Jesus now returned to the subject of when the temple would suffer destruction (v. 7). The similar passages in Matthew and Mark are sufficiently different to alert the reader to the fact that they deal with a different incident from what Luke described (Matt. 24:15-22; Mark 13:14-20). Even some commentators who believe that Luke depended heavily on Mark for his material admit this difference.464
21:20 The sign that Jerusalem's destruction was imminent would be the presence of besieging armies (cf. v. 7). This happened when Titus encircled the city with troops and put it under siege beginning in 68 A.D.
21:21-22 Then the Jews should get away from the city. Those in it should leave, those outside it should not enter it while it would be under siege, and those living in the surrounding area should move farther from it. God's vengeance on the city would descend shortly in fulfillment of prophecy (Dan. 9:26).
Earlier Luke recorded Jesus' teaching about the destruction that would come on Palestine just before His return (17:22-37). Matthew and Mark wrote that Jesus also gave that teaching in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:15-22; Mark 13:14-20). However though that teaching is similar, it is different from what Jesus announced here. Here He predicted the destruction of Jerusalem that happened in 70 A.D.
21:23-24 The distress of pregnant women and nursing mothers then represents the trouble that all people in and around Jerusalem would face. God's wrath and the wrath of Israel's enemy would also be great. Some of the Jews would die in battle, and others would become captives and have to leave Palestine. Gentiles would dominate Jerusalem itself. This would last until the end of "the times of the Gentiles."This is a phrase that describes the period during which Gentiles rather than Jews would control the fate of Jerusalem (Dan. 2; 7). It began when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C. and will continue until Jesus Christ returns at the Second Coming (cf. Dan. 2:34-35, 45; Rom. 11:25). Throughout this entire long period of history, including the present, Gentiles have controlled the fate of Jerusalem.465Luke's reference to the times of the Gentiles is consistent with his interest in Gentiles.
Again careful comparison with the similar passages in Matthew and Mark reveals that they were recording Jesus' prediction of the attack on Jerusalem just before His return (cf. Zech. 14:1-2). Luke recorded His prediction of Jerusalem's destruction that happened in 70 A.D.
Acts 3:19 records Peter's invitation to the Jews to repent and to return to a proper relationship to God with the result that "times of refreshing"might come from the Lord's presence. This is probably a reference to the inauguration of the messianic kingdom (cf. Zech. 12:10-14). If the Jewish nation as a whole had believed in Jesus then, how could Jesus' predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem have taken place? Probably the Romans would have invaded Jerusalem sooner than they did, the Rapture would have happened (John 14:1-3), the seven-year Tribulation would have followed, and Jesus would have returned to set up His kingdom. All of this could have happened in about 10 years from the time Peter extended his invitation.
