Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Marty fox]

It really depends on your theology. I know you're a PP, and you will be focused on that. Most people seem to think Revelation was written *after* the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If so, then that might explain why John didn't record the Olivet Discourse.

I don't personally believe the book of Revelation was synonymous with the Olivet Discourse. But there are some interesting parallels. Some of the signs are the same, relating to the "birth pangs" of the Olivet Discourse. And reference to Jerusalem is the same, relating to Jesus' prophecy of its fall in the Olivet Discourse.

I personally believe the "birth pangs" of the Olivet Discourse referred to signs that Israel was about to fall in 70 AD. It was an expose of Israel's sinful behavior, which would lead to this judgment. Persecuting Christians, producing false prophets and messiahs, and then seeing armies rise up on the horizon, with earthquakes and famines--these all indicate that God was unhappy with Israel, and that Israel was about to fall.

By contrast, I think the same signs in the book of Revelation indicate a more world scale of the same. Once the Gospel reaches the world, Christian nations go through the same backsliding that Israel did. And the same signs of impending destruction arise.

For example, in our day we see the technology of nuclear weapons rise, indicating God's judgment approaches. And there are many other signs of God's displeasure, coupled with the persecution of Christianity.

If John wrote his Revelation after 70 AD, then why did he mention Jerusalem being "measured" for worshipers in ch. 11? We need to answer this question for ourselves. I personally think the temple in Rev 11 is symbolic of Jewish Christianity in the NT era, but who knows?

What we do know is that Mark and Luke followed Matthew's version of the Olivet Discourse because he may have been the only one of the three there. Thanks for pointing that out.

Thanks Randy

I see babylon the great as Jerusalem and this verse below seams to go with the Olivit Discourse

Rev 18:4
4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say:

“‘Come out of her, my people,’
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks Randy

I see babylon the great as Jerusalem and this verse below seams to go with the Olivit Discourse

Rev 18:4
4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say:

“‘Come out of her, my people,’
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

I see Babylon the Great, the Great Harlot, as Rome. But your own idea is reasonable, particularly since it fits language that has been used, biblically, of Jerusalem.

I have a lot more I could say on this, but some would think I'm anti-Semitic. I'm not. I just think that godly nations ultimately are taken over by an ungodly leadership, causing those nations to trend towards ungodliness and apostasy.

That's what has happened to Israel, and that's what's happening to former Christian nations. It's not as though fallen nations can no longer yield repentant minorities, but that as goes the nation and the leadership, so goes the future of that nation in judgment.

Some virtually consign the organized, historic churches to Hell! And I understand that because over time even organized religion trends towards corruption, compromise, and apostasy. Ultimately, I think the Roman Church will yield a False Prophet.

But nobody should think I'm anti-Catholic, nor should they think I'm anti-Jewish, simply because nations, peoples, and organizations fall over time. There is always the promise of restoration through repentance. But over time, the numbers of the righteous tend to be reduced to "the few."

My biggest concern in our time is that we encourage others to be numbered in those "few."

 

[Waiting on him]

It really depends on your theology. I know you're a PP, and you will be focused on that. Most people seem to think Revelation was written *after* the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If so, then that might explain why John didn't record the Olivet Discourse.

It was still standing, John was given a reed to measure it in rev. 11.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It was still standing, John was given a reed to measure it in rev. 11.

If you take that particular position, yes. Others like myself, don't take that position, though the vision is somewhat obscure to me. Some, like myself, view the temple in Rev 11 as a vision, depicting true worshipers in Israel. As such, it is not a literal temple. The Apostle John was *seeing visions.*

Again, suit yourself on your views of this. It is somewhat obscure, and there are several positions on it. I'm not hardcore on the timing of the book of Revelation. I've held both views of it, before and after the 70 AD fall of the temple. Right now I'm "after." Take care...

 

[Marty fox]

If you take that particular position, yes. Others like myself, don't take that position, though the vision is somewhat obscure to me. Some, like myself, view the temple in Rev 11 as a vision, depicting true worshipers in Israel. As such, it is not a literal temple. The Apostle John was *seeing visions.*

Again, suit yourself on your views of this. It is somewhat obscure, and there are several positions on it. I'm not hardcore on the timing of the book of Revelation. I've held both views of it, before and after the 70 AD fall of the temple. Right now I'm "after." Take care...

I think that its the revelation of Jesus as in who He is and what He did. Jesus is God and He ushered in the new covenant.

I also think that revelation is a book of transition from the old covenant to the new covenant from the earthly Jerusalem to the new Jerusalem. Thus revelation is about the new covenant

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think that its the revelation of Jesus as in who He is and what He did. Jesus is God and He ushered in the new covenant.

