AOD in the holy place

[DavidPT]

Matthew 24:15 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:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened

Doing an exact phrase search in the KJV for 'holy place' yields the following results pertaining to the NT. Way too many to list pertaining to the OT. So, only going to list the ones pertaining to the NT.

Matthew 24:15 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: )

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Obviously referring to the 2nd temple per this context.

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Obviously referring to the 2nd temple per this context.


Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Involving a temple, yet, not a literal man made one though, since Jesus obviously didn't do any of that in the 2nd temple that was still standing at the time.

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Referring to literal temples in general, not the 2nd temple in particular, though the 2nd temple obviously involved those things as well. Except high priests also did this before there was even this 2nd temple.

If nothing else, in the NT, Hebrews 9:12 proves that the holy place is not always involving a man made temple.

What happens if we factor the following in?

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Should we assume the temple of God meant here, it is a man made temple, or should we assume it is meaning a temple not made with hands? If we assume that it's the latter, could what is recorded in verse 4 be describing the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place, standing where it ought not? If no, one then has just made a contradiction if they assume the temple of God is meaning a temple not made with hands, then insist it would not be abominable for one who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God--that this is suppose to naturally occur like this, thus no abomination involved whatsoever.

IOW, the logic would be, an abomination involving the holy place can only be meaning in an obsolete temple that is no longer the holy place once Christ died and rose(a contradiction in even this kind of reasoning), but can never be involving a temple not made with hands? Once again, as if it's a common thing, thus expected, that what is recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 naturally occurs in the temple not made with hands, nothing abominable about that whatsoever. Yet, if one agrees it's an abominable act, yet disagrees that Matthew 24:15 is involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4, what then? It's far more reasonable to agree that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving an abominable act, but that the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is not meaning the temple not made with hands, it is meaning the temple made with hands, that it is still the holy place up until it is literally destroyed?

An abomination in an obsolete temple vs an abomination in a temple that is not obsolete whatsoever, which makes better sense? Apparently, the former, if many of these interpreters around here and elsewhere are interpreting Matthew 24:15 correctly, that it is involving the 2nd temple until it is literally destroyed. Imagine that, once it is destroyed though, which did happen in 70 AD, now all of a sudden like, the holy place can finally mean the temple not made with hands. Wonder why it couldn't mean that at the time of Christ's death and resurrection but can only mean that after the 2nd temple is destroyed? After all, the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, according to many interpreters who are either Preterists or agree with Preterists.

 

[RandyPNW]

Matthew 24:15 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:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened

Doing an exact phrase search in the KJV for 'holy place' yields the following results pertaining to the NT. Way too many to list pertaining to the OT. So, only going to list the ones pertaining to the NT.

Matthew 24:15 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: )

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Obviously referring to the 2nd temple per this context.

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Obviously referring to the 2nd temple per this context.


Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Involving a temple, yet, not a literal man made one though, since Jesus obviously didn't do any of that in the 2nd temple that was still standing at the time.

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Referring to literal temples in general, not the 2nd temple in particular, though the 2nd temple obviously involved those things as well. Except high priests also did this before there was even this 2nd temple.

If nothing else, in the NT, Hebrews 9:12 proves that the holy place is not always involving a man made temple.

What happens if we factor the following in?

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Should we assume the temple of God meant here, it is a man made temple, or should we assume it is meaning a temple not made with hands? If we assume that it's the latter, could what is recorded in verse 4 be describing the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place, standing where it ought not? If no, one then has just made a contradiction if they assume the temple of God is meaning a temple not made with hands, then insist it would not be abominable for one who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God--that this is suppose to naturally occur like this, thus no abomination involved whatsoever.

IOW, the logic would be, an abomination involving the holy place can only be meaning in an obsolete temple that is no longer the holy place once Christ died and rose(a contradiction in even this kind of reasoning), but can never be involving a temple not made with hands? Once again, as if it's a common thing, thus expected, that what is recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 naturally occurs in the temple not made with hands, nothing abominable about that whatsoever. Yet, if one agrees it's an abominable act, yet disagrees that Matthew 24:15 is involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4, what then? It's far more reasonable to agree that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving an abominable act, but that the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is not meaning the temple not made with hands, it is meaning the temple made with hands, that it is still the holy place up until it is literally destroyed?

An abomination in an obsolete temple vs an abomination in a temple that is not obsolete whatsoever, which makes better sense? Apparently, the former, if many of these interpreters around here and elsewhere are interpreting Matthew 24:15 correctly, that it is involving the 2nd temple until it is literally destroyed. Imagine that, once it is destroyed though, which did happen in 70 AD, now all of a sudden like, the holy place can finally mean the temple not made with hands. Wonder why it couldn't mean that at the time of Christ's death and resurrection but can only mean that after the 2nd temple is destroyed? After all, the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, according to many interpreters who are either Preterists or agree with Preterists.

If I understand you correctly, it's an excellent point. I've long wondered what Paul was saying, because I look to Paul's sources, and cannot find any indication that Antichrist will enter a physical temple. On the other hand, Daniel talked about how Antiochus 4 would violate the sacred territory of the temple.

So what would Paul mean, given that in the NT era the temple veil was torn, and that the physical temple no longer had any validity? My guess is that Paul was drawing upon Dan 7, where the Little Horn, the Antichrist, is depicted as opposing God. As such, he situates himself in the place of God's spiritual temple, proclaiming himself God.

 

[daq]

Matthew 24:15 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:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened

Doing an exact phrase search in the KJV for 'holy place' yields the following results pertaining to the NT. Way too many to list pertaining to the OT. So, only going to list the ones pertaining to the NT.

Matthew 24:15 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: )

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Obviously referring to the 2nd temple per this context.

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Obviously referring to the 2nd temple per this context.


Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Involving a temple, yet, not a literal man made one though, since Jesus obviously didn't do any of that in the 2nd temple that was still standing at the time.

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Referring to literal temples in general, not the 2nd temple in particular, though the 2nd temple obviously involved those things as well. Except high priests also did this before there was even this 2nd temple.

If nothing else, in the NT, Hebrews 9:12 proves that the holy place is not always involving a man made temple.

What happens if we factor the following in?

