The Abomination of Desolation

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What is it? Who is it? These are some of the questions we ask when we try to determine exactly what this is. Based on my studies, I think the only thing it can be is a statue/image of the “man” who will be known, in Christian circles as the anti-Christ. Let’s see what the bible has to say about it.

Dan. 11:31 – “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate."

Dan. 12:11 – “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”

I think the terms “place” and “set up” imply an inanimate object being erected and positioned in a specific spot. What’s the next verse? Matt. 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:)” Not to definitive. This could apply to a man or an image.

The next possible reference is found in 2 Thess. 2:4 – “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”

A lot of folks would read this scripture and say, “See this must be the abomination of desolation (a of d)? It’s a man sitting in the place of God.” However, within the context, the a/of d is never used to describe this event.

Are there other scriptures that might narrow the focus? Yes and they are all in Revelations.

Rev. 13:14 – “And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.”

There are many definitions of the word “make” and one of them is “raising up”. The rest of the vss. describe them as two separate things, “the beast and his image” or other words to that effect.

Rev. 14:9,11 – “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand…11)” And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

Rev. 15:2 – “And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.”

Rev. 16:2 – “And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.”

Rev. 20:4 – “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

If we believe that this is indeed a statue or idol, when will this occur? What is the timing of Rev. 13:14? Most people assume this occurs at the mid-point of the 70th week. Why? Because the timing of these passages does seem to imply it.
Rev. 12:14 – “And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time (1260 days), from the face of the serpent.”

Rev. 13:5 – “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.”

Let us also not forget Dan. 9:27 – “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.”

Most folks believe the emboldened phrase means the exact middle of the week, the 1261st day. I don’t believe that to be true. While the word “chetsiy” (H2677) translated as “midst” can be defined as “half” or the “middle” it can also be used for “part”. Usually, it is translated as “half” when used as a measurement or counting something and by far this word is defined as “half” in the majority of times it is used which is close to 100 times. It is translated as “part” 3 times and “midst” 6 times and “middle” once. It is also the word used when writing “mid”night (twice). Let’s take a look at an example of when it is translated as “midst”.

Josh. 10:13 – “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”

I don’t believe this is implying the exact middle of the sky, just generally, somewhere up in the sky as it didn’t continue its movement towards sunset. I like to use this analogy. Let’s say there is a bible chapter with 19 verses. We have a first verse (1) a last verse (19) and a middle verse (10) but all the verses from 2-18 can be considered the “midst” of the chapter.
 

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
Based on my studies, I think the only thing it can be is a statue/image of the “man” who will be known, in Christian circles as the anti-Christ.

Dan. 11:31 – “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate."

... I think the terms “place” and “set up” imply an inanimate object being erected and positioned in a specific spot.
The KJV translates Strongs H5414 in the following manner:

give (1,078x), put (191x), deliver (174x), made (107x), set (99x), up (26x), lay (22x), grant (21x), suffer (18x), yield (15x), bring (15x), cause (13x), utter (12x), laid (11x), send (11x), recompense (11x), appoint (10x), shew (7x), misc (167x).

It’s clear that the word place does not refer to some physical object being mechanically positioned at a localized physical event in an earthly “specific spot.” Rather, it’s a spiritual reality. Oh, they may erect some anthropomorphic image in some rebuilt temple, but that’s not what this passage is telling us.

There are two opposing perspectives of this abomination of desolation. When the deceived church sees the resumption of the Jewish sacrifice, they will believe they are about to be “raptured.” They won't believe the event they've just witnessed is the abomination, for they've been taught that won't occur until 3.5 years later with the cessation of the sacrifice.

The true believer will instead recognize the event as the abomination itself. They won't be expecting to be “raptured” because they know that Christ said when "ye shall see the abomination of desolation" it will then be time for them to flee into the mountains -- or quickly activate any contingency plans they've made to be preserved during the immediately ensuing destruction. The individual who inaugurates the resumption of the sacrifice is the Antichrist.