I also think that revelation is a book of transition from the old covenant to the new covenant from the earthly Jerusalem to the new Jerusalem. Thus revelation is about the new covenant

Yes, I can talk about the book of Revelation all day long. At one point I think I had the majority of it memorized!

I also adore the Apostle John. His style, and emphasis on Jesus himself, was so compelling to me that I memorized all of 1 John.

I've made biblical prophecy a major theological interest of mine, which is why I tend to being on the Prophecy forums. But I also like theology in general, and also admire, James, Paul, and Peter. Well I guess I love just about all of 'em!

But yes, as the one prophetic book of the NT, Revelation obviously represented an important transition in biblical prophecy from OT to NT. It was a portrait of Jesus himself, as you say, in our own place in history, whether in the time it was written or at the end of the ages, where I think we are.

 

[Timtofly]

Both Matthew and Luke were present at the Olivet discourse.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

So Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 are mutually interpretive. The same Holy Spirit who heard what Jesus said inspired both Matthew and Luke.

He inspired Luke to identify the abomination of desolation in Matthew, the Roman armies.

The Holy Spirit wasn't hard of hearing.

You do realize that you go against the scholarly consensus of modern textual criticism.

There is certainly no Scripture proving Matthew and Luke were sitting on the Mount of Olives that week. Mark 13:3

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,"

Mark was the the scribed account of Peter. Mark was Peter's recollection. James did not put forth a Gospel account. Andrew did not either. John did, but left out a specific accounting of the event. His version would be the separate book of Revelation. Instead of a few chapters, John gave us a book dedicated to the actual event (that last generation), not just a retailing of the Discourse itself.

The Holy Spirit did not have to hear anything. It was the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus talking at the same time those words. Since Mark was writing down for Peter what Peter remembered, the Holy Spirit was working in helping Peter remember, not actually inspiring Mark. Unless you think a scribe failed at actually hearing the words coming out of Peter's mouth. The scribe was not inspired. The person speaking was the individual being prompted by the Holy Spirit. Mark was a scribe. Peter's account was written down first. Then Matthew using Mark's account added his own memories, and also placed the OD into a more manageable format. Matthew did not add or drastically change Mark's rendition. Luke wrote last and added the part about the armies, and removed the AoD. Probably more like an historical recounting after 70AD. Luke's account while keeping the original prophetic nature, was more an account of actual events around 70AD, than some warning for 70AD.

Luke was accurate as an historical treatise. It was armies in 66AD that allowed many to flee. There was no AoD in 70AD, so Luke never addressed that aspect of the OD. Luke explained this in the very first verses. Luke was never written as a prophetic warning of an impending event. Yet it was faithful to the OD in other aspects as an historical account.

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us (Mark and Matthew, and even John) , Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; (Luke never took credit for being an eyewitness) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding (a firm belief in the other accounts) of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

Luke may have not been an historian like Josephus and Tacitus. He was an educated doctor with a sharp mind for detail.

Would you want a doctor substituting a liver instead of a heart, if you needed a heart? Luke would never substitute armies for the AoD. They are literally two separate understandings of future events. What one should take from Luke is that there was no AoD in 70AD. There was no Second Coming in 70AD. There was not even a tribulation in 70AD. Luke is the only account that mentions what actually happened confirmed by Josephus the actual historian.

Do you think that it was lost on the Holy Spirit that many would construe that Luke made a substitution? The only reason some claim a substitution is to prove a concept. Since we know Luke as a professional and strict with the detail, would never make such a substitution, this argument goes against the logic of who God was using to write this 4th Gospel. Then many want to claim against all scholarly consensus that all Gospels had to be written prior to 70AD to prove their theology. Luke did focus more on what Jesus was telling them in the temple during the day, than what was said at night on the mount. In reading Luke, we actually don't see what exactly was stated in private on the mount itself, thus the AoD was simply left out as given specifically to the disciples, while the point about the armies was given to all those at the temple who heard. From Luke we see it was a multiple day event. The other accounts do not even seem to recognize time was also spent at the temple during the day time. Luke 21:37-38

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him."

We should know from this fact, many things could have been said during the day that never made it into the Bible. Luke pointing out the armies just being one of the many things we know nothing about. So it is 100% certain, that at the temple, Jesus could have warned about 70AD down to the last detail. None of that being pertinent to the church over the last 1992 years. On the other hand the OD itself was not about 70AD, but a direct and private warning to the church.

From Luke 21, I doubt one could even separate what was said in private from what was said in public. If Matthew was strictly in private, then the point of the AoD may never even have been mentioned while at the temple. That would be the logical reason why the armies cannot be a substitute for the AoD. The AoD was only known by Peter, James, Andrew, and John. The warnings about the advancing armies only publicly given to the people at the temple, and not necessarily even spoken about on the mount of Olives.

 

[Waiting on him]

James did not put forth a Gospel account.

This is due to the fact that what Jesus’s had told him would happen to them in the Olivet discourse. Did in fact happen to him early on.


Matthew 24:9 KJV
[9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.


Acts 12:1-2 KJV
[1] Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. [2] And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You do realize that you go against the scholarly consensus of modern textual criticism.

Textual Criticism? Do you even know what you're talking about? TC is about divining the actual text--not theories about who wrote the text. There is no "scholarly consensus" on some of the things you speak of, because we simply *don't know* some of these answers. They're just opinions based on the best available knowledge.

It's like saying there is a consensus of weather forecasters who think it's going to rain tomorrow. But it doesn't rain. How important was their consensus?

But the text is another thing entirely. It's not interpretive, but a product of studying the language, the manuscripts, etc. What was written and preserved in the manuscripts are what we have today in most of our Bible versions. Notes are usually provided for sections that are somewhat controversial.

There is certainly no Scripture proving Matthew and Luke were sitting on the Mount of Olives that week. Mark 13:3

I'm not sure there is any proof against their being there either. When the other versions speak of "the disciples," that usually meant the 12. But it could just as easily include disciples who would later become prominent, like Luke and Mark. An argument from silence is a weak argument.

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,"

This just showed who asked the question. It doesn't answer the question: Who all were there?

Mark was the the scribed account of Peter. Mark was Peter's recollection. James did not put forth a Gospel account. Andrew did not either. John did, but left out a specific accounting of the event. His version would be the separate book of Revelation. Instead of a few chapters, John gave us a book dedicated to the actual event (that last generation), not just a retailing of the Discourse itself.

These are all matters of speculation, and some of it quite possibly true. We just don't know. So if God knew it would be preserved with some obscurity, then perhaps it's best to just leave it at that--speculation. What's important is the message, and the fact we have 3 synoptic Gospels to verify each other's account. And in providing different details in different ways, we have a better picture of what each one meant.

The Holy Spirit did not have to hear anything. It was the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus talking at the same time those words. Since Mark was writing down for Peter what Peter remembered, the Holy Spirit was working in helping Peter remember, not actually inspiring Mark. Unless you think a scribe failed at actually hearing the words coming out of Peter's mouth. The scribe was not inspired. The person speaking was the individual being prompted by the Holy Spirit. Mark was a scribe. Peter's account was written down first. Then Matthew using Mark's account added his own memories, and also placed the OD into a more manageable format. Matthew did not add or drastically change Mark's rendition. Luke wrote last and added the part about the armies, and removed the AoD. Probably more like an historical recounting after 70AD. Luke's account while keeping the original prophetic nature, was more an account of actual events around 70AD, than some warning for 70AD.

These are arguments. They're speculations, and have no bearing. It may be interesting to consider, but again--no value as far as what the passages said and meant. We have to assume all 3 versions were accurate portrayals of what happened, what was said, and what was meant. I'm interested in the "what was meant" part.

Luke was accurate as an historical treatise. It was armies in 66AD that allowed many to flee. There was no AoD in 70AD, so Luke never addressed that aspect of the OD. Luke explained this in the very first verses. Luke was never written as a prophetic warning of an impending event. Yet it was faithful to the OD in other aspects as an historical account.

Completely false, in my estimation. Since all 3 accounts should be synchronized, we should assume that Luke's "armies surrounding Jerusalem" were the AoD in Matthew and Mark. Trying to differentiate the different authors cannot hide this fact. In the same place Matthew and Mark mentioned the AoD Luke mentioned armies surrounding Jerusalem to desolate it and its temple.

"Not written as a prophetic warning of an impending event," you say? How you can say that with a straight face I can't imagine? That was Jesus' explicit message for his Disciples, that he was warning them about the impending destruction of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Jewish house of worship, the temple. They were warned, specifically, to "flee" when the AoD armies approached.

 

[covenantee]

You do realize that you go against the scholarly consensus of modern textual criticism.

Since Mark was writing down for Peter what Peter remembered, the Holy Spirit was working in helping Peter remember, not actually inspiring Mark.

So Mark's account is not Holy-Spirit-inspired Scripture??

From what recognized source of Christian orthodoxy are you getting that?

The attempt to use an illegitimate "scholarly consensus of modern textual criticism" to disprove the Holy Spirit inspiration of Scripture, is a scathing indictment of the eisegetical revisionism which overwhelmingly characterizes dispensational futurism's fantasies and fallacies.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[covenantee]

You do realize that you go against the scholarly consensus of modern textual criticism.