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Should we assume the temple of God meant here, it is a man made temple, or should we assume it is meaning a temple not made with hands? If we assume that it's the latter, could what is recorded in verse 4 be describing the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place, standing where it ought not? If no, one then has just made a contradiction if they assume the temple of God is meaning a temple not made with hands, then insist it would not be abominable for one who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God--that this is suppose to naturally occur like this, thus no abomination involved whatsoever.

IOW, the logic would be, an abomination involving the holy place can only be meaning in an obsolete temple that is no longer the holy place once Christ died and rose(a contradiction in even this kind of reasoning), but can never be involving a temple not made with hands? Once again, as if it's a common thing, thus expected, that what is recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 naturally occurs in the temple not made with hands, nothing abominable about that whatsoever. Yet, if one agrees it's an abominable act, yet disagrees that Matthew 24:15 is involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4, what then? It's far more reasonable to agree that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving an abominable act, but that the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is not meaning the temple not made with hands, it is meaning the temple made with hands, that it is still the holy place up until it is literally destroyed?

An abomination in an obsolete temple vs an abomination in a temple that is not obsolete whatsoever, which makes better sense? Apparently, the former, if many of these interpreters around here and elsewhere are interpreting Matthew 24:15 correctly, that it is involving the 2nd temple until it is literally destroyed. Imagine that, once it is destroyed though, which did happen in 70 AD, now all of a sudden like, the holy place can finally mean the temple not made with hands. Wonder why it couldn't mean that at the time of Christ's death and resurrection but can only mean that after the 2nd temple is destroyed? After all, the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, according to many interpreters who are either Preterists or agree with Preterists.

In the N/T, outside the Apokalypse, the word abomination only appears in two occasions, both in the Testimony of the Meshiah, for the passages in Matthew and Mark, in the Olivet Discourse, are both the same statement from the same discourse, (in other words the same statement recorded twice).

First occurrence of G946 βδελυγμα (bdelugma, abomination).

Matthew 24:15 KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination [G946 βδελυγμα] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, ( whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Mark 13:14 KJV
14 But when ye shall see the abomination [G946 βδελυγμα] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Second occurrence of G946 βδελυγμα (bdelugma, abomination).

Luke 16:15 KJV
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination [G946 βδελυγμα] in the sight of God.

These are the only occurrences of G946 βδελυγμα in all of the N/T until the Apokalypse, (Rev 17:4-5, Rev 21:27). These words shall never pass away and I see no other explanations or interpretations from the Master himself. So which part of the body-temple of Elohim is the heart?

 

[Zao is life]

An abomination in an obsolete temple vs an abomination in a temple that is not obsolete whatsoever, which makes better sense? Apparently, the former, if many of these interpreters around here and elsewhere are interpreting Matthew 24:15 correctly, that it is involving the 2nd temple until it is literally destroyed. Imagine that, once it is destroyed though, which did happen in 70 AD, now all of a sudden like, the holy place can finally mean the temple not made with hands. Wonder why it couldn't mean that at the time of Christ's death and resurrection but can only mean that after the 2nd temple is destroyed? After all, the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, according to many interpreters who are either Preterists or agree with Preterists.

It's not surprising at all to me that the Jews who did not believe the gospel and were accusing Paul of defiling the temple in Jerusalem, still called it this holy place, because that's how they still regarded it - but the word G3485 naos is not used in these verses.

No one can provide a verse in the N.T where the holy place/most holy place (the actual sanctuary where the Spirit of God appeared in the temple) is called the G2411 hieron (the made-with-human-hands temple structure in Jerusalem). It never is - it's always called the G3485 naos, denoting the actual sanctuary inside the temple complex (inside the G2411 hieron).

Importantly, when Paul wrote his letters to the churches at Corinth, Ephesus and Thessaloniki, he used the word hierón in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (which was still standing) in 1 Corinthians 9:13.

However Paul consistently used the word naós when speaking about the bodies of individual Christians, and the congregations of Christians as the tabernacle (temple) of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21-22).

So IF he was referring to a physical, man-made structure in Jerusalem in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 when talking about the man of sin seating himself up in the sanctuary of God, there is no reason why Paul would not use the word hierón - but he did not - Paul used the word naós in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - and naós is never used again in reference to the Jerusalem temple after the verses telling us about the tearing of the veil in the sanctuary.

Which comes back to the words the holy place in Matthew 24:15. Those who say it's referring to the Jerusalem temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D don't seem to notice that when Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the G2411 hieron (the temple complex in Jerusalem), He was still calling that temple "the house of the LORD" - because it was still the house of the LORD until Jesus died on the cross, when the veil in the G3485 noas (holy place that was inside the temple complex) was torn.

However, when Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that the temple was going to be destroyed, He knew that this would only occur 40 years after it had ceased being the house of the LORD - and He did not call it "the house of the LORD" in Matthew 23:38 - He called it "Your (i.e the Jews') house.

So IMO, why Jesus would call the temple in Jerusalem that He knew would be destroyed in 70 A.D their house when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, but then, just a little later on the same day, call it the holy place when speaking to His disciples, is something that only one or other "..ism" can explain.

If Jesus was speaking of the temple in Jerusalem, would He not merely have said, "in the temple", instead of pointing to a prophecy that Daniel made? Why did the author see the need to add, "(let the reader understand)" if it was as "plainly" speaking about the temple in Jerusalem?

The "..isms" of Christianity that cause people to always have to interpret things in such a way as to comply with the "..ism", also completely ignore:-
​

1. The fact that Daniel spoke of two times the word "abomination" was associated with the temple: Once where the AoD was placed in the holy place by Antiochus IV (a defiling of the temple that is not associated with the destruction of the city and the temple);

​

2. Once where abominations (plural) are associated with the destruction of the city and the temple.

3. It's the first one above that's associated by Paul with the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2.

4. The subject of Matthew 24:9-31 and 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 have a few things in common:

Matthew 24:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 both speak about a falling away / apostasy.
Matthew 24:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about lawlessness (the Greek word used is: anomia: lawlessness).
Matthew 24:14-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about the time of the end and the coming of Christ.
Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both speak about something evil in the sanctuary of God.

