You are the Christ

"Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"

So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."  Matthew 16:13-14

In response to all the miracles Jesus did, one would have to conclude as Nicodemus did that "no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with Him (John 3.2)."  Of course, there were those Jews who made the accusation that Jesus did these things by "Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons (Matthew 12:24)."   Jesus immediately pointed out the problem with such an accusation.   So it was either God or satan working through Jesus.  

Those who believe God was at work through Jesus considered that he must be a former prophet.   And there was the Jewish expectation of a prophet, such as Elijah.   But there was also an expectation of the one to be Messiah or Christ.   If Jesus was identified by others as the Christ, and he did not dismiss such recognition as an error, then it must be true; otherwise, God would not have been at work through Jesus performing such signs.   

I believe there were Jews (and maybe some Gentiles) who came to this conclusion.

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  

Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16.15-17

Peter said that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. I believe Peter (and he could be speaking for the majority of the apostles) came to this conclusion based on the signs and words of Jesus and Messianic expectations of the Jews based upon the Scriptures.   The addition of "son of God" only appears here in Matthew (not in Luke and Mark), but to see the Christ as the Son of God must have been a common Jewish understanding, because when Nathanael meets Jesus, he calls him the Son of God (John 1.49).  When Jesus stood before the High Priest, the Priest asked him if he was "the Christ, the son of the Blessed" (Mark 1.61)

Jesus said this was not revealed by flesh and blood but by the Father.  2 Peter 1.20 says that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation..."  Scripture does not have its source in "flesh and blood," that is, in man, but it is from God.  Coming to the conclusion that Jesus was the Christ--and to understand what that conclusion involves--would only be through special revelation.  It is through special revelation that God draws to the Son: John 6:44-45.   It is through the word of God that faith comes:  Romans 10.17.   As one responds positively or correctly to divine revelation, God will give more light:  I believe this is the divine principle that explains why some can understand and believe certain divine truths, while others don't--it is the principle that Jesus gave concerning the parables, being, "whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance (Mat 13.12)."    

The High Priest may have understood that the Christ would also be the Son of God, but there was something defective about his understanding about who the Christ would be, besides not believing, as also other Jews, that Jesus specifically was the Christ.  I say this because I think that "saving faith" --as it is often called--was believing in the coming Christ as the "Savior of the world"--as the Samaritans understood in John 4.42.  There were those Pharisees and Jews who "trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others" (Luke 18.9-14).  And Paul said in Romans 9.30-10.4 that the Jews sought the "righteousness of God" through the Law, and therefore, did not attain it.   So it seems to me that to believe in the Christ in a way that brings salvation is to believe he gives that salvation from the penalty of sin.   Many of the Jews did not believe in the coming Christ that way, and the rejection of Jesus as the Christ was just a manifestation of that disbelief.

Peter did believe in the Christ that way.  When Peter met Jesus, and saw his miracle of the great catch of fish, he fell down at Jesus' knees, crying, "depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord! (Luke 5.8)"   Peter, unlike many Jews, was convinced of his depravity, and I believe he at some point came to a proper understanding and belief in the Christ, and not only that, but that Jesus was the Christ.

I think there has been a core "saving" truth throughout the ages, and that truth is that God saves from the penalty of sin those who believe in God for it, and it could have been from the beginning that God would do this through a coming "redeemer" or "savior" who would be the Son of God.  Job spoke of a redeemer: ""For I know that my Redeemer lives, and he shall stand at last on the earth (Job 19.25"   When Peter spoke to Cornelius and company, he said,  "to Him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 1043)"   The Samaritans in John 4.42 understood that the Christ would be "the savior of the world."   I think those who understood and believed in the Christ this way were already saved.  The new revelation would be that that Christ was Jesus, and of course, his "work" on the cross was how that salvation would be possible.

To believe in the Christ in the way that brings salvation is to believe God saves from the eternal penalty of sin through believing in the Christ for it.  The new revelation is that Jesus is the Christ, and as First John 5.1 says, "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." 

Jesus accepted Peter's acknowledgment.  Jesus could not have been any of those other things people thought.  Obviously, God was with him, as Nicodemus said, because of the miraculous works he did.  If he was only a prophet, would God have vindicated him by such signs and wonders, since  Jesus didn't reject Peter's claim?   Jesus accepted the claim that he was the Christ, and the works he did were divine vindication.