There is certainly no Scripture proving Matthew and Luke were sitting on the Mount of Olives that week. Mark 13:3

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,"

Mark was the the scribed account of Peter. Mark was Peter's recollection. James did not put forth a Gospel account. Andrew did not either. John did, but left out a specific accounting of the event. His version would be the separate book of Revelation. Instead of a few chapters, John gave us a book dedicated to the actual event (that last generation), not just a retailing of the Discourse itself.

The Holy Spirit did not have to hear anything. It was the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus talking at the same time those words. Since Mark was writing down for Peter what Peter remembered, the Holy Spirit was working in helping Peter remember, not actually inspiring Mark. Unless you think a scribe failed at actually hearing the words coming out of Peter's mouth. The scribe was not inspired. The person speaking was the individual being prompted by the Holy Spirit. Mark was a scribe. Peter's account was written down first. Then Matthew using Mark's account added his own memories, and also placed the OD into a more manageable format. Matthew did not add or drastically change Mark's rendition. Luke wrote last and added the part about the armies, and removed the AoD. Probably more like an historical recounting after 70AD. Luke's account while keeping the original prophetic nature, was more an account of actual events around 70AD, than some warning for 70AD.

Luke was accurate as an historical treatise. It was armies in 66AD that allowed many to flee. There was no AoD in 70AD, so Luke never addressed that aspect of the OD. Luke explained this in the very first verses. Luke was never written as a prophetic warning of an impending event. Yet it was faithful to the OD in other aspects as an historical account.

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us (Mark and Matthew, and even John) , Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; (Luke never took credit for being an eyewitness) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding (a firm belief in the other accounts) of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

Luke may have not been an historian like Josephus and Tacitus. He was an educated doctor with a sharp mind for detail.

Would you want a doctor substituting a liver instead of a heart, if you needed a heart? Luke would never substitute armies for the AoD. They are literally two separate understandings of future events. What one should take from Luke is that there was no AoD in 70AD. There was no Second Coming in 70AD. There was not even a tribulation in 70AD. Luke is the only account that mentions what actually happened confirmed by Josephus the actual historian.

Do you think that it was lost on the Holy Spirit that many would construe that Luke made a substitution? The only reason some claim a substitution is to prove a concept. Since we know Luke as a professional and strict with the detail, would never make such a substitution, this argument goes against the logic of who God was using to write this 4th Gospel. Then many want to claim against all scholarly consensus that all Gospels had to be written prior to 70AD to prove their theology. Luke did focus more on what Jesus was telling them in the temple during the day, than what was said at night on the mount. In reading Luke, we actually don't see what exactly was stated in private on the mount itself, thus the AoD was simply left out as given specifically to the disciples, while the point about the armies was given to all those at the temple who heard. From Luke we see it was a multiple day event. The other accounts do not even seem to recognize time was also spent at the temple during the day time. Luke 21:37-38

"And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, for to hear him."

We should know from this fact, many things could have been said during the day that never made it into the Bible. Luke pointing out the armies just being one of the many things we know nothing about. So it is 100% certain, that at the temple, Jesus could have warned about 70AD down to the last detail. None of that being pertinent to the church over the last 1992 years. On the other hand the OD itself was not about 70AD, but a direct and private warning to the church.

From Luke 21, I doubt one could even separate what was said in private from what was said in public. If Matthew was strictly in private, then the point of the AoD may never even have been mentioned while at the temple. That would be the logical reason why the armies cannot be a substitute for the AoD. The AoD was only known by Peter, James, Andrew, and John. The warnings about the advancing armies only publicly given to the people at the temple, and not necessarily even spoken about on the mount of Olives.

There is nothing whatever in any of this pontification that invalidates the understanding, using Scriptural principles of interpretation, that the Roman armies were the abomination of desolation.

I've looked carefully for such invalidation.

It does not exist.

Of course, what is itself invalid; to wit: dispensational futurist heterodoxy and "modern textual criticism"; can itself invalidate nothing.

 

[Timtofly]

But the beginning point in 70 AD we should all agree on. It is the precise formulation we find in Dan 9.26-27 where an AoD is referred to, along with the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary." Put these things together, and I think you will have a clear understanding of the Olivet Discourse.

Are you then strict to the detail that the AoD was literally after the destruction in 70AD? Daniel never states the alledged 7 year covenant was first.

You would have to prove that after Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, some weird covenant was made with the survivers for 7 years. Was this the agreement Titus struck with Josephus? Still not really an AoD.

Josephus was about the only Jew of his day that even gave Daniel the "time of day". The majority of Judaism to this day reject Daniel as being a prophet. Jesus never had any issues with Daniel being a prophet.

"But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,"

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet."