The fact that whereas Luke records Jesus telling the disciples to flee Judea when they see armies gathering against Jerusalem, Matthew records Jesus telling them to flee Judea when they see the AoD in the holy place, should not cause anyone to ignore the above facts, or the fact that the grammar of the passage in Matthew 24:9-31 does not permit slicing the passage up into different epochs in history, IMO - it was either all talking about 70 A.D and the days leading up to it, and the Jerusalem temple, or Matthew 24:9-31 is all talking about the end of the Age and the return of Christ.

So knowing that Zechariah chapters 12-14 prophesy of a time when the Messiah will fight against the armies of all nations gathered against Jerusalem (which did not occur in 70 A.D), and knowing that there are Christians in those lands called Israel and Palestine today (and there always have been Christians living in those lands), and knowing that the saints are told in the Revelation to come out of Babylon the Great (which is international rather than regional, because she is sat on many waters which are"peoples, nations, tribes and languages"),

we can speculate as to why it is that whereas Luke records Jesus saying one thing about when the disciples should flee Judea, but Matthew another - but this should not cause us to interpret anything in terms of any "..ism" so as to make the interpretation comply with the "..ism" - because that will cause the saints to ignore facts and reality which are pertinent - and this is why the saints do this.

IMO​

 

[Douggg]

transgression of desolation - the future act by the Antichrist of going into the temple sanctuary, walking through the holy room and into the holy of holies room where the ark of the covenant would normally be, and sits - declaring himself to have achieved God-hood.

abomination of desolation - comes later, after the person has become the beast-king. It will be a statue image of him, placed on the temple mount - also the holy place - out in the open where them in Judaea can see it and begin fleeing to the mountains for safety and survival. It's placement begins the great tribulation.

 

[RandyPNW]

In the N/T, outside the Apokalypse, the word abomination only appears in two occasions, both in the Testimony of the Meshiah, for the passages in Matthew and Mark, in the Olivet Discourse, are both the same statement from the same discourse, (in other words the same statement recorded twice).

First occurrence of G946 βδελυγμα (bdelugma, abomination).

Matthew 24:15 KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination [G946 βδελυγμα] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, ( whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Mark 13:14 KJV
14 But when ye shall see the abomination [G946 βδελυγμα] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Second occurrence of G946 βδελυγμα (bdelugma, abomination).

Luke 16:15 KJV
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination [G946 βδελυγμα] in the sight of God.

These are the only occurrences of G946 βδελυγμα in all of the N/T until the Apokalypse, (Rev 17:4-5, Rev 21:27). These words shall never pass away and I see no other explanations or interpretations from the Master himself. So which part of the body-temple of Elohim is the heart?

Though I think it's a good exercise to look at how the Bible uses words, both OT and NT, I think we really need to be careful how we determine what the words mean. Words are flexible, and they are used in light of their context. We cannot impose a prevailing use of a word in every context.

This very word, "abomination," is an example. OT use of the word simply indicates something that is impure or sacrilegious in the context of the Law. It may apply to idols, or to other similar circumstances. The NT use may add a different color, but the word retains its basic meaning, although with a change in the Law, there is no necessity to interpret the word in the light of the Law any longer.

One of the biggest errors comes, I think, when we see how the "Abomination of Desolation" has been interpreted historically. A very small minority of Church Fathers, including Irenaeus and Hippolytus, saw the 70th Week of Daniel as endtime, and saw the AoD as applying to the Antichrist, if I remember it properly. And this may have been because use of "the holy place" obtained under the OT Law a virtually 100% application to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place." That is, it became a Proper Noun exclusively in the OT Scriptures.

But use of the words "holy place," lacking "the," did not always apply to the room in the temple in the OT Scriptures, and was not always a proper noun. Only under the OT Law did "the holy place" appear to obtain exclusive use as a proper noun, and application to the room in the temple.

But in the NT Scriptures, Jesus, still speaking under the Old Covenant, referred to "the Holy Place" in a different way--not to the room in the temple, but rather, in the non-proper noun way, as indicating a specific holy place that was not the room in the temple. I believe he was at that time, in the Olivet Discourse, referring to a specific location, the city of Jerusalem, where Roman troops would gather. Jesus no longer uses the context of the Law in speaking of a time when the Law would no longer be in operation.

And so, the specific place referred to no longer has 100% exclusive application to the temple, as it had in the OT Scriptures. This may have caused men like Irenaeus to assume that Jesus was identifying the AoD as a violation of the temple by Antichrist in the last days, since he believed that the 70 AD experience did not have Antichrist enter into the Holy Place of the temple, claiming to be God.

If Jesus applied "holy place" in a NT application to a specific non-proper noun "holy place" then he could've been applying "the holy place" to the city of Jerusalem, and not to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place. After all, once the Law had passed, "the holy place" could obtain a more general application to Jerusalem, considered to be a "holy place," as well. Focusing on that particular application would enable Jesus to use "the holy place" in the same way the OT Scriptures had applied it to the room in the temple.

This is somewhat complicated, and I don't expect many to get what I'm saying at 1st crack. Let me summarize it as follows.

OT Scriptures' usage of "the Holy Place" is 100% to the place in the temple called by that name, and is a proper noun.
OT Scriptures' usage of "holy place," without the "the," had a more generalized meaning, and could apply to such things as the area where the temple was located, such as the city of Jerusalem.

NT Scriptures has Jesus, while still in the OT context, use the words "the holy place" in a more generalized usage and not as a Proper Noun. Instead of referring to the temple, as was done 100% of the time in the OT Scriptures, Jesus applied the term to a time when the OT Law would no longer be the central focus.

So, when applying the term outside of the OT context, in the NT era, he referred not to the temple, but to the city of Jerusalem, where the temple was located and would be destroyed. He used the more general application of the words "holy place," and indicated the room in the temple would no longer be the exclusive application of "the holy place."

Good luck with this one. I debated this one for a good part of a year with someone on a now-obsolete Christian chat site.

 

[daq]

Though I think it's a good exercise to look at how the Bible uses words, both OT and NT, I think we really need to be careful how we determine what the words mean. Words are flexible, and they are used in light of their context. We cannot impose a prevailing use of a word in every context.

This very word, "abomination," is an example. OT use of the word simply indicates something that is impure or sacrilegious in the context of the Law. It may apply to idols, or to other similar circumstances. The NT use may add a different color, but the word retains its basic meaning, although with a change in the Law, there is no necessity to interpret the word in the light of the Law any longer.