The book of Daniel even tells us that the abomination is NOT the cessation of the sacrifice. At the very end of the book, the angel tells Daniel that "...from the time [that] the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, [there shall be] a thousand two hundred and ninety days." (Dan. 12:11).

This verse clearly tells us that the 'setting up' of the abomination and the cessation of the sacrifice are separated by a period of 1,290 days. If you look at it closely, you'll see the verse strongly infers that the resumption of the sacrifice IS the abomination of desolation. It's because the passage approaches the chronological events in reverse that it's somewhat veiled. Again, it reads "from [or between] the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away... and the [setting up of the] abomination," there will be a period of just over 3.5 years.

The final aspect of the Beast's revealing will only occur at Christ's second coming.

The truth is, the abomination of desolation is the resumption of animal sacrifices for the sins of mankind when the precious blood of God's only begotten son has already been shed for our desperate sinful condition.

Christians are actually being taught that when they help to promote the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, it's a way of hastening “the rapture”! Dispensationally-oriented Christian prophecy teachers crisscross the country on speaking engagements (I've heard a few) urging believers to unilaterally support Israel on this matter. They speak frequently of the "Temple Mount Faithful," a group focused on rebuilding the temple.

Messianic Jewish Christians lavishly promote tours to Israel and the Temple Mount for this very purpose. Certain prophecy teachers (e.g. Monte Judah of Lamb and Lion Ministries) have even warned Christians that when the sacrifice is resumed, they must not speak against it, or they will be violating the will of God!

This resumption of the ancient sacrificial system IS THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION that will be blessed by the Antichrist and his False Prophet from their seat of power in Jerusalem, at which time huge numbers of Christians will be of one mind with the Antichrist. Meanwhile, the true remnant believers, already ostracized by the harlot churches they've come out of, will look on at the ghastly spectacle of the church spiritually embracing the global event even as the Antichrist then takes his place and "sits" in the now likeminded spiritual "temple of God."

Under the guise of religious tolerance and pluralism of this age, Christians are already embracing the idea of the Jews reverting to the Old Covenant practice of animal sacrifice. Through a distorted interpretation of the promises of blessing made to Abraham, Christians have been taught that the Jews are still the chosen people.

Genesis 12:3 reads: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." This verse has been distorted and misinterpreted more than any other single verse in the bible! Christians simply don't realize that this promise of blessing applies to them, not to the unbelieving Jews. By dividing God's promises into "dispensations," vast numbers of well-meaning believers have bought the lie that the promises of God have been inherited by the Jews in spite of the fact that the Old Covenant people rejected and crucified their Saviour.

The New Testament says "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:14).

Blanket acceptance of all things Jewish is a terrible error. Ask yourself how many times you've heard about the "Judeo-Christian" culture or society that we live in? The Bible is very clear on the subject. Speaking of the Jews, the book of Romans says "As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies FOR YOUR SAKES..." The only society that I'm really interested in living in is a Christian one!

Liberal and so-called conservative Christianity is into "bridge-building" as a way to reconcile Christians with Jews. They've published religiously-correct Bibles that twist the verses. They sponsor religiously-correct institutions of learning that fail to warn all that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. There are even pastors that are now teaching Jews can be saved by following the Old Covenant!

This IS the great falling away, as the antichrist encroaches into the true temple of God. It's neither the way of the Apostles, nor the remnant church of Jesus Christ.

To diplomatically label the truth as being unpalatable, the religious institutions and scholars have placed believers in the position of keeping quiet about the one thing they must never keep quiet about. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the Jews, as well as everyone else.

The writer of Hebrews sums it up: "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. ... For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more [shall not] we [escape], if we turn away from him that [speaketh] from heaven." (Heb. 8:6,7, 12:25).

Also, here’s another layer of deception we need to be aware of:

“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:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains" (Matt 24:15, 16).

Because the pre-trib "rapturists" falsely teach the Abomination of Desolation is an image of the Antichrist erected in a Jewish temple that will be rebuilt because of a supposed 7-year treaty, the substitution of the word standing for stand in the modern "per-versions" helps to support the false doctrinal system of the dispensationalists.

