OLIVET DISCOURSE #9

THE GREAT TRIBULATION Part 2

Matthew 24:15-28

Mark 13:14-20
 

THE INAUGURAL EVENT: THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

It is the midway point of the tribulation that is now the focus of the Olivet Discourse. The event that signals the midpoint is the “abomination of desolation.”  The phrase is made up of two words: First, is the Greek word bdelugma, denoting “a subject of abhorrence,”[1] an abomination that is detestable to God. Second, is the Greek word eremois is used in the sense of making desolate. The abomination of desolation is “a substitute name or byname for a detestable and idolatrous action or image”[2] that desecrates the Temple. Idol worship has always been, and still is, abominable to God (Ezekiel 5:9, 11; 6:9).

The prophet Daniel refers to the abomination of desolation three times (Daniel 9:27; 11:1; 12:11) from which we learn:

·         The event occurs in the middle of the Seventieth Week of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:27).

·         A person is involved (called “the prince of the people”), who will establish and confirm a covenant with the nation Israel, and then break it by this act of abomination (Daniel 7:26-27). A careful student will deduce how things from this verse in relation to its fulfillment: First, the temple must be rebuilt before or during the tribulation period. It is apparent that this act is committed in the temple, therefore, it must be standing. Second, is the exercise of Levitical practice must be reinstated, as evident from the fact of daily sacrifices. This abomination will take place it the sanctuary, and will profane it, making it desolate (Daniel 11:31). All this mades the rebuilding of the Temple necessary before these events occur.
One cannot find fulfillment of this in the events of 70 AD. The prophecy is not ambiguous. It depicts a covenant been Israel and the person involved. No such covenant existed in 70 AD; not with Rome, Titus, or Zealots of the time. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD can not be the fulfillment of this event.
Rumors of the rebuilding of the temple have sufficed from time to time since 1948. It has been told that all the elements to rebuild the temple are in place. But there are three major reasons why the temple has not been rebuilt. (1) The Dome of the Rock is on the grounds now, which is a sacred Islamic shrine. That is a major roadblock to overcome. (2) Modern Reformed Judaism sees no need for the temple. And (3) the belief of Orthodox Jews that the Messiah will come and rebuild the temple. This does not mean there is no movement to rebuild the temple. However, this group is not yet a majority in Israel. However, the temple Institute, an organization dedicated to seeing things are in place to rebuild the temple, is alive and working.

·         The abomination is “set up” in the sanctuary of the temple (Daniel 12:11). These words suggest an image of some type. It will no doubt be the image of the beast referred to in Revelation 13:14. This is the abomination of desolation.

·         The abomination will last 1290 days. The time reference causes some problems that must be dealt with. In this chapter of Daniel we have another time reference of “a time, times, and half a time” It is generally agreed that the time referred to in this phrase is equal to 1260 days, or 42 months, or three and one half years. This is in contrast to the 1290 days in Daniel 12:11. In Daniel 12:12 we are told blessed are tohose who can wait 1335 days, which is 75 days longer than the 1260 days. So we have three figures 1260; 1290 (30 days longer); and 1335 days (75 days longer from the 1260).
How do we make sense of the differences in time? Most Bible students account for the differences after the 1260 days of the great tribulation. Feinberg states this view, saying the extra days: “…may have been included as the time needed by the Lord Jesus Christ to purge ‘out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness’ (Matthew 13:41). The visible coming of the Lord, however, will occur at the end of the 1260 days of the great tribulation (Matthew 24:29-30; Mark 12:14-16).[3]
It is conceivable, however, some of these days extra days could be placed in the middle of the tribulation. The term “middle of the week” in Daniel 9:27 is not specific. In other words, the beginning of the abomination may begin before the exact numerical midway point in the tribulation. This may account for the extra 30 days mentioned, since the text clearly says this time begins “from the time the regular sacrifice is abolished.” This is the “terminus a quo” for the 1290 days. The number suggests the number of days the abomination of desolation is “set up.” It is hard to imagine the image standing for 30 days after the coming of Christ. Because so little information is revealed to us. A dogmatic determination is hard to make.
As for the 1335 days, one will observe that there is no “terminus a quo” mentioned in the passage. It implies 45 days beyond the 1290. If the 30 days beyond the 1260 are before its beginning, the additional 45 days seem to fit well at the end of the period, for it is a reference to waiting. Feinberg suggests they could end in the celebration of the first millennial Feast of Booths mentioned in Zechariah 14:16-21, but “this cannot be proved with certainty.”[4] The only thing that can be said with certainty is our uncertainty about what these extra days stand for, or what take place during these days.