Upon this Rock I will build My church

I would like to suggest that "this rock" (Greek "Petra") references the apprehension and acceptance of that special revelation that Jesus is "the Christ, the son of the living God" (Mat 16:16); and this truth apprehended and accepted adds one to the "church" of which the second death has no authority to prevail over:  "on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," Mat 16:18.

In Matthew 7:24, Jesus likened the man who heard and did his sayings to one who "built his house on the rock" (Greek "Petra"), and nature could not prevail against it, Mat 7.25.  It was not just the sayings, but the apprehension and acceptance of them that was likened to a man building on the rock.  Like in Matthew 16.18, that which is built on the rock will not be overcome by other forces.  

It's also interesting that in Matthew 7.21-23, Jesus speaks of "never" knowing certain individuals who laid claim to doing certain things in the name of the Lord--these were obviously those who never apprehended and accepted the sayings of Christ or the revelation about Jesus and the Christ that Peter had apprehended and accepted.

The Church and its members are those who have "part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power." Revelation 20:6  This could correspond to what Jesus said about the "gates of hell shall not prevail over it":  hell is the second death, and this gates reference could be metaphoric of power or authority.

After Peter's confession that Jesus is "the Christ, the son of the living God," Jesus acknowledges the name of Peter: "you are Peter"; and then He says "upon this rock, I will build my church."   

Why did Jesus call attention to Peter's name, which in Greek is "Petros," and then use the Greek word "petra" to reference this "rock" upon which he would build his church?  

"Petros" is masculine in gender, while "Petra" is feminine.  Is the gender difference significant?  Do both words speak of a rock, but the masculine gender was used for "Peter" because he was a man?  Maybe.

But maybe Jesus was making a contrast of sorts:  Peter's was just a name, but the truth apprehended and proclaimed by Peter was the "rock" upon which the Church would be built.

Why didn't Jesus just say to Peter that he would build his church upon him--if Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock?  Jesus could have said: "Peter, you are the rock upon which I will build my church."  If Jesus did mean Peter, in what way did Jesus build his church upon him?  Is there any evidence in the New Testament that Peter was meant as the rock?   

Jesus does proceed to say to Peter that he will give "the keys of the kingdom" to "you": this "you" is in the singular.  Whatever the "keys" are, Jesus is direct in saying to Peter that they will be given to him, but he  wasn't similarly direct in calling Peter the "rock."   Though the "keys" reference is directed to Peter, he speaks to the disciples in Matthew 18:18 about whatever "you [plural] bind on earth will be bound in heaven"--similar to what is said in 16:19.  This just seems to speak of an authority they have:  if they agree on something on earth, God will honor it ("I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. Matthew 18:19).

 One can possibly find a role of Peter in the early stages of the "Church" in the book of Acts that stands out, but nothing in the New Testament beyond that gives a clue that would suggest Peter is the rock of which Jesus spoke.  

Peter was the one who spoke on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:14, and he proclaimed that Jesus was "both Lord and Christ."  We are told in Acts 2:41 that 3000  "souls were added" to them, and "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved," Acts 2:47.  It was those who believed the message and were saved that were "added" to the church.  Peter may have spoke on Pentecost, but it was the truth he spoke by which people were saved and added to the church.  The truth by which people are saved was not confined to Peter.  

Peter had a confirmatory part in the response of the Samaritans, Acts 8.14-17.  And then finally, Peter was sent to the gentiles, being Cornelius and company, in Acts 10, to "tell" them "words by which" they would "be saved," Acts 11:14.  

Peter, after this significant role in the early stages of the Church, in the book of Acts, doesn't have as significant of a role as the Apostle Paul, when it came to the evangelism and growth of the more dominant gentile church.  Peter is one of the "pillars," of the Jerusalem Church, as Paul said he "seemed" to be, Galatians 2:9.  But one of those pillars was also James, the Lord's brother, who wasn't even an original Apostle, and James seemed to have a very prominent role in the Jerusalem Church.  There is no indication that Peter held any significance in the Church other than his apostolic authority--which he shared with others.   The only thing that stands out is his role in the early stages of the church in the book of Acts.

Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and whoever believes in him for salvation will be saved.  Some would say that revelation itself is the "rock," and that's understandable, considering that salvation comes by believing certain divine revelation, and whoever believes that revelation, is saved and added to the church.  But considering the analogy of building on a rock in Matthew 7 about the man who listens to Christ's sayings, I think the rock could reference the apprehension and acceptance of the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.

Some will say that Jesus was referring to himself as "this rock."  In Matthew 21:42, Jesus quotes the Psalm (118:22) :  "Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? 

Jesus being the "chief cornerstone" is an argument for Jesus himself as the rock he was referencing.  However, the word "stone" is not the Greek "petra" but "lithos."  This stone is again referenced in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2.7.  The "household of God" is said to have Jesus as that cornerstone, Eph 2.20.   Romans 9.33 and 1 Peter 2.8 speaks of Jesus as a stone and rock, not in a building sense, but as a cause of stumbling:  a "stone of stumbling" and a "rock of offense." "Stone" is "lithos" which is masculine in gender and "rock is "petra" feminine in gender--if the gender proves anything.  1 Corinthians 10:4 speaks of the "spiritual rock" that followed the Jews  with Moses, and that rock was Christ--the Greek word is again "petra (feminine in gender).   So Jesus is clearly referred to as a stone and a rock, and though some usages are not about building but causing stumbling, he is the chief cornerstone.  

So was Jesus referring to himself before Peter?  He could have easily said that he was the rock upon which he would build his church.   But he doesn't say anything like that.  It was after Peter made the proclamation that Jesus said "upon this rock," which suggests to me that Jesus was referring to that proclamation, a proclamation of a specific divine revelation that Peter had apprehended--a revelation that if one apprehends and accepts, they will be added to the church.

"Being saved" and "being sanctified" are not about practical sanctification

"Being saved" and "being sanctified" in certain translations are not about practical sanctification but about those who are receiving eternal life

The words "being saved" and "being sanctified" in certain texts speaks not of those who experiencing some degree of practical sanctification in their lives, but of those who were believing the gospel and being justified or receiving eternal life. 

They are the "being saved" or "being sanctified" people.  Newer translations are more accurate with the Greek grammar in translating with the words "being" "saved" or "sanctified," since the words "saved" or "sanctified" are a verb-participle-present-passive, but the King James interprets it as about those who have received eternal life and not practical sanctification.  

The King James reads in Acts 2:47, "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

The New King James in Acts 2:47 translates, "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."

Those who were believing the gospel, the being saved, were added to the Church, by God. The words "being sanctified" in Hebrews 10:14 are also from the Greek word which is also a verb-participle-present-passive.

The KJV reads, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Hebrews 10:14

The NKJV says, "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:14

The NKJV is more accurate, but the KJV has the right idea:  it's about those who are sanctified in the positional sense, not about those who are experiencing some degree of sanctification.  God has perfected forever those who have come to saving faith and been set apart (sanctified).

We find a similar verse about being saved in First Corinthians 1:18.  

The NKJV reads, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."" 1 Corinthians 1:18

The NKJV is accurate, but the KJV has the right idea: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

The words "being saved" are the right translation of the verb-participle-present-passive.  But the KJV has the right idea, being that this is about those who are saved--those who were coming to saving faith, and not those who were experiencing a certain degree of practical sanctification.

The Lord's Supper

The "Lord's Supper" is that tradition established by Christ with his disciples during the last Jewish Passover meal that he shared with them.  Jesus changed it to that which remembers his death for the remission of sins.  The practice would anticipate a period of time during which believers assembled together would observe the supper until Christ returns.  

Passover was a meal observed within the Jewish family in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt in connection with the Passover sacrifice.  The change of this observance for the Christian is according to Jesus being our Passover sacrifice and the change of family, being the Church family--since our natural families do not necessarily share in the significance of the ritual as the Jewish family shared in the significance of the original ritual.

1 Corinthians 11.20 identifies the tradition as the "Lord's Supper."  Verses 24 and 25 remind us of the words of Christ concerning the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup in that new tradition.  

