When will you see the abomination of desolation?

[tonychanyt]

Daniel 11:

31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (meaning "God Manifest") was a Greek Hellenistic king who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC. He prosecuted the Jews.

Benson Commentary:

We are informed by Josephus, by the author of the Maccabees, and others, that Antiochus’s soldiers entered the temple and plundered it, and that afterward he ordered that the Jews should not be suffered to offer up the daily sacrifices, which, according to the law, they were accustomed to offer; that he compelled them also to omit their worship of the true God, and to pay divine honours to them whom he regarded as gods, and to make shrines in every city and village, and to build altars, and daily to sacrifice swine upon them: see Joseph. Antiq. lib. 12. cap. 5, sec. 4. And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate — In the Scriptures, idols are commonly called abominations. This was a prediction of the great profanation Antiochus should cause to the temple, in placing an idol upon the altar of burnt- offerings: see 1Ma 6:54; 1Ma 6:59. It is probable, that the idol was Jupiter, because we find that they dedicated the temple anew to Jupiter Olympus: see 2Ma 6:2. It is here called the abomination that maketh desolate, because it banished the true worship of God, and his worshippers, from the place.

Daniel’s prophecies about the abomination of desolation was at least a partial fulfillment in 167 BC. Jesus spoke further on the prophecy and warned the Jews in Luke 21:

20“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it.

This time, it was the Romans. Titus, before he became the Emperor, besieged Jerusalem in 70 AD. A few months later, Roman forces set fire to the temple.

A parallel account was in Mark 13:

14a “But when you see the abomination [neuter] of desolation [feminine] standing [masculine] where he ought not to be (let the reader understand).

Mark was talking about a man. After Jerusalem fell, Titus stood in the destroyed temple.

Another parallel account was in Matthew 24:

15 “So when you see the abomination [neuter] of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing [neuter] in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Matthew was talking about the abomination itself which could refer to the Roman ensigns, Benson:

We learn from Josephus, that after the city was taken, the Romans brought their ensigns into the temple, and placed them over against the eastern gate, and there sacrificed to them.

There may yet be another fulfillment in the future, Matthew 24 continues:

19 alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 20Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 21For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

When do you see the abomination of desolation?

170 BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes was one possibility. 70 AD Titus was another. There could be yet a future possibility.

 

[Unqualified]

When do you see the abomination of desolation? I’m not going to be here. But when he presents himself as god in the temple and says so.. and presents himself as also the Jewish messiah and sits down in the holiest place on tv. And takes the adoration of the people- a worldly king and world leader. He stops wars for about six months but not a lasting peace for he himself breaks the peace. It’s all just words but he does have some solutions.

The devil counterfeits everything of the lord, like Epiphanes. Trying to throw us off course and believe it has already happened, so we will not be knowing when it happens. And some are not ready. A counterfeit happened not a partial fulfillment.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There have been many antichrists throughout history. Technically, anyone who denies Christ is an anti-christ, or of the anti-christ spirit.
Obama was anti-Christ when he declared that USA was not a Christian country and lit up the white house with rainbow colors.
Virtually all communist rulers were anti-Christ when they declared Christianity as an opiate of the masses. We have many antichrist leaders across this nation.
An antichrist is someone who does not believe in Christ and does not want you to believe in Him either. The USA is eat up with this spirit.
All this is leading to the beast of revelation. He will join with other anti-Christs down through history to persecute and kill Christians.
There are anti-Christ spirits standing in pulpits.

 

[David Kent]

Daniel 11:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (meaning "God Manifest") was a Greek Hellenistic king who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC. He prosecuted the Jews.

Benson Commentary:


Daniel’s prophecies about the abomination of desolation was at least a partial fulfillment in 167 BC. Jesus spoke further on the prophecy and warned the Jews in Luke 21:

This time, it was the Romans. Titus, before he became the Emperor, besieged Jerusalem in 70 AD. A few months later, Roman forces set fire to the temple.

