Typical questions people ask about the Olivet Discourse.

[Timtofly]

Did Josephus ever write anything in his accounts pertaining to what happened in those days about anything involving an AOD standing in the holy place, standing where it ought not?

The only thing in Josephus was in regard to when Pontius Pilate arrived as governor with Roman troops with their ensign back in 26-27 AD. The Jews complained about the ensign to Pilate, and he removed them. But after 66AD, no Romans entered Jerusalem, much less set up an ensign in the Temple. The temple burned down, against the orders of Titus who did want to set up the Temple to his pagan diety. So nothing happened in 70AD, other than destruction and Jerusalem was left desolate. Certainly not an AoD in a standing Temple.

Now if someone wants to state that the Jews themselves set up an abomination, that may be, but all that is argued is about a Roman Army.

 

[covenantee]

Luke is not interpreting another author. Luke is giving the public discourse from the Temple. Matthew is given the private discourse with the disciples.

in·ter·pret
[inˈtərprət]

VERB
interpret (verb) · interprets (third person present) · interpreted (past tense) · interpreted (past participle) · interpreting (present participle)

1. explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions):
   "the evidence is difficult to interpret"
   • understand (an action, mood, or way of behaving) as having a particular meaning or significance:
     "her self-confidence was often interpreted as brashness"

Both accounts were written years after the actual discourse, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

For those who use Scripture to interpret Scripture, it is clear that the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to include Scripture interpreting the AoD in Matthew.

For those who use uninspired Darby/Scofield et al to interpret Scripture, the result will err.

 

[grafted branch]

That would mean that the apostle Paul was involved in the AoD. Acts 21:26-27

"Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,"

Right, you bring up a great point. Let’s lay out some facts and take a look at what’s going on.

Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things

1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?



I could add quite a few more verses but I think these will suffice. At the cross the old covenant ordinances are taken out of the way, they were made obsolete, they were contrary to us as no flesh is justified by the deeds of the law. However the old covenant didn’t vanish when the new covenant came into force, and not only that but it seemed good to the Holy Spirit that a different burden be placed on the Gentiles than that of the Jews. Paul recognized that there were people who were still under the law and he acts as if he is under the law also for the express reason of gaining their salvation.

The sacrifices, that pointed to Christ, being allowed to resume after the veil was torn showed at best a lack of understanding by those making the sacrifices but really it showed they were still anticipating the initial coming of Christ. God was long suffering, not willing that any should perish. The way I see it is that the Jews didn’t have to continue to observe the law but the Holy Spirit saw it as a good thing in order that some would become saved, this would be the same reason Paul puts himself under the law.

The physical temple and all the physical rituals and practices that went with it had to be destroyed just as the bronze serpent on the pole eventually was destroyed due to it becoming an object of worship once the Israelites were in the promised land.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Come on man, you don’t really need a Sunday school 101 lesson do you?

If for some reason you think the continuation of the daily sacrifice of the lamb after the veil was torn was not an abomination

I did not say this.

Regardless, please show me the Scripture where you found "daily sacrifice" in then we will talk.

 

[grafted branch]

I did not say this.

Regardless, please show me the Scripture where you found "daily sacrifice" in then we will talk.

The daily sacrifice comes from Exodus 29:38-44.


Exodus 29:38 Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. 39 The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even

 

[TribulationSigns]

The daily sacrifice comes from Exodus 29:38-44.


Exodus 29:38 Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. 39 The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even

Thank you.

I found that many people misunderstand the prophecy of the "taking away of the daily sacrifice" because they usually look at this (daily sacrifice) as an Old Testament ritual, and yet they place it within the New Testament dispensation. It's a contradiction to me to have God prophesy of Old Testament ceremonies occurring within the New Testament. But that's just me.

Anyway, the daily (sacrifice), which is the word [tamiyd], was the sacrificial offering that was to be presented continually. The actual Hebrew word [tamiyd] literally means continual and illustrates extension, such as a perpetual action. e.g.:

Exodus 29:37-38

• "Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
• Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually."

That word translated "continually" is the same Hebrew word [tamiyd] that is translated "Daily" (sacrifice), and of course, these Old Testament acts are "TYPES" that point to the TRUE sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Jesus Christ is the one true perpetual/continual sacrifice for our sins. So when Aaron and the Priests offered the daily/continual animal sacrifices for sins, they were merely a shadow of the coming Messiah, the only true continual sacrifice for sin.

Ephesians 5:2

• "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."

