Page 1 of 14 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 196

Thread: abomination of desolation?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    storydweller
    Posts
    3,233

    abomination of desolation?

    Jesus says in Matt. 24 that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see the "abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place. Similarly, Luke records Jesus saying that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, for then they would know that "it's desolation is near" (21:20). Are the surrounding armies, then, and not some talking idol, the "abomination"?
    analyze. synthesize. repeat.

    *It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by astrongerthanhe View Post
    Jesus says in Matt. 24 that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see the "abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place. Similarly, Luke records Jesus saying that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, for then they would know that "it's desolation is near" (21:20). Are the surrounding armies, then, and not some talking idol, the "abomination"?
    Comparing Matt 24:15 and Luke 21:20 that would certainly seem to be the case, which is odd, because the temporary withdrawal window in which the Christians fled to the hills, and the Jews stayed, was some time before the Romans desecrating the altar.

    Is it possible that (whoso readeth, let him understand) is a veiled reference to Matthew's Jewish readers who knew orally what was later written in Luke 21:20. And Matthew didn't spell it out because a Jew writing this might be seditious?

    ?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Durban ,South Africa
    Posts
    7,736
    Quote Originally Posted by astrongerthanhe View Post
    Jesus says in Matt. 24 that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see the "abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place. Similarly, Luke records Jesus saying that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, for then they would know that "it's desolation is near" (21:20). Are the surrounding armies, then, and not some talking idol, the "abomination"?
    John drove a Ferrari, Jane drove a Ferrari, therefore is John necessarily Jane??

    Just because we are advised to flee before the army, and we are also advised to flee before the abomination, does not mean that the army is the abomination. Both of them are pretty intimidating to the average bloke, I would say flee whichever one you see. And the mountains are as good a place to go as any. Mountains are generally protected, isolated sort of places, so I guess its good to go to the mountains whenever there is a spot of trouble in the cities.

    The view that the abomination is the armies is definitely not conclusive, further evidence is needed, it would be faulty doctrine to use that "comparitive language" type logic.
    Last edited by DurbanDude; Dec 1st 2009 at 01:23 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    storydweller
    Posts
    3,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven3 View Post
    Comparing Matt 24:15 and Luke 21:20 that would certainly seem to be the case, which is odd, because the temporary withdrawal window in which the Christians fled to the hills, and the Jews stayed, was some time before the Romans desecrating the altar.
    So you're saying that the abomination could not have been the Romans desecrating the altar because those in Judea who heeded Jesus' words fled long before this, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven3 View Post
    Is it possible that (whoso readeth, let him understand) is a veiled reference to Matthew's Jewish readers who knew orally what was later written in Luke 21:20. And Matthew didn't spell it out because a Jew writing this might be seditious?
    My personal understanding of "let the reader understand" is that Matthew is perhaps not putting in a little parenthetical prayer of his own, but that maybe he's still quoting Jesus (considering this phrase is in Mark as well) - but that either way, I think it's not the reader of the Olivet Discourse who is being addressed, but the reader of Daniel.
    analyze. synthesize. repeat.

    *It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Deep East Texas
    Posts
    1,424
    Hello Astrongerthanhe,

    This is true, but you can be looking at something like the Abomination of Desolation every day, and if you donít know what it is, you can not see it. As soon as the Jews understand what it is, they will SEE it, and they better get out as fast as they can. As for the rest of us, We that read, - we are sent to Daniel 12, and as soon as we SEE what it is, we can find the answer to the question the disciples ask Jesus in verse three.

    Quote - Jesus says in Matt. 24 that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see the "abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place. Similarly, Luke records Jesus saying that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, for then they would know that "it's desolation is near" (21:20). Are the surrounding armies, then, and not some talking idol, the "abomination"?

    Matthew 24 is speaking of the ABOMINATION of desolation

    Luke is speaking of only the DESOLATION. TWTaylor

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    under the pain of the wish
    Posts
    11,818
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by astrongerthanhe View Post
    Jesus says in Matt. 24 that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see the "abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place. Similarly, Luke records Jesus saying that those in Judea are to flee to the mountains when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, for then they would know that "it's desolation is near" (21:20). Are the surrounding armies, then, and not some talking idol, the "abomination"?
    The phrase "abomination of desolation" can mean two different things depending on which one is the subject.