A parallel account was in Mark 13:

Mark was talking about a man. After Jerusalem fell, Titus stood in the destroyed temple.

Another parallel account was in Matthew 24:

Matthew was talking about the abomination itself which could refer to the Roman ensigns, Benson:

There may yet be another fulfillment in the future, Matthew 24 continues:


When do you see the abomination of desolation?

170 BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes was one possibility. 70 AD Titus was another. There could be yet a future possibility.

The fact that the word is masculine or feminine that the person is.
In English, John 1 says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
In French it reads "AU commencement était la Parole, la Parole était avec Dieu, et la Parole était Dieu." Ostervald revised version 1996 Mission Baptiste Maranatha, printed by Bearing Precious Seed, Milford, Ohio 45150, USA. Parole is feminine.

 

[Trivalee]

Daniel 11:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (meaning "God Manifest") was a Greek Hellenistic king who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC. He prosecuted the Jews.

Benson Commentary:


Daniel’s prophecies about the abomination of desolation was at least a partial fulfillment in 167 BC. Jesus spoke further on the prophecy and warned the Jews in Luke 21:

This time, it was the Romans. Titus, before he became the Emperor, besieged Jerusalem in 70 AD. A few months later, Roman forces set fire to the temple.

A parallel account was in Mark 13:

Mark was talking about a man. After Jerusalem fell, Titus stood in the destroyed temple.

Another parallel account was in Matthew 24:

Matthew was talking about the abomination itself which could refer to the Roman ensigns, Benson:

There may yet be another fulfillment in the future, Matthew 24 continues:


When do you see the abomination of desolation?

170 BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes was one possibility. 70 AD Titus was another. There could be yet a future possibility.

There was no AoD in 70 AD, that must be ruled out, leaving the end-times Antichrist as the bad guy to fulfil the prophecy according to 2 Thess 2:4.

 

[David Kent]

There was no AoD in 70 AD, that must be ruled out, leaving the end-times Antichrist as the bad guy to fulfil the prophecy according to 2 Thess 2:4.

There is no end times Antichrist. The little horn of Daniel 7 was the Antichrist and he came out of the 10 horns, or kingdoms, that the Roman empire split into in the 5th century, he came to power in the same hour as the 10 horn kingdoms. He is the eighth head of Rome.

 

[Trivalee]

There have been many antichrists throughout history. Technically, anyone who denies Christ is an anti-christ, or of the anti-christ spirit.
Obama was anti-Christ when he declared that USA was not a Christian country and lit up the white house with rainbow colors.
Virtually all communist rulers were anti-Christ when they declared Christianity as an opiate of the masses. We have many antichrist leaders across this nation.
An antichrist is someone who does not believe in Christ and does not want you to believe in Him either. The USA is eat up with this spirit.
All this is leading to the beast of revelation. He will join with other anti-Christs down through history to persecute and kill Christians.
There are anti-Christ spirits standing in pulpits.

According to 1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that Antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. NLT

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

What is clear from the above are:

1-The Antichrist (singular) is coming (or shall come) [future].
2-And there are many antichrists (plural)
3-Even now there are many antichrists - the 'many' are already on earth.

 

[David Kent]

According to 1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that Antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. NLT

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

What is clear from the above are:

1-The Antichrist (singular) is coming (or shall come) [future].
2-And there are many antichrists (plural)
3-Even now there are many antichrists - the 'many' are already on earth.

It doesn't mention The Antichrist, just Antichrist. Antichrist is the 8th head of the Roman empire, the other heads were dynasties and the Antichrist dynasty is aother. It is to exist for much longer than the other heads, from the removal if the Roman empire, 2 Thessalonians 2:5 till the end time that futurists are so fond of speaking about.

 

[Trivalee]

It doesn't mention The Antichrist, just Antichrist. Antichrist is the 8th head of the Roman empire, the other heads were dynasties and the Antichrist dynasty is aother. It is to exist for much longer than the other heads, from the removal if the Roman empire, 2 Thessalonians 2:5 till the end time that futurists are so fond of speaking about.

