So what does this mean to you?
and how would you apply this to the future as a revelation?
abomination of desolation
by tula 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JosephMalik
Tula,
Of all the times it is mentioned in the Bible this is the time that means the most to me: Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. I believe that this is the same time and same abomination discussed in Matthew and Mark. The thing that makes it so important is its proximity to the resurrection of the dead. Just a few years away not lifetimes. And the daily sacrifice could be something very much like this network or others like it. That is about as far as I care to speculate. This has not happened yet and it is just a guess on my part.
Joseph
-
Narkissos
What it meant to Daniel is approximately the following (1 Maccabees 1:41ff, re: 168 BC):
Then the king (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and that all should give up their particular customs. All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, to defile the sanctuary and the priests, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. He added, "And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die."
In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people and commanded the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice, town by town. Many of the people, everyone who forsook the law, joined them, and they did evil in the land; they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had.
Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding towns of Judah, and offered incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets. The books of the law that they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. Anyone found possessing the book of the covenant, or anyone who adhered to the law, was condemned to death by decree of the king. They kept using violence against Israel, against those who were found month after month in the towns. On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar that was on top of the altar of burnt offering. According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers' necks.What it meant to Mark and Matthew was already something entirely different, i.e. the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 66 AD, cf. Luke's "translation":
When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
Let generations of readers understand...
-
JosephMalik
Narkissos,
I know that this is the view of many, but this does not mean that there is only one application for every historical period where it is under discussion. The history under discussion in chapter 12 is the same one during which the resurrection occurs. I read Carl's work where his application like yours applies much earlier. So it pays to take another look at it. I see no reason why it is not the same one described in Matthew and Mark since Daniel and this abomination was referenced there and that abomination did not take place at the time you describe. There was already a thread where I was able to show that it could not apply to 70CE as most think. That was simply another war in 70CE which continued to 73CE at Masada and there have been wars and reports of wars since so why insist upon it? Christ did not come then and is not present now. 70CE therefore was not a sign of anything that the faith should look forward to.
Joseph
-
Narkissos
Joseph
this does not mean that there is only one application
I already pointed to two distinct Biblical interpretations, and those may echo still a few others, either before the 66-73 Jewish War, or after (e.g. in Bar Kochba's time). Practically any Roman (e.g. Pilate) or Roman-related (e.g. Herod) action even remotely affecting the temple would have been reminiscent of the "abomination of desolation" to some religious-nationalistic Jews and easily described as such, as several non-canonical texts attest.
I see no reason why it is not the same one described in Matthew and Mark since Daniel and this abomination was referenced there and that abomination did not take place at the time you describe.
You're right on one point (at least): to Mark and Matthew the Roman sacrilege (whatever it precisely is, which may have changed along the process of Gospel redaction btw) is what Daniel prophesied. Iow it is not treated as a "second fulfillment"; there is no indication imo that the authors / redactors were aware of the Seleucid reference two centuries earlier. But when compared to the text of Daniel it is still a re-interpretation.
Christ did not come then and is not present now. 70CE therefore was not a sign of anything that the faith should look forward to.
We differ, of course, because I allow for one category that you don't recognise: that of failed prophecies -- or, in that case, failed reinterpretations of previously failed prophecies. That the events which either Daniel or the Gospel writers expected to occur after their respective "abomination of desolation" did not occur, doesn't necessarily mean that there is still another "abomination of desolation" to come. It may also mean that they were wrong.
-
tula
There was already a thread where I was able to show that it could not apply to 70CE as most think.
Joseph,
Thank you. Could you please send link to that thread? And also, how do you see this as applying to the future? Do you have some idea of how it might be interpreted in a future scenerio?
-
JosephMalik
That the events which either Daniel or the Gospel writers expected to occur after their respective "abomination of desolation" did not occur, doesn't necessarily mean that there is still another "abomination of desolation" to come. It may also mean that they were wrong.
Narkissos,
But I can also show that they were right. That is why Matthew and Mark referenced Daniel instead of Jerusalem as Luke did. Luke did not have to worry about his readers running to the mountains as the others did. So Luke could recount our Lord’s words literally for his readers. Matthew and Mark had to recount them symbolically using Daniel instead. Therefore their Jewish readers would not run to Masada and get killed anyway. This clearly moved the prophecy in time historically to the resurrection of Daniel for them which was far in the future and is the point of the prophecy anyway according to all three accounts. That the apostles did not quote Jesus word for word but interpreted Jesus sometimes to suit their expected readers is easy to show elsewhere as well. People keep saying things that they cannot prove as truth. So if they can do that so can I but at least the reasons given are sound ones. The resurrection is an integral part of all four accounts. They all teach something like this: 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. This did not happen in 70CE and we are still waiting for it in our day. It should not be difficult to grasp something so simple and yet universally overlooked. All this talk about failed prophecies and second fulfillment's is all speculative and unprovable anyway and to me indicates someone has the wrong interpretation to begin with.
Joseph
-
JosephMalik
And also, how do you see this as applying to the future? Do you have some idea of how it might be interpreted in a future scenerio?
Tula,
No. We will know when it happens, this much was promised, we are to hold our heads erect, but guessing was not part of the prophecy. The word Jerusalem however should not be taken literally for the city. It is part of the symbology for the faith at a future time. That much was shown by not using it in Matthew and Mark or Daniel.
Joseph
-
JCanon
This is a somewhat complex reference, but if you note the context of Matthew we can specifically identify the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" by whatever forces would desolate the Jews, the "holy ones" during the last days. Remember, this "disgusting thing standing in a holy place" would desolate the holy ones.
Therefore, the "disgusting thing that causes desolation", meaning that causes the "great tribulation" is the German army in WWII when it surrounded the central place in exile of the "holy ones" (the Jews) in late 1939, Warsaw Poland. So both the "disgusting thing causing desolation" and "God of Magog" are the same entity. In addition, this great tribulation is specifically to occur during a 7-year period after 62 weeks. 62 weeks is 434 years. That means after 434 years into the 70 weeks associated with the second coming. The first-coming 70 weeks end in 36 CE and begin in 455BCE. Thus when we count down the 490-year periods down to our day, which is 4, the 70 weeks ends in 1996 and begins in 1506. 434 years into these 70 weeks begins in 1940. One week would end in 1947. It is only after this "great tribulation" that the Jews would be restored. Thus the reference to the 1335 days mentioned links the second coming with a period shortly after the great tribulation. The Jewish "tribulation" ended when they finally had their own homeland again, which was 1947.
Therefore, we can use 1947 to end the 1290 days, which represents 1290 years. If, indeed, 1947 ends the 1290 days then we need only go back in time to see what kinds of things were happening that would fulfill the "digusting thing" in the holy place back in 657 AD. The only thing of significance I discovered around 657 was the establishment of the official rabbinical system. This might fulfill this. 657 AD is in the middle of the Moslem takeover of the Promised Land, perhaps that is the general reference as well, a foreign god ruling in the Promised Land.
But of keener interest is the Mosque, which is just a huge phallic symbol being built around 687 AD. The mosque, clearly a disgusting thing in a holy place was thus built at another interpretation of "time, times and half time" that is 1260 days. So the Bible might be making the option of calculating in this case 1290 days into a period of 1260 days and referencing the pagan Dome of the Rock as the disgusting thing in a holy place that gets placed 1290 days, or "time, times and half time" prior to the end of the 1290 days. But it doesn't matter since we don't need to determine when the 1290 or 1260 days event begins because the event ending the 1290 days is 1947. The 1335 days, 45 years later, which marks the year of the second coming is confirmed by the 70th week. That is, you have 70 weeks from 1506 to 1996, so the 70th week of the second coming is from 1989-1996 with the messiah first reappearing just before the mid-70th-week passover. This is the benefit of chronology. It helps us narrow down and confirm fulfillment. And that is why those who ignore chronology end up thinking sometimes that a fulfillment that seems to work generally for them isn't correct, something they could have determined if they tried to coordinate the chronology. So, at this point we can confirm if 1947 is truly the end of the 1290 days because it should date the second coming to within a year of of the mid-70th-week Passover, which occurred on April 6, 1993. 45 years plus 1947 gives us 1992, the same dating.
That's my interpretation of all this.
JC
-
JCanon
The Dome of the Rock is my first choice for the "disgusting thing" set in place to start the 1290 days ending in 1947.
As Wikipaedia states, however, " It was built between 687 and 691 by the 9 th Caliph, Abd al-Malik, making it the oldest extant Islamic building in the world."
687 AD is not 1290 years from 1947, but it is 1260 years from 1947! (1947 - 1260 = 687). That's too much of an obvious "disgusting thing", a phallic symbol over the temple mount to ignore as part of this fulfillment since it matches an alternative period of "time, time and half time". That is 3.5 years or half a week alternatively is assigned to 1260 or 1290 days, depending. The timing is symbolic and rounded against solar years. 3.5 solar years is 1278 days, which is shorter than 1290 but longer than 1260.
That is not to say, however, there is not also a fulfillment in 657 AD. There was for instance, a definitive change in the rabbinical system ending in 657, which began a new one. Thus it might be interesting to note why this might have violated something holy, with regard to the Saboraim vs the Gaonim methods.
- The Saboraim (from Heb. to think or to discern): teachers of the law after the conclusion of the Talmud, 500 to 657 A.D., who determined the law from a careful examination of all the considerations urged by the Amoraim in their controversies on divine, legal, and ritual questions contained in the Talmud.
- The Gaonim, the last doctors of the law in the rabbinic succession, from 657 A.D. to 1034. http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/jewishsystem.html
One indicator, is that this system was instituted in some connection with the new Moslem takeover, with the suggestion that the new system was compromised somehow at this point by Moslem takeover. Obviously, something connected with Judaism or worsihp linked to 1290 days could qualify as the setting of the "disgusting thing." It would thus be interesting to look specifically at this transition to see if anything is overtly apparent.
There could be some compromise that is religiously significant here with respect to Judaism. Again, though, something significant did take place in 657 both politically and religiously for the Jews. Or perhaps it is something else we're not seeing. Regardless, we have a clear-cut end to the 1290/1260 days in 1947.
JCanon
