When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sort of yes and no.
Paul went to make offerings in the temple when He was an apostle
I am not sure what Paul was planning here exactly.
It put the Jews into a terrible uproar.
Acts 21

Arrested in the Temple​

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the [g]expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

27 Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 (For they had [h]previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

The reason Paul did that can be explained by this passage...

1 Thessalonians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

 

[Scott Downey]

The reason Paul did that can be explained by this passage...

1 Thessalonians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Since Paul was going to make a temple offering, he did not consider doing that a sin.

Now to win a Hindu, would you make offerings in a Hindu temple? I for one would not. I knew a devout Hindu from work. She showed me her tall blue idols in her prayer room in her house. She was of the highest Hindu cast from India. We talked about Christ and she tried to evangelize me to her Hinduism. But she would not give up being a Hindu worshiper. She wanted me to accept that she would go to heaven too, believing in many paths to God, but I told her she would not.

Jesus to her was an avatar of God.

In Hinduism, an avatar refers to the incarnation of a deity in human or animal form to counteract evil in the world. The word "avatar" literally means "descent of God" and has been used in various religions to describe spiritual renewal through God manifesting in human form. In Hinduism, the god Vishnu is said to descend into physical form whenever the cosmic order is threatened, and these descents are known as "avatars".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

I agree, on the one hand it seems that it would be wrong to make a sacrifice or be zealous for the law yet there were many thousands that both believed and were zealous.

Luke 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

I think God allowed a period of time for the transition to the new covenant.

I completely disagree if you are suggesting that the new covenant was not yet in effect at that time, which I think is what you are suggesting. No, the transition came immediately when the veil of the temple was torn. Your view takes the significance of the veil being torn away. Preterism really makes me sick sometimes because in cases like this I believe it undermines what Jesus accomplished on the cross when He FULLY established the new covenant with His blood and made the old covenant obsolete.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Since Paul was going to make a temple offering, he did not consider doing that a sin.

Now to win a Hindu, would you make offerings in a Hindu temple? I for one would not.

No, of course I wouldn't, but that is not a valid comparison because when the Jews were making offerings in the temple they were making them to the one true God. They weren't aware that it wasn't required, but at least their intention was to obey the one true God. In contrast to that, you would not be doing that by making offerings in a Hindu temple. We shouldn't take what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 too literally as if we can literally do anything at all to win people to Christ. That is clearly not what he was saying.

I knew a devout Hindu from work. She showed me her tall blue idols in her prayer room in her house. She was of the highest Hindu cast from India. We talked about Christ and she tried to evangelize me to her Hinduism. But she would not give up being a Hindu worshiper. She wanted me to accept that she would go to heaven too, believing in many paths to God, but I told her she would not.

Jesus to her was an avatar of God.

In Hinduism, an avatar refers to the incarnation of a deity in human or animal form to counteract evil in the world. The word "avatar" literally means "descent of God" and has been used in various religions to describe spiritual renewal through God manifesting in human form. In Hinduism, the god Vishnu is said to descend into physical form whenever the cosmic order is threatened, and these descents are known as "avatars".

That's unfortunate. It's quite difficult to evangelize a Hindu. But, we have to try. I work with a Hindu as well and it's sad to see how deceived he is and how deceived Hindus are in general.

 

[grafted branch]

I completely disagree if you are suggesting that the new covenant was not yet in effect at that time, which I think is what you are suggesting. No, the transition came immediately when the veil of the temple was torn. Your view takes the significance of the veil being torn away. Preterism really makes me sick sometimes because in cases like this I believe it undermines what Jesus accomplished on the cross when He FULLY established the new covenant with His blood and made the old covenant obsolete.

I’m not full preterist, I do not think the old covenant was still valid after the cross.

I’ve been promoting the idea that the days were shortened which allowed someone to continue in the observance of the old covenant yet still have the ability to be saved. Those days ended when the end of that old covenant age ended, in 70AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’m not full preterist, I do not think the old covenant was still valid after the cross.

Some partial preterists claim that the old covenant was still valid until 70 AD.

I’ve been promoting the idea that the days were shortened which allowed someone to continue in the observance of the old covenant yet still have the ability to be saved. Those days ended when the end of that old covenant age ended, in 70AD.