I'm afraid you lost me. Prophecies of the end times emphatically point to an Antichrist, a man empowered by Satan to do his bidding taking the world centre-stage at that time. The end-time is the close of the age and it's very real, so I don't know what you mean by "the end time that futurists are so fond of speaking about."

 

[David Kent]

I'm afraid you lost me. Prophecies of the end times emphatically point to an Antichrist, a man empowered by Satan to do his bidding taking the world centre-stage at that time. The end-time is the close of the age and it's very real, so I don't know what you mean by "the end time that futurists are so fond of speaking about ."

OK. Supposing that the little horn in Daniel 7 is antichrist, what is his mission? Daniel 7:20-25

 

[ViaCrucis]

Daniel 11:

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (meaning "God Manifest") was a Greek Hellenistic king who ruled the Seleucid Empire from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC. He prosecuted the Jews.

Benson Commentary:


Daniel’s prophecies about the abomination of desolation was at least a partial fulfillment in 167 BC. Jesus spoke further on the prophecy and warned the Jews in Luke 21:

This time, it was the Romans. Titus, before he became the Emperor, besieged Jerusalem in 70 AD. A few months later, Roman forces set fire to the temple.

A parallel account was in Mark 13:

Mark was talking about a man. After Jerusalem fell, Titus stood in the destroyed temple.

Another parallel account was in Matthew 24:

Matthew was talking about the abomination itself which could refer to the Roman ensigns, Benson:

There may yet be another fulfillment in the future, Matthew 24 continues:


When do you see the abomination of desolation?

170 BC Antiochus IV Epiphanes was one possibility. 70 AD Titus was another. There could be yet a future possibility.

In Daniel it's a reference to Antiochus IV. Jesus uses that historical event to indicate what would happen in Jerusalem later, and that was fulfilled in 70 AD. When the Zealots took over the city prior to the Roman siege, they created a blood-bath in the Temple, Josephus writes about this in his Wars. When the Romans took the city, they committed more violence and then destroyed the Temple and carried off the holy artifacts of the Temple as spoils of war.

I see no reason to believe in a still-yet future fulfillment of either. These things have already happened. When the Lord Jesus in the Olivet Discourse talks about His future coming in judgment, He is actually pretty clear that it happens without us known when it will happen. He uses language like a thief coming in the night, that there will be two people together with one taken and one left, He says it will be like the time of Noah when people were going about life as usual when, without warning, the flood came. He explicitly says "No one knows" and He will come when we do not expect.

If there were signs to look out for, then we could reasonably predict His return. But we can't. The signs Jesus offers applied to the destruction of the Temple, not to His future coming in judgment. And since we can't know when our Lord will return, our business here on earth is to be the faithful servant. To be like the wise virgins awaiting the Bridegroom who endure through the night even though we don't know when the Bridegroom comes; to be like a faithful servant that wisely invests what the master gives, and to treat the least of these justly because when the King stands over us to judge He will say, "I was hungry" "I was thirsty" etc--and how we treated the least of these is how we treated Him.

Our job isn't to invent fanciful theories of how the end will happen. Our job is to trust in the promise we have received, and to go about doing the work which our Lord entrusted to us to do.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Trivalee]

OK. Supposing that the little horn in Daniel 7 is antichrist, what is his mission? Daniel 7:20-25

I don't know if you're asking me about the mission of the antichrist out of humour or out of genuine interest that you don't know. But if you really don't know, perhaps you should read 2 Thess 2:4, I couldn't have done better than Apostle Paul in explaining his (Antichrist's) motive and objective.

 

[Trivalee]

There is no end times Antichrist. The little horn of Daniel 7 was the Antichrist and he came out of the 10 horns, or kingdoms, that the Roman empire split into in the 5th century, he came to power in the same hour as the 10 horn kingdoms. He is the eighth head of Rome.

The little horn of Dan 7 is yet to manifest. His timescale is in the end-times - read Rev 13 and 17.

