Timing of the abomination of desolation

[ewq1938]

The definition of Preterism is pretty clear--it is a system of eschatological interpretation that views nearly all biblical prophecy as complete in the time of ancient Rome.

Exactly as you believe...

I've been influenced, to some degree, by both Reformed Theology and Preterist Eschatology. But I'm really a Futurist who has adopted bits and pieces of several positions. After all, would any of them have survived if there wasn't any truth in them?

But you're right--my position is not the typical Futurist position. I allow for traditional historical interpretation of Daniel 9, as it pertains to the Olivet Discourse. It is all focused on the literal destruction of the city and the sanctuary in the generation of Messiah.

And I take an almost Preterist position that Christ posed his Coming as something immediate and connected to the 70 AD event. It's just that I would call it the OT concept of the "Lord's Coming," as a judgment event that was historical and not eschatological.

However, I remain a Futurist in believing in the Coming of the Son of Man at the end of the age, just as Dan 7 depicts it. The purpose, then, of Jesus here is to focus on more immediate needs to repent and to preach the Gospel, rather than try to second guess future prophecies and the timing of the end of the world.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Exactly as you believe...

You're proving what I said, that I share in common with Preterists belief that the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD. I also share that in common with the Church Fathers. What does that make me?

It makes me just like the Church Fathers, but unlike the Preterists, whose theology I do not subscribe to! If you don't understand the points I've made, please re-read.

You have enough there to understand that Preterism fixes prophecy in the past. I do not. I share with futurists the belief that prophetic fulfillment is still on-going.

Belief that the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD does *not* make one a Preterist, even if all Preterists believe that. It is belief that *most all biblical prophecy* has been fulfilled in the past that defines Preterism. I do *not* believe that!

 

[ewq1938]

You're proving what I said, that I share in common with Preterists belief that the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD. I also share that in common with the Church Fathers. What does that make me?

It makes me just like the Church Fathers, but unlike the Preterists, whose theology I do not subscribe to! If you don't understand the points I've made, please re-read.

You have enough there to understand that Preterism fixes prophecy in the past. I do not. I share with futurists the belief that prophetic fulfillment is still on-going.

Belief that the AoD was fulfilled in 70 AD does *not* make one a Preterist, even if all Preterists believe that. It is belief that *most all biblical prophecy* has been fulfilled in the past that defines Preterism. I do *not* believe that!

I think your posts reveal you do believe most prophecy is fulfilled. Do I have to post the quotes from you again? You are influenced a lot by Partial Preterism. We know that already! You have one foot in Partial Preterism and one small foot in futurism.

 

[Timtofly]

And both were spoken in the same place in the Discourse. In place of "AoD" Luke mentioned armies surrounding Jerusalem.

No, the armies are not replacing the AoD. The armies were only relevant in Luke. None of the Gospels were supposed to contain the whole OD. They contain what people remembered, and what God needed us to know.

 

[Timtofly]

Satan is not a man. So he cannot be the "man of sin."

No, Satan is an angel. Angels can appear as men. Satan can assume the identity of this "man of sin".

 

[Keraz]

That is very poor logic, brother. There is no evidence that the "fig tree" referred to Judah in this particular context.

The fig tree does refer to Judah in every other context. Matthew 21:18-19, Jeremiah 24:5-7

You deny that Jesus was speaking to his generation, and then admit he was telling his Disciples to "get out of town." That's a contradiction

There are 2 separate prophesies in the OD. One for His disciples and the Christians of that time and the other for the Christians at the end of the era. It isn't hard to figure out; they cannot be all for the 1st Century.

That was the point, that Jesus was acting as a prophet, declaring that judgment had come to Israel, just as Jeremiah and the other Prophets foretold the arrival of God's judgment as sins reached their peak.

So then; how does His prophecy of budding and breaking into leaf, fit Judgment mass slaughter and slavery?

Your intransigence on the issue of which generation Jesus was referring to, Matthew 24:32-35, is sad to see.
Jesus said:...then you will know the end is near.... No end yet, for the Jews or for us.

 

[Keraz]

No, Satan is an angel. Angels can appear as men. Satan can assume the identity of this "man of sin".

This is right, as Revelation 13:3-4 describes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think your posts reveal you do believe most prophecy is fulfilled. Do I have to post the quotes from you again? You are influenced a lot by Partial Preterism. We know that already! You have one foot in Partial Preterism and one small foot in futurism.

Post away. It doesn't change the definition of Preterism, which is that all of the Olivet Discourse and most all of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the Early Church. I *don't believe that!* How often must I point this out to you?

Do you really want to add up all the prophecies that have already been fulfilled? Most all Christians believe that the vast number of prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled! Most all of the prophecies in the Bible have indeed been fulfilled. Do you need me to point that out to you?

Or, do you think nearly all of the prophecies in the Bible are yet to be fulfilled in the future? Do you see where I'm going with this?