    1. abomination = subject

    This we know as an idol placed in the Jewish Temple, which was against God's will. An idol placed in the Jewish Temple would desolate, that is, ruin the temple making it unfit for the worship of God. In this case, the term desolation refers not to destruction, but to ruin or desecration.

    2. desolation = subject

    In this we understand God as the ultimate cause of the desolation of his own temple due to the disobedience of his own people. In this case, the term desolation refers to destruction of the Temple.

    It just so happens that both of these are found in Daniel.

    1. abomination of desolation = idol placed in temple

    For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. By smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action. Those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many; yet they will fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder for many days. Now when they fall they will be granted a little help, and many will join with them in hypocrisy. Some of those who have insight will fall, in order to refine, purge and make them pure until the end time; because it is still to come at the appointed time. Daniel 11:30-35
    This portion of Daniel's prophecy describes the time of the Maccabees in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig on the alter and erected a statue of Zeus in the Temple. This was the abomination that resulted in the desolation (not destruction) of the temple.

    2. On the "wing" of abominations will come destruction.

    So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate. Daniel 9:25-27
    This describes the events that transpired after the first advent of the Messiah when he came to fulfill the sacrifices, having saved us with his own blood. Soon after this, from 66 to 70AD the Roman armies came against Jerusalem to put down a seditious rebellion and ended the war with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. On the wing of abominations came a complete destruction of the Temple.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    storydweller
    Posts
    3,233
    Quote Originally Posted by BroRog View Post
    It just so happens that both of these are found in Daniel.
    A great post, as usual. So are you suggesting that Matthew and Mark wrote as if the abomination were the subject, and Luke wrote as if the desolation were the subject? Or that both will be true in one season at a future time?
    analyze. synthesize. repeat.

    *It is the next chapter of my life, whether I'm ready or not. My time here in these forums has come to its close. I bless you as I go!*

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Inez Ky Pop. 600 as they said on HEE HAW Salute
    Posts
    417
    this is a case of not having all the information one needs to determine the meaning of scripture .most modern translations of the bible do not contain the books of the Apocrypha which has books recording the events that bro Rog spoke of,although most people will not talk to you about them or say they weren't by inspiration,which ,by the way is the Puritans reason for rejecting the Apocrypha .It makes me wonder when you see OT scripture Prophets foretelling events that are written about in the missing books of most modern Biles.The Apocrypha traditionally was placed between OT and NT writings.and still are available on line and in some bibles,it was included in the first KJV bibles as well.
    I was alive without the Law ,the Commandment came sin revived and I died

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by BroRog View Post
    [B]1. abomination of desolation = idol placed in temple
    [/INDENT][/INDENT]This portion of Daniel's prophecy describes the time of the Maccabees in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes sacrificed a pig on the alter and erected a statue of Zeus in the Temple. This was the abomination that resulted in the desolation (not destruction) of the temple.
    This is all based on the assumption that the Antiochus reading is the true reading. I do not agree that Daniel 11 is about events that happened 150 years before Christ was born. The angel tells Daniel that it was concerning the latter days (Daniel 10:14). So how can it be dominated by activities before Jesus was even born? That is not the latter days. The angel also then tells Daniel twice that the words will be shut up until the time of the end - Daniel 12. So how can we take an ancient reading as the correct reading?

    Quote Originally Posted by BroRog View Post
    2. On the "wing" of abominations will come destruction.

    So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate. Daniel 9:25-27
    This describes the events that transpired after the first advent of the Messiah when he came to fulfill the sacrifices, having saved us with his own blood. Soon after this, from 66 to 70AD the Roman armies came against Jerusalem to put down a seditious rebellion and ended the war with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. On the wing of abominations came a complete destruction of the Temple.
    And this is assuming that the 70th week was completed. I disagree with that reading also. The scripture says that ONE will come who makes desolate. I see this as the little horn, the man of sin. He makes desolate when the people set him up as God in the temple. In 2Thess 2 - Paul directly pulls from Daniel 11:36 in saying that Jesus can't come until the man of sin is revealed. It is clear to me that Paul read Daniel 11 and the abomination of desolation as an end time occurrence - and it is not an idol being placed in the temple.