The point about the AoD and Daniel 9 is determined by the whole timing. Where in these verses is AoD specified?

"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. 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."

Abominations of desolation is not necessarily a single AoD. Certainly Jerusalem and the temple were left in an abominable and desolate condition. Also the whole chapter of Revelation 13 is about Abominations and desolation, and even an image is set up, yet still not that descriptive of 70AD.

The sole reason being Titus never set up His throne and ruled from Jerusalem having total control over the Temple. It was not that one would leave Jerusalem desolate. It was the fact they would use Jerusalem as the center of all desolation.

Those who understand Hanukkah and what Antiochus Epiphanes did would not claim the same thing of Titus in 70AD. For one, in 70AD the revolting factions of the Jews themselves already had the temple in a state of total Abominations and desolation. By the time Titus arrived, it was already too late for an AoD. Titus could not even set up authority in Jerusalem so he finished razing the whole city to the ground. There was literally no covenant made by Titus over this event in 70AD.

Daniel 9 also, did not cover the AoD set up by Antiochus Epiphanes. That AoD was separate and not part of the 70 weeks prophecy. That is why Jesus was not referring to Daniel 9, but to the actual chapter that covered Antiochus Epiphanes, Daniel 8:8-11

"Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. 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. 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. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down."

Daniel 8 did not even have to spell it all out in detail. The prophecy was remembered because of Hanukkah, and what Antiochus Epiphanes did, who fulfilled Daniel's prophecy. Jesus was referring to Antiochus Epiphanes via Daniel's prophecy, not as the actual historical event. Jesus never expected His audience that day to literally go back in time and experience 167BC. Nor was Jesus claiming Daniel 8 had never been fulfilled. Jesus was not even claiming it would be fulfilled in their lifetime. Since He said the reader would understand, not those listening.

(whoso readeth, let him understand: ) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

(let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

So the whole point, as written, is something the reader could understand would happen and those people would flee. If only the reader would understand how did the actual words help Peter, James, Andrew, and John? None of these experienced 70AD. Since Luke never even mentions the AoD, none of his readers would need to be involved at all. By the time Luke was written they had already fled the Roman armies, and were out of harms way. Those who actually heard Jesus would know to do that.

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

This part has the addition of telling people from outside the area not to come into Judea nor Jerusalem. There is the case these instructions were given in the temple during the day and not part of the OD. Unless one makes the case they don't care the location, but what was said in the temple is fair game.

Personally, what is mentioned in the temple was to all and that generation. What was said on the mount in private was to the whole church which has been generational for 1992 years. Only one generation would experience the OD part. That would be the very last generation of the Second Coming. Obviously some will want to remain general, unspecified, so as to make it fit their argument. I mean "to whom" would make for logical arguments, no?

 

[covenantee]

The point about the AoD and Daniel 9 is determined by the whole timing. Where in these verses is AoD specified?

"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. 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."

The AoD is specified here:

Daniel 9:26:
"...the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary..."
That refers to the Roman armies, and is corroborated in Luke 21:20.

Daniel 9:27:
"...for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate..."
That also refers to the Roman armies; and is corroborated in Matthew 24:15, both by the terminology, and by Jesus' own direct reference to Daniel.

Thus there is three-way corroboration between Matthew 24:15, Luke 21:20, and Daniel 9:26-27.

There is no declaration or implication in these Scriptures of any idol being set up, because the abomination of desolation is not an idol.

That is a dispensational fantasy.

 

[Timtofly]

This just showed who asked the question. It doesn't answer the question: Who all were there?

When 4 men approach you for a private conversation, do you keep it private, or answer their questions in private? Does the word privately not mean anything to you?

Completely false, in my estimation. Since all 3 accounts should be synchronized, we should assume that Luke's "armies surrounding Jerusalem" were the AoD in Matthew and Mark. Trying to differentiate the different authors cannot hide this fact. In the same place Matthew and Mark mentioned the AoD Luke mentioned armies surrounding Jerusalem to desolate it and its temple.

So you have only speculation and assumptions as well? Welcome to the club of accusation.

"Not written as a prophetic warning of an impending event," you say? How you can say that with a straight face I can't imagine? That was Jesus' explicit message for his Disciples, that he was warning them about the impending destruction of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Jewish house of worship, the temple. They were warned, specifically, to "flee" when the AoD armies approached.

No Jesus told those in the temple during the day time, that they need to flee when they see armies approaching. You have only Luke's account, and Luke's account shows what Jesus told them in the temple during the day time. Josephus would have have known that fact as common knowledge. Josephus would not have known what was said in private. Josephus was the only historical account and proof of people actually fleeing at the appropriate time.

 

[Timtofly]

So Mark's account is not Holy-Spirit-inspired Scripture??