You say that you don't think that the old covenant was still valid after the cross, but then you contradict that by saying that the old covenant age ended in 70 AD. No, it ended at the cross.

 

[Scott Downey]

I’m not full preterist, I do not think the old covenant was still valid after the cross.

I’ve been promoting the idea that the days were shortened which allowed someone to continue in the observance of the old covenant yet still have the ability to be saved. Those days ended when the end of that old covenant age ended, in 70AD.

Well, consider what Jesus said at the last supper to know when the OC ended.

Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper​

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, [c]blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.

28 For this is My blood of the [d]new covenant, which is shed for many for the [e]remission of sins.

29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

 

[grafted branch]

Some partial preterists claim that the old covenant was still valid until 70 AD.


You say that you don't think that the old covenant was still valid after the cross, but then you contradict that by saying that the old covenant age ended in 70 AD. No, it ended at the 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.

The old covenant was dead, it was decaying and ready to vanish but had not yet vanished when Hebrews was written. The old covenant didn’t vanish at the cross, that is a misconception. There were many thousands of Jews who both believed and were zealous for the law prior to it vanishing in 70AD.

What is your explanation for how a Jew could be both zealous for the law and believe at the same time?

 

[grafted branch]

Well, consider what Jesus said at the last supper to know when the OC ended.

Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper​

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, [c]blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.

28 For this is My blood of the [d]new covenant, which is shed for many for the [e]remission of sins.

29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Right, the new covenant came into full force at the cross and the old covenant was no longer valid.

Acts 15:28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

It seemed good the Holy Spirit that different burdens were placed on the Gentiles than the Jews. There was a difference between Jew and Gentiles that continued after the cross.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

The old covenant was dead, it was decaying and ready to vanish but had not yet vanished when Hebrews was written.

So, was it dead at the time that verse was written or not? You can't seem to make up your mind. You're not differentiating between what it means for it to be dead (obsolete) and what it means for it to vanish away. So, tell me the difference between it being dead and it vanishing away? Because the text is clear that it was already dead at the time it was written, but not yet vanished away. So, you need to explain the difference between it being dead and obsolete and it vanishing away without acting as if those things are the same.

My explanation for this is that the old covenant became obsolete and no longer in effect at the cross, but traces of it like the temple buildings still existed. So, in that sense, the old covenant did not vanish away until the temple buildings were destroyed. But, it was made obsolate and no longer in effect well before that when Christ died on the cross.

The old covenant didn’t vanish at the cross, that is a misconception.

I didn't say it did. You need to differentiate between the old covenant being dead and obsolete and it vanishing away. When something is dead and obsolete it is no longer in effect. According to Hebrews 8:13, the old covenant was dead and no longer in effect at the time it was written.

There were many thousands of Jews who both believed and were zealous for the law prior to it vanishing in 70AD.

So what? They were all wrong to think they needed to still be under the old covenant.

What is your explanation for how a Jew could be both zealous for the law and believe at the same time?

The same way that someone like you can believe in false doctrine like preterism and still believe at the same time. Does someone believing in false doctrine like dispensationalism prevent them from believing the gospel?

 

[Scott Downey]

Right, the new covenant came into full force at the cross and the old covenant was no longer valid.

Acts 15:28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

It seemed good the Holy Spirit that different burdens were placed on the Gentiles than the Jews. There was a difference between Jew and Gentiles that continued after the cross.

I don't think there was a difference, after Christ came many Jews rejected Him and when they died went to hell fire, regardless of how many animal sacrifices for sin they did.

They died in their sins
Jesus speaking to the Jews said

John 8
21 Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come.”

22 So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?”

23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”

And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.”

27 They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father.

28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift[m] up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. 29 And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.” 30 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.

 

[grafted branch]

My explanation for this is that the old covenant became obsolete and no longer in effect at the cross, but traces of it like the temple buildings still existed. So, in that sense, the old covenant did not vanish away until the temple buildings were destroyed. But, it was made obsolate and no longer in effect well before that when Christ died on the cross.

I’m in agreement with you in that the old covenant was dead after the cross.

The same way that someone like you can believe in false doctrine like preterism and still believe at the same time. Does someone believing in false doctrine like dispensationalism prevent them from believing the gospel?

