Partial preterism & Preterism: The modern historicist view

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Why is it that the destruction of the temple is seen as the abomination of desolation when the Bar Kokhba revolt seems to line up as a better candidate? It mirrors Antiochus Epiphanes far closer than the first revolt as it even includes Hadrian ordering a temple to Jupiter being built on the Temple Mount. Also Hadrian goes in the same direction as Epiphanes as he placed an idol of a pig at the gate of Jerusalem 'before its gate, that by which we go to Bethlehem, he [Hadrian] set up an idol of a pig in marble, signifying the subjugation of the Jews to Roman authority'. [Eus., Chron, 2, HY 20]

The Abomination of Desolation under the modern historicist view relies upon the fact that in the east SOME cities had begun the worship of the emperor while he was still alive and that the Romans did so also. Caligula was lambasted for making himself a living God and to add to this the worship of Augustus was only permissible after he died (even then it was because he claimed Julius was a God, therefore he'd be the son of a God). That's the exact reason that Antoninus pious gained the cognomen "the pious", because he got the senate to deify his adopted father. Which would show that it was still taboo do deify living emperors some 50+ years after the reign of Titus.

All of this isn't even to mention the fact that the second revolt wiped out the Jewish population within the region to the point where Hadrian had to re-populate it with settlers. Why isn't this second revolt ever held out as a candidate? To my memory even R.C. Sproul didn't pay it lip service when he was discussing the traditional historicist view that he held to. Is it just ignorance or am I missing something crucial here?

For the reference: Eusebius Pamphilius, Church History; Life of Constantine; Oration in Praise of Constantine. Cambridge, UK; Hayes, 1683.

 

[dqhall]

Why is it that the destruction of the temple is seen as the abomination of desolation when the Bar Kokhba revolt seems to line up as a better candidate? It mirrors Antiochus Epiphanes far closer than the first revolt as it even includes Hadrian ordering a temple to Jupiter being built on the Temple Mount. Also Hadrian goes in the same direction as Epiphanes as he placed an idol of a pig at the gate of Jerusalem 'before its gate, that by which we go to Bethlehem, he [Hadrian] set up an idol of a pig in marble, signifying the subjugation of the Jews to Roman authority'. [Eus., Chron, 2, HY 20]

The Abomination of Desolation under the modern historicist view relies upon the fact that in the east SOME cities had begun the worship of the emperor while he was still alive and that the Romans did so also. Caligula was lambasted for making himself a living God and to add to this the worship of Augustus was only permissible after he died (even then it was because he claimed Julius was a God, therefore he'd be the son of a God). That's the exact reason that Antoninus pious gained the cognomen "the pious", because he got the senate to deify his adopted father. Which would show that it was still taboo do deify living emperors some 50+ years after the reign of Titus.

All of this isn't even to mention the fact that the second revolt wiped out the Jewish population within the region to the point where Hadrian had to re-populate it with settlers. Why isn't this second revolt ever held out as a candidate? To my memory even R.C. Sproul didn't pay it lip service when he was discussing the traditional historicist view that he held to. Is it just ignorance or am I missing something crucial here?

For the reference: Eusebius Pamphilius, Church History; Life of Constantine; Oration in Praise of Constantine. Cambridge, UK; Hayes, 1683.

In Matthew 24 and Mark 13 the abomination that causes desolation written about by Daniel is described. These are the events associated with the end of the daily temple sacrifice as described in Daniel 12:1. In Luke 21 the warning is to flee when you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies.

In 70 AD Jerusalem fell to the Romans. They set up a siege against the city. People starved. The Romans broke through the city walls, killed those who resisted and took captives. The city was burned, archaeologists confirmed this. The historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the Romans setting fire to the temple and then prying apart it’s stones looking for melted gold. Not one stone was left on top of another. The retaining wall that held the earth below the temple remains as the Western Wall a.k.a. the Wailing Wall.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

In Matthew 24 and Mark 13 the abomination that causes desolation written about by Daniel is described. These are the events associated with the end of the daily temple sacrifice as described in Daniel 12:1. In Luke 21 the warning is to flee when you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies.

In 70 AD Jerusalem fell to the Romans. They set up a siege against the city. People starved. The Romans broke through the city walls, killed those who resisted and took captives. The city was burned, archaeologists confirmed this. The historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the Romans setting fire to the temple and then prying apart it’s stones looking for melted gold. Not one stone was left on top of another. The retaining wall that held the earth below the temple remains as the Western Wall a.k.a. the Wailing Wall.