The point is, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge, is that Preterism is a system of interpretation that fixes nearly *all* prophecies in the past. I don't do that. *Most* prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled, if you want to count them up. But certainly it is *not true* that "most all" prophecies were fulfilled in the past.

In other words, there is a big difference between "the majority" and "nearly all." It's like the difference between saying, "homeless people are mentally ill" and "a large number of homeless people are mentally ill." Even if there are slightly more mentally ill homeless people than non-mentally ill homeless people, it does not mean that "most all" homeless people are mentally ill!

Preterism as a system designates prophecy as something typically completed in the first centuries of the Church. That is how they define prophecy, as something for the most part already fulfilled, with very few exceptions. I've already explained to you how I *do not believe that!*

It is a very different thing to count up all the prophecies of the Bible and say, "there are more fulfilled prophecies that future prophecies to be fulfilled." There still may be a good number of prophecies yet to be fulfilled, and still say, "the majority of biblical prophecies have already been fulfilled."

 

[covenantee]

No, the armies are not replacing the AoD. The armies were only relevant in Luke. None of the Gospels were supposed to contain the whole OD. They contain what people remembered, and what God needed us to know.

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.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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.

I don't know whether Luke was present at the Olivet Discourse, but I certainly agree with the sentiment in this post! 3 versions by the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. All 3 versions were of the exact same Discourse. All 3 versions stated the same truths--I've compared them meticulously. They accurately present the same account, despite using different descriptions, omitting some words, etc. The versions corroborate what is said and meant in Jesus' Discourse.

In the *very same place* in the Discourse that Matthew and Mark speak of the Aod, Luke speaks of armies surrounding Jerusalem. Since the Discourse began with a declaration that the Jewish temple would fall, and Luke explains that the AoD involves armies surrounding Jerusalem, it seems clear to me that all 3 versions are focusing in on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Some elements in Futurism wish to make this time period about the last generation. This is the opposite of what Jesus said. He said that his own generation would see "all these things." And since the fall of Jerusalem took place in 70 AD, Jesus had to be speaking of his own generation!

The Church Fathers viewed it this way, as have many Christian scholars throughout history. Preterist Theology tends to confuse this and prejudice Christians against this interpretation. But it is not a view owned by the Preterists. It is an historical interpretation of a prophecy already fulfilled.

Jesus indicated not just that the temple would be destroyed in his generation, but he also indicated that this would be the start of a long tribulation for the Jewish People--the worst in their history. So the Preterist notion that this is *only* about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD is incorrect. Rather, it is about the entire NT punishment of the Jewish People, while only a remnant of them convert to Christianity.

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.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

But your last statement above is indeed agreeing with Preterism, because they treat the destruction of the building upon the temple mount that Jesus pointed to in His Olivet discourse as being fulfilled in 70 A.D. If that was the time He was actually pointing to, His disciples would NOT have asked Him to tell them the sign of His coming and the end of the world.

I understand what you are saying, and that is why I referred to Preterism in my post. But look at Matthew 24 and Mark 13 and Luke 21 again. You will see that Jesus was referring to not one stone shall be upon another. And the disciples ALSO asked about the end of the age - the end of the world. It is not ALL about the end of the world. He did refer to 70 AD as well. Go back to the discussion with the disciples and see they asked two questions, not just one.

 

[covenantee]

I don't know whether Luke was present at the Olivet Discourse, but I certainly agree with the sentiment in this post! 3 versions by the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. All 3 versions were of the exact same Discourse. All 3 versions stated the same truths--I've compared them meticulously. They accurately present the same account, despite using different descriptions, omitting some words, etc. The versions corroborate what is said and meant in Jesus' Discourse.

In the *very same place* in the Discourse that Matthew and Mark speak of the Aod, Luke speaks of armies surrounding Jerusalem. Since the Discourse began with a declaration that the Jewish temple would fall, and Luke explains that the AoD involves armies surrounding Jerusalem, it seems clear to me that all 3 versions are focusing in on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Some elements in Futurism wish to make this time period about the last generation. This is the opposite of what Jesus said. He said that his own generation would see "all these things." And since the fall of Jerusalem took place in 70 AD, Jesus had to be speaking of his own generation!

The Church Fathers viewed it this way, as have many Christian scholars throughout history. Preterist Theology tends to confuse this and prejudice Christians against this interpretation. But it is not a view owned by the Preterists. It is an historical interpretation of a prophecy already fulfilled.

Jesus indicated not just that the temple would be destroyed in his generation, but he also indicated that this would be the start of a long tribulation for the Jewish People--the worst in their history. So the Preterist notion that this is *only* about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD is incorrect. Rather, it is about the entire NT punishment of the Jewish People, while only a remnant of them convert to Christianity.

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.

I fully concur.

 

[Marty fox]

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.

Actually none of the gospel writers who recorded the Olivit Discourse were present when Jesus gave it but you are right that the Holy Spirit did inspire them of what to write.

Mark 13:3-4
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?”