Can someone today both recognize Jesus died for their sins and sacrifice animals on an altar in their church and be considered a saved person? That appears to be what was going on prior to the old covenant vanishing.

 

[grafted branch]

I don't think there was a difference, after Christ came many Jews rejected Him and when they died went to hell fire, regardless of how many animal sacrifices for sin they did.

They died in their sins
Jesus speaking to the Jews said

John 8
21 Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come.”

22 So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?”

23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”

And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.”

27 They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father.

28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift[m] up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. 29 And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.” 30 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.

So how are you interpreting Acts 15:28-29? Why did the difference between Jew and Gentiles seem good to the Holy Spirit?

 

[CTK]

For what it is worth, here is a cut out of the discussion in the commentary on Daniel for the AOD: It obviously takes a completely different approach on the definition of the "AOD" and speaks to the 3 verses in the Gospels that refer to Daniel....

Part 1 of 3

the "abomination that causes desolation"

Among the many interpretations offered, most focus on the physical destruction of the Temple—whether in 70 AD by the Romans, during the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes 200 years earlier, or in a theorized future third Temple that some expect to be destroyed during an end-time tribulation. While these perspectives attempt to connect historical events to Daniel’s prophecy, they miss the true meaning behind the “abomination that causes desolation.” This phrase is not about the physical destruction of a building, regardless of the time period, but about a far greater spiritual reality—the crucifixion of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Verse 27c explicitly points to the Messiah as the One who will cause desolation, not through an external military invasion, but through the very event that defined all of history—the cross. It is at the crucifixion that desolation truly occurs. Jesus' death is the "abomination that causes desolation." This is an event so profound, so unfathomable in its tragedy and spiritual weight, that nothing in human history can compare to it. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the very One who established the covenant with Israel—was rejected, betrayed, and crucified by His own people.

This event was not merely a moment of great sorrow, but the ultimate act of injustice, the greatest abomination ever committed against God. The Messiah, the Holy One of Israel, the only One who ever lived without sin, was brutally executed. No building, no earthly event, no military invasion could possibly match the gravity of this act. The desolation that followed was not the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD, but the spiritual desolation that resulted from Israel's rejection of their Messiah. They severed their own connection to God through this act, fulfilling what Daniel foresaw.

For centuries, many have interpreted the “abomination that causes desolation” as the destruction of a physical structure—the Temple in Jerusalem. But such an interpretation is far too narrow and misses the greater reality. The Temple, though sacred, was always a shadow of something greater—the presence of God Himself. The first Temple was already destroyed by Babylon in 587 BC, and the second Temple’s destruction in 70 AD, while historically significant, was not the abomination that causes desolation. That had already taken place at the cross. The true desolation was spiritual, not physical—the severing of Israel from their God, not the loss of a building.

The Messiah was always the center of this prophecy. His arrival, His ministry, and His death were the focal point of Daniel’s vision. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, many refuse to acknowledge this truth. They search for another abomination, another destruction, another event to pin this prophecy on, but the truth is staring them in the face.

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was the greatest injustice, the most horrific betrayal, and the ultimate act of abomination. It caused the deepest spiritual desolation Israel had ever known, for they rejected their own Redeemer. To limit this prophecy to the destruction of a building—especially one whose purpose had already been fulfilled at the cross—is to miss the entire point of Daniel’s message. This was not about bricks and mortar.

It was about God’s covenant, His people, and their rejection of Him. The Temple’s destruction was only a shadow of the far greater spiritual desolation that had already taken place when the people cried out: “Crucify Him! We have no king but Caesar!” (John 19:15)

Here are three verses in the New Testament that speak directly to Daniel 9:27c (should you accept it):

Matthew 24:15, 15Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand,)​

​

Mark 13:14, 14But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)​

​

Luke 21:20, 20But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.​

Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 both speak of the “abomination of desolation,” but there is a very noticeable difference between the two, while Luke does not mention this phrase. Rather, he speaks to the desolation of physical things, and the timing of the desolation that will come upon the Jews.