From what recognized source of Christian orthodoxy are you getting that?

The attempt to use an illegitimate "scholarly consensus of modern textual criticism" to disprove the Holy Spirit inspiration of Scripture, is a scathing indictment of the eisegetical revisionism which overwhelmingly characterizes dispensational futurism's fantasies and fallacies.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I never said it was not inspired. Read my post again carefully. I said Mark was not inspired. Mark was the scribe who wrote down Peter's inspired rememberance. 2 Peter 1:14-21 Mark wrote down the inspired words of Peter. Peter acknowledged that at times he used a scribe to write down his letters. You can speculate all your life why it was called Mark and not Peter, so go for it.

I did not point out scholarly textual criticism to question inspiration. You sure jump to meaningless accusations. The order and dating of the Gospels. Certainly you have to do that to prove it all was written prior to 70AD, or your point would fall flat on it's face, no?

So you just pointed out the chink in your only proof. It is only opinion then, by your proof of standard, when and how anything was written? You just removed any proof you had to make a point about the Gospels having to be written at a "said perfect" time. You have faith the scholars are right to prove your point. Yet my point is wrong because of scholarly consensus?.

There is nothing whatever in any of this pontification that invalidates the understanding, using Scriptural principles of interpretation, that the Roman armies were the abomination of desolation.

I've looked carefully for such invalidation.

It does not exist.

Of course, what is itself invalid; to wit: dispensational futurist heterodoxy and "modern textual criticism"; can itself invalidate nothing.

You have speculation and assumptions. You literally dismissed any chance of proving your own bias. You and every other person can state any point. But stating a point does not make it true. You have no proof, zilch that Luke meant AoD when he literal meant armies. When they fled in 66AD it was because of armies, not an AoD. And you have no Scripture nor proof to back up your own statement, even if it is reasonable, plausible, and makes sense to 99% of humanity. Truth is not based on popularity.

No one fled in 70AD. The majority died. The rest sent as slaves or to their deaths in the coliseum as gladiators.

 

[Timtofly]

The AoD is specified here:

Daniel 9:26:
"...the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary..."
That refers to the Roman armies, and is corroborated in Luke 21:20.

Daniel 9:27:
"...for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate..."
That also refers to the Roman armies; and is corroborated in Matthew 24:15, both by the terminology, and by Jesus' own direct reference to Daniel.

Thus there is three-way corroboration between Matthew 24:15, Luke 21:20, and Daniel 9:26-27.

There is no declaration or implication in these Scriptures of any idol being set up, because the abomination of desolation is not an idol.

That is a dispensational fantasy.

I agree that your point is also a bias fallacy. Daniel 9 is not the AoD Jesus was referring to.

Yes, Daniel 9:26 is 70AD. Daniel 9:27 is not.

Your own bias is making you blind to the facts.

 

[Keraz]

You have speculation and assumptions. You literally dismissed any chance of proving your own bias. You and every other person can state any point. But stating a point does not make it true. You have no proof, zilch that Luke meant AoD when he literal meant armies. When they fled in 66AD it was because of armies, not an AoD. And you have no Scripture nor proof to back up your own statement, even if it is reasonable, plausible, and makes sense to 99% of humanity. Truth is not based on popularity.

No one fled in 70AD. The majority died. The rest sent as slaves or to their deaths in the coliseum as gladiators.

Congratulations Timtofly, you have blown preterism out of contention.
Their theory of the AoD being the Roman army, could not have taken place in 70 AD, as the Temple was destroyed 3-4 years after the Roman armies first surrounded Jerusalem and the Christians escaped.

Preterists avoid 2 Thess 2:4 like the Covid 19. But their mask has slipped and they are now at their last gasp.

 

[Dave Watchman]

I sure wish I could help you old boys out with this stuff.

I agreed with a bunch of things Tim said in post #307.

This calls for a mind with wisdom.

Jesus never said exactly what the Abomination was, (Let The Reader Understand), He just pointed to where it could be found, (1290 Days). Could it be that some things were unspeakable? Is that why Jesus wrote in the sand that day? Things having to do with adulteries and sexual immoralities? Like it was in the "days of Lott?

Me and a couple guys figured this AofD business out a couple years ago right when it was happening.

So I won't tell that one in this note.

Daniel 9 and 12 are talking about two different abominations. Daniel 9 was the destruction of Jerusalem when it would be surrounded by armies in the middle third of Luke 21, right after: "but before all this.

The Daniel 12 one, (1290 Days), is the one that we are concerned about right now. Because that's the one with the timing of when the multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake. (Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever)

Daniel 12 is the Olivet of Mathew 24 and Mark 13 at the end of the world.