One of the biggest errors comes, I think, when we see how the "Abomination of Desolation" has been interpreted historically. A very small minority of Church Fathers, including Irenaeus and Hippolytus, saw the 70th Week of Daniel as endtime, and saw the AoD as applying to the Antichrist, if I remember it properly. And this may have been because use of "the holy place" obtained under the OT Law a virtually 100% application to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place." That is, it became a Proper Noun exclusively in the OT Scriptures.

But use of the words "holy place," lacking "the," did not always apply to the room in the temple in the OT Scriptures, and was not always a proper noun. Only under the OT Law did "the holy place" appear to obtain exclusive use as a proper noun, and application to the room in the temple.

But in the NT Scriptures, Jesus, still speaking under the Old Covenant, referred to "the Holy Place" in a different way--not to the room in the temple, but rather, in the non-proper noun way, as indicating a specific holy place that was not the room in the temple. I believe he was at that time, in the Olivet Discourse, referring to a specific location, the city of Jerusalem, where Roman troops would gather. Jesus no longer uses the context of the Law in speaking of a time when the Law would no longer be in operation.

And so, the specific place referred to no longer has 100% exclusive application to the temple, as it had in the OT Scriptures. This may have caused men like Irenaeus to assume that Jesus was identifying the AoD as a violation of the temple by Antichrist in the last days, since he believed that the 70 AD experience did not have Antichrist enter into the Holy Place of the temple, claiming to be God.

If Jesus applied "holy place" in a NT application to a specific non-proper noun "holy place" then he could've been applying "the holy place" to the city of Jerusalem, and not to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place. After all, once the Law had passed, "the holy place" could obtain a more general application to Jerusalem, considered to be a "holy place," as well. Focusing on that particular application would enable Jesus to use "the holy place" in the same way the OT Scriptures had applied it to the room in the temple.

This is somewhat complicated, and I don't expect many to get what I'm saying at 1st crack. Let me summarize it as follows.

OT Scriptures' usage of "the Holy Place" is 100% to the place in the temple called by that name, and is a proper noun.
OT Scriptures' usage of "holy place," without the "the," had a more generalized meaning, and could apply to such things as the area where the temple was located, such as the city of Jerusalem.

NT Scriptures has Jesus, while still in the OT context, use the words "the holy place" in a more generalized usage and not as a Proper Noun. Instead of referring to the temple, as was done 100% of the time in the OT Scriptures, Jesus applied the term to a time when the OT Law would no longer be the central focus.

So, when applying the term outside of the OT context, in the NT era, he referred not to the temple, but to the city of Jerusalem, where the temple was located and would be destroyed. He used the more general application of the words "holy place," and indicated the room in the temple would no longer be the exclusive application of "the holy place."

Good luck with this one. I debated this one for a good part of a year with someone on a now-obsolete Christian chat site.

We know that the Torah is spiritual, Romans 7:14a.

Exodus 25:1-9 KJV
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.
3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,
4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair,
5 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim wood,
6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; [mikdash] that I may dwell among them.
9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, [mishkan] and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

So then, the children of Yisrael are admonished to make themselves a mikdash-chapel, a little sanctuary, and it is to be patterned after the greater Mishkan Tabernacle described for us in the Torah. And for those who do so, the Most High says by the following Prophet that He will be unto them for a little mikdash-sanctuary in all the places wheresoever they come. Why? because they did as admonished in the passage above: they made themselves into a little holy mikdash-chapel-house-body-temple unto Him.

Ezekiel 11:14-21 KJV
14 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
15 Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the LORD: unto us is this land [eretz-land] given in possession.
16 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, [eretz-lands] yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary [mikdash] in the countries [eretz-lands] where they shall come.
17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries [eretz-lands] where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land [adamah-soil] of Israel.
18 And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence.
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.

The temple of Elohim has always been man, mankind, from the very beginning: this isn't something new to the N/T, it has always been this way according to the scripture, but men for some reason simply cannot see it in the Torah. However the Prophets saw it and wrote about it, as in the above passage, where eretz is land, (surface and outward), but adamah is soil, (covered and therefore inward), and that is, according to the Testimony of the Meshiah, the soil of the heart as in the parable of the sower, and because the first man Adam was taken from the adamah, the soil, and was formed of dust from the adamah.

Isaiah 66:1-2 KJV
1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

And of course we all know that Stephen quotes this passage in Acts 7, and he does so in order to say the same thing: Elohim does not dwell in temples made by the hands of men.

 

[RandyPNW]

We know that the Torah is spiritual, Romans 7:14a.

Exodus 25:1-9 KJV
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.
3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,
4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair,
5 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim wood,
6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.
8 And let them make me a sanctuary; [mikdash] that I may dwell among them.
9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, [mishkan] and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

So then, the children of Yisrael are admonished to make themselves a mikdash-chapel, a little sanctuary, and it is to be patterned after the greater Mishkan Tabernacle described for us in the Torah. And for those who do so, the Most High says by the following Prophet that He will be unto them for a little mikdash-sanctuary in all the places wheresoever they come. Why? because they did as admonished in the passage above: they made themselves into a little holy mikdash-chapel-house-body-temple unto Him.

Ezekiel 11:14-21 KJV
14 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
15 Son of man, thy brethren, even thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the LORD: unto us is this land [eretz-land] given in possession.
16 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, [eretz-lands] yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary [mikdash] in the countries [eretz-lands] where they shall come.
17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries [eretz-lands] where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land [adamah-soil] of Israel.
18 And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence.
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.

The temple of Elohim has always been man, mankind, from the very beginning: this isn't something new to the N/T, it has always been this way according to the scripture, but men for some reason simply cannot see it in the Torah. However the Prophets saw it and wrote about it, as in the above passage, where eretz is land, (surface and outward), but adamah is soil, (covered and therefore inward), and that is, according to the Testimony of the Meshiah, the soil of the heart as in the parable of the sower, and because the first man Adam was taken from the adamah, the soil, and was formed of dust from the adamah.

Isaiah 66:1-2 KJV
1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

And of course we all know that Stephen quotes this passage in Acts 7, and he does so in order to say the same thing: Elohim does not dwell in temples made by the hands of men.

