The Abomination of Desolation

[Jipsah]

I believe it's a statue that the Antichrist sets up in the Temple as an act of defiance.

No temple. And no reason to believe that there will ever be one, ever again.

As Christ said in almost all of the Gospels, it's the final straw that unleashes God's judgment.

Actually He said no such thing.

 

[Jipsah]

I don’t understand your reasoning in saying that if Luther was wrong about the world ending in his lifetime

Because it didn't?

then he was wrong about the Papacy being the end-times Antichrist.

If he was wrong about when the "End Times" were, he could also be wrong about who "The Antichrist" is/was.

 

[Jipsah]

You say the Christians manage to flee the city of Jerusalem - in that case, the AOD would have had to have been set up in the temple prior to their flight. It was not. So either Mt 24 is false prophecy, or it is referring to events yet future.

 

[Jipsah]

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:1-3)

I don’t agree that Matthew doesn't record the fall of Jerusalem because the disciples specifically asked Christ when the temple was going to be destroyed after they learned from Him that it was going to be destroyed. And the other question they asked Him was when the end of the world will happen. Therefore it follows that in the subsequent discourse both of these were treated together. However there appears to be a certain deficiency in the text in that Matthew didn’t adequately distinguish between both events when he related in his gospel the words of Christ. No doubt Christ discoursed at length about the events which were to unfold and clearly distinguished between the destruction of the temple and the end of the world, but unfortunately this wasn’t reflected in Matthew's summary and he ran together both events as if they were one occurrence.

Thank you!

 

[Edward65]

Because it didn't?

If he was wrong about when the "End Times" were, he could also be wrong about who "The Antichrist" is/was.

It doesn’t follow that because Luther expected the world to come to an end sometime sooner than it obviously will do that he was wrong about the Papacy being the Antichrist. Also he seems to have believed different things at different points in his life as events unfolded thinking sometimes it would end soon, and at other times maybe not. For instance he’s recorded in 1528 saying: "Things are going toward their end. I hope the last day will not be long delayed, not over a hundred years." The point is that Luther’s beliefs about the end were only expectations about when the world would end, they weren’t cast iron predictions as one has with Jehovah Witness false prophecies of the end happening on a particular date. So the fact that Luther didn’t expect the world to last as long as it has, has no bearing on the identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist. This latter is dependent on correctly interpreting Scripture and understanding what exactly it is referring to when it discusses the son of perdition and the abomination of desolation which is completely separate from any expectation of when the world is going to end.

Incidentally on the subject of Papal primacy I’ve just been reading some of Phillip Schaffs “History of the Christian Church” about Gregory the Great (who Roman Catholics claim was one of their popes) where he rejects the title "universal priest", so obviously he didn’t accept he was a pope as the Catholics claim he was. Here’s an excerpt from Vol IV, chapter IV, section 51:

The activity, of Gregory tended powerfully to establish the authority of the papal chair. He combined a triple dignity, episcopal, metropolitan, and patriarchal. He was bishop of the city of Rome, metropolitan over the seven suffragan (afterwards called cardinal) bishops of the Roman territory, and patriarch of Italy, in fact of the whole West, or of all the Latin churches. This claim was scarcely disputed except as to the degree of his power in particular cases. A certain primacy of honor among all the patriarchs was also conceded, even by the East. But a universal episcopate, including an authority of jurisdiction over the Eastern or Greek church, was not acknowledged, and, what is more remarkable, was not even claimed by him, but emphatically declined and denounced. He stood between the patriarchal and the strictly papal system. He regarded the four patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, to whom he announced his election with a customary confession of his faith, as co-ordinate leaders of the church under Christ, the supreme head, corresponding as it were to the four oecumenical councils and the four gospels, as their common foundation, yet after all with a firm belief in a papal primacy. His correspondence with the East on this subject is exceedingly important. The controversy began in 595, and lasted several years, but was not settled.