Those animals that were commanded by God to be continually sacrificed, were never enough to take away anyone's sin. Only Christ sacrificing Himself could do that. But these (the sacrificial laws) were a SHADOW that people saw darkly, prefigured things to come. In the New Testament era, the old shadow is done away with. We would/should no longer offer the daily or continual sacrifice because that would in effect deny the anti-type. God's election no longer hold to ceremonies in the type, but the anti-type. All things in Christ, our one time sacrifice that daily/perpetual/continually atones for our sin.

Hebrews 7:27

• "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."

My point is, Christ is NOW the "daily sacrifice" of the believers since the Cross, and this is what is taken away.

Daniel 8:11

• "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

The place of whose sanctuary? The daily, which is Christ! And the place, which is His house, the Church! It has nothing to do with Old Testament-type sacrifices as you believe. The old shadow being passed into history, and the anti-type replacing it. So when you see prophesies in the New Testament concerning sacrifices, it is the spiritual anti-type application, not the former animal types. Selah! All instances in scripture of future prophesy concerning the daily sacrifice reference the atonement of Christ for man, and by extension the work of Christ in salvation. They do not, and could not reference the re-institution of a literal animal sacrificial system, and a subsequent taking away of it. That would be confusing to have Christ's sanctuary re -instituting animal sacrifices. A lot of this is explained in Hebrews 10.

Hebrews 10:1-14

• "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
• For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
• But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
• For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
• Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
• In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
• Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
• Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
• Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
• By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
• And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
• But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
• From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
• 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Those daily/continual sacrifices were for a [skia] that we have remembrance of sin, but Christ was the true offered once forever, continually, perpetually. Because that is what the types really foreshadowed. The daily/continual sacrifice today is Spiritual, the salvation of God through Christ, which we minister to the world, giving thanks to God for the privilege.

Hebrews 13:15-16

• " By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
• But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.""

So, understanding all this, we know that when Daniel talks about the daily (sacrifice) being taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate setup, refers NOT to animal sacrifices at the Cross or 70AD, but to the removal of Christ, our daily/continual sacrifice AFTER the building of the New Testament congregation is finished. And the set up of a false God to replace Christ in God's house. Selah! That is the abomination that will leave that house desolate! That is in the future, if not right now. Not 1st century, Selah!

 

[grafted branch]

So, understanding all this, we know that when Daniel talks about the daily (sacrifice) being taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate setup, refers NOT to animal sacrifices at the Cross or 70AD, but to the removal of Christ, our daily/continual sacrifice AFTER the building of the New Testament congregation is finished. And the set up of a false God to replace Christ in God's house. Selah! That is the abomination that will leave that house desolate! That is in the future, if not right now. Not 1st century, Selah!

I agree with most of what you’re saying, the OT daily sacrifice is a type with the atonement of Christ being the anti-type.

The literal daily sacrifice was literally taken away when the veil was torn in 30AD (or 33AD). Those who resumed the OT daily sacrifice after the veil was torn were committing an abomination, they rejected the anti-type, this lead to them being spiritually desolate. Nothing to do with 70AD, the AOD was when the book of Daniel was unsealed and the reader could understand.

 

[Wick Stick]

I already have three in mind.

Why does Luke talk about armies while Mark and Matthew talk about the Abomination of Desolation?​

What does Jesus mean by "the elect"?​

What does Jesus mean by "this generation?"​

Hard questions.

If we assume that this refers to the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem, both "armies" and "Abomination of Desolation" make sense. Jerusalem was indeed "encompassed by armies" at that time. And an "abomination" - usually a synonym for idol - was indeed set up at that time.

The "elect" is a synonym for the church.

Finally, "this generation" seems to refer to the Jewish nation, rather than a specific generation. I think there was a whole topic about this recently.

 

[Ziggy]

Made me think of Ezekiel chapter 8.
How many abominations were carried over from the first to the second temple?
Idolatry?
And how many abominations are set up in the church today?

Ezekiel chapter 8

How close are we?
Does anybody really know what time it is?


Hugs

 

[ewq1938]

Finally, "this generation" seems to refer to the Jewish nation, rather than a specific generation. I think there was a whole topic about this recently.

Impossible since Christ said one generation of people would see all the things he described. Not one generation so far has seen any of them because the things Christ spoke of are events just before, during and after the one and only great tribulation. That is a 42 month period which will be a time of the greatest persecution of Christians ever, far worse than anything old Rome did.

 

[Wick Stick]

Impossible since Christ said one generation of people would see all the things he described. Not one generation so far has seen any of them because the things Christ spoke of are events just before, during and after the one and only great tribulation. That is a 42 month period which will be a time of the greatest persecution of Christians ever, far worse than anything old Rome did.

