Ad 70 wasn't eschatology, that is, it isn't about the end times.
Scripture says otherwise.
It was judgment upon Israel for their sin of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Which is eschatological.
I can't even get past that eternal part.
Which is part of the problem to be solved.
Here is Jesus in Luke:
9 And when you hear of wars and revolts, do not be alarmed; for these things must take place first, but the end will not follow immediately.”
"10 Then He continued by saying to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, 11 and there will be [j]massive earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrible sights and great [k]signs from heaven.
12 “But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, turning you over to the synagogues and prisons, [l]bringing you before kings and governors on account of My name. "
Now Matthew, on the same topic:
"6 And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will [f]fall away, and they will [g]betray one another and hate one another. "
All of which happened in the first century. Scripture itself reports much of it.
It was a racket, run by one of the priests/high priests (not all were dead, though only one high priest served at a time).
Which is an abomination of desolation.
There is background that surrounds an op.
Yep. And, with respect, it does not appear you grasp much of it. Do you know which Law Jesus was obeying when he chased out the money changers and the animals?
If someone can't defend an answer to an op other then to say it is wrong, then when someone builds the foundation of the argument, and that someone says, you are off op, isn't that a little disengenuous? Dodging the argument? (A serious question, not an attack)
It's not a serious question, and yes, when a poster enters a thread and then posts off-topically that is demonstrably disingenuous
(and disingenuous in multiple ways). It is also something with which I do not, as a general rule, collaborate. Drawing attention to the digression with defense of the digression is just further digression.
On Hebrew/Jewish, they are synonymous and used interchangeably. However, Hebrew is archaic, so not regularly used.
That is demonstrably incorrect. Not all Hebrews were Jews and not all Jews were Hebrew. Of the many misguided statements post, that is perhaps your most misguided.
Somehow you missed the point. Hebrews is not proof of that. The purpose of the writer of Hebrews was to write to those Hebrews (one important point) who were considering on returning to Judaism in Jerusalem to escape persecution, and then simply become Christians again when the persecution ended.
The book of Hebrews was not written to Hebrews. The title of that book is a misleading man-made title. The book of Hebrews was written to
Christians. The book of Hebrews also states the last days (eschatology) was happening at the time the book of Hebrews was written and read by the first century Christians.
Hebrews 1:1-2
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
The last days were happening back then
in the lives of the first century readers.
And the rest of your post is simply further digression from the op. This op is specifically about the identity of the AoD
If you look up the actual other occurrence of the abomination of desolation, it was idolatry. The abomination was an idol.
First and foremost, a "
desolation" is the
absence of something, not the presence of something. Therefore, an abomination of desolation is an absence of something, not the presence of something. Second, In Daniel the prophet states "
abomination that brings/cause desolation." A causal relationship between the abomination and the desolation is established. Jesus did not teach in Greek. His original teaching, his original mention of the AoD was probably, "
siqqusim məsowmem," NOT "
bdelygma tes eremoseos," as the Greek states. Furthermore, what Daniel stated was about someone who would "
bring an end to sacrifice and offerings..... and on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate." Therefore, neither the abomination, nor the desolation is a
person, as some mistakenly believe.
A cessation of sacrifices and offerings occurs.
but the abominations (plural) of an individual "
who makes desolate," precedes the cessation of sacrifices.
When did the Jews of Jesus' day stop making sacrifices and offerings? It can certainly NOT be later than 70 AD because the temple in which the sacrifices and offerings were made, the temple Jesus had just exited when he spoke the words, "
siqqusim məsowmem," was destroyed in 70 AD. Jesus was, therefore referring to an abomination of desolation that was going to occur prior to 70 AD. He had, in fact, already stated
the house of the Pharisees was already desolate. When the entire narrative of Matthew 21:18-26:5 is read it is clear Jesus was not limiting his appraisal to only the Pharisees. The entire leadership within Judaism was corrupt and.....
desolate. They were an abomination to God. At Jesus' sentencing they stated, "
His blood shall be on us and our children." Why did they say that? Because "...
the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas, and to put Jesus to death."
And that was the last true sacrifice made to God.
All other animal sacrifices were abominations, works of sinful flesh performed by murderers acting in blatant disobedience to both God and His Law every time they performed any and all ritual sacrifices.
- The were a desolate people.
- Their existence was an abomination to God.
Furthermore, the Hebrew word ""
shamem" does not actually mean desolate as we now use the word in modernity. In English the word
desolate means a place deserted of people and in a state of bleak and dismal emptiness, a place that is bare and empty. In the Hebrew
shamem means
stunned, devastated, or stupefied (
H8074). So the guy who brings an end to sacrifice on the wing of abomination and makes things desolate is.....
Jesus
Hebrews 10:8-14 ESV
When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
There are
two ways the sacrifices were ended. Both of them occurred at the hands of God in judgment of the abominable and desolate Jews. Jews, not Hebrews. Jews, not Christians. God's own Hly Spirit confirms this.
Hebrews 10:15-18
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
- When were God's laws put in the human heart?
- When was His laws written in the human mind?
- When were sins forgotten?
- When were offerings for sin no longer required?
The answer to all of those questions is Calvary.
There is more. The
Hebrew word for desolation in the sense of bleak, bare, dismal emptiness is "
bohu." That word has many diverse conjugations and expression throughout the Old Testament
from beginning to end. We read its first mention in
Genesis 1:2. The very first sentence in the Bible states,
Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Wabohu. Desolation is an absence of something, not the existence of something. Nature abhors a void, so in the absence of any something there will be a filling of that void. Scripturally speaking, there are only two alternatives: righteousness or sin, the Spirit or flesh.
There is background that surrounds an op. If someone can't defend an answer to an op other then to say it is wrong, then when someone builds the foundation of the argument, and that someone says, you are off op, isn't that a little disengenuous? Dodging the argument? (A serious question, not an attack)
An argument for the identification of the AoD was just provided and it does not appeal to
anything outside of scripture exegetically rendered.
It proves nearly everything you have posted is incorrect. You do not even have the distinction between Hebrew and Jew correct. You do not have the audience, nor the purpose, of the book of Hebrews correct.