 

[Randy Kluth]

Weak argument still, because NO "abomination of desolation" event happened in 70 A.D. Jerusalem!

The Romans who tried... to get possession of the Jerusalem temple FAILED, because the temple burned down before they could seize it (per the Jewish historian Josephus who lived in 100 A.D.). And a STANDING TEMPLE is required... to fulfill the "abomination of desolation" prophecy!!!

Matt 24:15-16
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
KJV

This is where I believe you go wrong, Davy. You say that no AoD happened in 70 AD Jerusalem because you define the AoD based on a false correlation with the AoD of Antiochus 4. There has been a number of different proposals as to what the term "AoD" actually means. Some believe that because Antiochus set up an idol in the temple, and made pagan sacrifices there, the AoD had to be something idolatrous placed in the temple itself.

But the AoD is not so defined, though it can be theorized as such. Nothing indicates that this is the definition of an "AoD." What we know is that "abomination" is something sacrilegious or idolatrous, and that "desolation" means destruction. Some idolatrous, sacrilegious things that happened in the time of Antiochus was that pagan troops came to challenge orthodox worship at the temple. Some desolating things that happened with Antiochus was that he murdered many thousands of Jews who practiced orthodox worship.

So the AoD does not have to denote a specific placement of an idol in the temple, nor offering sacrilegious sacrifices. What we have then is a perfect correlation with the AoD of 66-70 AD, where pagan troops invaded the space surrounding Jerusalem and the temple with the intent of destroying the Jewish People as well as their temple worship. They did this without any necessity of erecting idols in the temple or offering sacrilegious sacrifices there.

Yes, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is defined as an AoD in Dan 9.26-27. That is what we are explicitly given--not the necessity of identifying with every act of Antiochus 4, who also was an "AoD!"

 

[covenantee]

Actually none of the gospel writers who recorded the Olivit Discourse were present when Jesus gave it but you are right that the Holy Spirit did inspire them of what to write.

Mark 13:3-4
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?”

I wouldn't disagree, although the Matthew and Mark accounts in referring to "His disciples" could imply that they were all present and heard Jesus' discourse, in response to the questions from Peter, James, John and Andrew.

But thanks for the insight.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I understand what you are saying, and that is why I referred to Preterism in my post. But look at Matthew 24 and Mark 13 and Luke 21 again. You will see that Jesus was referring to not one stone shall be upon another. And the disciples ALSO asked about the end of the age - the end of the world. It is not ALL about the end of the world. He did refer to 70 AD as well. Go back to the discussion with the disciples and see they asked two questions, not just one.

Yes, two different questions, related but different. When will the fall of Jerusalem take place? When will the end of the age take place?

Both are related because of the expectation of Jesus' Disciples that Jesus would usher in the Kingdom of God. How could he speak of the fall of Jerusalem when he was supposed to be bringing in the new Kingdom?

So naturally, they wanted to know when this age of Jewish Punishment, spoken of by Jesus, would come to an end? In other words, when is the end of the age of Jewish Punishment?

But Jesus did not focus on prognostications about the future, as so many prophecy enthusiasts do. Nothing wrong with speculating, but Jesus' interest primarily was in our living a godly life today, and so be prepared always for the coming Kingdom.

Of more immediate concern was the state of Israel, and Jesus wanted his Disciples to not be caught up in their sins, which was soon to bring upon the nation a horrible and long-lasting judgment. That was his immediate concern, to notify them that Jewish worship was soon to come to an end, and that the nation itself would no longer provide shelter and protection.

It was an encouragement to flee, in the understanding that this judgment was not against Christians. It was an encouragement that this was part of God's plan to extend the Gospel from Jerusalem to other parts of the world.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I wouldn't disagree, although the Matthew and Mark accounts in referring to "His disciples" could imply that they were all present and heard Jesus' discourse, in response to the questions from Peter, James, John and Andrew.

But thanks for the insight.

I agree. Marty is right that just a few asked questions. But it is clear that "the Disciples" refers to them all, and not just to the ones asking questions. When Jesus warned them about the coming AoD, and about persecutions from both Jews and pagans, he was not just warning the few who asked him questions. It applied to them all. When he said "you" would experience this I have to assume he was addressing them directly, and not just speaking to a few who would then later transfer this information to the rest of the Disciples. I believe all of the Disciples were there, personally. But we can each decide for ourselves.

 

[Marty fox]

I wouldn't disagree, although the Matthew and Mark accounts in referring to "His disciples" could imply that they were all present and heard Jesus' discourse, in response to the questions from Peter, James, John and Andrew.

But thanks for the insight.

Remember also that Luke and Mark were not of the 12. Its funny because John who was there didn't record an Olivit Discourse in his gospels. I believe that revelation was his Olivit Discourse

 

[covenantee]

Remember also that Luke and Mark were not of the 12.

True.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Remember also that Luke and Mark were not of the 12. Its funny because John who was there didn't record an Olivit Discourse in his gospels. I believe that revelation was his Olivit Discourse

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.