    God showed Ezekiel that idolatry was going on by the high priest in the holy of holies - this wasn't the abomination of desolation. Nowhere in scripture does it directly define just what the abomination of desolation is. This is why the scripture says (whoso readeth, let him understand).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    under the pain of the wish
    Posts
    11,818
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by astrongerthanhe View Post
    A great post, as usual. So are you suggesting that Matthew and Mark wrote as if the abomination were the subject, and Luke wrote as if the desolation were the subject? Or that both will be true in one season at a future time?
    The first one, that is, I believe Matthew and Mark wrote as if the abomination were the subject, and Luke wrote as if the desolation were the subject. I think the AOD of Daniel 11 already occurred by the time Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple, which was still in his future. Consequently Matthew records the editorial comment "let the reader understand" in order to alert the reader that Jesus is using an event from the past as an example of a future event.

    It's as if Jesus is saying, "You remember what it was like when Antiochus came up to Jerusalem, don't you? Well, it will be like that again." Only this time in 66AD, as it turned out, it was seditious Jews, not Greeks, who entered the Temple, removed the legitimate priests, killed the high priest, and used the Temple as a fortress from which to attack the Romans. The seditious Jews were the ones who did most of the damage to the city, having set fire to the food supply and desecrated the temple. The Romans finished the job when the broke down the walls and set fire to the Temple.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    under the pain of the wish
    Posts
    11,818
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by stupes View Post
    This is all based on the assumption that the Antiochus reading is the true reading. I do not agree that Daniel 11 is about events that happened 150 years before Christ was born. The angel tells Daniel that it was concerning the latter days (Daniel 10:14). So how can it be dominated by activities before Jesus was even born? That is not the latter days. The angel also then tells Daniel twice that the words will be shut up until the time of the end - Daniel 12. So how can we take an ancient reading as the correct reading?
    I believe Gabriel's comment concerning the "latter days" was in reference to the prophecy of chapter 9. But what are the "latter days"? Isn't any distant future called the "latter days?"

    And this is assuming that the 70th week was completed. I disagree with that reading also. The scripture says that ONE will come who makes desolate. I see this as the little horn, the man of sin. He makes desolate when the people set him up as God in the temple. In 2Thess 2 - Paul directly pulls from Daniel 11:36 in saying that Jesus can't come until the man of sin is revealed. It is clear to me that Paul read Daniel 11 and the abomination of desolation as an end time occurrence - and it is not an idol being placed in the temple.
    In 2Thess. 2 I notice that the man of sin promotes the idea that he, himself, is God. And, as you point out, the man of sin sits in the Temple of God claiming himself to be God. However, the prophecy of Daniel 9, and Matthew 24 describe the destruction of the temple. For this reason, I believe that the events in 70AD do not fulfill Daniel 11:36 or 2Thess. 2, since a temple has to be standing in order for a person to set himself in it. If a man destroys a temple, he can't subsequently stand in it to declare himself to be God.

    God showed Ezekiel that idolatry was going on by the high priest in the holy of holies - this wasn't the abomination of desolation. Nowhere in scripture does it directly define just what the abomination of desolation is. This is why the scripture says (whoso readeth, let him understand).
    Yes, the son of Jacob had committed many abominations including idolatry by the high priest etc. But notice that Daniel 9:27 says the destruction of the city and the temple will come on the "wing" of abominations. In my humble, not scholarly opinion, the word translated "wing" should read "limit"* That is, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple were to occur when the abominations would reach an upper limit. It's possible that the murder of the messiah was the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't know for sure.