This seems to be at least partly Kabbalistic interpretation? However, apart from the application of specific words, the gist is basically good, to see that the real temple in heaven has always related to who God is in relation to His Word and in relation to His original purpose for Man. He intended to dwell with us constantly, and to in fact dwell *within us.* To dwell with us eternally requires that God fix our hearts, and come to dwell within us without prohibition. Thank you!

 

[daq]

This seems to be at least partly Kabbalistic interpretation?

I don't study Kabbalah so I really couldn't tell you either way. It's from the scripture and the Testimony of the Meshiah in the Gospel accounts, and his apostles, including Paul.

However, apart from the application of specific words, the gist is basically good, to see that the real temple in heaven has always related to who God is in relation to His Word and in relation to His original purpose for Man. He intended to dwell with us constantly, and to in fact dwell *within us.* To dwell with us eternally requires that God fix our hearts, and come to dwell within us without prohibition. Thank you!

My pleasure.

 

[Douggg]

Though I think it's a good exercise to look at how the Bible uses words, both OT and NT, I think we really need to be careful how we determine what the words mean. Words are flexible, and they are used in light of their context. We cannot impose a prevailing use of a word in every context.

This very word, "abomination," is an example. OT use of the word simply indicates something that is impure or sacrilegious in the context of the Law. It may apply to idols, or to other similar circumstances. The NT use may add a different color, but the word retains its basic meaning, although with a change in the Law, there is no necessity to interpret the word in the light of the Law any longer.

One of the biggest errors comes, I think, when we see how the "Abomination of Desolation" has been interpreted historically. A very small minority of Church Fathers, including Irenaeus and Hippolytus, saw the 70th Week of Daniel as endtime, and saw the AoD as applying to the Antichrist, if I remember it properly. And this may have been because use of "the holy place" obtained under the OT Law a virtually 100% application to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place." That is, it became a Proper Noun exclusively in the OT Scriptures.

But use of the words "holy place," lacking "the," did not always apply to the room in the temple in the OT Scriptures, and was not always a proper noun. Only under the OT Law did "the holy place" appear to obtain exclusive use as a proper noun, and application to the room in the temple.

But in the NT Scriptures, Jesus, still speaking under the Old Covenant, referred to "the Holy Place" in a different way--not to the room in the temple, but rather, in the non-proper noun way, as indicating a specific holy place that was not the room in the temple. I believe he was at that time, in the Olivet Discourse, referring to a specific location, the city of Jerusalem, where Roman troops would gather. Jesus no longer uses the context of the Law in speaking of a time when the Law would no longer be in operation.

And so, the specific place referred to no longer has 100% exclusive application to the temple, as it had in the OT Scriptures. This may have caused men like Irenaeus to assume that Jesus was identifying the AoD as a violation of the temple by Antichrist in the last days, since he believed that the 70 AD experience did not have Antichrist enter into the Holy Place of the temple, claiming to be God.

If Jesus applied "holy place" in a NT application to a specific non-proper noun "holy place" then he could've been applying "the holy place" to the city of Jerusalem, and not to the room in the temple called "the Holy Place. After all, once the Law had passed, "the holy place" could obtain a more general application to Jerusalem, considered to be a "holy place," as well. Focusing on that particular application would enable Jesus to use "the holy place" in the same way the OT Scriptures had applied it to the room in the temple.

This is somewhat complicated, and I don't expect many to get what I'm saying at 1st crack. Let me summarize it as follows.

OT Scriptures' usage of "the Holy Place" is 100% to the place in the temple called by that name, and is a proper noun.
OT Scriptures' usage of "holy place," without the "the," had a more generalized meaning, and could apply to such things as the area where the temple was located, such as the city of Jerusalem.

NT Scriptures has Jesus, while still in the OT context, use the words "the holy place" in a more generalized usage and not as a Proper Noun. Instead of referring to the temple, as was done 100% of the time in the OT Scriptures, Jesus applied the term to a time when the OT Law would no longer be the central focus.

So, when applying the term outside of the OT context, in the NT era, he referred not to the temple, but to the city of Jerusalem, where the temple was located and would be destroyed. He used the more general application of the words "holy place," and indicated the room in the temple would no longer be the exclusive application of "the holy place."

Good luck with this one. I debated this one for a good part of a year with someone on a now-obsolete Christian chat site.

Matthew 24:15 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:

So the abomination of desolation must be in a holy place and also be viewable.

Therefore, on the temple mount - considered by Jews as a holy place, where they are not even allowed to pray presently - out in the open. Where the kings of the earth, and the armies that surround the temple mount at the end of the 7 years - will see Satan exposed for all to see him, when Jesus turns the abomination desolaton statue image to ashes. Ezekiel 28:16-19.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Matthew 24:15 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:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened

Doing an exact phrase search in the KJV for 'holy place' yields the following results pertaining to the NT. Way too many to list pertaining to the OT. So, only going to list the ones pertaining to the NT.

Matthew 24:15 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: )

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Obviously referring to the 2nd temple per this context.

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Obviously referring to the 2nd temple per this context.


Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Involving a temple, yet, not a literal man made one though, since Jesus obviously didn't do any of that in the 2nd temple that was still standing at the time.

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Referring to literal temples in general, not the 2nd temple in particular, though the 2nd temple obviously involved those things as well. Except high priests also did this before there was even this 2nd temple.

If nothing else, in the NT, Hebrews 9:12 proves that the holy place is not always involving a man made temple.

What happens if we factor the following in?

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Should we assume the temple of God meant here, it is a man made temple, or should we assume it is meaning a temple not made with hands? If we assume that it's the latter, could what is recorded in verse 4 be describing the abomination of desolation, standing in the holy place, standing where it ought not? If no, one then has just made a contradiction if they assume the temple of God is meaning a temple not made with hands, then insist it would not be abominable for one who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God--that this is suppose to naturally occur like this, thus no abomination involved whatsoever.

IOW, the logic would be, an abomination involving the holy place can only be meaning in an obsolete temple that is no longer the holy place once Christ died and rose(a contradiction in even this kind of reasoning), but can never be involving a temple not made with hands? Once again, as if it's a common thing, thus expected, that what is recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 naturally occurs in the temple not made with hands, nothing abominable about that whatsoever. Yet, if one agrees it's an abominable act, yet disagrees that Matthew 24:15 is involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4, what then? It's far more reasonable to agree that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is involving an abominable act, but that the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is not meaning the temple not made with hands, it is meaning the temple made with hands, that it is still the holy place up until it is literally destroyed?