Matthew 24:15.…. “standing in the holy place.”​

​

Mark 13:14……… “standing where it ought not.”​

​

Luke 21:20………. “but when you see Jerusalem.”​

These three verses are meant to send their own unique message to a specific audience as well as to confirm the timing and identity of the abomination that causes desolation.

 

[Scott Downey]

So how are you interpreting Acts 15:28-29? Why did the difference between Jew and Gentiles seem good to the Holy Spirit?

Salvation is by faith in Christ for the Jew and the gentile, v9 God made no distinction between us and them...
Acts 15
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, [a]acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus [b]Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

 

[CTK]

Part 2 of 3


the "abomination that causes desolation"


In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as the Messianic King and High Priest, fulfilling the Jewish prophecies and establishing the long-awaited kingdom of God. Written primarily for a Jewish audience, Matthew carefully links Jesus to the Old Testament, emphasizing His royal lineage from David and His divine mission as the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17). Thus, when Jesus speaks of the "abomination that causes desolation" in Matthew 24:15, He is directly addressing the Jewish nation, warning of both the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the deeper spiritual rejection of their own Messiah.

"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." – Matthew 24:15-16

Matthew is the only Gospel that explicitly mentions the “holy place” in connection with the abomination of desolation. Given Matthew’s audience and Jesus’s role as King and Priest, this phrase takes on deep theological significance.

1. The Holy Place: The Temple and Its True Fulfillment​

To the Jewish audience, the "holy place" would naturally refer to the Temple, the center of worship, sacrifice, and the presence of God.​

​

However, throughout Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus Himself is presented as the true Temple, the dwelling place of God among His people ("Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" – John 2:19).​

​

If Jesus is the true Temple, then the ultimate desecration—the true abomination—would be His rejection and crucifixion, not merely the destruction of a physical building.​

2. The King Rejected in His Own Kingdom​

Matthew’s entire Gospel builds up to the moment when Israel, God’s chosen people, reject their rightful King.​

​

The Jewish leaders conspire against Jesus, mock His claim to kingship, and demand His crucifixion ("We have no king but Caesar!" – John 19:15).​

​

Just as they rejected God’s rule in 1 Samuel 8, demanding an earthly king, now they reject the true King of Israel—the ultimate abomination.​

3. The Priest Rejected in His Own Sanctuary​

In addition to being the King, Jesus is also the High Priest, the One who mediates between God and man.​

​

In Matthew 21:12-13, Jesus cleanses the Temple, declaring, "My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves."​

By rejecting Jesus, the Jewish leaders reject the true and final High Priest, leaving themselves spiritually desolate.

Thus, when Jesus refers to the abomination standing in the holy place, He is not merely predicting the destruction of the physical Temple in 70 AD. He is declaring that the Jewish nation’s rejection of their King and Priest is the true desolation—a separation from the presence of God that will last for 2000 years. This is why Jesus’s rejection by the Jews parallels the rejection of God in the Old Testament:

Matthew 23:37-38 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate."​

Jesus declares that the city and the Temple—once filled with God's presence—will now be empty, abandoned, and spiritually desolate.

Matthew 27:51 – The Temple Veil Torn "Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split."​

This event confirms that the physical Temple was no longer necessary because the true Temple, Jesus, had been rejected and crucified. Jesus warns in Matthew 24:16-22 that when the abomination is seen, those in Judea should flee to the mountains. This was physically fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans besieged Jerusalem, but its deeper fulfillment is spiritual:

The physical destruction of Jerusalem was a direct result of the spiritual rejection of the Messiah.​

​

The desolation was not just about a destroyed city—it was about a nation cut off from God until the time of restoration.​

​

The climax of the abomination that causes desolation is seen in the trial of Jesus. The chief priests and elders, the very ones who were to lead the people in righteousness, stood before Pilate and made the ultimate declaration of rejection:​

"His blood be on us and on our children!" – Matthew 27:25

With these words, the Jewish leaders sealed their own fate. They had not just rejected a prophet; they had rejected God Himself in the flesh. They rejected:

Jesus, as King, was rejected by His own people.​

​

Jesus, as Priest, was rejected in His own sanctuary.​

​

His crucifixion was the ultimate abomination—a betrayal of the covenant between God and His chosen people.​

​

The result? Desolation—for 2000 years.​

 

[CTK]

Part 3 of 3


the "abomination that causes desolation"


In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the Suffering Servant, the one who came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Unlike Matthew, which presents Jesus as the Messianic King and High Priest to a Jewish audience, Mark writes primarily for Gentile Christians. Because of this audience and focus, the abomination of desolation in Mark 13:14 is framed differently than in Matthew. The emphasis is not on a rejected King or Priest in the holy place, but rather on the Suffering Servant—the one despised, betrayed, and abandoned by the very people He came to save.

