In the Olivet Discourse Jesus indicated armies would come in, surround Jerusalem, and destroy both it and the temple. We get this consistently in all 3 versions, Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17 and 21. Matthew and Mark do not go into detail about what the Abomination of Desolation is, but they refer the reader to Dan 9.26-27 where an Abomination of Desolation is named in conjunction with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by "the people of the ruler to come," which seems to refer to a Roman army. Rome was the "ruler to come."
For whatever reason Matthew and Mark did not spell this out in as much detail as Luke did. However, they did describe this "Abomination" as "standing in the holy place," or "where it does not belong." Rome was obviously an "abomination," being that they were a pagan people assuming control over the holy place of the Temple.
My assertion here is that "holy place" can refer to a room in the Temple called "the Holy Place," or it may refer to the entire Temple complex, the whole building and the courtyard, or it may apply to all of Jerusalem, including its environs. The "holy place" is where God has devoted something as His resting spot.
And so, in the Olivet Discourse I see no problem identifying the "holy place" to be Jerusalem, where this abominable pagan army would come and be set, or "stand." It was a siege against a place devoted to be holy. The spiritual condition of the people there was poor, but did not cause the place to be any less dedicated to God or devoted by God to be holy.
Profaning such a holy area was forbidden by God, but something God allowed to happen. God allowed Israel to sin and so profane this holy area. And He allowed pagan Romans to draw near, also profaning the Temple area, to show Israel a graphic example of what they were themselves doing.
It was precisely because Israel was profaning the holy area that God determined to "devote it to destruction," both the city and the Temple. And so, the Scriptures say that God Himself caused His own city and Temple to be "desecrated."
But this was not a new pathway for God. He had demonstrated the same during the Babylonian invasion, and was now repeating things. In fact just as Ezekiel donned the name "Son of Man," indicating God's word to Mankind, so Jesus donned the same name, to indicate that history was repeating itself.
Jesus condemned Israel for their sins, and promised that in one generation, the same one that rejected him, the city and the Temple would fall. So consider the following language where God described this in the past, in particular with respect to the Babylonian invasion...
Isa 47.5 “Sit in silence, go into darkness, queen city of the Babylonians; no more will you be called queen of kingdoms. 6 I was angry with my people and desecrated my inheritance.
Eze 7.22 I will turn my face away from the people, and robbers will desecrate the place I treasure. They will enter it and will defile it.
Eze 23.39 On the very day they sacrificed their children to their idols, they entered my sanctuary and desecrated it. That is what they did in my house.
Eze 24.21 21 Say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am about to desecrate my sanctuary—the stronghold in which you take pride, the delight of your eyes, the object of your affection. The sons and daughters you left behind will fall by the sword.
Eze 25.1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, set your face against the Ammonites and prophesy against them. 3 Say to them, ‘Hear the word of the Sovereign Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you said “Aha!” over my sanctuary when it was desecrated and over the land of Israel when it was laid waste and over the people of Judah when they went into exile.
Eze 28.By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching.
Dan 11.31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
I believe this last reference, to Dan 11.31, to refer to Antiochus 4, who also was termed an "abomination of desolation." But his act of desolation took place well before Rome violated Jerusalem, the "holy place," And Antiochus did not actually destroy the temple as the Romans did. But both of these "AoDs" are indicative of God's willingness to have his "holy place" violated and desecrated, to make a point to Israel about their own uncleanness.
For whatever reason Matthew and Mark did not spell this out in as much detail as Luke did. However, they did describe this "Abomination" as "standing in the holy place," or "where it does not belong." Rome was obviously an "abomination," being that they were a pagan people assuming control over the holy place of the Temple.
My assertion here is that "holy place" can refer to a room in the Temple called "the Holy Place," or it may refer to the entire Temple complex, the whole building and the courtyard, or it may apply to all of Jerusalem, including its environs. The "holy place" is where God has devoted something as His resting spot.
And so, in the Olivet Discourse I see no problem identifying the "holy place" to be Jerusalem, where this abominable pagan army would come and be set, or "stand." It was a siege against a place devoted to be holy. The spiritual condition of the people there was poor, but did not cause the place to be any less dedicated to God or devoted by God to be holy.
Profaning such a holy area was forbidden by God, but something God allowed to happen. God allowed Israel to sin and so profane this holy area. And He allowed pagan Romans to draw near, also profaning the Temple area, to show Israel a graphic example of what they were themselves doing.
It was precisely because Israel was profaning the holy area that God determined to "devote it to destruction," both the city and the Temple. And so, the Scriptures say that God Himself caused His own city and Temple to be "desecrated."
But this was not a new pathway for God. He had demonstrated the same during the Babylonian invasion, and was now repeating things. In fact just as Ezekiel donned the name "Son of Man," indicating God's word to Mankind, so Jesus donned the same name, to indicate that history was repeating itself.
Jesus condemned Israel for their sins, and promised that in one generation, the same one that rejected him, the city and the Temple would fall. So consider the following language where God described this in the past, in particular with respect to the Babylonian invasion...
Isa 47.5 “Sit in silence, go into darkness, queen city of the Babylonians; no more will you be called queen of kingdoms. 6 I was angry with my people and desecrated my inheritance.
Eze 7.22 I will turn my face away from the people, and robbers will desecrate the place I treasure. They will enter it and will defile it.
Eze 23.39 On the very day they sacrificed their children to their idols, they entered my sanctuary and desecrated it. That is what they did in my house.
Eze 24.21 21 Say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am about to desecrate my sanctuary—the stronghold in which you take pride, the delight of your eyes, the object of your affection. The sons and daughters you left behind will fall by the sword.
Eze 25.1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, set your face against the Ammonites and prophesy against them. 3 Say to them, ‘Hear the word of the Sovereign Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you said “Aha!” over my sanctuary when it was desecrated and over the land of Israel when it was laid waste and over the people of Judah when they went into exile.
Eze 28.By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching.
Dan 11.31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
I believe this last reference, to Dan 11.31, to refer to Antiochus 4, who also was termed an "abomination of desolation." But his act of desolation took place well before Rome violated Jerusalem, the "holy place," And Antiochus did not actually destroy the temple as the Romans did. But both of these "AoDs" are indicative of God's willingness to have his "holy place" violated and desecrated, to make a point to Israel about their own uncleanness.