An abomination in an obsolete temple vs an abomination in a temple that is not obsolete whatsoever, which makes better sense? Apparently, the former, if many of these interpreters around here and elsewhere are interpreting Matthew 24:15 correctly, that it is involving the 2nd temple until it is literally destroyed. Imagine that, once it is destroyed though, which did happen in 70 AD, now all of a sudden like, the holy place can finally mean the temple not made with hands. Wonder why it couldn't mean that at the time of Christ's death and resurrection but can only mean that after the 2nd temple is destroyed? After all, the holy place per Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, according to many interpreters who are either Preterists or agree with Preterists.

Do you believe that Jesus intended for the ones He was speaking to directly (His disciples) to understand what He was referring to in Matthew 24:15? I believe so. So, with that in mind, what do you suppose would have been their understanding of what "the holy place" was at that time when He was speaking to them?

Whatever "the holy place" was at the time He was speaking would be what they would have understood as being "the holy place" at which the abomination of desolation would take place, right? So, was Jesus trying to trick them by referring to a "holy place" that they had no knowledge about at the time? Or was He speaking in a way that could be understood at that time so that His disciples could understand what place He was talking about?

Does it really matter what that place would be called or considered to be at a later time? Or did it matter that they would understand what that place was called or considered to be at the time Jesus was speaking so that they would know at what place the abomination of desolation would occur, regardless of what that place was called or considered to be later?

And I have to say again that if Matthew 24:15-21 is meant to be understood in a spiritual sense then you need to be able to explain what Jesus meant by saying those in Judea needed to flee to the mountains when seeing the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. And what did He mean in a spiritual sense when He indicated that it would be particularly difficult for pregnant and nursing women to flee? What did He mean in a spiritual sense when He said to pray that their flight wouldn't be in the winter or on the Sabbath?

If you had reasonable answers to these questions, I would consider them because seeing Matthew 24:15-21 in a spiritual sense would not change my overall doctrine if it was true that only Luke 21:20-24a contained the answer to the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed, as you believe. He had to have answered that question somewhere. I would still wonder why His answer was only recorded in Luke 21 and not Matthew 24 and Mark 13, but I could live with that if you gave convincing answers to the questions I asked.

As of now, I can't even guess as to what He could have meant in a spiritual sense by the things He said in Matthew 24:15-21.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It's not surprising at all to me that the Jews who did not believe the gospel and were accusing Paul of defiling the temple in Jerusalem, still called it this holy place, because that's how they still regarded it - but the word G3485 naos is not used in these verses.

No one can provide a verse in the N.T where the holy place/most holy place (the actual sanctuary where the Spirit of God appeared in the temple) is called the G2411 hieron (the made-with-human-hands temple structure in Jerusalem). It never is - it's always called the G3485 naos, denoting the actual sanctuary inside the temple complex (inside the G2411 hieron).

Importantly, when Paul wrote his letters to the churches at Corinth, Ephesus and Thessaloniki, he used the word hierón in reference to the temple in Jerusalem (which was still standing) in 1 Corinthians 9:13.

However Paul consistently used the word naós when speaking about the bodies of individual Christians, and the congregations of Christians as the tabernacle (temple) of God (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 & 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; and Ephesians 2:21-22).

So IF he was referring to a physical, man-made structure in Jerusalem in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 when talking about the man of sin seating himself up in the sanctuary of God, there is no reason why Paul would not use the word hierón - but he did not - Paul used the word naós in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - and naós is never used again in reference to the Jerusalem temple after the verses telling us about the tearing of the veil in the sanctuary.

Which comes back to the words the holy place in Matthew 24:15. Those who say it's referring to the Jerusalem temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D don't seem to notice that when Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the G2411 hieron (the temple complex in Jerusalem), He was still calling that temple "the house of the LORD" - because it was still the house of the LORD until Jesus died on the cross, when the veil in the holy place that was inside the temple complex was torn.

However, when Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that the temple was going to be destroyed, He knew that this would only occur 40 years after it had ceased being the house of the LORD - and He did not call it "the house of the LORD" in Matthew 23:38 - He called it "Your (i.e the Jews') house.

So IMO, why Jesus would call the temple in Jerusalem that He knew would be destroyed in 70 A.D their house when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, but then, just a little later on the same day, call it the holy place when speaking to His disciples, is something that only one or other "..ism" can explain.

If Jesus was speaking of the temple in Jerusalem, would He not merely have said, "in the temple", instead of pointing to a prophecy that Daniel made? Why did the author see the need to add, "(let the reader understand)" if it was as "plainly" speaking about the temple in Jerusalem?​

Because the reader would understand that they should look at this:

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This passage talks about the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary being destroyed as a result of an abomination of desolation. I would think this would be the first passage that the reader would understand that they should look at since Jesus specifically talked about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings in the Olivet Discourse.

What was it that prompted the Olivet Discourse in the first place? It was Jesus saying that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed. And the disciples asked Him about that (and also asked another question that Matthew recorded). So, with the fact that the temple buildings were part of the context of the Olivet Discourse as evidenced by the fact that Jesus said the temple would be destroyed, what reason is there to think that "the holy place" Jesus referenced isn't directly related to the temple in Jerusalem standing at that time? That fits the context of part of what He was talking about. He didn't say the church would be destroyed, He said the physical temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed.

The "..isms" of Christianity that cause people to always have to interpret things in such a way as to comply with the "..ism", also completely ignore:-

​

1. The fact that Daniel spoke of two times the word "abomination" was associated with the temple: Once where the AoD was placed in the holy place by Antiochus IV (a defiling of the temple that is not associated with the destruction of the city and the temple);

​

2. Once where abominations (plural) are associated with the destruction of the city and the temple.

Since the first one was obviously fulfilled before Jesus gave His Olivet Discourse, then #2 is the obvious one that He had to be referring to.

3. It's the first one above that's associated by Paul with the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2.

Um...no. As you said yourself, that one was about Antiochus IV. So, Paul was not associating anything with that since he was talking about a future event. Paul was not referencing Daniel at all in 2 Thess 2. He was giving a new prophecy there relating to a mass falling away from the church resulting in people essentially seeing themselves as God rather than worshiping the true God any longer.

