Interplanner
Well-known member
The abomination that desolates is first of all a grammatical phrase in which there is cause and effect. There has to be an evil thing and what it does results in the destruction of the country.
The expression starts, however, as 'the rebellion that desolates' in 8:13. By starts I mean that this is the first spot where this kind of expression is used in Biblical language, the last being the Mt 24 and parallels.
When the 4th of the kingdoms in succession comes, there is a rebellion lead by an exceedingly evil person against the 4th kingdom over Israel, and his rebellion ruins the country. He makes blasphemous claims and bites off more than he can chew.
In ch 9, the same is called the 'abomination' that does that. We learn that it will happen in about 490 years in events that are overwhelmingly catastrophic for Israel, while the prince of that 4th kingdom over Israel is there. Also we learn that Messiah will be cut off (die) but that death will accomplish several redemptive things at the same time. Ie, Israel is destroyed but Messiah succeeds.
The end of this event will sweep the country 'like a flood.' That means it was the most devastating thing to happen since the Noah cataclysm, and the destruction of Israel in the 1st century was indeed one of the epic destructive events of antiquity.
The only expression of Daniel which Jesus quoted on was the AofD. He said that when you see him operating in the temple, get out of the country.
It had to be something a person from Israel would do (to be an abomination) and we know that it was first called a rebellion. And it had to indeed ruin the country. And happen in the 490 year era. That means it was the destruction by the zealot/Judaizer rebellion in Judea in that generation of Christ.
The whole period from the rebellion of Judas (not the disciple but certainly a name-coincidence) in 6 AD (about the census) to the event of Masada is often called the Great Revolt in Israel's history, the last 7 years being called the Jewish War.
But it is the person seizing the temple and using it for this supposed divine-assisted revolt by scandalous followers of Judaism that is the AofD. There were 3 factions among the zealots after Titus resumed the siege of Jerusalem in 68, allowing his father Vespasian to rule the Eastern Empire: John of Gischala (in Galilee); Simon bar Giora and a third by Phineas. These three fought each other for control of Jerusalem, but only managed to weaken any hope for victory. John of Gischala won out; but any of the 3 would have been the AofD signal to leave.
However, as you know, Lk 21 does not say the person is the signal, but simply that when the city is surrounded that the Christians were to leave. (It doesn't say the surrounding is the AofD; it simply says it is time to leave). This was a problem at first in 67. Because Vespasian's encirclement was too tight. But the civil dispute in Rome interrupted the siege work in 67. Vespasian left and the control was relaxed. Many Christians left Jerusalem at that time and regathered in Pella, a Greek-speaking city.
As Lk 13 asks, 'how can you with an army of 10,000, take on an army of 20,000? Shouldn't you seek 'terms of peace' instead?' Lk 19 then says Israel would not seek 'terms of peace' and would be destroyed because of that. The AofD was the cocky and scandalous and willful act of the leader(s) of the Jewish revolt of that period to think God would help them fight off Rome, in the most pathetic of conditions. It was total folly and a total failure.
The expression starts, however, as 'the rebellion that desolates' in 8:13. By starts I mean that this is the first spot where this kind of expression is used in Biblical language, the last being the Mt 24 and parallels.
When the 4th of the kingdoms in succession comes, there is a rebellion lead by an exceedingly evil person against the 4th kingdom over Israel, and his rebellion ruins the country. He makes blasphemous claims and bites off more than he can chew.
In ch 9, the same is called the 'abomination' that does that. We learn that it will happen in about 490 years in events that are overwhelmingly catastrophic for Israel, while the prince of that 4th kingdom over Israel is there. Also we learn that Messiah will be cut off (die) but that death will accomplish several redemptive things at the same time. Ie, Israel is destroyed but Messiah succeeds.
The end of this event will sweep the country 'like a flood.' That means it was the most devastating thing to happen since the Noah cataclysm, and the destruction of Israel in the 1st century was indeed one of the epic destructive events of antiquity.
The only expression of Daniel which Jesus quoted on was the AofD. He said that when you see him operating in the temple, get out of the country.
It had to be something a person from Israel would do (to be an abomination) and we know that it was first called a rebellion. And it had to indeed ruin the country. And happen in the 490 year era. That means it was the destruction by the zealot/Judaizer rebellion in Judea in that generation of Christ.
The whole period from the rebellion of Judas (not the disciple but certainly a name-coincidence) in 6 AD (about the census) to the event of Masada is often called the Great Revolt in Israel's history, the last 7 years being called the Jewish War.
But it is the person seizing the temple and using it for this supposed divine-assisted revolt by scandalous followers of Judaism that is the AofD. There were 3 factions among the zealots after Titus resumed the siege of Jerusalem in 68, allowing his father Vespasian to rule the Eastern Empire: John of Gischala (in Galilee); Simon bar Giora and a third by Phineas. These three fought each other for control of Jerusalem, but only managed to weaken any hope for victory. John of Gischala won out; but any of the 3 would have been the AofD signal to leave.
However, as you know, Lk 21 does not say the person is the signal, but simply that when the city is surrounded that the Christians were to leave. (It doesn't say the surrounding is the AofD; it simply says it is time to leave). This was a problem at first in 67. Because Vespasian's encirclement was too tight. But the civil dispute in Rome interrupted the siege work in 67. Vespasian left and the control was relaxed. Many Christians left Jerusalem at that time and regathered in Pella, a Greek-speaking city.
As Lk 13 asks, 'how can you with an army of 10,000, take on an army of 20,000? Shouldn't you seek 'terms of peace' instead?' Lk 19 then says Israel would not seek 'terms of peace' and would be destroyed because of that. The AofD was the cocky and scandalous and willful act of the leader(s) of the Jewish revolt of that period to think God would help them fight off Rome, in the most pathetic of conditions. It was total folly and a total failure.