24 when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 1 Corinthians 11:24-25

Verse 26 states that "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

I believe to partake of the Supper in an unworthy manner (vss 27-29) is to do so without regard for those who had nothing to eat.  This is what was going on in the Corinthian Church.  They were practicing the Lord's Supper by bringing food for themselves and not sharing with those who had none.  Paul said this was not the Lord's Supper (vss 20-22).  Because of this, Divine judgment came, and many were sick and some had died (30-32).  It would have been better if they just ate at home than to do it the way they were doing it.

The Martyrs of Revelation 20:4 and the timing of the Rapture

In Revelation 20:4, we see those who were martyred for their faith during the time of the "beast" and the implementation of his "image."  The text says that they "lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."  This quote is from the New King James, but translations like the ESV say that they "came to life and reigned..."  This translation is why some would argue that their resurrection was at this point in time; and this is an argument against a PreWrath or Post-Trib rapture, because why were they resurrected at this point in time and not with those resurrected at the end of the Great Tribulation in a PreWrath or Post-Trib rapture scenario?

The text identifies them as "souls," and I see no reason not to see them as those identified earlier in the 5th seal of Revelation 6.9-11.  Those souls in the fifth seal were martyred for their faith, and there were more to come, and I can't see why they are not the same as the souls of Revelation 20.4.  

The word "souls" in Revelation 20.4 surely reminds the reader of those previously mentioned in the fifth seal.  At this point in the vision, which John is receiving, special attention and recognition are given to these souls.  I think that the designation "souls" doesn't have to mean disembodied spirits that still need to be resurrected, but particular people who are seen and remembered and now comforted about their future.  It's not that they were resurrected as a distinct group apart from others, but they are given special attention at this point in the vision, and their status is revealed.

Translations make it sound like they are resurrected at the time of Revelation 20.4, which would be an argument against a Prewrath or Post-Trib rapture view, because if the rapture was Post-trib, why weren't they resurrected with the dead believers at the end of the Great Tribulation?  I believe they were resurrected then, but they receive particular attention and recognition at that point in the vision.   

The word translated "lived" in the NKJ is the same as the word "reigned" in tense, being indicative/ aorist / active, and they both speak of their fate, being they "lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."  This is in contrast to the unsaved who do not live again until after the thousand years: "But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished." 20:5 NKJ  The verb "live" in verse 5 is also the same Greek tense.   The Martyrs will both live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, while the unsaved will not even live during the thousand years.  

Revelation 20.5 also says that "This is the first resurrection."   The first resurrection would be the one preceding the Rapture.  The Martyrs were part of that Resurrection, and they will both live and reign with Christ.  The unsaved will be resurrected later, and they will not live until after the Thousand years.

I think that a Post-trib view has a little advantage over the PreWrath view in this, because the Prewrath view has an undetermined amount of time between the end of the Great Tribulation, when the resurrection and rapture happens, and the end of the 70th Week or the Bowls' judgments, which they usually put beyond the 70th Week. For what of any new believers who possibly die as Martyrs, as these need to be accounted for?  But I'm not sure if PreWrathers are seeing the Martyrs of Revelation 20:4 as a very specific group between the Rapture at the end of Great Tribulation and the final defeat of the Beast by Christ.   I think the Martyrs of Revelation 20:4 are the same as the fifth seal Martyrs.  

It makes sense to me that the "souls" of Revelation 20:4 are the fifth seal Martyrs who are resurrected at the end of the Great Tribulation, and those particular individuals get special attention and recognition: they will both live and reign with Christ for a thousand years.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Revelation 20:4-6

Parable of the Sower: varied outcomes to the saving message

Matthew 13:3-9; 18-23; Mark 4:1–9; 13-20; Luke 8:4–8; 11-15

Jesus called it the parable of the Sower, though it seems it is about the soils and their conditions.  It must be that it is simply a message about how the Sower should be prepared for different results.  The parable is not designed to answer every question one can throw at it.  It doesn't explain why or how the soils are different.  We see that the seed spread has different outcomes based on the precondition of the soil.  We don't get any information as to whether the soil is stuck in the condition forever.  We only see the outcomes from the sowing of the seed in different soils and the outward affect by certain forces on the growth (or non-growth) of the seed in such soils.