“So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” – Mark 13:14

Unlike Matthew, Mark omits the phrase “standing in the holy place.” Instead, he simply states “standing where it ought not.” This omission is significant:

1. The Role of a Servant: Not Expected in the Temple​

In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as the King and Priest, roles that naturally place Him in the holy place (the Temple).​

​

In Mark, Jesus is depicted as a servant—and a servant has no place in the holy sanctuary.​

​

The Temple is the place of rulers, priests, and kings—not of servants.​

​

The Suffering Servant does not belong in the Temple, just as Jesus, the Servant of God, did not belong on the cross.​

2. Where He "Ought Not" – The Ultimate Rejection​

The cross itself was the place where Jesus "ought not" to be.​

​

The Roman execution site was not a place for the Holy One of Israel—yet that is exactly where He was placed.​

​

The abomination of desolation in Mark is the moment when humanity placed the Servant of God where He did not belong—on the cross, bearing the sins of the world.​

3. The Gentile Audience and Roman Oppression​

Mark’s Gentile readers understood what it meant to be servants under an oppressive system.​

​

Just as Jesus, the ultimate Servant, suffered unjustly at the hands of religious and political authorities, so too were Gentile Christians suffering under Roman rule.​

​

The crucifixion of Jesus symbolized Rome’s greatest injustice—an innocent man, the Son of God, condemned and executed as a criminal.​

​

The abomination of desolation in Mark is not just the betrayal of Jesus by the Jews, but the brutality and injustice of Rome in condemning the only truly innocent Servant.​

Mark 15:16-20 – The Mocking of the Servant “Then the soldiers led Him away into the hall called Praetorium, and they called together the whole garrison. And they clothed Him with purple; and they twisted a crown of thorns, put it on His head, and began to salute Him, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they worshiped Him. And when they had mocked Him, they took the purple off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him out to crucify Him.”

This mockery of Jesus mirrors the mockery of servanthood:​

1. They dress Him in purple—a royal robe—mocking His kingship.​

​

2. They force a crown of thorns on His head—mocking His authority.​

​

3. They strike Him, spit on Him, and kneel before Him in mock worship.​

Ultimately, Jesus, the Suffering Servant, was abandoned by all—betrayed by the Jews, condemned by the Gentiles, and forsaken even by His own disciples. His crucifixion was not just a moment of physical suffering but a profound act of cosmic desolation, in which the world as a whole—Jew and Gentile alike—turned its back on its only Savior.

And before we leave Matthew and Mark, perhaps there is another element to consider. In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus explicitly mentions the phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet," yet this phrase is absent in Luke. This subtle difference offers additional insight into how each Gospel emphasizes different aspects of Jesus’s mission. In Matthew, the reference to Daniel likely aligns with Daniel 9:25c, which speaks of the Messiah as the Prince. This reinforces Jesus’s identity as the promised King who belongs in the Temple, bringing salvation and establishing His kingdom. In contrast, Mark's reference to Daniel may focus on Daniel 9:26a, which declares that the Messiah will be "cut off" but not for Himself. This aligns with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as the Suffering Servant, emphasizing His sacrificial death for the sins of humanity. A servant would not typically be found in the Temple, yet Jesus, in His suffering, fulfills the prophecy as the ultimate sacrifice.

The distinction between these verses highlights the dual nature of the Messiah’s mission—God sees Jesus as the Prince in the restorative verse of Daniel 9:25c, but in the destructive verse of Daniel 9:26a, He is viewed as the Suffering Servant, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Luke, however, does not include this direct reference to Daniel, perhaps because his Gospel extends beyond Jewish prophecy to focus on the universal impact of Jesus’s rejection. Instead of emphasizing the prophetic fulfillment of the Messiah as a King or Servant, Luke centers on the broader consequence of humanity rejecting the Son of Man—an act that leads to the greatest desolation, the spiritual separation of all people from God.