Believers that have studied the New Testament without their “rapture” blinders on long ago determined that "the holy place" is that place where Christ is now seated. There is no place in any Jewish temple that is holy because Hebrews teaches us that Christ has, "... by his own blood entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Heb 9:11). This holy place is found in "a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands..." (Heb 9:10) that is found in the heavenlies.

Jesus tells his followers (the Christians, in case anyone doesn't understand who Jesus' followers were) that when we see the Abomination of Desolation, we are to "stand in the holy place" (Mat 24:15). Since Jesus is now in "the holy place," this simply means that we are to stand firm in our place in Christ when we see the prophesied events come to pass. By adding the tiny suffix of "-ing" to the word stand, new versions manipulate the verse to show there will be an image "standing" in the holy place -- but that's not what this text is saying.

And here's yet a third layer of deception:

The crucial text in II Thessalonians 2 applies here, for as the beast government ascends to power, the text tells us that "man of sin... [will] sit in the temple [Strong's #3485, naos] of God, showing himself that he is God." (II Thessalonians 2:4). The false prophets in the "Christian" church refuse to teach the people the "temple" mentioned is the same Greek word Paul used when he said our bodies are the "temple [naos] of God." (I Corinthians 3:16). It's also the same word Jesus used when he motioned to himself and said "destroy this temple [naos], and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19).

Indeed, when the devil tempted Christ, and "set him on a pinnacle of the temple [Strong's #2411, hieron]" (Luke 4:9), it is a different word that is used for "temple" -- and that word always means a building; whereas the "temple" the beast will "sit" in, is the spiritual temple of the church. Thus, the installation of the Spirit of Antichrist in the church has already occurred -- but God has promised he will preserve a remnant that has ears to hear the truth. To put it another way, you should look very closely at this, for it is much later than you think.
.
.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi S4C, I don't mind debating with you but I do ask that you stay on point. If you want to go off on some tirade that has nothing to do with the OP, then start you own OP. You went in multiple directions on things that were never mentioned or implied in my post just because you assume that I share a set of beliefs because I believe in a rapture. Please don't presume to lump my beliefs in with eveyone else's. I am an individual, not an "ist". In your whole reply only your first paragraph dealt with something I actually said. Don't assume you know me or my beliefs because you obviously don't!! So, if you want to debate, try debating about something I actually said instead of railing against something that you think I must believe!
 

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
S4C, I don't mind debating with you but I do ask that you stay on point. If you want to go off on some tirade that has nothing to do with the OP, then start you own OP. You went in multiple directions on things that were never mentioned or implied in my post just because you assume that I share a set of beliefs because I believe in a rapture. Please don't presume to lump my beliefs in with eveyone else's. I am an individual, not an "ist". In your whole reply only your first paragraph dealt with something I actually said. Don't assume you know me or my beliefs because you obviously don't!! So, if you want to debate, try debating about something I actually said instead of railing against something that you think I must believe!
Your hypothesis: What is it? Who is it? These are some of the questions we ask when we try to determine exactly what this is. Based on my studies, I think the only thing it can be is a statue/image of the “man” who will be known, in Christian circles as the anti-Christ. Let’s see what the bible has to say about it..."I think the terms “place” and “set up” imply an inanimate object being erected and positioned in a specific spot."

My response was thoroughly on-topic.

I don't mind debating with you but...try debating about something I actually said instead of railing against something that you think I must believe!
I'm not interested in "debating" or opinions; I'm interested in pursuing truth. Try answering the imperatives in the post rather than protecting your perceived status.

IOW, don't flatter yourself. The topic extends beyond the bounds of your theory and the hit counter beyond your views.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your words: "I'm not interested in "debating" or opinions; I'm interested in pursuing truth. Try answering the imperatives in the post rather than protecting your perceived status."