(Luke moved the end time Abomination to his Chapter 17)

The reason to zero in on the first century "wing of abominations" is that it aids us in an understanding of our end time "holy place" where our end time Abomination is standing. (Where it ought not to be)

Even though it doesn't exactly read "holy place", the place, the earth, where Moses stood was holy, so he was told to take off his sandals.

“Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” - Exodus 3:5
​

Same thing in Joshua. Take off your sandals.

"The commander of the LORD’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. - Joshua 5:15​

In these examples the ground, the earth, had become holy. Because God said it was. God was there. When God does a thing it becomes holy, not that the thing is holy so that God does it.

In Numbers God gave the ground, the earth, surrounding the outer walls of Jerusalem to the Levites. From the foot of the outer wall, out 1500 feet, in a circumference all around Jerusalem was the ground given by God to the Levites.

"You shall also measure outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits, with the city in the center. This shall become theirs as pasture lands for the cities. - Numbers 35:5​

Because the Levites were the priestly tribe, they didn't share in the same gifting of land like the other tribes did. But they still needed some land to graze their animals and plant some gardens. God gave them the land 1500 ft. all around the outside perimeter of the Old City of Jerusalem. That's where the Romans had to stand to do the various siege events.

Rewind back to the days of the Cestius siege. When Cestius began the first siege, he was standing outside the perimeter wall of Old Jerusalem. The ground, the earth, that he stood on to set up his siege qualified as a "holy place" because it was the land given by God Himself to the Levites for their gardening and cattle grazing. 1500 feet outward from the city wall.

"The pasturelands of the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all around. - Numbers 35:4​

But then for some reason Cestius abandoned the siege. Some have said that he got a message that a Cesar had died and needed to go back to Rome. When the Jews saw him leaving, they took chase. They attacked Cestius from behind and the Romans took heavy casualties. But this was the BIGGIE sign for the Christians from Luke 21. But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. The early Christians who remembered Jesus' words were able to walk right out of the open gates of the city unmolested. The Romans were gone. The Old Time Jewish armies were gone. Anybody could just take a casual stroll out the open gates.

"During Gallus's withdrawal his column was ambushed near Beth Horon, suffering very heavy losses. He was only able to reach Antipatris with the loss of about 6,000 men and a large amount of war material.[2] Judea was now almost entirely lost to Roman control.​

Then the Jews came back and celebrated their victory. They thought that they won and God was on their side. Then events in Jerusalem would continue on as normal. They thought everything was going to be fine. But they were in a deadly countdown of days, a tribulation of the Matrix, where things seemed normal, like they do right now, but were not what they seemed to be. From 9/66 to 4/70. About three years and change. And then when Titus came and set up the real siege, the door was sealed, there would be no more escape.

If the "holy place" were some place inside the Old Jerusalem temple, it would be too late to "flee" if they waited to "see it standing" there.

So if we can consider the first century "wing of abominations", to be something seemingly as unorthodox as the Roman armies standing in the land given by God to the Levites, then it might be equally surprising to see where the "holy place" is, a place prepared by God, where our end time Abomination is standing right now where it ought not to be. (Let The Reader Understand)

The temple had ceased to be the "holy place" since the day that the curtain was rent, and to this very day. Relax the criteria and consider other possibilities for what might be a "holy place" in our appointed time of the end. When God prepares a place for the "earth" to help the woman, that place by default, becomes a holy place.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Are you then strict to the detail that the AoD was literally after the destruction in 70AD? Daniel never states the alledged 7 year covenant was first.

You may not be able to anticipate my answers because your conception of this prophecy is so different from mine? My view is that the AoD is the Roman Armies who besieged Jerusalem 66-70 AD.

The 7 year covenant was abruptly cancelled in the middle of the 7 year period by the death of Christ. So I believe the final Week was reduced to a period of 3.5 years, completing this covenant at the cross.

It was Roman rule over Israel that guaranteed the completion of this Messianic prophecy. Rome "confirmed the covenant" by ensuring that Jesus could complete his earthly ministry and not be prevented from doing so by the Jewish leaders.

You would have to prove that after Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, some weird covenant was made with the survivers for 7 years. Was this the agreement Titus struck with Josephus? Still not really an AoD.

Josephus was about the only Jew of his day that even gave Daniel the "time of day". The majority of Judaism to this day reject Daniel as being a prophet. Jesus never had any issues with Daniel being a prophet.

I'm not sure the Jews reject that Daniel was a prophet, but only that he did not share the the typical office of a prophet, since he served under pagan kings as an occupation.

"But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,"
"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet."
The point about the AoD and Daniel 9 is determined by the whole timing. Where in these verses is AoD specified?

Dan 9.27 "On the wing of abominations he shall make desolate."