John IV., the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, repeatedly used in his letters the title "oecumenical" or "universal bishop." This was an honorary, title, which had been given to patriarchs by the emperors Leo and Justinian, and confirmed to John and his successors by a Constantinopolitan synod in 588. It had also been used in the Council of Chalcedon of pope Leo I.216 But Gregory I. was provoked and irritated beyond measure by the assumption of his Eastern rival, and strained every nerve to procure a revocation of that title. He characterized it as a foolish, proud, profane, wicked, pestiferous, blasphemous, and diabolical usurpation, and compared him who used it to Lucifer. He wrote first to Sabinianus, his apocrisiarius or ambassador in Constantinople, then repeatedly to the patriarch, to the emperor Mauricius, and even to the empress; for with all his monkish contempt for woman, he availed himself on every occasion of the female influence in high quarters. He threatened to break off communion with the patriarch. He called upon the emperor to punish such presumption, and reminded him of the contamination of the see of Constantinople by such arch-heretics as Nestorius.217

Failing in his efforts to change the mind of his rival in New Rome, he addressed himself to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and played upon their jealousy; but they regarded the title simply as a form of honor, and one of them addressed him as oecumenical pope, a compliment which Gregory could not consistently accept.218

After the death of John the Faster in 596 Gregory instructed his ambassador at Constantinople to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of intercommunion, the renunciation of the wicked title, and in a letter to Maurice he went so far as to declare, that "whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, was the forerunner of Antichrist."

Luther held that the Papacy began with Gregory's successor Boniface III who did accept the title of universal priest.

 

[Achilles6129]

I figure He wants to save you and me too.

-CryptoLutheran

I see. You do realize God could've had you and I be born before 1000 AD and saved us then, right? So God could have had all of the elect born before 1000 AD and everyone saved before then and then returned circa 1000 AD. He did not.

The end is not predicated upon any human action or lack thereof. God himself can do it whenever he pleases, regardless of technology or year or whatever. We must face the simple fact that he has chosen not to, as of yet.

 

[Achilles6129]

I'm sorry? How was what I was saying so wrong?

 

[shturt678]

I'm sorry? How was what I was saying so wrong?

The last one that doesn't resist, ie, human action, God's drawing, then the end.

Just ol' old Jack that doesn't want to be the first one, eg, Matt.20:16

 

[Edward65]

Now there is a serious question for you to answer: Why, after directly addressing the end in the preceding verse, would Christ suddenly skip back nearly 2000 years to the AD 70 destruction of the city of Jerusalem? The passage in v. 15 seems to be a direct warning about the events of v. 14. The "so when" seems to be a direct continuation - this is strong evidence Christ is talking about the end.

I accept if you read Matthew 24 as a chronological sequence of events then you will conclude that Christ is talking exclusively of the end of the world, but I don’t accept that Matthew isn’t talking also of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, because he quotes the disciples asking Jesus not only when the end of the world will happen but also when the temple will be destroyed. So it follows that when Matthew gives the reply of Jesus he (Matthew) is including in his account what Christ said about the destruction of the temple as well as the end of the world. And since we know that the temple was destroyed in AD 70, it follows that when Matthew quotes Jesus saying that those in Judea should flee, that He’s talking of the impending destruction of the temple in AD 70.

With respect to the level of suffering being greater when Jerusalem fell than at any other time in history (which on rereading I accept the text means), I can only conclude that it’s not a question of the number of people who were involved (which according to Josephus was 1,100,000 killed in horrific circumstances), but was the degree of individual suffering experienced. So although for instance more people were killed in the Second World War than in the fall of Jerusalem, the level of individual suffering experienced (I believe after reading some of Josephus’s account) was worse for the Jews of Jerusalem than for those who fell in the Second World War.

 

[shturt678]

Matt.24:15 From the events which constitute "the sign" of the end of the world Jesus turns to directions and warnings that pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem, ie, good job, not that I'm anybody.

Just ol' old small fry Jack

 

[Grandiose]

I see. You do realize God could've had you and I be born before 1000 AD and saved us then, right? So God could have had all of the elect born before 1000 AD and everyone saved before then and then returned circa 1000 AD. He did not.