I have no "status" to protect. If you're not willing to discuss alternatives to your viewpoint, why bother? You only want to discuss your perception of the truth. If anyone disagrees with your understanding, then they must be deceived because you're the only one that has the truth, right?! The problem is when one doesn't open up their hearts and minds to what other people have to say and yes there are times when the HS will disagree with your conclusions in the guise of your brothers, then they are closed to God revealing any more "truth" to them.. Just share your truth and your fellow brethren will decide if it's of God or not. Oh, that's right, you're not interested in what other people say until they acknowledge that you alone are the purveyor of all truth!
 

boldncourageous

New Member
Dec 6, 2014
32
1
0
Daniel was not the first to use the term week. Enoch used it and for him in never meant 7 years.... more like 1000.

In the Olivet discourse the disciples asked Jesus "When will these things be?" Referring to the destruction of the temple. In Mark and Luke, they do not continue to ask Jesus about the time of the end. Only in Matthew is that recorded. The question is focused upon the destruction of the temple and THAT time.

Did Jesus ignore their question? But if you do not understand that the A of D is the answer to the disciples question, you believe that Jesus actually didn't answer their question.

Why does JESUS state, "let the reader understand?" He is referring to the reader of Daniel, who the Jews knew exactly what He was referring to. Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164)who robbed the temple, set up an image of Jupiter in the Holy of Holies, pulled down the walls of Jerusalem, commanded the sacrifice of pigs, forbade circumcision, and burned all the sacred books he could find. The readers understood this to be the A of D that Daniel spoke of in Daniel 11. Yet Jesus spoke of another. Titus also being a gentile stood where he ought not. Although Titus was considered a god by Roman standards, it is not necessary for he himself to make the claim to fulfill the A of D prophesy.

The end of sacrifices and offerings happened in 70 AD and it has not ever returned, nor does ANY of the Scriptures suggest that it ever will. That is total speculation on your part. Your entire theory is based upon a single verse that clearly speaks of the end of the sacrifice and offerings that have ended. Daniel 12 also speaks of this ending of the sacrifices and offerings, which happened in 70 AD. The last stand of the Jews on Masada did not receive the blessing spoken of by Daniel 12:11,12, but rather committed suicide so that the Romans couldn't take them as captives.

FACT: Sacrifices and Offerings have ended in 70 AD.
FACT: The daily sacrifices ended in the middle of a one week war known as the Roman-Jewish war or Jewish Revolt... 66 AD to 73 AD.
FACT: Scripture never gives any indication that they will ever start back up again.
FACT: The book of Revelation never mentions the A of D, one must read into it to find something somewhat applicable.

Instead of building your doctrine on speculation, try building it upon the facts.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well if you want facts, then the first Jewish Revolt was from the fall of AD 66 to August 29th of AD 70, which was when Jerusalem fell. Some time after that, the Temple was torn down and indeed, except for the supporting West Wall was completely obliterated. This demonstrates the zeal in which Rome would persecute her enemies.

So it was not seven years, nor was the destruction of the Temple at the midpoint. We don't really know with the famine which the zealots endured (and the atrocities they committed to their fellow Jews) when sacrifice and offering ceased during the siege of Jerusalem, but it was probably before the end because of the scarcity of food.

The assault upon Masada was not part of that revolt, but again, it was just part of Rome's revenge. The Jews at Masada were not in revolt, openly fighting, but we're trying to maintain their lives without Rome's yoke. Still, Flavius Silva undertook an ambitious engineering feat and was able over a long period of time to mount an offense against a seemingly unassailable location. There was no fighting again however, the Jews tragically killed themselves.
 

boldncourageous

New Member
Dec 6, 2014
32
1
0
Marcus O'Reillius said:
Well if you want facts, then the first Jewish Revolt was from the fall of AD 66 to August 29th of AD 70, which was when Jerusalem fell. Some time after that, the Temple was torn down and indeed, except for the supporting West Wall was completely obliterated. This demonstrates the zeal in which Rome would persecute her enemies.

So it was not seven years, nor was the destruction of the Temple at the midpoint. We don't really know with the famine which the zealots endured (and the atrocities they committed to their fellow Jews) when sacrifice and offering ceased during the siege of Jerusalem, but it was probably before the end because of the scarcity of food.