In the explanation of the parable, looking at parallel texts, we see that the seed is the word of God and the word of the kingdom.  In the First Case-example, the word is not understood, and Satan takes the word out of the recipient's heart, so they may not believe and be saved.  This reveals that the word here is a saving message.  The Word of the Kingdom to be a saving-content message must be concerning Jesus as the Christ who is Savior from sin for those who believe in Him for it; for to believe this is to be born again and qualify to see and enter the Kingdom of God—according to John 3 and what we read about the Samaritans in John 4 who believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Savior of the World.  If one doesn't understand the message, as far as the terms of salvation, then Satan works in a way to keep one from understanding it and believing it.

The next 2 Cases are debated as to the outcome of the recipients as to whether they are actually saved. It seems common for Free Grace folks to believe they are saved (see quote one below), while non-Free Grace do not, though there may be exceptions (see quote two below).  The latter expects a perseverance of the saints view in salvation, while the former would say that Salvation does not guarantee perseverance.   The outcome in Cases Two and Three are that the results are short-lived due to the condition of the soil and the outward conditions on the plant.  We can't answer questions with this parable that the parable wasn't meant to answer or doesn't answer.  Persecution and the cares of life will bring failure if one is not rooted and grounded in the truth.   That is the outcome in these cases.   Is the failure due to these not really understanding and therefore not believing? It is tempting to make arguments from silence, since we are not told whether they understood and believed or didn't understand and disbelieve.  It seems they did understand and believe, but their sanctification-progress was later interrupted by worldly cares and persecution.  It seems they are both those who do not "endure to the end" (Mat 10:22, 24:13:  they are those who did not "lose their souls for Christ's sake and the gospel"—as Jesus said, (Mark 8.35)..."whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Mat 16.25)   The truth is that Jesus did not say whether they understood and believed or didn’t understand and disbelieved.  One’s view will be based on their soteriology, whether saving faith will persevere or quickly recover or eventually recover (in some reasonable amount of time) after failure under the circumstances that cause the failure.  

The Fourth Case hears the word and understands and bears fruit, but not equally among those who receive it.  We don't know why that is, as far as the explanation, but the good soil has varied outcomes itself.  We don't know why these have good soil and the others don't  We are not told about those who have good soil and bear fruit for a time, then become less fruitful or unfruitful.  Again, the parable doesn’t answer things like that.  Some suggest good soil is regeneration, and that is why they understand and bear fruit, and that will be your conclusion if you are of the Reformed Theology mindset. (Moderate Calvinists might say it is a "quickening," but that is a word used in Scripture for either the resurrection of the body or the new birth, and so it's an attempt to come up with something like regeneration to enable the unsaved to be saved by faith before regeneration.)

Jesus doesn't explain how the soils were prepared.  In farming, we use to prepare soil for planting, by disking, plowing, and dragging—sometimes twice. What creates good soil?  Who's responsible for good soil.  Why varied amounts of fruit?  The parable doesn't answer those questions.  It only illustrates varied outcomes  to the word of God spoken based on human heart-psychological conditions.   

Quote One:  While many commentators say the second soil represents another type of unbeliever, that view is untenable because the seed sprang up (v 5), and clearly germination must precede springing up! Luke 8:13 specifically says that this person believed the saving message for a time. Sadly, apostasy is possible for born-again people. Of course, everlasting life, once it has germinated, is everlasting--even if the faith later fails. Then there are the distracted hearers. Their hearts' interest is deflected away from God toward seductive material and worldly pursuits (Matt 13:22). “The cares of this world" refer to the worries or excessive concerns of this life. “The deceitfulness of riches" refers to the false security offered by the accumulation of temporal wealth (cf. Luke 12: 15-21). Riches may promise fulfillment, but they fail to deliver. The result of the worldly distractions is that the person "becomes unfruitful." The believer represented by this soil perseveres in faith, but his works are not brought to maturity (cf. Luke 8:14).  Quoted from The Grace New Testament Commentary, Matthew, Hal Haller Jr.

Quote Two: D. A. Carson seems to believe Case Two is an unsaved person, for he says the person receives the word "in a thoughtless way" that "may show immediate signs of life and promise to be the best of the crop...But without real root, there is no fruit; and external pressures, trouble, and persecution..., like the sun beating on a rootless plant, soon reveals the shallowness of the soil. ... Such temporary disciples are always numerous in times of revival and were so in Jesus' ministry."