The "wing of abominations" is a single "abomination." It is one "wing" of many "abominations." It is one abomination that commits many abominations. The abominations that this abomination commits is in desolating the holy city and the sanctuary of God.

It, the Roman Army, destroys Jerusalem and the temple. The Roman Army even carried eagle standards, suggested by the "wing." Jesus mentioned that eagles would gather around the "corpse," ie fated Jerusalem. To the Jews, the idolatrous eagle standard of the Romans was an "abomination."

Abominations of desolation is not necessarily a single AoD. Certainly Jerusalem and the temple were left in an abominable and desolate condition. Also the whole chapter of Revelation 13 is about Abominations and desolation, and even an image is set up, yet still not that descriptive of 70AD.

Rev 13 doesn't mention an AoD, specifically. AoDs are mentioned in Dan 9 (the Roman Armies) and in Dan 8, 11, and 12.11 (Antiochus 4), as well as in Matt 24 and Mark 13 (the Romany Armies). Rome is indirectly referred to as an "abomination" in Rev 17.5, I think.

...By the time Titus arrived, it was already too late for an AoD.

Your definition of an "AoD" is different from mine. For me, there were 2 AoDs, Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army under Cestius Gallus and Titus. They both related as AoDs not strictly because an AoD must put an idol in the temple, but only if a pagan presence near the temple commits sacrilege against it in some form and desolates the people.

Just the pagan presence of both Antiochus and the Roman Army constituted an "abomination." Both entities desolated the Jewish people.

You focus on the fact Antiochus committed a specific kind of sacrilege in the temple. Antiochus committed sacrilege not just by his pagan presence near the temple, but also by acts of sacrilege, such as putting an idol there and offering idolatrous, sacrilegious sacrifices.

But Rome's act of sacrilege was both their pagan presence near the temple and the desolation of the temple itself. So I do *not* define the AoD as an idol placed in the temple or some such thing.

The AoD is simply a pagan presence in the territory where it was formerly unwelcome under the Law. The Romans had actually assumed rule over Jerusalem while Israel was still under the old covenant. Thus, they ushered in the final Week as a covenant of Messianic fulfillment under the Law.

I cannot hope to convince you to adopt my position. My only wish here is to explain to you what I believe and validate it not as my position alone, but more, the position of the ancient Church Fathers and many Christian scholars since. Questions about what an AoD actually is, however, persist.

 

[Randy Kluth]

When 4 men approach you for a private conversation, do you keep it private, or answer their questions in private? Does the word privately not mean anything to you?

On option is that the 4 wanted to remain private and away from the 12 Disciples as a whole, which doesn't seem very likely to me. The Address was designed for all 12 of Jesus' Disciples.

It is much more likely that these 4 were trying to maintain privacy away from a larger group surrounding the 12 Disciples. They were not trying to prevent all 12 Disciples from hearing the answer. In fact, the answer was directed to all of them.

Obviously, if a question is asked, it's only going to be asked by one or a few of them--not all 12 Disciples! And so, initially, at the temple, the 1st question came by one. Mark 13.1

But in Luke 21.5, it was more than one who joined in the conversation at the temple site. So beginning with one person asking questions does not exclude more from joining in.

And then only a few of them renewed the questioning on the Mt. of Olives. But again, we can see that it was more than just a few of the Disciples (Peter, James, John and Andrew) who asked Jesus questions on the Mt. of Olives. It was "the Disciples," inferring all 12 of them, according to Matt 24.3.

All 12 Disciples likely joined the 4 initially asking the questions on the Mt. of Olives. And all 12 Disciples were likely trying to be private and separate from a larger "mixed" crowd beyond. The Jewish People, by nature, were very selective about the company they kept and the information they shared.

Compare the different versions. Please note how some of the conversation began at the temple, and started with one, joined by all the Disciples. And then note how the conversation continued up on the Mt. of Olives, starting with four, but then joined by all of the Disciples.

Matt 24.3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Mark 13.1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”...3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

Luke 21.5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God... 7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

No Jesus told those in the temple during the day time, that they need to flee when they see armies approaching. You have only Luke's account, and Luke's account shows what Jesus told them in the temple during the day time. Josephus would have have known that fact as common knowledge. Josephus would not have known what was said in private. Josephus was the only historical account and proof of people actually fleeing at the appropriate time.

I'm not referring to Josephus, but to the idea of separating the Olivet Discourse into 2 times and 2 places.
1) The temple was very, very close to the Mt. of Olives. They were right next to each other.
2) The conversation, inspiring the Olivet Discourse, began in the temple area and elicited a longer response, lasting until the full Discourse took place on top of the mountain. It was all a single Discourse, as such.