Did Matthew 24:14 happen before the abomination of desolation came? or is the order not chronological?
Also if the modern day nation of Israel was to re-institute sacrifice then the prophecy could be for when that occurs, these two verses don't seem concrete for preterism as in reality the sacrifice was cut off when Jesus gave up His life for us. Not when the temple was destroyed. Also destruction of the temple =/= the abomination of desolation. That's the whole point of the post, is that the second revolt seems to fit the narrative of abomination of desolation better than the current view.

 

[dqhall]

Did Matthew 24:14 happen before the abomination of desolation came? or is the order not chronological?
Also if the modern day nation of Israel was to re-institute sacrifice then the prophecy could be for when that occurs, these two verses don't seem concrete for preterism as in reality the sacrifice was cut off when Jesus gave up His life for us. Not when the temple was destroyed. Also destruction of the temple =/= the abomination of desolation. That's the whole point of the post, is that the second revolt seems to fit the narrative of abomination of desolation better than the current view.

The Gospels of Mark and Matthew describe the abomination of desolation written about by Daniel. Daniel lived c. 7th - 6th century B.C.

Antiochus IV captured Jerusalem in the second century B.C. He forced them to sacrifice pigs on the temple altar. This was an abomination to the Jews.

The Maccabees took back Israel.

The Romans conquered and conquered again after the revolt of 66-70 AD was put down. In 70 AD the Herodian Temple was torn down, the daily temple sacrifice ended. Animal sacrifice is not good.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice;
and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (WEB)

Then there was the Bar Kochba revolution that resulted in desolation, but not the desolation that ended the temple animal sacrifices from c. 70 AD to this day.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The Gospels of Mark and Matthew describe the abomination of desolation written about by Daniel. Daniel lived c. 7th - 6th century B.C.

Antiochus IV captured Jerusalem in the second century B.C. He forced them to sacrifice pigs on the temple altar. This was an abomination to the Jews.

The Maccabees took back Israel.

The Romans conquered and conquered again after the revolt of 66-70 AD was put down. In 70 AD the Herodian Temple was torn down, the daily temple sacrifice ended. Animal sacrifice is not good.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice;
and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (WEB)

Then there was the Bar Kochba revolution that resulted in desolation, but not the desolation that ended the temple animal sacrifices from c. 70 AD to this day.

Just wanted to point out that in the verse you referenced in Daniel 12:1, if you read the following verses it sounds like he's talking about the resurrection and not the destruction of the temple. Again I'd point out that technically animal sacrifices ended when Christ was crucified, not at the destruction of the temple. As Christ is The One who makes all clean. I still don't know how the point can be made that the destruction of the temple was the abomination of desolation. You could make the argument that in Luke 21 that the armies that surrounded Jerusalem were talking about the second revolt in exactly the same way that you would argue the first revolt.

 

[RandyPNW]

Why is it that the destruction of the temple is seen as the abomination of desolation when the Bar Kokhba revolt seems to line up as a better candidate? It mirrors Antiochus Epiphanes far closer than the first revolt as it even includes Hadrian ordering a temple to Jupiter being built on the Temple Mount. Also Hadrian goes in the same direction as Epiphanes as he placed an idol of a pig at the gate of Jerusalem 'before its gate, that by which we go to Bethlehem, he [Hadrian] set up an idol of a pig in marble, signifying the subjugation of the Jews to Roman authority'. [Eus., Chron, 2, HY 20]

The premise of your question is based, I believe, on a faulty understanding of what the AoD meant. We often equate the AoD with the events in the life of Antiochus 4, who forced idolatry upon the temple worship of the Jews. We may have therefore viewed the making of a pig sacrifice in the temple area as the "abomination," or perhaps the submission of images like Zeus or Antiochus himself.

But we were never told that idols were the AoD, even though they do fit the biblical definition of "abominations." The Abomination of Desolation has to do with the pagan destruction of God's sacred people and religion, and not with any specific form of idolatry.

Therefore, when we identify the AoD in the Olivet Discourse, we are not looking for the specific acts of Antiochus in committing idolatry. In fact there was not just one, but there were, two AoDs in the book of Daniel. Dan 8 and 11 largely had to do with Antiochus 4. But the AoD mentioned in Dan 9 is the same one Jesus referenced in his Olivet Discourse, and refers, I believe, to the pagan Roman army that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple.