The end is not predicated upon any human action or lack thereof. God himself can do it whenever he pleases, regardless of technology or year or whatever. We must face the simple fact that he has chosen not to, as of yet.

Scripture says the reason God holds back is so we all get a fair shot. Basically, those who have chosen to not follow God will not be able to say they did not have enough time, or were born in the wrong century etc. While those who will come to him have time allotted to them as they need.

If 'the great multitude' in heaven were all on the planet earth at the same time they may not fit. So, God spread them out along the timeline, putting each one where he has decided they should be born and live. Paul states each of us were purposely born in the exact time and place as God has willed. All part of the plan.

For me it's more a matter of God not wanting any to perish and giving every last one of enough time as he sees it to repent. Kind of like a school bus waiting that extra few minutes at the stop for Timmy running down the road. Sure, it could have left but then Timmy wouldn't have made it to school.

 

[Achilles6129]

I accept if you read Matthew 24 as a chronological sequence of events then you will conclude that Christ is talking exclusively of the end of the world, but I don’t accept that Matthew isn’t talking also of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, because he quotes the disciples asking Jesus not only when the end of the world will happen but also when the temple will be destroyed. So it follows that when Matthew gives the reply of Jesus he (Matthew) is including in his account what Christ said about the destruction of the temple as well as the end of the world. And since we know that the temple was destroyed in AD 70, it follows that when Matthew quotes Jesus saying that those in Judea should flee, that He’s talking of the impending destruction of the temple in AD 70.

With respect to the level of suffering being greater when Jerusalem fell than at any other time in history (which on rereading I accept the text means), I can only conclude that it’s not a question of the number of people who were involved (which according to Josephus was 1,100,000 killed in horrific circumstances), but was the degree of individual suffering experienced. So although for instance more people were killed in the Second World War than in the fall of Jerusalem, the level of individual suffering experienced (I believe after reading some of Josephus’s account) was worse for the Jews of Jerusalem than for those who fell in the Second World War.

So you believe that the level of individual suffering during AD 70 was greater than the bubonic plague or even the extermination camps of WWII. Very well. But Christ also says that unless those days had been shortened, there should no flesh be saved - but for the sake of the elect, those days have been shortened.

Don't you think that makes the most sense if it's talking about the end of the age, rather than the destruction of the city...particularly since the elect have already supposedly fled the city after the abomination of desolation was placed there?

 

[Rev Randy]

So you believe that the level of individual suffering during AD 70 was greater than the bubonic plague or even the extermination camps of WWII. Very well. But Christ also says that unless those days had been shortened, there should no flesh be saved - but for the sake of the elect, those days have been shortened.

Don't you think that makes the most sense if it's talking about the end of the age, rather than the destruction of the city...particularly since the elect have already supposedly fled the city after the abomination of desolation was placed there?

Level? What level of suffering are you supposing they endured in 70AD?

 

[Achilles6129]

Level? What level of suffering are you supposing they endured in 70AD?

I'm not quite sure. Do you think it was greater than the bubonic plague which supposedly wiped out half of Europe or the extermination camps run by the Nazis that killed millions?

I would assume Christ's remarks are related to global suffering. That's why I thought it applied to the end of the age - the planet will never have experienced that level of suffering (globally) ever before.

 

[Edward65]

So you believe that the level of individual suffering during AD 70 was greater than the bubonic plague or even the extermination camps of WWII. Very well. But Christ also says that unless those days had been shortened, there should no flesh be saved - but for the sake of the elect, those days have been shortened.

Don't you think that makes the most sense if it's talking about the end of the age, rather than the destruction of the city...particularly since the elect have already supposedly fled the city after the abomination of desolation was placed there?

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered them “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray....

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
(Matthew 24, ESV)


Because the disciples asked Christ about two events - the destruction of the temple and the end of the world, but Matthew doesn't distinguish between these events in his summary of what Christ said in reply, it's necessary to try and separate out what applies to one and what applies to the other, since the temple was destroyed almost 2000 years ago. Also as Christ talks of the abomination of desolation as well, that's a third element to take into account.