In Case Three, Carson doesn't say he is a nonbeliever, so it's unclear whether in this case he believes unfruitfulness is a lack of spiritual life in a believer or lack of spiritual life in the sense of a lack of eternal life.  Carson says of this person that he "simply never permits the message about the kingdom to control him:  life has too many other commitments that slowly choke the struggling plant, which never matures and bears fruit."  Carson says about the "deceitfulness" or "delightfulness" "of wealth"..."The idea is clear: worries about worldly things or devotion to wealth...snuff out spiritual life...If deceit is understood...these thorns are so subtle that one may not be aware of the choking that is going on...What must be avoided is unfruitfulness, for only fruitfulness, not it's opposite, indicates spiritual life..."   The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Matthew

Is Jerusalem's destruction in Luke 21:20-24 that of Babylon the Great?

Could Jerusalem's destruction in Luke 21.20-24 be that of the destruction of Babylon the Great [BTG] in Rev 17.16?  Would Jesus have had in mind BTG in Luke 21, instead of the coming destruction of Jerusalem that he prophesied in Luke 19.41-44? 

Those who believe Jerusalem is BTG might see Luke 21.20-24 as referring to the destruction of BTG in Rev 17, 18, and 16.19.  Some would see 2 stages of that destruction, being by the 10 horns in which it is burned, and then by God in the 7th bowl, according to Rev 16.19.   I could see how one might identify Luke 21.20-24 as BTG, since the prophesy is followed by the cosmic disturbance event and second coming (see Luke 21.25-27) that comes at the end of the Great Tribulation [GT] (see Matthew 24:29-30).  If Jesus speaks of the destruction of AD70, then there is a big gap of time between the desolation of Jerusalem and the cosmic disturbances.

But would Jesus have had that far future destruction of BTG in view since he prophesied of Jerusalem's near destruction in Luke 19:41-44?  That destruction is foretold in the words of the parable in Matthew 22 about the king's army who destroys and burns the city.  There's also the reference to the destruction of the city in Daniel 9.24-26 that fits in the near future time after Christ's first coming.    I don't think Jesus had Jerusalem as BTG in view, though if Jerusalem is BTG, I could see how it might seem to be in view.  But if Jerusalem is not BTG, it obviously can't be BTG in Luke 21.  

It is curious that a near future prophecy of AD70 is immediately followed by a prophecy of the cosmic events that follow the GT.   Rev 18.4 does exhort God's people to come out of BTG, and Luke 21.21 does warn to flee Jerusalem, but it also speaks of it as days of vengeance, but wasn't that vengeance back in AD70?   But there is a vengeance on BTG as the city that shed the blood of the prophets and apostles and saints, Rev 18.20, 24.  Luke 21 also speaks of Jerusalem being trampled by gentiles; this could be AD70 and onward, but it could be referring to the great tribulation period (see Revelation 11:1-3) , and maybe this destruction is at that time, being burned by fire.  

The prophecy of Jerusalem in Luke 21 would seem to fit with the destruction of BTG, and the close connection of the cosmic disturbances would support that, though it could be that the connection is that Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles from AD70 onward until the time of the cosmic disturbances at the end of the Great Tribulation.  Luke 21 says Jerusalem will be trampled until the "times of the gentiles are fulfilled."  That "times of the gentiles" has been identified as the whole time Jerusalem is under the overlordship of gentiles.  Yet Ezekiel speaks of the "Day of the Lord" as the "time of the gentiles," 30:3.  It could be understood that from AD70 onward, Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by gentiles until the Day of the Lord is fulfilled, which comes in connection with the cosmic disturbances.  This makes the connection with such a long gap between the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem and the cosmic events.  The Day of the Lord will be the time of the gentiles' distress.

So, would Jesus have had in mind the destruction of BTG in light of his prophecy about Jerusalem being destroyed in Luke 19?   Near and far prophecies being together is not all that unusual.   Jerusalem being BTG in Luke 21 would probably work if there are 2 stages of BTG's destruction, as some believe; the first stage near the beginning of GT--though it seems the armies of the world are gathered against Jerusalem near the end of the 70th Week (Zechariah 12.3)--yet Zechariah indicates God will protect the city, 12.9.   

There are similarities between Luke 21 and the fate of BTG, but there are uncertainties too.   Maybe the similarities are intended, making the ability to sort it out difficult until we are very near that time.