 

There can be little question that the abomination of desolation for Christ and Daniel is the same event. Some try to find fulfillment of this event in history, but have fallen short. One is hard pressed to find fulfillment of this event in history. Nothing comes near it, not even the destruction of the city and temple in 70 AD. The key to correct interpretation is not seen in the events as much as the person involved. In Daniel 9:7 the “he” is the antecedent of the “prince that shall come” (Daniel 9:26). In Mark 13:14 the masculine participle personifies the abomination into some concrete figure, an actual person. This person will set himself up as god in the temple. Paul calls this person the “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

 

Attempts have been made to identify this person historically. One attempt was Antiochus Epiphanes. It is based on Daniel 11:31, which is a reference to the contamination of the temple. History does record the fact that Antiochus did erect something in the precincts of the temple. Some say it was a pagan altar upon which swine was offered. Others say it was an image of Zeus in the image of Antiochus. Certainly this is a historical picture or foreshadowing of the prince that shall come, but clearly is not a fulfillment of what Christ is teaching in this discourse. There are two main reasons for this: First, the words of the discourse take the prophecy out of the realm of past history and place it into the future. Both Matthew and Mark clearly present this person as coming in the future. The words, “when therefore ye see” (Matthew 24:15) point forward to the event or person, not back to a person in history. Second, the context tells us that “immediately after the tribulation of those days” will be the second coming of Christ. Antiochus in no way comes close to the first coming of Christ, let alone the second. One cannot find fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in history.

 

The next candidate presented as fulfilling this prophecy is Titus, the Roman general that destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. At the time the Romans “did offer heathen sacrifices to their ensigns, placed by the eastern gate, when they proclaimed Titus Emperor.”[5] This hardly fulfills prophecy in this discourse for several reasons:

• There is a question about Titus’s responsibility in the burning of the temple. Gary Cohen tells us:
  “It cannot even be shown that Titus was responsible for the burning of the temple since it was not known whether the timbers of the structure were set on fire by the Romans or by frenzied Jewish zealots who did not want that holy place to fall into Gentile hands.
  “Even, however, if it could be shown that Titus personally set fire to the temple (which, of course, he did not), such destruction would not constitute the abomination of desolation described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 which centers about the blasphemy of a person establishing himself in the Temple to receive worship as God.”[6]
• The temple sacrifices were not stopped by Titus, but the Jews.
• No covenant was made with Titus or Vespasian before this time. There was no covenant broken in or around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.
• There is not instead flight from Jerusalem in 70 AD. Buswell tells us that “Josephus…describes how Titus had built a wall completely around the city and had it guarded with extreme care…so all hope of escaping was now cut off…”[7]
• There was no fulfillment of the second coming of Christ in 70 AD. The statement of Colin Brown about the coming refers to an “allusion of Jesus’ ascent to the Father and the accession of authority”[8] simply does not do justice to the context nor the natural understanding of the statement.

 

The only conclusion, in the light of the evidence, is that the person of Titus and the events of 70 AD may be a foreshadowing of the future tribulation, but not the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Christ upon the Mount of Olives. This prophecy to be fulfilled, four precise conditions must be active at the time: (1) Israel must be in the land as a nation. Since 1948 this has been a reality. (2) Israel must have some degree of control of Jerusalem. This became a reality in 1967. (3) The temple must be rebuilt and the Levitical system must be reinstituted. (4) The church must be raptured. According to Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, the restrainer must be taken out of the way. The restrainer the church and the Holy Spirit working in and through the church. Points 3 and 4 are still future. While we may be nearer of this event than ever before, we are not there yet. The fulfillment is still future. When the abomination of desolation occurs, it will inaugurate the time of the great tribulation, one like the world has never seen

---

[1]  W. FORESTER, “Bdelyssomal, bdelygme, bdelyktos,” TDTNT, 103.

[2]  W.C. Kalser Jr, “Desolating Sacrilege” ISBE, 1:831. 

[3]  Charles Lee Feinberg, DANIEL: THE MAN AND HIS VISIONS, 186-187.

[4]  Ibid, 187.

[5]  J.W. Shepard, THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS, 517.

[6]  Gary G. Cohen, “Is the Abomination of Desolation Past?” MOODY MONTHLY, April 1975, 33.

[7]  J. Oliver Buswell, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, 2:403.

[8]  Colin Brown, “Present,” NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY, 2:917.