    ______

    *Wing:kanaph the wing of a bird and by extension, any extremity. The corner, edge or border of something.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Deep East Texas
    Posts
    1,424
    Thank you Stupes,

    You saved me a some work on that post. One more thing that might help understand the Abomination of Desolation is what is Holly, the Temple or the Temple Mount. I was studding the Abomination a few years ago and trying to show the Temple as the Holy Place, Itís not, I had to change my thinking, because I found the Temple Mount, Mount Moriah is what is Holly, not the Temple. TWTaylor

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by BroRog View Post
    I believe Gabriel's comment concerning the "latter days" was in reference to the prophecy of chapter 9. But what are the "latter days"? Isn't any distant future called the "latter days?"
    Not that it matters too much, but the angel does not identify himself by name - he does mention that Michael helped him get to Daniel, however. But Daniel 10 starts a whole new narrative which concerns a vision and a conversation with the angel - and this conversation lasts through Daniel 10,11, and 12. I do not see how the angel is referencing back to the vision of Daniel 9. The angel says he had to fight in order to get to Daniel and tell him all of chapter 11. He says "I fought in order to come here and tell you what will happen to your people in the latter days" - and then he tells Daniel what will happen in chapter 11. That's how I see it at least.

    And - I guess you can read "latter days" a few ways. But the angel says this - which concludes his chapter 11 narrative - "12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." This sounds like the conclusion of the matter is a deliverance of the Jews - that we have not yet seen. I believe many scriptures depict this time of deliverance as the second coming of Christ (Zech. 12 among many others) - which is also the time of the fulness of the Gentiles - and the judging of the world - all wrapped into Jesus returning.

    And another trump card: Daniel 12[4] But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. - ancient reading is that this is referring to Roman roads. Roman roads are a joke compared to airplanes and the internet. Maybe there is more increase to come and people will look back at airplanes and the internet as a joke compared to telepathy and Scotty beaming people all over creation. But as of now - Daniel couldn't have been opened to the ancients.


    Quote Originally Posted by BroRog View Post
    In 2Thess. 2 I notice that the man of sin promotes the idea that he, himself, is God. And, as you point out, the man of sin sits in the Temple of God claiming himself to be God. However, the prophecy of Daniel 9, and Matthew 24 describe the destruction of the temple. For this reason, I believe that the events in 70AD do not fulfill Daniel 11:36 or 2Thess. 2, since a temple has to be standing in order for a person to set himself in it. If a man destroys a temple, he can't subsequently stand in it to declare himself to be God.
    In Daniel 9 God makes a point to say that there will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks - he says that in the same breath for a total of 69 weeks - but makes sure to be distinct about the fact that wall will be built in 7 weeks and then the Messiah will be cut off 62 weeks later. Which will result in the destruction of the city and temple by the people of the prince that shall come, not the actual prince. But the last week is separated - the destruction of the city and temple have already happened - the occurrences in the 70th week come after the events of the 69th week. So how can the abomination of desolation in the 70th week be the Roman destruction of 70AD which is clearly tied with the Messiah being cut off in the 69th week?


    Quote Originally Posted by BroRog View Post
    Yes, the son of Jacob had committed many abominations including idolatry by the high priest etc. But notice that Daniel 9:27 says the destruction of the city and the temple will come on the "wing" of abominations. In my humble, not scholarly opinion, the word translated "wing" should read "limit"* That is, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple were to occur when the abominations would reach an upper limit. It's possible that the murder of the messiah was the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't know for sure.

    ______

    *Wing:kanaph the wing of a bird and by extension, any extremity. The corner, edge or border of something.
    I don't see "wing" in or around chapter 9 in the KJV - so I don't know exactly what you are referring to here. But I am no biblical scholar either. What version do you read?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Deep East Texas
    Posts
    1,424
    Who do you think the one above the waters is? In 12:4 He says the whole book is sealed until the time of the end.

    Da 12:6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?"

    Da 12:7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

    Da 12:8 Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, "My lord, what shall be the end of these things?"

    Da 12:9 And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

    Da 12:4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

    The things that were wrote a long time ago, Were they wrote in the time of the end?

    If this is the time of the end, We can understand, If not, you are wasting your time, I thank we can understand. TWTaylor

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by T W Taylor View Post
    [/COLOR]If this is the time of the end, We can understand, If not, you are wasting your time, I thank we can understand. TWTaylor
    [/I]
    I am at least certain of this. The ancients could not have understood - so any ancient reading of Chapter 11 certainly is invalid. The word is clear on this. Do I understand chapter 11? Not fully for sure - but I am open to hearing God if He does reveal it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •