The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD from Mark 13

[Joe]

Let's do a walk though of Mark 13 that is copied and pasted below for reference.

What is the event that spurred these questions from some disciples in verse 4?
“Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

Answer: Verse 2.
And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

Who's questions did the Lord answer?
Answer: Verses 3 and 4
(3) And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
(4) “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

So the destruction of the temple and its buildings they just walked out of (verse 1) is the event, and the questions from Peter, James, John, and Andrew have to do with timing, "when" will these things be, and the indicator, "sign" that it is about to happen.

Our Lord begins to tell the disciples things that will happen in verses 5 through 3 before the destruction of the temple and its buildings of verse 2.

The key indicator, "sign" is detailed in verse 14.
"But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

The same key indicator of the same conversation is simply stated in Luke 21:20.
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near."

So the temple they just walked out of, Jesus said "will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down". He told them the key indicator to know when it is about to happen is "when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be". Luke describes the same key indicator as, "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near."

The questions are: Did the event of verse 2 actually happen? And did the key indicator of verse 14 happen?

The answer is yes to both. It is historical fact that in 66AD the Roman armies under Cestius Gallus surrounded Jerusalem indicating its destruction was near as stated in verse 14. And by God's grace, Cestius Gallus pulled back and departed giving God's faithful people time to flee the city before its utter destruction, verses 14, 15 and 16. And then General Titus, the son of Roman Emperor Vespasian, advanced upon Jerusalem in 70AD laying siege and entering in, completely destroying what remained of the city and the temple.

So we know verse 2 did happen as the Lord foretold. The very temple they walked out of was destroyed, and that in complete fulfillment of our Lord's Word, not one of its stones was left upon another. And we know the pagan Roman Armies are the ones who did it in 70AD. To this day, the Arch of Titus still stands in Rome commemorating his triumph over the Jewish people.

So, this means by default, all of the things mentioned in verse 5 through 13 had to happen too. They had too if our Lord is true. There is no other viable understanding that can circumvent the Words of our Lord as He stated, since the destruction of the temple in verse 2 is contingent upon their fulfillment.

This also means the charge our Lord gave the Apostles had been fulfilled, "And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mat 28:18-19). The Apostle Paul was not wrong when he stated in his letter to the Colossians, "the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven". We know this because verse 10 must be fulfilled before verse 2 could happen.

And also by default, verses 17 through 23 happened too; for all the verses ultimately have to do with the event of verse 2.

We cannot say a single one of these verses did not happen by 70AD and still claim verse 2 did, for then none of them could happen because it would mean our Lord was wrong by saying they would. This also means verse 19 about tribulation is about this same event and not another event. It is part of the same event of verse 2.

I hope this makes sense. There is no spiritualizing of anything. Just fulfillment of the events as foretold by our Lord.

Mark 13:1-23 has been fulfilled entirely.

God Bless


Mar 13:1-23

(1) And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!”
(2) And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
(3) And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
(4) “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”
(5) And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray.
(6) Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray.
(7) And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet.
(8) For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.
(9) “But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.
(10) And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.
(11) And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
(12) And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death.
(13) And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
(14) “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
(15) Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out,
(16) and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak.
(17) And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!
(18) Pray that it may not happen in winter.
(19) For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
(20) And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
(21) And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it.
(22) For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
(23) But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You already have a thread with this same topic. I addressed your misinterpretations in that thread and will include it here too.

Reviewing this thread [about the abomination of desolation] from the very first post, you have been stating things which are factually incorrect and misapplying Scripture through this entire discussion. Through your long winded comments you play Bible verse pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey creating a air of support which just is not accurate. But the one thing that the entire thread was started with is "the abomination of desolation" - so let's set that straight.

And I say back to you; that historical fact in correct application is there and you refuse to accept it. We will go nowhere with this type of bantering. So, please let's leave it out of the conversation and deal with the verses and their application.

No one said there was an object-idol setup. The Lord stated, "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place". Luke interprets it, "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near."

The abomination that desolates is the pagan Roman armies that stood in the land of Israel, even in the temple as the Romans destroyed it leaving no stone upon another as foretold by the Lord. The abomination that desolates was desolating the people, the city, and the temple.

And the Lord had already left the temple desolate. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (Mat 23:37-39)

I hope you can understand now that it is the pagan Roman armies that stood in the holy place, being the abomination of desolation spoken by the prophet Daniel as the Lord foretold.
Click to expand...

Just to start off with: Jesus did not say what you claim He said. And continually stating it does not make it correct. So stop using Jesus as a confirmation of your point of view, m'k?

To summarize your thesis using your own statements:
1. All the prophecies in Daniel about the abomination of desolation have already taken place.
2. Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 12:11 tell of the one and same event.
3. The mention in Dan 11:31... is when Antiochus IV Epiphanes ... desecrates the temple.
4. We know the abomination that causes desolation is the Roman army that did indeed desolate Jerusalem

Everything else are the details you've found to support this thesis.

Let's address the points of your thesis - as briefly as possible. It was very curious as to why Dan 11:31 is not part of your 70 AD narrative even though it very clearly is about "abomination of desolation". Well, it's obvious that Daniel 11 (King of the North vs. King of the South) in no way describes the history of the Roman attack against Jerusalem and Judea. So you have to explain it away - trying to equate it with an actual instance of the desecration of the temple. However, the details in that section of Daniel 11 do not in any way describe the actions of Antiochus either. The confirmation is right in the text: Dan 11:35 and Dan 11:29

[Dan 11:29, 35 LSB] 29 "At the appointed time he will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not happen the way it did before. ...

35 "And some of those who have insight will fall, in order to refine, purge, and make them pure until the time of the end, because [it is] still [to come] at the appointed time.

The text specifically says that this part of the prophecy is describing the time of the end; the time appointed. Something still future to us.

Next, one of your major points is to equate the "abomination of desolation" with the Roman army. You state:

The Roman armies under Cestius entered the outskirts of Jerusalem in late 66 AD. This began the clock for 1290 days between the Roman armies that make desolate the city of Jerusalem and the end of the regular burnt offering that ceased to be offered mid-70AD.

You quote Dan 12:11 as support:

"And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days." (Dan 12:11)

Anyone can see you have misinterpreted the passage. There is no 1290 day countdown between a "desolation" to when the offerings ceased. Even if there was, Dan 12:11 reverses the order you assume. The prophecy is actually equating two events which happen at the same time with the "and". In addition, you have a completely wrong idea about when this takes place. The verse in context is the Messenger's answer to Daniel's question. The answer he receives very clearly states this happens at the end days:

[Dan 12:9 LSB] 9 Then he said, "Go [your way], Daniel, for [these] words are concealed and sealed up until the time of the end.

And finally Daniel 9:27. The 70 Weeks. Since I can't find exactly how you fit this in and your interpretation of the 70 Weeks, I can only state the obvious from the text itself. This abomination action happens in the middle of the last set of 7 years (Week). In addition the prophecy refers to "one" who will come to make desolate. Yet you refer to the abomination as an entire army - many, many people. You can not have it both ways. The Scripture says a single person. But you want (need) to make this about an army. So 3 1/2 years later was 74 AD. And....what exactly happened in 74 AD that was a complete destruction of the Roman army? It was the end of the 70 Weeks afterall and according to your view all 6 reasons given for the 70 Weeks (Dan 9:24) MUST have been fulfilled.

The statements you have made through this thread just do not stand up to the texts in Scripture. I don't even have to continue on to address the misinterpretations you've stated of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The deficiencies of your statements about the "abomination of desolation" in Daniel is enough.

We can get to the prophetic celestial prophesies in another dialogue. This suffices for now.

No thanks. If what you've already stated contains misapplication of Scripture, then anything else would not be worthwhile.

 

[Joe]

You already have a thread with this same topic.

Here's the difference between this thread and the other: The first thread was about comparing Matthew's account about the destruction of the temple and its buildings with Luke's account. This thread is about the event of the the temple's destruction and the timing and the signs preceding the event.

Reviewing this thread [about the abomination of desolation] from the very first post, you have been stating things which are factually incorrect and misapplying Scripture through this entire discussion. Through your long winded comments you play Bible verse pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey creating a air of support which just is not accurate. But the one thing that the entire thread was started with is "the abomination of desolation" - so let's set that straight.

Please, stop grandstanding.

Just to start off with: Jesus did not say what you claim He said. And continually stating it does not make it correct. So stop using Jesus as a confirmation of your point of view, m'k?

Jesus said, "when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place", which Luke simply records, "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near."

It is more than obvious the accounts between Matthew and Luke is the same conversation told differently.

The abomination that causes desolation is the pagan Roman armies that surrounded and eventually desolated the temple and Jerusalem.

To summarize your thesis using your own statements:
1. All the prophecies in Daniel about the abomination of desolation have already taken place.
2. Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 12:11 tell of the one and same event.
3. The mention in Dan 11:31... is when Antiochus IV Epiphanes ... desecrates the temple.
4. We know the abomination that causes desolation is the Roman army that did indeed desolate Jerusalem

Everything else are the details you've found to support this thesis.

Let's address the points of your thesis - as briefly as possible. It was very curious as to why Dan 11:31 is not part of your 70 AD narrative even though it very clearly is about "abomination of desolation".

You want to know why Daniel 11:31 is not a part of 70AD? Easy, like I have already explained, Daniel 11:31 "is when Antiochus IV Epiphanes ... desecrates the temple."

Well, it's obvious that Daniel 11 (King of the North vs. King of the South) in no way describes the history of the Roman attack against Jerusalem and Judea. So you have to explain it away - trying to equate it with an actual instance of the desecration of the temple. However, the details in that section of Daniel 11 do not in any way describe the actions of Antiochus either. The confirmation is right in the text: Dan 11:35 and Dan 11:29

It is well known historically that verses 29-31 have to do with Antiochus intending to invade Egypt for the second time and was forced by the Roman's to raise the siege and leave. In his rage, Antiochus overtook Judea on his way home and stopped the daily sacrifice and setup an idol on the altar.

Please read commentaries on Daniel 11:1 through 35. It matches history so precisely that critics have insisted it was written after the fact.

Click here for Matthew Henry's commentary on Blue Bible for Daniel 11.

The text specifically says that this part of the prophecy is describing the time of the end; the time appointed. Something still future to us.

You are commingling verses 29 and 35, and yet each one is specific to its subject.
Verse 29 is in reference to Antiochus when he tried once again to return to Egypt, "At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but it shall not be this time as it was before."
Verse 30 tells why it shall not be as it was before, "For ships of Chittim shall come against him". Chittim is well known to be the Roman empire.

And history records Antiochus tried a second time to invade Egypt but was stopped by the Romans with ships.

Verse 35 refers to the ending of persecution of the Godly Jews; that time is appointed by God.

There is nothing in verse 29 or 35 that is future to us.

Next, one of your major points is to equate the "abomination of desolation" with the Roman army. You state:

You quote Dan 12:11 as support:

Anyone can see you have misinterpreted the passage. There is no 1290 day countdown between a "desolation" to when the offerings ceased. Even if there was, Dan 12:11 reverses the order you assume. The prophecy is actually equating two events which happen at the same time with the "and". In addition, you have a completely wrong idea about when this takes place. The verse in context is the Messenger's answer to Daniel's question. The answer he receives very clearly states this happens at the end days:


And finally Daniel 9:27. The 70 Weeks. Since I can't find exactly how you fit this in and your interpretation of the 70 Weeks, I can only state the obvious from the text itself. This abomination action happens in the middle of the last set of 7 years (Week). In addition the prophecy refers to "one" who will come to make desolate. Yet you refer to the abomination as an entire army - many, many people. You can not have it both ways. The Scripture says a single person. But you want (need) to make this about an army. So 3 1/2 years later was 74 AD. And....what exactly happened in 74 AD that was a complete destruction of the Roman army? It was the end of the 70 Weeks afterall and according to your view all 6 reasons given for the 70 Weeks (Dan 9:24) MUST have been fulfilled.

The statements you have made through this thread just do not stand up to the texts in Scripture. I don't even have to continue on to address the misinterpretations you've stated of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The deficiencies of your statements about the "abomination of desolation" in Daniel is enough.


No thanks. If what you've already stated contains misapplication of Scripture, then anything else would not be worthwhile.

I'm not going to try and decipher all that you have stated here.

Suffice to say, I hope you see your errors because your own words compared with the biblical and historical facts do not match.

Matthew states, "when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place", and Luke records the same statement differently, "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near."

Both Matthew and Luke are talking about the one and same event, by the one and same pagan armies destroying the temple and its buildings just as the Lord foretold.

This thread is about the event of the the temple's destruction and the timing and the signs preceding the event. Feel free to chime in to the thread's first post.

God Bless

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

You don't accept facts pointed out to you. Noted.