On further reflection I suggest the above interpretation where red refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and green refers to the Antichrist or abomination of desolation. Since I believe that the Papacy is the Antichrist I interpret Christ's warnings of false Christs as referring to the popes who are in effect claiming to be Christs in that they say that everyone should obey them if they want to be saved.

Also if one doesn't interpret Christ's comment about the severity of the tribulation as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem but to later events then that would avoid the problem of having to believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was the worst event in history.

 

[x141]

I tried doing some research on the term and I'm still a little unsure. It seems that it has something to do with an idol of some sorts?

I could be mistaken, but from what I gather this will be brought about by the anti christ, and we are to avoid it all all costs.

Anyone have better insight on this?

More important is where this is set up at as it relates to us as being this temple, it equates itself with the image that provokes God to jealousy, who does not share his glory with another, but this has to do with our perception of truth as it relates to us and that which stands between the temple and the altar and ties in with the feasts, specifically with Pentecost (as being the Jews of God's feast, or feasts).

 

[shturt678]

Level? What level of suffering are you supposing they endured in 70AD?

I think it has to do more with the 'level' of blood then, ie, The abomination of desolation occurred in the Temple prior to the siege under Titus of course. It took place when the Zealots, who held the Temple under arms, admtted the good ol' Idumeans and as a result the Temple was deluged with the level of blood of only 8,000 victims.

But I think the main point is these men trampled upon all the laws of men and loled at the laws of God; and for the oracles of the prophets, they loled them as the tricks of jugglers - Josephus, Wars.

Sorry, just ol' old Jack talking out loud again.

 

[Edward65]

I think it has to do more with the 'level' of blood then, ie, The abomination of desolation occurred in the Temple prior to the siege under Titus of course. It took place when the Zealots, who held the Temple under arms, admtted the good ol' Idumeans and as a result the Temple was deluged with the level of blood of only 8,000 victims.

But I think the main point is these men trampled upon all the laws of men and loled at the laws of God; and for the oracles of the prophets, they loled them as the tricks of jugglers - Josephus, Wars.

Sorry, just ol' old Jack talking out loud again.

When you compare Luke’s account of the fall of Jerusalem with Matthew’s account, there’s one glaring difference which is that Luke doesn’t say when you see the desolating abomination to flee to the mountains but rather when you see that Jerusalem is surrounded by armies to flee to the mountains. If the desolating abomination was to occur before the flight from Jerusalem then surely Luke would have mentioned it as well, which just confirms to me that Matthew’s chronology of events isn’t to be taken literally.

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
(Luke 21:20-24)

 

[Rev Randy]

When you compare Luke’s account of the fall of Jerusalem with Matthew’s account, there’s one glaring difference which is that Luke doesn’t say when you see the desolating abomination to flee to the mountains but rather when you see that Jerusalem is surrounded by armies to flee to the mountains. If the desolating abomination was to occur before the flight from Jerusalem then surely Luke would have mentioned it as well, which just confirms to me that Matthew’s chronology of events isn’t to be taken literally.

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
(Luke 21:20-24)

Not to mention that when one takes it even a tad literal, it tosses the stupidity of it being in France right out the window.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

When you compare Luke’s account of the fall of Jerusalem with Matthew’s account, there’s one glaring difference which is that Luke doesn’t say when you see the desolating abomination to flee to the mountains but rather when you see that Jerusalem is surrounded by armies to flee to the mountains. If the desolating abomination was to occur before the flight from Jerusalem then surely Luke would have mentioned it as well, which just confirms to me that Matthew’s chronology of events isn’t to be taken literally.

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
(Luke 21:20-24)

Could it not be that indeed both accounts are connected. That the general idea of what the abomination of desolation is, is incorrect and that Luke and Matthew needs to be put together to understand it? Could it not be that the armies that surround Jerusalem have something to do with the abomination of desolation? Or is it that this can't be the answer since we also know what it is.