There was indeed more than a single phase to this Roman destruction of Jerusalem. But Jesus specifically identified a desolation to take place "in this generation," ie during the lifetime of his apostles' contemporaries. This could only have referred to 66-70 AD.

This historic interpretation is not Preterism by default. Preterists have a system that includes this historical interpretation, but it was a position held by the Church Fathers well before Preterism as a system even existed.

Preterism attempts to view all future prophecy as fulfilled in the Early Church. But this historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse leaves lots of room for future prophecies, as well as the historical fulfillment of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. For example, the fall of Jerusalem "in this generation" was said by Jesus to lead to an age-long punishment of the Jewish People called "the Great Tribulation."

So as much as the Olivet Discourse was focused on the fall of Jewish religion in Jesus' time, that Discourse hardly meant to ignore that future 2nd Coming of Christ, along with his Kingdom. This is not Preterism, nor Partial Preterism. Rather, Jesus was acting as a prophet and informing the Jewish People that their nation was soon to be judged. In no way did Jesus mean that that judgment was the end of biblical prophecy!

 

[keras]

Why is it that the destruction of the temple is seen as the abomination of desolation when the Bar Kokhba revolt seems to line up as a better candidate?

The bar Kochba revolt was in 132 - 135 AD.
The Temple was destroyed and gone in 70 AD.
So your premise is impossible. As is the idea that the Abomination in the Temple, as per Daniel 9:27 and 2 Thess 2:4, is history.

We await the final fulfillment of all the clearly stated Prophesies. They can and they will happen as described. Graphic allegories aside, but they can be easily explained.
What needs to be realized, is that there is coming a reset to our civilization. God did it before, using water to destroy the ungodly peoples. He has said, in over 100 Prophesies that He will do it again; the next time by fire.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Thanks for the help and understanding everyone, it's been a question burning in my mind for a very long time as I couldn't help but see the overwhelming similarities between Epiphanes & the second revolt and nobody ever really talked about it. This cleared a lot of that up and I was clearly in the wrong, so thank you again. God bless .

 

[claninja]

Why is it that the destruction of the temple is seen as the abomination of desolation when the Bar Kokhba revolt seems to line up as a better candidate? It mirrors Antiochus Epiphanes far closer than the first revolt as it even includes Hadrian ordering a temple to Jupiter being built on the Temple Mount. Also Hadrian goes in the same direction as Epiphanes as he placed an idol of a pig at the gate of Jerusalem 'before its gate, that by which we go to Bethlehem, he [Hadrian] set up an idol of a pig in marble, signifying the subjugation of the Jews to Roman authority'. [Eus., Chron, 2, HY 20]

The Abomination of Desolation under the modern historicist view relies upon the fact that in the east SOME cities had begun the worship of the emperor while he was still alive and that the Romans did so also. Caligula was lambasted for making himself a living God and to add to this the worship of Augustus was only permissible after he died (even then it was because he claimed Julius was a God, therefore he'd be the son of a God). That's the exact reason that Antoninus pious gained the cognomen "the pious", because he got the senate to deify his adopted father. Which would show that it was still taboo do deify living emperors some 50+ years after the reign of Titus.

All of this isn't even to mention the fact that the second revolt wiped out the Jewish population within the region to the point where Hadrian had to re-populate it with settlers. Why isn't this second revolt ever held out as a candidate? To my memory even R.C. Sproul didn't pay it lip service when he was discussing the traditional historicist view that he held to. Is it just ignorance or am I missing something crucial here?

For the reference: Eusebius Pamphilius, Church History; Life of Constantine; Oration in Praise of Constantine. Cambridge, UK; Hayes, 1683.

There was no Jewish temple during the 2nd Jewish revolt (called 3rd by some historians) . The OD is about the destruction of the temple.

Additionally, jospehus records the Roman soldiers sacrificing to their ensigns (idols) at the temple near the eastern gate. So I guess the next question would be, does the location of the sacrifice make it an AOD, while another location does not? Altar vs eastern gate.

“And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple, (18)and set them over-against its eastern gate. And there did they offer sacrifices to them: and there did they make Titus Imperator (19) with the greatest acclamations of joy.” Wars of the Jews 6.6.1