My point is that if Jesus had come in 70AD when he first said he would . . .
I'd really be interested in any reference made by Jesus of His saying he would come in A.D 70. That's an absolutely ridiculous statement.
Allow me to post a study for your consideration that I made late last year on Matt 24 and how it connects with Daniel.
Okay, let's look at your study:
The 1290 days of Daniel 12:11
Daniel 12:11-12 (NASB)
11 … And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. [12] "How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!
If this was written in our day using Greek logic then it would read…
11 … And from the time that the abomination of desolation is set up until the regular sacrifice is abolished (Fails), there will be 1,290 days. [12] "How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!
Note that the author listed the two events in reverse chronologic order - confusing. But we are still looking for the time in days between the two events which is 1,290 literal days. Remember it is the “abomination that causes desolation” or that is to say the “transgression that desolates.” First the transgression and then later the desolation in that order. That’s why I say it is in reverse order. This is an important key to understanding the passage.
There's a couple of issues with your "study."
1) Context, context, context. You must study the whole of the scripture, not just a particular verse. By "whole of the scripture," I mean the subject surrounding the scripture you wish to highlight, i.e. the context. Why is this important? To avoid interpretations such as the one you've related here. Why is your interpretation problematic? For the context of this verse to be understood, you must "study" all the words from the beginning of Chapter 10 through the end of Chapter 12. All of it is one long vision and conversation. There are definite sections that can be studied separately but you must keep each of these sections in mind when studying the others - they all relate to the same vision.
Now, to the verse before us. Never, never, never rewrite the scripture. What you have done by your re-write is change the meaning. While it may seem innocent enough to the casual observer, what you have done is make one event into two separate events and thus perverted God's word. VERY DANGEROUS, friend. Why and how did you do this? You removed verse 11 from it's context, switched phrases around and ADDED the word "until." Verse 11 is a continuation of the thought at the end of verse 7 and an answer to the question posed in verse 8. Verse 11 does not stand on it's own. Further, the way it is written (not the way you re-write it) is correct because it says the time period is 1290 days from the time the sacrifice is abolished
AND (not until) the abomination is set up. Those two things happen
simultaneously not 1290 days apart as you hypothesize.
Josephus War of the Jews Book VI chapter 2 vs. 1
1. AND now Titus gave orders to his soldiers that were with him to dig up the foundations of the tower of Antonia, and make him a ready passage for his army to come up; while he himself had Josephus brought to him, (for he had been informed that on that very day, which was the seventeenth day of Panemus, [Tamuz,] (70AD) the sacrifice called "the Daily Sacrifice" had failed, and had not been offered to God, for want of men to offer it, and that the people were grievously troubled at it,
All the Priests had been killed off and there were none left to make the minimum daily sacrifices, which were two lambs - one in the AM and one in the PM. Josephus, an eyewitness, records the exact date that the daily (Tamid) sacrifice failed.
I suppose if you're going to quote Josephus, it would be a good idea to read the context of it too. The quote of his from the "Wars of the Jews" is accurate, but the meaning is far from what you explain. First, if you read farther in Chapter 2, verse 114, Josephus lists a number of priests who fled to the Romans to avoid death. Later in the book, Titus declares on a number of occasions his wish for the priests to resume their sacrifices. In other words, Titus did not "abolish the daily sacrifice." The effect of the temple being destroyed discontinued the practice but didn't abolish it. I agree Temple sacrifice has not occurred at that location since A.D. 70; the hope that it will be re-instituted in the 3rd Temple leads me to believe the day it will be abolished is yet in the future.
This brings us to Matthew 24.
Matthew 24:15-22 (KJV) Jesus is speaking…
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
[16] Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: [17] Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: [18] Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. [19] And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! [20] But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day: [21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. [22] And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Daniel uses the term “Abomination of Desolation” three times in his prophetic works which spanned about 600 years. Each of the three refer to a separate event in time.
Three times yes. Two events. One is clearly Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 11:21-35), the other two are yet to happen. The primary reasons they are yet to happen are because there has been no ONE to confirm a covenant, no beginning of the 'seven', and no 'desolation such as has never been'.
