When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[TribulationSigns]

I never spoke about Daniel 9:26-27. You will not find Daniel's prophesies concerning Antiochus IV in Daniel 9:26-27 because Daniel 9:26-27 is associated with the destruction of both city and temple and with the abominations that are associated with that period.

But the prophecies in Daniel which talk about the cleansing of the temple after an abomination of desolation was placed in the holy place are associated neither with the destruction of the temple or of the city. They are talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanes and THEY are the biblical type of Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

I won't tell you what the references are in Daniel (though I do know) because I'd prefer you to look for them yourself - because they are talking about the cleansing of the sanctuary following the abomination of desolation paced in the holy place (unlike Daniel 9:26-27).

Ha! I KNOW that there are no such verses that support your nonsense!

Dan 9:27
(27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Dan 8:9-14
(9) And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
(10) And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
(11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
(12) And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
(13) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
(14) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The continual, or daily was not taken away by Antiochus or Titus or any other man the premillennialist who believe will confirm a covenant with national Israel. No, but by the spirit Satan that Christ allowed after He finished securing all of His Elect. He is in full control and is responsible for loosening Satan for the purpose of ceasing the sacrifice (for salvation). Satan, is the little power that should arise and magnify himself through false prophets and christs in "THE TEMPLE OF GOD" and cast the truth down. What truth was in the physical Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70? Lest we forget, it was "by reason of transgression an host was given against the daily sacrifice." That is the prophesy. Christ further illuminated it declaring, abomination would stand in the Holy Place. The Jewish Temple was NOT the Holy Place of God in AD 70, nor was it brought to desolation by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC like you think. The fact is, neither Titus nor Antiochus Epiphanes is the little horn that God declares shall cast the truth down (Jerusalem didn't have the truth in AD 70 - Hello?!), take away the continual (daily), which Jerusalem didn't have to be cast down, throw the place of the Prince down (the Jewish temple was not the place of the Prince in AD 70), and tread down the host for 2300 days, cleaning the Sanctuary.

Sorry, SIR, but Antiochus does NOT qualify anymore than Josephus qualifies to interpret God's Word. That is as disjointed a theory that I have read! No, the well-traveled AD 70 theory is all just a pipe dream, a tradition, a very bad private interpretation that disregards all the Biblical facts, substituting speculations for sound exegesis. Period!

 

[ewq1938]

There will be a temple, but after Israel repents they will be worshiping Jesus

There is no such prophecy about this happening which means it will not happen.

 

[Zao is life]

Ha! I KNOW that there are no such verses that support your nonsense!

Dan 9:27
(27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Dan 8:9-14
(9) And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
(10) And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
(11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
(12) And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
(13) Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
(14) And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The continual, or daily was not taken away by Antiochus or Titus or any other man the premillennialist who believe will confirm a covenant with national Israel. No, but by the spirit Satan that Christ allowed after He finished securing all of His Elect. He is in full control and is responsible for loosening Satan for the purpose of ceasing the sacrifice (for salvation). Satan, is the little power that should arise and magnify himself through false prophets and christs in "THE TEMPLE OF GOD" and cast the truth down. What truth was in the physical Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70? Lest we forget, it was "by reason of transgression an host was given against the daily sacrifice." That is the prophesy. Christ further illuminated it declaring, abomination would stand in the Holy Place. The Jewish Temple was NOT the Holy Place of God in AD 70, nor was it brought to desolation by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC like you think. The fact is, neither Titus nor Antiochus Epiphanes is the little horn that God declares shall cast the truth down (Jerusalem didn't have the truth in AD 70 - Hello?!), take away the continual (daily), which Jerusalem didn't have to be cast down, throw the place of the Prince down (the Jewish temple was not the place of the Prince in AD 70), and tread down the host for 2300 days, cleaning the Sanctuary.

Sorry, SIR, but Antiochus does NOT qualify anymore than Josephus qualifies to interpret God's Word. That is as disjointed a theory that I have read! No, the well-traveled AD 70 theory is all just a pipe dream, a tradition, a very bad private interpretation that disregards all the Biblical facts, substituting speculations for sound exegesis. Period!

OK bye bye. Your version of Matthew 24:15 is referring to a temple that will be destroyed because that's what Daniel 9:26-27 is referring to.

But because I believe the Word of God and I believe IN the Word of God I know that Daniel 8:9-10 is talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanes' war against the saints, i.e the Jews of his time, and the apostasy ("falling from the heavens") of many Jews which took place at the time. It took place around 236 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D.

I also know that the temple was cleansed after the daily sacrifice had been taken away, and I know that the Bible (not you but the Bible) - the text of Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31 - links both verses to:-

(a) daily sacrifices for sin being removed (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and
(b) an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

The text of Daniel 12:11-12 also links the 1,290 days and 1,335 days that the verses are talking about, to both daily sacrifices for sin being removed in the temple of God; and an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place in the temple.

But Daniel ch. 12 is also talking about the time of the end - because the man who committed those blasphemous crimes is a type of the man of 2 Thess 2:4 - but the next time there will be no daily sacrifices to be removed again. NO 1,335 days etc.