The Jewish nation has not passed away. Not yet.

 

[ewq1938]

The Jewish nation has not passed away. Not yet.

It's not about a race of people but people alive to see important events. That means anyone of any race can be part of the generation that witnesses the real and actual return of Jesus.

 

[Red Baker]

Thank you.

I found that many people misunderstand the prophecy of the "taking away of the daily sacrifice" because they usually look at this (daily sacrifice) as an Old Testament ritual, and yet they place it within the New Testament dispensation. It's a contradiction to me to have God prophesy of Old Testament ceremonies occurring within the New Testament. But that's just me.

Anyway, the daily (sacrifice), which is the word [tamiyd], was the sacrificial offering that was to be presented continually. The actual Hebrew word [tamiyd] literally means continual and illustrates extension, such as a perpetual action. e.g.:

Exodus 29:37-38

• "Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
• Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually."

That word translated "continually" is the same Hebrew word [tamiyd] that is translated "Daily" (sacrifice), and of course, these Old Testament acts are "TYPES" that point to the TRUE sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Jesus Christ is the one true perpetual/continual sacrifice for our sins. So when Aaron and the Priests offered the daily/continual animal sacrifices for sins, they were merely a shadow of the coming Messiah, the only true continual sacrifice for sin.

Ephesians 5:2

• "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."

Those animals that were commanded by God to be continually sacrificed, were never enough to take away anyone's sin. Only Christ sacrificing Himself could do that. But these (the sacrificial laws) were a SHADOW that people saw darkly, prefigured things to come. In the New Testament era, the old shadow is done away with. We would/should no longer offer the daily or continual sacrifice because that would in effect deny the anti-type. God's election no longer hold to ceremonies in the type, but the anti-type. All things in Christ, our one time sacrifice that daily/perpetual/continually atones for our sin.

Hebrews 7:27

• "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."

My point is, Christ is NOW the "daily sacrifice" of the believers since the Cross, and this is what is taken away.

Daniel 8:11

• "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

The place of whose sanctuary? The daily, which is Christ! And the place, which is His house, the Church! It has nothing to do with Old Testament-type sacrifices as you believe. The old shadow being passed into history, and the anti-type replacing it. So when you see prophesies in the New Testament concerning sacrifices, it is the spiritual anti-type application, not the former animal types. Selah! All instances in scripture of future prophesy concerning the daily sacrifice reference the atonement of Christ for man, and by extension the work of Christ in salvation. They do not, and could not reference the re-institution of a literal animal sacrificial system, and a subsequent taking away of it. That would be confusing to have Christ's sanctuary re -instituting animal sacrifices. A lot of this is explained in Hebrews 10.

Hebrews 10:1-14

• "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
• For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
• But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
• For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
• Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
• In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
• Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
• Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
• Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
• By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
• And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
• But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
• From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
• 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Those daily/continual sacrifices were for a [skia] that we have remembrance of sin, but Christ was the true offered once forever, continually, perpetually. Because that is what the types really foreshadowed. The daily/continual sacrifice today is Spiritual, the salvation of God through Christ, which we minister to the world, giving thanks to God for the privilege.

Hebrews 13:15-16

• " By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
• But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.""

So, understanding all this, we know that when Daniel talks about the daily (sacrifice) being taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate setup, refers NOT to animal sacrifices at the Cross or 70AD, but to the removal of Christ, our daily/continual sacrifice AFTER the building of the New Testament congregation is finished. And the set up of a false God to replace Christ in God's house. Selah! That is the abomination that will leave that house desolate! That is in the future, if not right now. Not 1st century, Selah!

Excellent! Impossible to gainsay this blessed truth, impossible. Scriptures indeed interprets scriptures.

 

[rwb]

That is the abomination that will leave that house desolate! That is in the future, if not right now. Not 1st century, Selah!

I agree fully with all you have said, until you say the above. Are you suggesting that Christ will come again a sacrificial offering for sin? When He comes again it won't be as our offering for sin, it will be as Judge!

 

[3 Resurrections]

So, understanding all this, we know that when Daniel talks about the daily (sacrifice) being taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate setup, refers NOT to animal sacrifices at the Cross or 70AD, but to the removal of Christ, our daily/continual sacrifice AFTER the building of the New Testament congregation is finished. And the set up of a false God to replace Christ in God's house. Selah! That is the abomination that will leave that house desolate! That is in the future, if not right now. Not 1st century, Selah!