Your three and a half year period is interesting in how you've calculated it, but where is the beginning point of the 'seven'? Scripture clearly states the abomination that causes desolation occurs in the middle of the 'seven' which would place it in A.D. 66. It also says the abomination will remain where it was
set up (as in erected, not occupied) during the three and a half years, "until the end that is decreed is poured out on him" (Dan. 9:27). The zealots were not in the Temple for 3 1/2 years, therefore could not be the abomination as you assert.
The destruction of the Temple took 21 days (which is another reason why your arithmetic is questionable; which day do you start on?). Do you start the count on the day the walls were breached (Tamuz 17) or do you reckon from the day the Temple was burned and razed?
Jesus is clearly talking to the residents of Judea. Why would He need to tell anyone else to run to the mountains? The army is circling Jerusalem. People in Kansas are in no danger of being obliterated by the army in Jerusalem.
In this instance Jesus is referring to Daniel 12:11-12. Who was standing in the Holy place? - The anarchist murderous Zealots! They were in the Temple proper or the Holy Place. Cestius probably had crossed the wall of partition and was in the court of women as it was not locked, but the Romans were barred from accessing the Temple fortress (Holy Place) by the massive Corinthian bronze plated Nicanor gate. Cestius planned on burning the North gate (chamber of fire?) on the following day, but for no known reason he decided to retreat instead.
When Jesus spoke on that day on the mount of Olives - why was he speaking primarily to Judea? He was sitting facing the Temple on the Mount of Olives. Interesting question. It was because Judea was in the most peril. After the destruction of most of the 12<sup>th</sup> legion commanded by the incompetent retreating Cestius - the Roman government in retaliation dispatched its legions against Israel. They were enraged by all the trouble that these people caused and by the killing of their comrades of the 12<sup>th</sup> legion. They first dealt mercilessly with the surrounding fortified cities around Jerusalem (Judea) before coming to Jerusalem. The invasion of Judea took about a year - I don’t remember the exact timing.
Is this what the history says or is this your view of what you think it says? It's okay to have your opinion, but present it as an opinion and not as fact.
Were the days cut short like Daniel said? Yes, when the Zealots finally surrendered it was to everyone’s surprise and amazement because Josephus said that they could have kept on fighting for a lot longer.
Think about what you just said. "The zealots could have gone on fighting for a lot longer." Really? The Temple, the place they were hiding in, was leveled. There was no place for them to hide, no place for them to run to. No place for them to get away. No, they were vanquished, conquered, defeated. The zealots had no choice but to surrender.
But God said he was going to cut the time short for the elect’s sake. (He still had people in the city) - And he did. Remember that the obedient Christians had departed for Pella after the appearance of Cestius on Mt. Scopus (or Agrippa II’s army). The Apostle Paul said that there was a partial hardening of the Jews. God was now dealing with this hardness in the horrible siege of Jerusalem.
You confuse Paul's teaching about the hardness of heart of the Jews. God hardened their hearts so as to bring the gentiles in. (Rom 11:25)
My guess is the full number of the gentiles isn't in yet and the seige of Jerusalem had very little to do with that. I'm not sure where you get the reference that the obedient Christians went to "Pella." Could you provide a reference please?
Meanwhile the Disciples, Apostles, and their followers were busy evangelizing the whole of the known world of their day - for almost 40 years. Then the final judgment of Israel came starting in 66AD. Many Jews who suffered through the destruction of Israel, Temple, and the city of Jerusalem were converted to Christ. It is for the sake of these “ELECT” that God shortened the siege of Jerusalem. Elect is a term for the people of God whether they have already been saved or who will be saved in the future.
Let's see, are you saying the final judgement of Israel started in A.D. 66? I thought the final judgement was during the Inquisition. No wait, it was Hitler's final solution. When exactly was it now? (I hope your understanding the absurdity of your statement.)
As for the rest of your "study," I'll just let it be. There's no value in responding to it, it's more of the same.
I'm sorry to be so blunt and confrontational in this post, but out and out flaws need to be addressed quickly and surely. Paul fought false doctrines and teaching his entire career, there is no room in Christ's body for it.
IMHO,
just-a-servant