more easily conquered when the famine had farther weakened them. For that besides this wall, he would not lie entirely at rest afterward; but would take care then to have banks raised again, when those that would oppose them were become weaker. But that if any one should think such a work to be too great, and not to be finished without much difficulty, he ought to consider, that it is not fit for Romans to undertake any small work: and that none but God himself could with ease accomplish any great thing whatsoever.....When Titus had therefore encompassed the city with this wall, and put garrisons into proper places, be went round the wall, at the first watch of the night, and observed how the guard was kept...3. So all hope of escaping was now cut off from the Jews, together with their liberty of going out of the city. Then did the famine widen its progress, and devoured the people by whole houses and families. The upper rooms were full of women and children that were dying by famine: and the lanes of the city were full of the dead bodies of the aged. The children also, and the young men wandered about the market places like shadows, all swelled with the famine, and fell down dead, wheresoever their misery seized them. [Read Josephus's description of the wall in Book 5, Chapter 12, Verses 1-3]. Notice that this retaining wall was built before the Roman Army even broke through the walls of Jerusalem, before the Roman Army could even possibly stand in the holy place! Do you see the problem one encounters if they interpret the sign of the abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15 as the event marking when the Jews were to flee the city (Mt 24:16)? As it has already been reasoned, this record by Josephus makes it virtually impossible that the Roman Army was the abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15! To reiterate, if the Roman army is the abomination and it must stand in the holy place and that would be the warning to the Jews to flee, then the warning sign was (as they say) "too little, too late!" So from both historical and Biblical perspectives, the interpretation which ascribes the abomination to the Roman army is nigh to impossible if one interprets the Biblical text Literally! Her desolation is at hand - This refers to the desolation of the holy city of Jerusalem. In contrast Matthew refers to the desolation of the holy Temple. One might argue that desolation of the city would obviously include desolation of the Temple, but they are specifically identified because Luke is referring to a different event than Matthew and Mark. To say that all three are referring to the same event requires one to "twist" the words of Jesus to make them "fit" one's predetermined preterist interpretation of Matthew 24 and Mark 13! NET Bible on Lk 21:20 - This passage refers to the events associated with the fall of Jerusalem, when the city is surrounded by armies. (Ed: In contrast Mt 24:15-note is associated with the fall of the Temple, when it is occupied by the abomination of desolation.) JESUS FIRST PREDICTION OF JERUSALEM'S DESOLATION If we compare Luke 21:20-24 with Luke 19:41-44+, we see that Jesus had already prophesied that Jerusalem would be surrounded and made desolate And when He approached, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known in this day (More literally = "on this day, even you" - the day that had been given to the Jews in Daniel's prophecy!), even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. "For the days shall come upon you when your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another (Ed: This would certainly qualify as "desolation!"), because you did not recognize the time of your visitation (Ed: If the Jews had studied and believed Da 9:25, 26+ they would have known the day and time of Jesus' visitation! See also Lk 1:68-79+)." (Lk 19:41-43+). Desolation (2050)(eremosis from eremoo = to desolate, lay waste) means a state of being made uninhabitable = devastation, destruction, depopulation. Luke 21:20 refers to the city of Jerusalem. Matthew 24:15-note refers to the holy place (the Temple). Mark 13:14 clearly parallels Mt 24:15 but instead of "standing in the holy place" Mark has "standing where it should not be." The related adjective eremos was used by Jesus when He prophesied to the Jews "Behold, your house (Temple) is being left to you desolate!" (Mt 23:38). In Mt 24:26 eremos is translated wilderness, which is the most frequent way it is translated in the NT. Eremosis - 3v - Mt 24:15, Mark 13:14, Luke 21:20 Eremosis - 26x in 23v in the Septuagint - Lev 26:34-35; 2Chr 30:7; 36:21; Ps 73:19; Jer 4:7 ("To make your land a waste"); Jer 7:34 ("the land will become a ruin"); Jer 22:5; 25:18; 44:6, 22; Da 8:13; 9:2, 18, 25, 27; 11:31; 12:11. See discussion of Daniel passages in discussion of abomination of desolation below. Leviticus 26:34-35 'Then the land will enjoy its Sabbaths all the days of the desolation (Hebrew = shamen/samen; Lxx = eremosis) while you are in your enemies' land; then the land will rest and enjoy its Sabbaths. 