4. The subject of Matthew 24:9-31 and 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 have a few things in common:

Matthew 24:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 both speak about a falling away / apostasy.
Matthew 24:12 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about lawlessness (the Greek word used is: anomia: lawlessness).
Matthew 24:14-31 and 2 Thessalonians 2 both speak about the time of the end and the coming of Christ.
Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 both speak about something evil in the sanctuary of God.

This is true in terms of Matthew 24:4-14 and Matthew 24:23-31. But, in terms of Matthew 24:15-22 and 2 Thess 2, they do not have much in common. Paul said nothing about any need to flee the coming of the man of sin in the temple of God. Jesus only said those in Judea had to flee, not everyone in the world. So, He was not speaking from a global perspective in Matthew 24:15-22 as Paul did in 2 Thess 2.

Jesus was asked two questions about two different events. He went back and forth answering the questions. In Matthew 24:4-14 He answered the question about His coming and the end of the age. In verse 15, He shifted to answering the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. In verse 23 He shifted back to talking about things related to His coming and the end of the age again. I believe this is the only way to interpret it while still being able to reconcile what He said with the rest of scripture.

Also, by not acknowledging that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21, it causes you to miss that there is something Luke called "the times of the Gentiles" between the tribulation described in Matthew 24:15-21 (Mark 13:14-20) and the future second coming of Christ at the end of the age.

The fact that whereas Luke records Jesus telling the disciples to flee Judea when they see armies gathering against Jerusalem, Matthew records Jesus telling them to flee Judea when they see the AoD in the holy place, should not cause anyone to ignore the above facts, or the fact that the grammar of the passage in Matthew 24:9-31 does not permit slicing the passage up into different epochs in history, IMO - it was either all talking about 70 A.D and the days leading up to it, and the Jerusalem temple, or Matthew 24:9-31 is all talking about the end of the Age and the return of Christ.

Why do you insist on that being the case? If you acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21, then you can easily see that what you're saying here does not need to be the case.

So, what is your basis for not believing that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21? Did Jesus say those in Judea had to flee to the mountains two different times during the Olivet Discourse? I don't find that to be reasonable at all.

So knowing that Zechariah chapters 12-14 prophesy of a time when the Messiah will fight against the armies of all nations gathered against Jerusalem (which did not occur in 70 A.D), and knowing that there are Christians in those lands called Israel and Palestine today (and there always have been Christians living in those lands), and knowing that the saints are told in the Revelation to come out of Babylon the Great (which is international rather than regional, because she is sat on many waters which are"peoples, nations, tribes and languages"),​

Wait a minute now. Why are you applying those chapters to the future when Jesus Himself applied them to things related to His first coming?

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Why would anyone want to place the timing of the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10 at some other time than Jesus did? I wouldn't even dream of doing that. He put the time of its fulfillment as the actual time He was pierced on the cross. As for the reference to God pouring out the spirit of grace and of supplications, does that not make you think of the day of Pentecost that occurred long ago?

Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Does this verse have something to do with the armies of all nations being gathered against Jerusalem in the future? No. How did Jesus interpret this?

Matthew 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. 32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. 34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Jesus applied Zechariah 13:7 to the time when they came to take Jesus away to be crucified and His disciples fled away in fear. Peter was so afraid that he denied Jesus 3 times.

I also believe that Jesus had Zechariah 14:8 in mind when He said in John 7:38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" even though that is not more debatable since it's not a direct quote.

Since Jesus Himself indicated that the timing of things described in Zechariah 12 and 13 (and likely 14) was related to His first coming, why would you place the timing of them in the future?

we can speculate as to why it is that whereas Luke records Jesus saying one thing about when the disciples should flee Judea, but Matthew another - but this should not cause us to interpret anything in terms of any "..ism" so as to make the interpretation comply with the "..ism" - because that will cause the saints to ignore facts and reality which are pertinent - and this is why the saints do this.

You mean like you ignoring the fact that Luke associated the abomination of desolation with Jerusalem being surrounded by armies?

Why Luke worded some things a bit differently (but some the same) than Matthew and Mark is not a secret that we need to speculate about. It was because he was writing to Gentiles while Matthew and Mark were writing to Jews.

Luke knew that his Gentile audience would not have any knowledge of the prophecies in Daniel, so it would not have made any sense for him to write "when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place" while saying "whoever reads this, let him understand". It would have been ridiculous for Luke to say that to Gentiles who had no knowledge of Daniel's prophecies. So, he spelled it out for them what seeing the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place would entail. That was the only way his audience would understand what Jesus had been talking about. But, then He quoted Jesus directly like Matthew and Mark did when he wrote "Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains" since that was very straightforward and easy for his Gentile audience to understand.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Matthew 24:15 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:

So the abomination of desolation must be in a holy place and also be viewable.

Therefore, on the temple mount - considered by Jews as a holy place, where they are not even allowed to pray presently - out in the open. Where the kings of the earth, and the armies that surround the temple mount at the end of the 7 years - will see Satan exposed for all to see him, when Jesus turns the abomination desolaton statue image to ashes. Ezekiel 28:16-19.

This can't possibly be true. Jesus was not talking about something that unbelieving Jews would consider a holy place. Jesus would not have referred to some useless and meaningless temple that would be built in the future as "the holy place". You're not considering that it would have to be something that was either considered the holy place at the time He was speaking or would be considered the holy place in the future if the place didn't exist at that time. There is no chance whatsoever that this unholy temple (unholy from God's perspective, which is what matters) that you're talking about would be something that Jesus would have called "the holy place".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

transgression of desolation - the future act by the Antichrist of going into the temple sanctuary, walking through the holy room and into the holy of holies room where the ark of the covenant would normally be, and sits - declaring himself to have achieved God-hood.

There will be no holy room or holy of holies room in any future temple. God is the one who determines if something is holy or not, not man.

abomination of desolation - comes later, after the person has become the beast-king. It will be a statue image of him, placed on the temple mount - also the holy place - out in the open where them in Judaea can see it and begin fleeing to the mountains for safety and survival. It's placement begins the great tribulation.

