Where Luke 21 emphasizes the relationship of subjected Jerusalem to the

times of the Gentiles, Matthew gives another yet parallel evidence:

'When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of

by Daniel the prophet, Stand in The Holy Place ... flee' (Matt.

Matthew concentrates on the desecration of the holy place, Luke

concentrates on the desecration of the city.  Matthew takes us to the final

seven years of Daniel's prophecy, and the end of Gentile dominion, Luke

points to the parallel subjugation of the city of Jerusalem.  There is no

discrepancy, both accounts meet at the same point (see the article, The

Converging Lines of Prophetic Truth,

p. 55).

We now turn our attention to the term, 'trodden down', for if this

should turn out to be an expression that means blessing, then we must accept

the consequences.  The Greek word so translated is pateo, and if we bow to

the choice of words 'which the Holy Ghost speaketh', the matter will be at an

*

We draw attention to the fact that we have exhibited every reference to

the use of this word in the New Testament.

'Power to Tread on serpents and scorpions'.

'Jerusalem shall be Trodden Down'.

'The holy city shall they Tread Under foot'.

'The winepress was Trodden'.

'He Treadeth the winepress ... wrath'.

This testimony of usage admits of no debate.  It has been argued, that

inasmuch as Rome did not cover the same territory as that ruled over by

Nebuchadnezzar, it cannot be considered as a legitimate successor, but this

argument is self -destructive and invalid.  First: Nebuchadnezzar was told

that the kingdom that succeeded after him would be 'inferior' but this

inferiority in no wise invalidated succession.  Secondly: There is all the

difference in the world between the dominion that God Gave to Nebuchadnezzar,

and what he actually ruled over, for if that be the criterion, Nebuchadnezzar

himself would be ruled out, which is not only absurd, but contrary to

truth (Dan. 2:38).  Thirdly: The dominion given to Nebuchadnezzar is

specified in Daniel 2:38, and reads:

'And wheresoever the children of men dwell,

the beasts of the field and

the fowls of the heaven

hath He given into thine hand, and hath made

thee ruler over them all'.

Neither Nebuchadnezzar nor any of his successors exercised this

authority.  Rome exercised dominion over tracts of earth that in all

probability Nebuchadnezzar never heard of, so that if extent of territory be

the standard, we could as well say that Rome has more right to a place than

Babylon, which is absurd.  Fourthly: At the time of the end Global war and

dominion may well characterize Nebuchadnezzar's last successor.  The hint