35 'All the days of its desolation it will observe the rest which it did not observe on your Sabbaths, while you were living on it. 2Chronicles 36:21 - (verse 20 for context) And those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days of its desolation (Hebrew = shamen/samen; Lxx = eremosis) it kept Sabbath until seventy years were complete. Jeremiah 7:34 "Then I will make to cease from the cities of Judah and from the streets of Jerusalem the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride; for the land will become a ruin. (Hebrew = chorbah = waste, desolation; Lxx = eremosis) Jeremiah 22:5 "But if you will not obey these words, I swear by Myself," declares the LORD, "that this house will become a desolation (Hebrew = chorbah = waste, desolation; Lxx = eremosis)."' Daniel 9:2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations (Hebrew = chorbah = waste, desolation; Lxx = eremosis) of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Daniel 8:13-commentary (FULFILLED PROPHECY) Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, "How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror ("the transgression that makes desolate"), so as to allow both the holy place (Temple) and the host (the Jews) to be trampled?" This prophecy was fulfilled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the "Antichrist of the Old Testament", who caused an altar to be set up in the Temple and placed an idolatrous image of Zeus on the altar (cf 2Macc 6:2). In addition, he turned the priest's chambers into brothels, creating the "abomination that causes desolation". In other words, the Temple was desolate to pious Jews because of the desecration of the holy altar. The Jews had no desire to worship in such a polluted environment and thus the Temple was deprived of (made "desolate" of) Jewish worshippers. In a similar way the future Antichrist will set up an abomination in the sanctuary, which is in essence demonic counterfeit worship (Da 9:27-note; Da 12:11-note). Even more blatantly defiant of God, the Antichrist will command worship of himself and his image! (2Th 2:3-note, 2Th 2:4-note, Rev 13:14-note, Rev 13:15-note) God will allow this gross evil because He is using this devilish man to fulfill His purging and purifying purpose in the nation of Israel (cp Da 12:10-note). While the infinitely good and holy God does not cause evil, in His infinite wisdom and omnipotence is able to bring good out of what others mean for evil. (cf Ge 50:20, Ro 8:28-note) Read 1Mac 1:41-64NRSV (Note that 1Mac 1:54NRSV is approximately 167BC) (See especially 1Mac 1:46-50NRSV = "[The king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, gave written orders] to defile the sanctuary and the priests, 47 to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, 48 and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, 49 so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. 50 He added, "And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die.") Daniel 9:27-commentary (NOT FULFILLED) "And he (the prince in Da 9:26-commentary) will make a firm covenant with the many (the Jews) for one week (7 years), but in the middle of the week (3.5 years) he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." The NIV translation of Da 9:27 says he "will set up an abomination that causes desolation until the end that is decreed is poured out on him" (Da 9:27NIV) Comment: Notice that both Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 12:11 refer to the abolition of sacrifices and association with abomination that makes desolate. The question arises as to who is "he" in Daniel 9:27? Without going into a detailed discussion, this individual has all the attributes of the future "Antichrist." (See also Da 11:36+ where he is referred to as "the king" who "will do as he pleases.") For an in depth discussion of "one week" and the identity of "he" as the future Antichrist see the commentary on Daniel 9:27. See also: Time Phrases - 3.5 years, "Time, times, half a time", 42 mo, 1260 days - The chances that the Spirit inspired these identical time phrases as simply coincidence is highly unlikely. Any intelligent observer must be struck by the fact that they are (1) identical times and (2) used in a similar, sometimes identical eschatological context. To interpret these time phrases as figures of speech is as absurd as interpreting Jesus' promise to rise from the grave in 3 days! Just as Jesus literally meant what He said, so too these time phrases are to be interpreted literally. To not do so is to not be intellectually honest (in my opinion)! Daniel 11:31-commentary (FULFILLED PROPHECY) - "And forces from him (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation." Comment: In the context of Daniel 11:1-45, this prophetic passage was fulfilled in 167 BC when Antiochus IV Epiphanes (the "Rather Small Horn" of Da 8:9-commentary) placed an idol in the Temple to honor the pagan god Zeus. Antiochus' soldiers even profaned the Temple by spreading sow's broth on the altar and banning daily sacrifices (see comments on Da 8:14-note). This passage would not fulfill Matthew 24:15-note because it was past history at the time Jesus spoke His words of warning. Remember that the context is Jesus giving His disciples a description of what the end of the age and His return would look like. As an aside, it is reasonable to refer to this abomination committed by Antiochus in 167 BC as an act which foreshadowed the final, yet to come abomination. John