There will be no future holy place in a future temple. That is not possible. Again, God is the one who determines if something is holy or not, not man. God has no use for any future physical temple, so it is impossible for there to be the holy place within any future temple that might be built.

 

[RandyPNW]

Matthew 24:15 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:

So the abomination of desolation must be in a holy place and also be viewable.

Therefore, on the temple mount - considered by Jews as a holy place, where they are not even allowed to pray presently - out in the open. Where the kings of the earth, and the armies that surround the temple mount at the end of the 7 years - will see Satan exposed for all to see him, when Jesus turns the abomination desolaton statue image to ashes. Ezekiel 28:16-19.

Well, that's one view. I have a problem with that because of the way the Early Church Fathers viewed Dan 9, the Prophecy of the 70 Weeks. They saw this Prophecy as fulfilled in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, his death, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. They also saw this Prophecy as related to the Olivet Discourse, the Abomination of Desolation being associated with the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

In 66 AD the Roman Army initially approached Jerusalem to lay siege against it. The Jews *saw this Army,* the Abomination of Desolation, causing the believers to "flee," in obedience to Jesus' advice.

 

[Douggg]

There will be no holy room or holy of holies room in any future temple. God is the one who determines if something is holy or not, not man.


There will be no future holy place in a future temple. That is not possible. Again, God is the one who determines if something is holy or not, not man. God has no use for any future physical temple, so it is impossible for there to be the holy place within any future temple that might be built.

Well, go to Jerusalem, and go with a tour group onto the temple and try to openly pray - then try using your logic when you are carted off by the temple mount police.

There is going to be a temple built on the temple mount, and with a sanctuary building with two rooms - treated as the holy room, and the holy of holies room. Your logic is not going to prevent it from happening.

Jesus returns to the Mt. of Olives directly across from the temple mount - because it is a holy place in God's eyes.

 

[Zao is life]

Because the reader would understand that they should look at this:

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The author of Matthew's gospel inserted (let the reader understand) because he knew that the reader might wrongly assume like you do that Jesus was referring back to the destruction of the temple which He last spoke about just outside the temple, before walking down the Temple Mount, across the Kidron Valley, up the Mount of Olives and sitting down on top of the Mount of Olives.

He knew that the reader might fail to understand that Jesus was referring to the man of sin who is going to defile the New Testament Temple, i.e the temple of God that has been the holy place since the death and resurrection of Christ.

Why do you insist on that being the case? If you acknowledge that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21, then you can easily see that what you're saying here does not need to be the case.

I can't acknowledge the above, because I know that the above is not true - and I also know that the only way that you can assert that the above is true, is by flatly ignoring the grammar in Matthew 24:9-31, pretending that the grammar is meaningless to the passage:

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then (tote: at that time, i.e the time of the end) they will deliver you up to tribulation (thlipsis) and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake.
10 And then many will be offended (skandalizo: be tripped up and fall away), and will betray one another, and will hate one another.
11 And many false prophets will rise and deceive many.
12 And because lawlessness shall abound, the love of many will become cold.
13 But he who endures to the end, the same shall be kept safe.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then (tote) the end shall come.
15 Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand).
16 Then (tote) let those in Judea flee into the mountains.
17 Let him on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house;
18 nor let him in the field turn back to take his clothes.
19 And woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days!
20 But pray that your flight is not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day;
21 for then (tote) shall be great tribulation (megas thlipsis), such as has not been since the beginning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
22 And unless those days should be shortened, no flesh would be saved. But for the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened.
23 Then (tote) if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ! Or, There! Do not believe it.

.. etc etc - all the way till He says His sign will be seen in the heavens immediately after those days.

So in my opinion, it means the opposite of what you say it means. IMO it means:

But (let the reader understand) many will flatly ignore the grammar, pretending it's meaningless to the passage, and will push the abomination in the holy place into the 1st century and the physical temple in Jerusalem that had ceased being the holy place 2 days after Jesus gave this sermon, just because it was still to be destroyed when Jesus spoke of the sign of His coming and of the end of the Age.

So that's my opinion, which obviously means that in my opinion, your opinion that Luke 21:20-24a is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21, is false. So why would I "acknowledge" it? The only thing I acknowledge is that your opinion regarding this, is false.

If you acknowledge that you cannot read the passage in Matthew like that without flatly ignoring the grammar and pretending that the grammar is meaningless to the passage, then you will understand that Jesus might not have been referring to the temple in Jerusalem when answering the disciples regarding the sign of His coming and the end of the Age.

 

[Zao is life]

There will be no holy room or holy of holies room in any future temple. God is the one who determines if something is holy or not, not man.

You have contradicted yourself by saying this after repeatedly insisting that Jesus called the temple in Jerusalem the holy place in the middle of telling His disciples about the sign of His coming and the end of the Age.

 

[Zao is life]

Well, go to Jerusalem, and go with a tour group onto the temple and try to openly pray - then try using your logic when you are carted off by the temple mount police.

There is going to be a temple built on the temple mount, and with a sanctuary building with two rooms - treated as the holy room, and the holy of holies room. Your logic is not going to prevent it from happening.

Jesus returns to the Mt. of Olives directly across from the temple mount - because it is a holy place in God's eyes.

If Jesus literally sets His feet on the Mount of Olives when He returns, then it means that the holy place / Temple of God will set His feet on the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple Mount soon after those who still continue to reject Him after 2,000 years have built a structure which they call "God's temple".

What do you think is going to happen?

 

[Douggg]

If Jesus literally sets His feet on the Mount of Olives when He returns, then it means that the holy place / Temple of God will set His feet on the Mount of Olives opposite the Temple Mount soon after those who still continue to reject Him after 2,000 years have built a structure which they call "God's temple".

What do you think is going to happen?

The 144,000 Jews become to believe in Jesus before travail of Israel begins (Isaiah 66:7). Then, the rest of the Jews become to believe in Jesus as soon as Israel's travail begins (Isaiah 66:8).

Understanding Isaiah 66:7-8, the 144,000, the rest of the Jews, the man-child

Isaiah 66:7 7 Before she travailed, she brought forth [the 144,000] ; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. [Jesus] The man child in that verse is Jesus. The same man child as in Isaiah 9:6. Before she travailed in bringing forth her children, before her pain came - which...

www.christianforums.com

So when Jesus returns, He will return to a nation of believing Jews.... all of them.