The assault upon Masada was not part of that revolt, but again, it was just part of Rome's revenge. The Jews at Masada were not in revolt, openly fighting, but we're trying to maintain their lives without Rome's yoke. Still, Flavius Silva undertook an ambitious engineering feat and was able over a long period of time to mount an offense against a seemingly unassailable location. There was no fighting again however, the Jews tragically killed themselves.
It is true that the biggest part ended with the fall of Jerusalem, but it didn't end there. The end of the revolt continued until the fall of Masada in 73.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish–Roman_War

http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishWars/timeline_military.html

Masada was very much part of the picture, although the bulk of the war ended in 70 AD. It wasn't finished until the fall of Masada. That was a huge campaign and undertaking. When Masada fell, the war was finalized. Interesting that history records and separates the 3.5 year periods for this one week event because of the vast swing the fall of Jerusalem caused. It's true that the finalization of the last 3.5 years were more cleanup of the pockets of unrest than anything else.

You can nit-pick if you wish, the fact remains that the daily sacrifices WERE ended in 70 AD fulfilling Daniel 9:27, and 12:11. If you start with the facts, and then lay your foundation with THEM, you have a solid rock in which to build. There is no Scriptural indication that the daily sacrifices will ever be restored if a temple actually gets rebuilt. Jesus became the sacrifice once and for all time.

To build your belief on an idea that the daily sacrifices and offerings will someday continue, is to build a doctrine on sifting sand.
 

Marcus O'Reillius

Active Member
Jan 20, 2014
1,146
7
38
Pennsylvania
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you want to maintain that the first Jewish Revolt, which was over in A.D. 70 fulfilled the one 'seven,' then you're going to have to enumerate all the Trumpet/Bowl desolations which are poured out on the desolator. Now if you want to say the Jews at Masada, which isn't directly linked to the first Jewish Revolt, ended it, then you're saying they were the desolators upon whom God poured out His Wrath.

And that's just not the case.

And it's only one reason to reject your supposition.
 

Retrobyter

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2011
1,783
45
48
66
Tampa Bay, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Shalom, gentlemen.

What makes a sacrifice a SACRIFICE?

A dictionary entry says,...

sacrifice |ˈsakrəˌfīs| noun
an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure: they offer sacrifices to the spirits | the ancient laws of animal sacrifice.
an animal, person, or object offered in a sacrifice.
• an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy: we must all be prepared to make sacrifices.
Christian Church Christ's offering of himself in the Crucifixion.
Christian Church the Eucharist regarded either (in Catholic terms) as a propitiatory offering of the body and blood of Christ or (in Protestant terms) as an act of thanksgiving.
Chess a move intended to allow the opponent to win a pawn or piece, for strategic or tactical reasons.
• (also sacrifice bunt or sacrifice hit) Baseball a bunted ball that puts the batter out but allows a base runner or runners to advance.
• (also sacrifice bid) Bridge a bid made in the belief that it will be less costly to be defeated in the contract than to allow the opponents to make a contract.
verb [ with obj. ]
offer or kill as a religious sacrifice: the goat was sacrificed at the shrine.
• give up (something important or valued) for the sake of other considerations: working hard doesn't mean sacrificing your social life.
Chess deliberately allow one's opponent to win (a pawn or piece).
Baseball advance (a base runner) by a sacrifice.
• [ no obj. ] Bridge make a sacrifice bid.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French, from Latin sacrificium; related to sacrificus ‘sacrificial,’ from sacerholy.’


These are definitions that place the emphasis on what a human being does. However, I submit that a sacrifice isn’t a TRUE sacrifice unless (1) God requires it, and (2) God accepts it!

This places the emphasis back on GOD, who is the REAL reason for the sacrifice in the first place and who dictates what He will accept as sacrifice and when, as well as how He will accept it! It’s not about US; it’s about HIM!

Thus, Hebrews 10 is the RIGHT way to discuss what is and what is not a “sacrifice!"