But your version of Matthew 24:15 is referring to a temple that will be destroyed because that's what Daniel 9:26-27 is referring to.

But the abomination of desolation set up by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" in 167 BC in the holy place of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, is not associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or of the temple in it (which I guess is probably why Wikipedia says this about the abomination of desolation):

"'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."
(Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia)

 

[TribulationSigns]

OK bye bye.

Heard that before, and yet you still miss me. :-)

Your version of Matthew 24:15 is referring to a temple that will be destroyed because that's what Daniel 9:26-27 is referring to.

Mat 24:15
(15) When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Dan 9:26-27
(26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
(27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel 9:26 was referring to the fall of Old Testament congregation when the people of the prince (Jews) came against Christ and as a result, their kingdom represenative was taken and gave to the one whom Christ confirmed a covenant - with the New Testament congregation! Therefore the verse 27 is referring to the CHURCH and she, like Israel, will fall and become desolate prior to Christ's return. This is what Matthew 24:15 talked about, the abomination of desolation stand in the New Testament congregation - the only holy place after the Cross, not physical Jewish temple. Selah!

But because I believe the Word of God and I believe IN the Word of God I know that Daniel 8:9-10 is talking about Antiochus IV Epiphanes' war against the saints, i.e the Jews of his time, and the apostasy ("falling from the heavens") of many Jews which took place at the time.

Really? You think you know that the Word of God was talking about Antiochus IV in Daniel 8:9-10. Are you sure? Humm... I do not think so! :-)

I also know that the temple was cleansed after the daily sacrifice had been taken away, and I know that the Bible (not you but the Bible) - the text of Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31 - links both verses to:-

(Chuckle). Let's see...

(a) daily sacrifices for sin being removed (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and
(b) an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

Dan 8:9-11
(9) And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
(10) And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
(11) Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

Compare Scripture with Scripture. After deceiving and gathering the gentiles/nations he went up against the Camp of the Saints, who SYMBOLICALLY are the stars or host of heaven. This is obviously why I say the "little horn" is a symbol to represent the "little power" Satan hs to rule over the nations near the end, to bring them up against God's people to trample them under foot. So I am not surprised if you really don't understand what stars and daily sacrifice are being talked about here.

Doesn't it follow that if the stars are not literal stars, then the place they are said to be residing in (kingdom of heaven) is symbolic as well? Daniel is speaking of the little horn, the Spirit Satan as he is given power to assault the Church for a season. They being spoken of again as the stars, the host of heaven!! The Prince or Ruler of the Host is Christ, He is the Prince of the congregation or Church. This is the same cryptic language as found in Revelation of stars falling. Here it pictures Satan's reign as this little horn (small power) waxed great, even to the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host (as false prophets and christs) and of the stars (people of the congregation) to the ground, and stamped upon them. Clearly this speaks of the people of God's congregation.

Selah!

The text of Daniel 12:11-12 also links the 1,290 days and 1,335 days that the verses are talking about, to both daily sacrifices for sin being removed in the temple of God; and an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place in the temple.

Yes. The daily sacrifices, for the purpose of Salvation, ENDED "after" Christ had secured all of His Elect. Then the New Testament congregation fell into apostasy and desolation. God was NOT talking about Antiochus IV and the Jewish temple here at all! Sorry, you got all the timing wrong. The 1,260 and 1,330 days has nothing to do with Antiochus IV. Period.

But Daniel ch. 12 is also talking about the time of the end - because the man who committed those blasphemous crimes is a type of the man of 2 Thess 2:4 - but the next time there will be no daily sacrifices to be removed again. NO 1,335 days etc.

Do you even know when is the time of the end? And where did the Lord talked about "a man" who will do blasphemous things? Show me.

But your version of Matthew 24:15 is referring to a temple that will be destroyed because that's what Daniel 9:26-27 is referring to.

I explained it before and yet you do not understand what you are talking about.

But the abomination of desolation set up by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" in 167 BC in the holy place of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem

False. The abomination of desolation was not set up in 167BC because of this "man - Epiphanes." That is man's interpreation, not the Word of God.

"'Abomination of Desolation' is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the pagan sacrifices with which the 2nd century BC Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes replaced the twice-daily offering in the Jewish temple, or alternatively the altar on which such offerings were made."
(Abomination of desolation - Wikipedia)

Oh, you get God's interpretation from Wikipedia, instead of Scripture. Got it.

 

[Timtofly]

I mean, I absolutely agree it’s the generation that lives through the events of the Olivet discourse that doesn’t pass away. That’s pretty much implied with the whole “not passing away until these things happen”.

Then, this means none of the generation in question lived in the first century. The Olivet Discourse will only be all the way fulfilled at the Second Coming, that is still future. Your generation may all pass away before the Olivet Discourse is fulfilled. So any generation that lived a hundred years ago did not see the Olivet Discourse fulfilled, none of it. Neither did those a thousand years ago, see the Olivet Discourse fulfilled. So saying any of the Olivet Discourse happened in the first century is erroneous. The destruction of Jerusalem was not covered in the Olivet Discourse. The destruction of the Temple was not covered in the Olivet Discourse. The Olivet Discourse was a private discussion to the 12 disciples about the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

Oh, now you're saying it did happen. You are hard to follow, dude.

