Personally I agree with what you are saying with regard to the Dispensationalist's insistence that the 70th week of Daniel did not take place at the time of Christ,
Glad we agree on that. But since I've held to a future 70th Week in the past, I can't be judgmental towards those who hold to it.
Encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) will tell you that the words "abomination of desolation" mentioned in Matthew 24:15 are 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.
I'm aware. "Abominations" under the Law were often associated with some form of idolatry or something far exceeding the Law's standard of acceptance. Under this definition, pagans who bring idolatry into the Temple area or even into the Holy City, were "abominations." The Romans were pagans and held idolatrous eagle standards.
That abomination of desolation is NOT mentioned in Daniel 9:27:
- The abomination(s) mentioned in Daniel 9:27 are linked by verse 26 to the desolation of both Jerusalem and the temple.
I disagree. Not only does Dan 9.27 mention the abomination of desolation, though in different words, but it is identified (I believe) by Jesus as the "abomination of desolation." That is, I think Jesus was quoting Dan 9.27 when he referred to the "abomination of desolation."
Dan 9.7 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation...
Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—
the abomination of desolation (mentioned in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11) did not cause the destruction of either the temple, or the city of Jerusalem (the temple was cleansed after Antiochus's armies had been ousted, and reconsecrated to God - something which is still today celebrated by Jews as a holiday - chanukkah)
There was more than one AoD mentioned in the book of Daniel. This AoD was an "abomination" inasmuch as the Syrians were pagans in a holy area. And it was a "desolation" inasmuch as Antiochus had many thousands of the orthodox Jews murdered.
Similarly, the Roman were pagans in a holy area. And they had many thousands of Jews killed.
Jesus spoke of the coming destruction of the temple when He was on the Temple Mount - before departing for the Mount of Olives - which alludes to Daniel 9:27
Luke 21:20-24 records that later, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus also spoke of the coming destruction of Jerusalem - again something which is mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 in connection with the coming of the Messiah.
Yes.
- but His reference to the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place is not referring or alluding to anything written in Daniel 9:27 - but directly referring to Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11
Disagree. The Olivet Discourse, in my view, identifies the AoD as the Roman incursion in 70 AD as the thing foretold in Dan 9.27. The AoD mentioned in Dan 8, 11, and 12 all refer to Antiochus 4. Both events were still future to Daniel when he received these prophecies. And both events were extremely important in the life of the Israeli nation.
Both entities doing the destruction were pagan armies. Both were, in my opinion, "abominations of desolation."
- which has nothing to do with the destruction of either the temple or the city.
Paul later told us what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 24:15 when he alluded to it in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
I don't believe Paul alluded to Matt 24.15 in 2 Thes 2.4.
2 Thes 2.4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—"
Jesus was referring, I believe, to the Roman invasion of Jerusalem, Dan 9.26-27. Paul is referring to the Antichrist, or the "Little Horn," mentioned in Dan 7. There, he challenges the People of God destined to inherit the Kingdom of the Son of Man.
He is not establishing himself in the Temple of Moses, which was destroyed and which is not a place for anybody to declare himself king. Rather, Antichrist attempts to establish himself as a man of divine right, as if in God's Temple in heaven. This is a completely different kind of Temple.
The school of interpretation you belong to is large - and that school conflates the abomination(s) associated with the destruction of the temple and the city (Daniel 9:26-27) with an abomination of desolation that does not cause the destruction of either the temple, or the city of Jerusalem.
I'm not sure what school you're associating me with because as I said, my view is "eclectic," and I've picked and chosen from several schools? I don't believe I've conflated two passages here because both appear to me to be speaking of two separate historical events, the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem (Dan 9.27; Matt 24) and the AoD of Antiochus 4, who did not destroy the Temple but was nevertheless destructive of the Jewish People.
Both AoDs were equally destructive of the Jewish People, whether they both destroyed the Temple or not. It isn't critical that Antiochus destroy the Temple to be an AoD. Neither is it critical that the Romans destroy the Temple to be an AoD. Jesus simply said that the Romans would do this, to add to their "desolation."
Your interpretation also completely ignores the fact that the only way the words "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15 and "standing where it does not belong" in Mark 13:14 can be referring to the temple that was destroyed in AD70, is if that temple was indeed the holy place.
This is getting long so I'll cut to the chase. I argued this with another person for the good part of a year. In sum, "the holy place" in the OT always referred to the place in the Temple called "the Holy Place." It is a proper noun, always indicating the same thing.
On the other hand, there were other holy places mentioned in the OT that one could affix "the" to and it would mean something other than that room in the Temple. It could even refer to the environs of the holy city of Jerusalem. An Army laying siege to the holy city could even be viewed as "standing in the holy place."
Jesus gave this Discourse while the Law was still in effect and the Temple still stood. But his prophecy foretold the annihilation of this building and others standing with it. The "Holy Place" as a room within the Temple was losing its significance as such. At the time of the siege "the Holy Place" would simply be the object of the destruction of those who stand around the walls of Jerusalem, the holy city.
Both Dan 9.27 and the Olivet Discourse have the Roman army laying siege to Jerusalem, "standing in the holy place." That is, they were set to encroach on the holy city to decimate both the people and the Temple.
We'll leave it at that for now. You don't have to agree. But I'd like to know if you find any of my arguments illogical. I don't care if you find them undesirable. It isn't our truth--it's God's truth that we're trying to work out!