When Jesus spoke about the Abomination of Desolation, He wasn’t just warning a specific group of people about a historical event. His words carried a message that would echo throughout time, reaching far beyond first-century Jerusalem. Each Gospel presents this moment in a slightly different way, revealing a deeper meaning behind His warning.

In Matthew’s account, Jesus speaks to a Jewish audience, emphasizing His role as their rightful King and Messiah. He describes the Abomination of Desolation as something seen in the holy place, pointing to a rejection that would bring spiritual devastation to Israel. Mark, writing for a Gentile audience, describes it as something that isn’t where it ought to be, a phrase that takes on significance when we remember that Mark presents Jesus as the Suffering Servant. A servant does not belong in the holy place, just as the Messiah, in the eyes of those who rejected Him, did not belong on the throne.

But Luke’s Gospel takes a different approach. He does not mention the abomination standing in the temple at all. Instead, he gives a clearer and more direct warning: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is near." While Matthew and Mark focus on the temple and religious implications, Luke shifts the perspective outward to the city itself. His words are not just for Jews or Gentiles but for all of humanity.

This changes everything. If the Abomination of Desolation refers to the rejection and crucifixion of Christ—the moment when the world turned against its own Creator—then Luke is showing us the broader consequence of that rejection. When Jesus was put on the cross, it wasn’t just the temple that became spiritually empty. It wasn’t just the Jews who lost their Messiah. It was all of humanity rejecting the very One who came to bring them life. And in doing so, they set into motion a period of spiritual desolation that would last until the time of the Gentiles was fulfilled.

Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 A.D. was not just a political or military disaster. It was a symbol of what happens when the presence of God is removed. It was the earthly reflection of a spiritual reality—a world left desolate without its Savior. And this desolation didn’t just affect one nation or one generation. It represents every heart that rejects Christ, every life that remains distant from the One who came to redeem it.

Yet, in the midst of this warning, there is hope. Though Jesus was rejected, He did not reject us. Though He was crucified, He willingly gave Himself up to save us from the true desolation of separation from God. The time of the Gentiles—the period where the world has been spiritually distant—will not last forever. One day, it will come to an end. And when it does, Jesus will return—not as the rejected King, not as the suffering Servant, but as the victorious Son of Man, restoring everything that was lost.

The real question is, will we be ready? Because when that day comes, desolation will be no more. Instead, those who receive Him will step into a kingdom of life, peace, and the presence of God forever. Also, please note the following:

Only in Luke do we find Jesus forgiving His executioners ("Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." – Luke 23:34), reinforcing that His death impacts all humanity, not just Israel.

Only in Luke do we see Jesus telling the thief on the cross, "Today, you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43), highlighting that His death restores what was lost by Adam—the separation from God that began in the Garden of Eden.

 

[grafted branch]

Salvation is by faith in Christ for the Jew and the gentile, v9 God made no distinction between us and them...
Acts 15
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, [a]acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus [b]Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

Right, as far as salvation goes there is no difference, everyone has to be saved through the blood of the Lamb. However it seemed good to the Holy Spirit that there was a different burden put on the Gentiles than the Jews.

That burden wasn’t in regard to salvation but was rather in regard to obedience to the covenants. The Jews were free to stop observing the old covenant burdens yet it seemed good to allow those burdens to continue.

 

[Wick Stick]

Sort of yes and no.
Paul went to make offerings in the temple when He was an apostle
I am not sure what Paul was planning here exactly.
It put the Jews into a terrible uproar.
Acts 21

Arrested in the Temple​

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the [g]expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

27 Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 (For they had [h]previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

Paul performed a Nazirite vow. During the vow one's hair is not cut, and at the end of the vow the hair is shaved and burned as an offering.

This is not a burnt offering or sin offering. I do not believe there is an animal sacrifice.

As for what Paul was planning, Acts tell us that Paul was demonstrating to the Jerusalem church that He was still a law-abiding Jew, contrary to the reports they received.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’m in agreement with you in that the old covenant was dead after the cross.

The why do you say the old covenant age ended in 70 AD instead of at the cross?