 

[Aaron112]

3-Even now there are many antichrists - the 'many' are already on earth.

"... in our midst..", i.e. even in the assemblies of Christians, wolves in sheeps clothing....

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't know if you're asking me about the mission of the antichrist out of humour or out of genuine interest that you don't know. But if you really don't know, perhaps you should read 2 Thess 2:4, I couldn't have done better than Apostle Paul in explaining his (Antichrist's) motive and objective.

But 2 Thessalonians 2:4 doesn't mention antichrist. Interpreting the man of sin/son of perdition as "antichrist" requires a particular set of assumptions. I'd argue that to make that connection one needs to establish that first as an argument; rather than treating it as axiomatic and obvious.

First we would have to establish that the figure Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is identical with John's "antichrist" from his first two epistles.

The same would need to be done with the Beast mentioned in the Apocalypse, and other places.

And then one would need to present an argument as to why this antichrist figure is going to show up "in the end times".

Sometimes when we've been taught how to read the Bible a certain way we come to take certain things we've been taught for granted, we just assume them and treat them as axiomatic premises. And so we forget to do the groundwork to seeing if our assumptions are accurate.

I was raised in a Dispensationalist environment, one that was rather sheltered theologically. I didn't even know that there were other views until I was around 16 or 17 years old. And I never actually bothered to read the Bible for myself to test those ideas as being true or not until I was seriously challenged to do so. I was actually pretty cocky, but then I started to look at the Bible closer. The Bible simply didn't say the things I was told it did, not when I set aside my preconceptions and tried to just look at the words as written.

Here's an example: I grew up being told that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 was about Jesus coming back to rapture Christians into heaven to escape tribulation. Then I read it, really looked at what it said. I noticed that no mention of tribulation is mentioned, but also no mention of Christians being taken to heaven is mentioned either.

As I continued to learn and study and get older, I continued to challenge myself. For example, I assumed that the Apocalypse of St. John--the Revelation--was about how things would unfold in "the end times". But the Revelation never says that. The actual words in the Revelation itself is that it consists of visions which John saw on Patmos, "things which you have seen, things which are, and things which shall shortly come to pass" (Revelation 1:19). That doesn't sound like "write down things which will happen just before the end of the world".

Anyway, all I'm saying is this: Don't be afraid to challenge the assumptions and preconceptions which you bring to the Bible. Challenging those is essential if we want to be good students of God's word. And just because we challenge ourselves in this way doesn't mean everything we were taught or told is wrong. On the contrary, in a great many cases I've found that by doing this there were things I was taught which I believed even more strongly about because I went back to the source itself.

But still, go back to the Scriptures and ask questions like, "Why do I believe it means this?"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

"... in our midst..", i.e. even in the assemblies of Christians, wolves in sheeps clothing....

Because what St. John is talking about in his first two epistles were ancient heretics. In the context of those epistles, heretics specifically of the Docetic variety. The Docetists denied that Jesus was real flesh and blood, that Jesus only seemed (Greek dokeo) to have a body, only seemed to be human.

St. John's encounters and dealings with these ancient heretics, especially one named Cerinthus, is often spoken about in early Christian literature. Including one story about how John, upon seeing Cerinthus in the public bath house rebuked him publicly. Cerinthus taught that Jesus and the Christ were distinct and different: Jesus was just a man, the natural offspring of Joseph and Mary (denying the Virgin Birth) who when baptized by John the Baptist the Christ in the form of a dove descended and entered into Jesus; and used the body of Jesus as a vessel for a few years until departing from that vessel at the crucifixion. Cerinthus denied the Virgin Birth, denied the Incarnation of the Logos as Jesus Christ, denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and also taught one must strictly observe the Jewish commandments in the Law of Moses.

This is why in John's epistles he says that whoever denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is antichrist. The spirit of antichrist is, first and foremost, the spirit of heresy. Such heresy is opposed to Christ, and therefore anti-Christos: Against Christ.

-CryptoLutheran