???? The "removal of Christ our daily / continual sacrifice"??? You cannot be serious.

In contrast to the physical daily offerings in the OC temple, "But this man, after he had offered ONCE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER, sat down on the right hand of God..." Christ's blood offering in heaven's temple will never be taken away. This is blatant heresy you are proposing. There is no false god who can possibly eradicate Christ's perpetual offering for us in God's house. Not in the past, and not in the future either.

 

[Timtofly]

in·ter·pret
[inˈtərprət]

VERB
interpret (verb) · interprets (third person present) · interpreted (past tense) · interpreted (past participle) · interpreting (present participle)

1. explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions):
   "the evidence is difficult to interpret"
   • understand (an action, mood, or way of behaving) as having a particular meaning or significance:
     "her self-confidence was often interpreted as brashness"

Both accounts were written years after the actual discourse, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

For those who use Scripture to interpret Scripture, it is clear that the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to include Scripture interpreting the AoD in Matthew.

For those who use uninspired Darby/Scofield et al to interpret Scripture, the result will err.

Luke was not explaining the meaning of the AoD. Luke under the guidance of the Holy Spirit gave us the words Jesus spoke in the Temple. Luke never mentioned anything mentioned in private on the Mount of Olives.

You are not interpreting Scripture, but adding your own private opinion to the Word of God. No one has to quote you nor Darby. It is written right there in Luke 21.

 

[Timtofly]

Right, you bring up a great point. Let’s lay out some facts and take a look at what’s going on.

Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things

1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?



I could add quite a few more verses but I think these will suffice. At the cross the old covenant ordinances are taken out of the way, they were made obsolete, they were contrary to us as no flesh is justified by the deeds of the law. However the old covenant didn’t vanish when the new covenant came into force, and not only that but it seemed good to the Holy Spirit that a different burden be placed on the Gentiles than that of the Jews. Paul recognized that there were people who were still under the law and he acts as if he is under the law also for the express reason of gaining their salvation.

The sacrifices, that pointed to Christ, being allowed to resume after the veil was torn showed at best a lack of understanding by those making the sacrifices but really it showed they were still anticipating the initial coming of Christ. God was long suffering, not willing that any should perish. The way I see it is that the Jews didn’t have to continue to observe the law but the Holy Spirit saw it as a good thing in order that some would become saved, this would be the same reason Paul puts himself under the law.

The physical temple and all the physical rituals and practices that went with it had to be destroyed just as the bronze serpent on the pole eventually was destroyed due to it becoming an object of worship once the Israelites were in the promised land.

All I see in those verses is that you are still making stuff up that is not in God's Word. None of those verses declare the ongoing use of the Temple as an abomination. The Temple was their daily economy. That economy did not turn into an AoD over night.


What happened was that God no longer visited them once a year, as now that relationship was to each and every individual without a priest being necessary.

Why not just argue that the entire OT economy was an AoD to God since Mount Sinai, compared to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. From God's perspective, He never asked for burnt offerings and sacrifices.

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure."

All you're saying is that God demanded an AoD. God never told them to stop using the Temple. God let it be known He had stopped using the Temple. The daily sacrifices are not the AoD that Jesus and Daniel mentioned. Not before the Cross, and not after the Cross.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Provide an example elsewhere from Scripture that supports armies being an abomination. If I can see a Scripture that supports this theory, maybe then I might rethink some of this. Personally, I don't seem to recall reading anywhere in the Bible that armies are connected with an abomination, especially armies that are surrounding something.

Try Daniel 9:27. "...and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and with the abominable armies he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." This is the KJV with its alternate translation in the margin.

Also Daniel 11:31, which many recognize as the actions of Antiochus IV when he came with his army against Jerusalem. "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." It was the armed forces of Antiochus in Jerusalem that performed all the abominable, desolating actions in the sanctuary.

 

[covenantee]

Luke was not explaining the meaning of the AoD.

You're right. The Holy Spirit was explaining it.

Stop denying the Holy Spirit's explanation.

 

[grafted branch]

All I see in those verses is that you are still making stuff up that is not in God's Word. None of those verses declare the ongoing use of the Temple as an abomination. The Temple was their daily economy. That economy did not turn into an AoD over night.

As you know the AOD isn’t specifically described in the scriptures, although the actions of AE4 are often used. We all have to look at other scriptures to draw a conclusion on what the AOD is.

Whatever you want to claim the AOD is, I can simply use your own argument and say you are making it up because what ever verses you use to support your view will not specifically declare that they refer to the AOD.