genuineoriginal
New member
The actual words of Jesus to the disciples were that they would know the desolation of Jerusalem was near when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies.The abomination that causes desolation can not be Armies surrounding Jerusalem because the abominations are detestable things that are put near the temple by the Anti-Christ
Do you know why the disciples substituted the words Jesus spoke with the reference to the "abomination that causes desolation" spoken of by Daniel?
No?
Mark and Matthew were written to a Jewish audience and the words of Jesus were hidden in these two gospels to avoid the appearance of sedition against Rome.
The writers of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew provided a reference to the invasion of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes which was called "the abomination that maketh desolate" in Daniel 11 to hide the words of Jesus which specifically spoke of the armies surrounding Jerusalem, which could only be from the armies of Rome coming to suppress an insurrection.
Luke was written to a Gentile audience and he had to use the words of Jesus because the Gentiles were not expected to know that "the abomination that maketh desolate" was a reference to an event where Jerusalem was invaded by armies.
What Is the ‘Abomination of Desolation’?
If a group of Christians sat down to list perplexing passages, it wouldn't take long for someone to mention Matthew 24:15-16: “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
...
As always, the first step is to read the text in literary, cultural, historical, and canonical contexts. Then we analyze the structure of the passage and do the necessary lexical and grammatical work.
...
Scholars generally agree that the first reference of these prophecies is the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who ruled Palestine from 175-64 B.C. Antiochus treated Israel with such violence and contempt that they rebelled against him. When he came to suppress the rebellion, his forces entered the temple, stopped the regular sacrifices, set up an idol of or altar for Zeus, and apparently offered swine there as a sacrifice. This is an abomination because it is idolatry, and it brings desolation because it defiles the holy place at the heart of Israel. This act was the abomination “of” desolation, the abomination “causing” desolation.
...
Then he says, “When you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation . . . '—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
This prophecy makes sense only with reference to the fall of Jerusalem. It cannot possibly apply to Jesus' return. When he comes it will be pointless for an unbeliever to try to flee. And a believer will not want to flee. For the same reason, the following command not to go back to get a cloak and the woe for nursing mothers who must flee cannot refer to Jesus' return. But they make perfect sense if Jesus predicts that another abomination of desolation, like Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel, is coming. Indeed that abomination did come in Roman form in AD 70. The Roman armies were always an abomination because they carried with them idolatrous images of the emperor, whom they worshiped. And those armies brought desolation because their commander leveled the city and entered the holy of holies, defiling it.
If a group of Christians sat down to list perplexing passages, it wouldn't take long for someone to mention Matthew 24:15-16: “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
...
As always, the first step is to read the text in literary, cultural, historical, and canonical contexts. Then we analyze the structure of the passage and do the necessary lexical and grammatical work.
...
Scholars generally agree that the first reference of these prophecies is the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes IV, who ruled Palestine from 175-64 B.C. Antiochus treated Israel with such violence and contempt that they rebelled against him. When he came to suppress the rebellion, his forces entered the temple, stopped the regular sacrifices, set up an idol of or altar for Zeus, and apparently offered swine there as a sacrifice. This is an abomination because it is idolatry, and it brings desolation because it defiles the holy place at the heart of Israel. This act was the abomination “of” desolation, the abomination “causing” desolation.
...
Then he says, “When you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation . . . '—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
This prophecy makes sense only with reference to the fall of Jerusalem. It cannot possibly apply to Jesus' return. When he comes it will be pointless for an unbeliever to try to flee. And a believer will not want to flee. For the same reason, the following command not to go back to get a cloak and the woe for nursing mothers who must flee cannot refer to Jesus' return. But they make perfect sense if Jesus predicts that another abomination of desolation, like Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel, is coming. Indeed that abomination did come in Roman form in AD 70. The Roman armies were always an abomination because they carried with them idolatrous images of the emperor, whom they worshiped. And those armies brought desolation because their commander leveled the city and entered the holy of holies, defiling it.