No, that is not what I am saying.

I said you make the Scripture say what it does not. Then either you or the Scripture are turned into contradiction, and only make sense to you for an unrelated point.

You claim the 3 passages are parallel, thus have to be talking about the same event, but then not 70AD unless it suits you to avoid contradiction.

I have always stated Luke 21 is talking about 70AD. Matthew 24 is not talking about 70AD, but the second Coming. Not that one chapter has dual fulfillment, but one is talking about one event, and the other is talking about another event. Jerusalem has been rebuilt since 70AD, and will be destroyed again. But not the Temple. The Temple built at the Second Coming will dissolve with creation over a thousand years later, not destroyed by armies, nor anything else, once it is built.

Luke 21 could be referring to both 66AD, and the Second Coming. That is not dual fulfillment, necessarily, but just the fact that when armies surround, Jerusalem, it is going to be destroyed.

Dual fulfillment is just a personal interpretation like saying Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are parallel passages that are saying the same thing and Matthew 24 relates to both 70AD and the Second Coming. If you say that, that is double fulfillment, no? You claim it was fulfilled both in 70AD and the Second Coming.

History claims Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, not Scripture. History claims the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, not Scripture. Jesus just pointed out the Temple will be destroyed. You apply 70AD to what Jesus said. Jesus also said Jerusalem will be destroyed. I am ok with saying that Luke 21 is talking about 70AD. I am not comfortable applying that same point to Matthew 24.

I keep pointing out the difference in wording, but no one seems to want to address that point. In Luke 21 it is the generation that sees the Second Coming. Verse 32:


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."

Luke does not say that generation will see all things fulfilled. Obviously 70AD has already happened.

Matthew 24:33-34

"So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

This generation that sees all these things, so all these things, cannot be about 70AD in Matthew 24, because this is the last generation at the Second Coming.

People who are convinced the "ye" means those in the first century have the contradiction saying the Second Coming also happened back then. You still contradict yourself, because you say Matthew 24 is about 70AD, but not that generation.

 

[Exegesis]

This is a fascinating thread. I literally joined here after reading some of the comments. I will probably have some questions.

 

[Exegesis]

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."

Luke does not say that generation will see all things fulfilled. Obviously 70AD has already happened.

Is it possible that the word 'generation' in this context could be referring to 'tares' vs. 'wheat'? In other words, can the term be pointing to all of those who are not saved, who could be living at any point in time? Could a 'generation of vipers' mean the same thing? It is just another way of saying tares?

They will not 'pass away' could mean they will not be thrown into the lake of fire until everything is fulfilled.

 

[Exegesis]

When Christ died and rose? Or in 70 AD when it was fully destroyed? There can only be one answer here.

I choose option 1, when Christ died and rose.

In this case, the abomination of desolation would be the crucifixion itself, right?

 

[Davidpt]

I choose option 1, when Christ died and rose.

In this case, the abomination of desolation would be the crucifixion itself, right?

I do not remotely agree with that.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Regardless what all this looks like when being fulfilled, we can not divorce any of it from the AOD.

 

[Exegesis]

I do not remotely agree with that.

Hmmm. What if there was a way to reconcile this using Scripture?

I will try.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Assuming that the AOD was the crucifixion, then how would people 'see' it, but then flee Jerusalem in 70AD? There is a gap of time that must be dealt with. Here is my interpretation:

The word 'see' in the verse you quoted should not be understood as meaning 'physically see with one's eyes', but rather it should be understood to mean 'spiritually discern and understand'. The word 'see' can also mean the latter.

3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

Strong's Greek: 3708. ὁράω (horaó) -- To see, perceive, attend to

In other words, those that 'saw' or rather 'understood' Daniels prophecy, would be able to know the exact timing of the destruction of Jerusalem and flee the city long before the event happened. They could even warn others ahead of time.

But, how do we know that we are supposed to interpret the word 'see' as 'understand'? Because the verse itself gives us the interpretation:

(whoso readeth, let him understand:)

The verse goes out of its way to teach us that 'see' is meant to be interpreted as 'spiritually see', not physically see.

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

After the crucifixion, i.e., the AOD, those that 'saw' and understood now had around forty-five years to move and re-establish their lives outside of Jerusalem. God gave them ample time to 'flee' so to speak. Pretty cool of him.

The 1260, 1290, and 1335 'days' were the keys to solving it. Some Jews figured it out and tried to warn others.

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

This is where so many, in my opinion, have misinterpreted Scripture. The Great Tribulation is not some future event lasting only a few years. The Great Tribulation began with the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD But! it continues to this very day. In other words, the world has been going through the Great Tribulation for thousands of years now. And why not? There are plenty of verses that teach of this.

We are now waiting for this verse in Matthew to be fulfilled:

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Again, the phrase 'those days' refers to the Great Tribulation we have all been in for thousands of years now. After the Great Tribulation is over, then the wrath comes. There is no future Great Tribulation to wait for.